1983-04-27

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, 1983 marks the 50th anniversary of the Great Famine of 19321933 in which over seven million Ukrainians perished. Besides its horrific magnitude, what makes this famine different from most is that it was a planned act of genocide on the part of Stalin's Soviet Government. In the words of journalist Malcolm Muggeridge who witnessed this event:
The novelty of this particular famine, what made it so diabolical is that it was the deliberate creation of a bureaucratic mind, without any consideration whatever of the consequences in human suffering.
Planned famine was used as an instrument of national policy to break down resistance to Government efforts to collectivize the farming community. In the four years preceding 1932, Stalin and the Central Committee purposely estimated unrealistically high yields and thereupon established maximum supply quotas. When producers could not meet these quotas, they were accused of stealing, hoarding, and sabotage. In the fall of 1932 the authorities confiscated all food which could be found. By the spring of 1933, Ukrainian peasants were dying at a rate of 25,000 a day.
This tragedy must not be forgotten. It is important that history accurately portray the Stalinist regime for what it was, an unspeakably ruthless regime. The Ukrainian people have been the subject of many trials and tragedies, but none greater than this despicable famine. It in part explains why the Canadians of Ukrainian-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -descent so love their freedom-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -and why they are willing to contribute so freely-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -to nation building in a free and democratic nation.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order. I would just like to remind Hon. Members that this is the first time an Hon. Member has not put an end to his statement when I indicated that the 90 seconds were over.


TOURISM
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, as Hon. Members of the House are well aware, I have repeatedly urged the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) that, because of its geographical dispersion, because of the volume of cash flow it generates, and because of the ripple effect it causes throughout the economy, any serious attempt to breathe life into the hoped for recovery should start with the tourist industry. This massive but unrecognized giant is the second largest industry in the country, employing 1,100,000 persons and generating $16.5 billion in revenues. More than any other, this sector can attract both Canadian and offshore money and spread it throughout the economy. Encouragement of this industry is the encouragement of the economy as a whole.
In light of these demonstrable facts, the recent budget has not only done nothing for this industry, it has in fact taken the opposite tack. Effective October 1, 1984, it increases the excise tax on alcoholic beverages, and the four-cent a gallon "Canadian ownership charge", despite the original reason for its existence having been accomplished, has been left intact on the price of gas at the pump. It is almost as though the Government is saying to Canadians, "Go and holiday somewhere else. We don't want your business!" Perhaps the Government does not, but let me assure you that the tourist operators of Parry Sound-Muskoka, and throughout the rest of Canada, do.


HOUSING
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, it was recently pointed out to me by a constituent who had signed an offer to purchase a residential property and subsequently verified that once an RHOSP is collapsed and the cheque representing the proceeds from the plan are cashed, there is no possibility of having the RHOSP re-instated. While I can appreciate the over-all

April 27, 1983
rationale behind this provision, I believe that there should be exceptions to the rule. One which I have in mind concerns allowing re-instatement in the RHOSP in the event that, through no fault of the prospective purchaser, the property transaction does not close.
As the many lawyers in the House will appreciate, properties often fail to be conveyed at closing because of some condition not being met. At this stage of the transaction, financing has already been arranged by the purchaser, including collapsing the RHOSP.
While the regulations governing RHOSPs provide that the owner of the collapsed plan has up to three years within which to purchase a home and claim the deduction on his income tax, someone who collapses a RHOSP but whose attempt to buy a property falls through is no longer eligible to make tax-free contributions to it and collect tax-free interest on the funds contained in the plan. Since this seems unconscionable to me, I would strongly urge the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) to look into the possibility of allowing such unfortunate individuals as those referred to above to be re-instated in a RHOSP even if a reasonable administration fee has to be imposed.


HAZARDS TO CHILDREN FROM LEADED GASOLINE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, as the New Democratic Party health critic, I would like to urge the Government to respond quickly and decisively to the demands of various groups concerned with the health of Canadian children that action be taken to speed up the leaded gasoline phase-down program. As advertisements taken out by these groups have stressed, there has been repeated scientific proof of the hazards to the health of children posed by environmental lead and of the severe neurological damage caused by high blood levels.
Since lead is particularly toxic to the brain and nervous system of the growing child, and since children ingest and inhale more of the lead in their environments because of their play habits, Government inaction on this pollution issue constitutes a continuing health risk to Canadian children.
Urban children are most at risk. Measurements taken in downtown Canadian cities show lead levels three to six times greater than average levels. While Canada was a world leader in the removal of lead from many indoor paints in the 1930s, it now lags behind the United States and most European countries in addressing the problem of pollution from leaded gasoline.
On March 11 the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) announced his plans to speed up the leaded gasoline phase-down program and he initiated a 60-day period for discussion and input before he reaches his final recommendation. I urge him to listen to those who are interested in the
health of Canadian children and not to those who may have an economic self-interest in the continued marketing of leaded gasoline.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I wish to advise that I categorically favour the entrenchment of property rights in the Constitution. Nevertheless, the reality is that property and civil rights are provincial constitutional matters. Property rights have been entrenched in the Alberta Bill of Rights since 1972 and they have not been difficult to live with.
The proposal of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for a one-day debate on the matter, agreed to by the Progressive Conservative caucus, is laudable, as the debate has gone on since the introduction of the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights. However, all should realize that the Prime Minister's proposal, if approved by seven Provinces having 50 per cent of the Canadian population, would be subject to the "notwithstanding" Clause as well as to the opting-out feature, by three Provinces. What would therefore be accomplished except a checkerboard of jurisdictional puzzles across the country?
Perhaps it would be more meaningful if the resolution proposed by the Prime Minister included two additional clauses-first, that property rights would not be subjected to the provincial "notwithstanding" section, and second, that Provinces would be permitted to opt-in to such a constitutional provision, instead of opting out, in their own good time, or when they elected Governments favouring such a constitutional amendment.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to release a poll commissioned by the CKO Radio network and carried out by the firm of Ron Rotenberg and Associates, a private polling company. This poll was conducted in Metro Toronto and confirms similar polls taken by Loblaws, Dominion Stores, the Canadian Federation of Retail Grocers, and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which proves that the vast majority of Canadian people in all age brackets do not support compulsory metric. The results were as follows.
First of all, "Do you personally feel that the use of metric measurement, that is, litres, kilograms and kilometres, et cetera, should be voluntary, that is, left up to the individual to
April 27, 1983

decide if they want to measure in metric, or should the Government establish compulsory metric measurement by legislation?" Those voting for voluntary-66.8 per cent; Government legislation making it mandatory-only 28.4 per cent.
The second question was "In general, which measurement do you personally prefer, the Imperial measurements such as quarts, pounds, miles, et cetera, or the metric measurements such as litres, kilograms and kilometres?" Imperials 64.8 per cent; metric 26.6 per cent. Most important, Madam Speaker, in the age bracket of 18 to 29 years of age the result was 73.3 per cent for voluntary; only 26.7 per cent for compulsory.
I strongly urge the people of Canada to write the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), with copies to myself, pleading for a return to voluntary metric conversion similar to the process used in the United States and Great Britain.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, recent census data confirm that incomes of women continue to lag far behind those of men. More than 1.5 million women have joined the labour force since 1970, yet in ten years the wage gap has been reduced by only 4 per cent. Women still earn only 64 cents for every dollar earned by a man.
Thousands of Canadian women are underpaid and are raising children in poverty as a result of Government inaction. The Minister responsible for the status of women blames provincial Governments for the continuing low wages of women. Instead of passing the buck the federal Government must set an example. Her Government has repeatedly refused to implement mandatory affirmative action for public servants and contract compliance for firms that do business with the Government.
The Liberals guarantee continuing low wages for women through the six and five wage restraint, and have curtailed their bargaining rights. They have ignored the hard won rights of clerks and general service workers, most of whom are women.
The federal Government must set the example for Provinces to follow. It must ensure equal pay for work of equal value for all public servants, and insist on mandatory affirmative action in all sections of our country.


FISHERIES
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, the failure of the Government to act decisively and with a
Oral Questions
sense of urgency concerning restructuring is doing serious and perhaps even permanent damage to the fragile economy of the Atlantic Provinces, especially Newfoundland, which is so dependent on the fishing industry which provides direct and indirect employment to over 80,000 people in the region. This industry is in the midst of the worst crisis in its history, a fact which did not even warrant mention in the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde).
The Cabinet has before it a number of proposals on restructuring, on fleet management and replacement, and its failure to act could seriously undermine our markets and is in fact playing into the hands of Canada's competitors. Yet six months after the report of the Kirby task force, the only response from the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston), who is responsible for restructuring, is that he has been given a mandate to negotiate and that these negotiations are ongoing.
Thousands of jobs are at stake, Madam Speaker, and I plead with the Government to act, and act now.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HIS EXCELLENCY, MR. ARTHUR MAGUGU, MINISTER OF FINANCE FOR KENYA
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of His Excellency, Mr. Arthur Magugu, the Minister of Finance for Kenya.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. The Cabinet will soon be making a decision on which of the two finalists in the patrol frigate competition, St. John Shipbuilding or Scan Marine, will win the contract. As the Minister is probably aware, the St. John Shipbuilding bid favours the approach which was taken by the Cabinet. Will the Minister assure the House that the contract will be awarded on the basis of defence requirements and not on the basis of political interest?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that the criteria will be the best ship, the best industrial benefits, and the best Canadian content.

April 27, 1983
Oral Questions


OWNERSHIP OF COMPETING SHIPYARDS
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, when the Liberals came to power in 1980 they stalled this program for six months while they claimed they were Canadianizing the various consortia. Scan Marine was created by and is 49 per cent owned by Pratt & Whitney which, in turn, is 100 per cent owned by United Technologies of Connecticut. Saint John Shipbuilding is 100 per cent owned by the Irving Group of New Brunswick. Has the Government, in making its decision, given due consideration to the ownership of these two finalists?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. gentleman has drawn the attention of the public to the fact that we wanted to Canadianize the bids and that we wanted to ensure that there were Canadian companies which were the lead companies in both bids, which is the case.
In terms of the criteria which will apply to the final selection, I refer the hon. gentleman to the previous reply which I gave, and I ask the hon. gentleman to await the final decision which I hope will be made at the end of the month of June or the beginning of the month of July this year.


ALLOCATION OF WORK
Allan Bruce McKinnon: I would like to ask the
Minister if the Government carried out the Conservative plan to have the consortia include, in their bids, cost comparisons for building the actual ships in more than one location, say, two ships in the Maritimes, two in the St. Lawrence area, and two on the West Coast. Has the Government considered dividing the actual shipbuilding work among up to three shipyards in order to speed the delivery of these much needed frigates, and to spread the employment benefits on a national basis throughout this very depressed industry?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I will take the hon. gentleman's question as a representation.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Take it seriously.


Mr. Blais:: Unfortunately, the Tories were involved in this particular procurement for such a brief period of time that the records of what their representations may have been are rather scarce.


ORDER FOR WATER BOMBERS
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The Minister has announced plans to spend up to $147 million to buy 20 Canadair CL-215 water bombers under the Special Recovery Project. However, when we read the fine print we find that the Government is committed to purchasing only four water bombers. The other 16 will be ordered only on a matching basis with the Provinces.
How much is the Government actually spending on its four plane fleet, and why did the Minister purposely inflate the job
creation figures, since his claim of 650 jobs assumes that all 20 water bombers are being built?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member had been present at the announcement, and if she had been in the House and paid attention to what I said before the House, she would realize that what we stressed was that we were purchasing four planes for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and that we would be purchasing up to 16 more planes on a matching basis. We have already received indications from over half the Provinces that they will be participating. I am quite confident that that requisite number of planes will be bought.
There are very good possibilities that on this domestic base there will be a further 20 planes sold internationally. That, of course, I cannot guarantee, but there seem to be good indications that that kind of purchase is likely to take place. All of these points were made abundantly clear, both at the press conference and in the House. I am glad to discover that the Hon. Member is finally catching up to what the significance of the announcement is.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COST OF CL-215 FLYING TIME
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the Minister of the Environment, who stressed the creation of 650 jobs which will not be in place until two and a half years from now, only if 20 water bombers are built.
The reason that only three Provinces have ordered the CL-215 in the last 25 years is because of its horrendous cost. A study by the Alberta Forest Service in 1976 stated that, at $8,277 per total hourly cost, the CL-215 was 11 times more expensive than the Canso water bomber which only cost $707 per total hourly cost. If those figures are adjusted for inflation, the cost per hour for the Canadair plane would be $15,000.
Given this high price tag for the CL-215, what assurance can the Minister give us that the Provinces will come up with their $100 million share, or is he offering the Provinces a cut rate deal?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I wish that the Hon. Member was aware of the fact that the CL-215 is undoubtedly the most adept airplane for this operation. It is not only a leader in Canada, it is a world leader.
She seems to be surprised or concerned about the cost of the purchase of the airplanes. I wish the Hon. Member was much more concerned about the potential of up to $350 million a year in fire losses as a result of not having this kind of capacity from that airplane.
April 27, 1983


RAILWAYS
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is he aware that the Manitoba legislature unanimously passed a resolution on March 15, 1983, rejecting the Pepin proposal, and is he also aware that this resolution concurs with that of the Saskatchewan legislature which was also unanimously passed on February 22, 1983? How can he possibly interpret this as being a consensus in the West, which the Prime Minister said he would have to have before moving on the Crow rate?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am very much aware of that and many other things as well.


JUSTIFICATION FOR MINISTER'S POSITION
Laverne Lewycky: Madam Speaker, if the Minister is so aware of it, does he feel it is morally right for him to determine what is most beneficial for the farmers of the West when he is only supported by MPs from eastern Canada? Can he justify this unilateral action with the type of attitude he has displayed that is akin to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, since the Soviets determined what was beneficial for Afghanistan? How can he justify this hammer and sickle approach to the farmers of western Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I knew I was going to be asked a supplementary question and be given a chance to explain what I meant by my cryptic answer. What I meant by my cryptic answer was that at this moment in the West and the East, many people, groups and associations of all kinds, are in a bargaining position. They are bargaining.
I am sorry that I do not have the quotation from the Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan who said recently, on stating these nine points referred to, "When I negotiate with the feds, I do not show all of my cards." My point is that people are putting forward extreme positions. The nine points expressed in Saskatchewan were one of those extreme positions. In the next breath, the press conference that follows the announcement of those points usually shows more willingness to compromise than was shown in the first statement. That is what I meant.


RAIL LINE ABANDONMENT POLICY
Laverne Lewycky: Madam Speaker, the Minister is obviously aware of the falling prices that farmers are experiencing. How can he justify what I would call har-rassment of the western farmers, since he is giving them a double whammy? How can he justify contemplating the abolishment of the Crow rate while at the same time continuing the abolishment of rail lines under the rail line abandonment policy that his Government has been following? How can
Oral Questions
he possibly justify that double whammy action against the farmers of western Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, with respect to the abandonment of branch lines, I believe the record should be well known. Of the branch line system we had in the 1930s, we still have 88 per cent in place with all the technological changes that have taken place since then. If there is one thing that Governments in the history of Canada should not be accused of, it is of having deliberately presided over the destruction of the branch line system. I repeat that 88 per cent of it is still in place.
On the subject of losses that would be incurred by western farmers if the statement that I made on February 1 were implemented while I should not say everyone, since some have more respect for the truth-many have said that there would be tremendous losses to the Saskatchewan farmers, for example, of possibly $1 billion. They usually forget to mention that there would have been a commitment of an average of $900 million per year on the part of the federal Government alone for the continuation of this operation. Also, they have neglected to mention that there would have been an investment of $16.5 billion over the decade by the railways. These are small points that are usually not brought up by those who take the negative approach to the statement I made on February 1.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question, I suppose, is for the Minister of State for Finance in the absence of the Minister of Finance and of the Minister of State for Economic Development. The Minister of State will know that the Income Security Investment Plan protects those who invest in the stock market against inflationary gains. Would the Minister advise us why only the big and the powerful are protected, and why those who invest in small business do not have the same advantages and fairness given to the big companies which have their stocks listed on the market?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I would draw to the Hon. Member's attention, if indeed in seriousness I had to, the other provisions of the special recovery tax provisions of the budget that offer, for example, tax relief to small business people. The share purchase provision of that special recovery tax feature of the budget permits Canadians, both small and large investors, to invest in small and large companies in Canada. They get the advantage of a 25 per cent reduction on the amount of their share purchase. In addition, that will assist both small and larger companies to grow. This advantage is generally available right across the spectrum to small investors and to small and large companies.

April 27, 1983
Oral Questions


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate the Minister of State for Finance is so lost in the clouds. He does not understand that investment tax credits are only available to those who invest, and put people out of work.


POTENTIAL OF SMALL BUSINESSES TO CREATE JOBS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of State for Finance tell us, if this is a recovery budget, why the Minister did not make sure that protection against capital gains that are caused by inflation was made available to those businesses that really create the jobs, that is, the small businesses and the medium-sized businesses? The Minister knows that every test on job creation indicates jobs are created by small business. Why are we not looking at job creation instead of protecting the big and the powerful?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the Special Recovery Program in the budget of $4.8 billion is designed to do that exactly. It is designed to address the question of job creation, which was in the opening and closing remarks of the Minister of Finance. The budget is designed to do exactly that. The $4.8 billion is split in two ways. First, the $2.4 billion for capital infrastructure is designed to get people working in Canada right away. Second, the $2.4 billion in the investment section of the budget is designed to provide building blocks to get Canadians investing, to get small businesses working. The small business sector in that $2.4 billion part of the Special Recovery Program is weighted. Small businesses are given almost a 100 per cent advantage over large companies. The program is all directed toward creating jobs. When business is back at business, workers will be back at work.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Would he advise the House whether the present RCMP investigation into the rental of Air Canada's headquarters in Montreal results from alleged conspiracy to defraud between July 1, 1982, and November 14, 1982, concerning a $3.6 million secret sweetheart deal involving the Chairman of the Board of Air Canada and three other named individuals?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I said the other day, and I stood on my head to attract attention, that I was not in a position to say anything on this inquiry.


Mr. Stevens:: Why?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I said then why I was not. This is an inquiry which is under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. He
has said repeatedly that he could not say more at this time. I take it my hon. friend respects that view. Presumably, in due course, when the inquiry has been completed, the conclusion will be known.


NEGOTIATION OF LANDING RIGHTS FOR TAP PORTUGUESE AIRWAYS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, this matter has been dragging on far too long. The Minister or the Minister of Justice should be able to come into the House today and give some indication of when this investigation started, when it is to be completed, and whether it includes the allegation that the Chairman of the Board received or accepted from TAP Portuguese Airways tickets to and from Montreal and Lisbon, Portugal, so that the three named people in the original allegation of fraud could travel back and forth from Montreal to Lisbon for their influence or help in acquiring landing rights for TAP at Toronto.
Since I have been informed that the Department of External Affairs in June or July will be undertaking further negotiations on landing rights, surely there must be some declaration from some Minister of the Crown as to what is going on with what is in effect the largest airline in the country. It is a Crown corporation and it has some responsibility to report to the people of Canada.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, in the past my hon. friend has usually shown an understanding of the traditions of Canada. I hope he will continue to do so. This is a situation in which the hon. gentleman's question would suggest that we should have a trial in the House, or that we should have a report to the House on facts which are the subject of a long investigation. That is a new doctrine in this country, and I hope Hon. Members of the Opposition will be the first to repudiate it.


TOURISM
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism I will direct my question to the Minister of Transport because his Department has caused some of the problems the tourist industry is experiencing at this point in time. It has been brought to my attention by the Greater Ottawa Hotel/Motel Association, and Canada's Capital Visitor's Convention Bureau, that the federal Government is unfairly competing with privately owned accommodation, meeting, and training facilities, by offering federally owned facilities at one-third to one-sixth of what private hotels must charge in order to survive. Could the Minister explain to the House how the federal Government can justify such artificially low pricing of
April 27, 1983

Government facilities and using unfair booking practices, when the accommodation business is in such economic trouble?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, obviously this is beyond the reach of my own Department. I will bring it to the attention of the Minister responsible for tourism, but I doubt that he can resolve the problem of competition in Canada between the private sector and the public sector in one shot. I would suggest that my hon. friend meet with him and tell him all the facts as he understands them. It is impossible for a Minister to answer questions of such breadth.


RATES CHARGED BY CORNWALL TRAINING CENTRE
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, there is a complex in Cornwall, Ontario, which is supposed to be operated by the Department of Transport. It has 700 rooms, meeting facilities and recreational facilities. The price per day for a single occupancy room with three meals is 20 bucks. The Government claims that it is operating it on a cost recovery basis. Would the Minister explain what portion of the costs the Government is recovering when it is only charging $20 per day?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this centre which the Department has in Cornwall is well known by everybody. It is used extensively for the training of personnel in the area of transportation-air traffic controllers, pilots and the like. It has been a success. We are now training at Cornwall people coming from other countries of the world. It is recognized as a great asset to the country. I am quite sure that people in the Cornwall area are delighted with it. If my hon. friend wants to pick a fight with those people, I suggest he be very careful and arm himself quite substantially in order to resist the pressure he will get from them.


TEXTILES AND CLOTHING
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Yesterday the Prime Minister indicated that he had no intention of requiring plants which were closing or moving their operations from one part of Canada to another or, for that matter, from one part of Canada to any other part of the world, to disclose publicly the reasons for their moves. Today we discover that the Government has no intention or no over-all strategy to protect the close to 80,000 jobs in the garment industry, most of which are in small communities in Quebec, parts of Ontario, and Manitoba. If the Government does not have any over-all strategy to protect those workers from the inevitable loss of their jobs, where does the Minister propose those people will find work?
Oral Questions


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is incorrect when he says that the Government has no policy with respect to protecting jobs in the textile, clothing and footwear industries. As a matter of fact the Government has taken substantial steps over the last ten or 15 years in terms of setting quotas with respect to many textile, clothing and footwear products across the country. Also, if I am not mistaken, I think Members of his own Party from different parts of the country have said that the Government of Canada had been protecting some of those industries far too long and in many cases should open up the door for more of these goods to help Third World countries. I am a little surprised by the question of the Hon. Member.


Ian Deans: I suppose you would have to believe your own rhetoric to believe that.


MODERNIZATION OF PLANTS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the Minister of State for International Trade has just indicated that he has no intention of accepting the proposal made to him by the director of the clothing workers union to apply under GATT for some assistance in combating the erosion of the garment industry in Canada. Is it reasonable to sit by and watch small one-industry towns being devastated by inevitable closures which will take place as a result of Canada's inability to provide reasonable protection and reasonable assistance for the garment industry that employs the majority of workers in many small communities in Ontario and Quebec? If it is unreasonable to expect that, why does the Government not come forward with an over-all program to modernize and assist in the redevelopment of those industries so that those towns will not ultimately disappear?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I am a little disappointed in the Hon. Member.


Ian Deans: I do not care about that.


Edward C. Lumley: Two years ago the Government of Canada, this Government, introduced a program called CIRB, or OCRI en frangais, to provide $267 million to do the very thing about which the Hon. Member just asked a question-to modernize and restructure the textile, clothing and footwear industries.


Ian Deans: It has not worked.


Edward C. Lumley: I hate to disagree with the Hon. Member, but he had better talk to the companies that have taken advantage of the $ 100-odd million which has already been spent. We undertook this as well as negotiated quotas for textiles and clothing across the country under the MFA. In the footwear industry, if I am not mistaken, the Hon. Member made representations for companies in his own riding for quotas on shoes-

April 27, 1983
Oral Questions


Ian Deans: That is right.


Edward C. Lumley: -and the Government took action six months ago. I do not understand what the Hon. Member is basing his question on.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans I am not certain whether I should direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but perhaps one of these gentlemen will answer it. At the present time the count for scallops exported from Canada to the United States is 40 meats to the pound. On this basis the scallop industry alone last year was worth $88 million to Canada.
Since the Canadian industry will be devastated if the Americans follow through with their proposal to limit scallop imports to 30 meats to the pound on May 15, which is not very far away, I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he is aware of the situation. If so, has he taken any steps whatsoever to encourage the Americans to accept the Canadian counterproposal of allowing us to ship into the United States 35 meats to the pound?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I want to be frank and tell the Hon. Member that I am not aware of this particular problem. I will examine it immediately-


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I simply want to emphasize what I have stated. If the proposal to limit imports from Canada to 30 meats to the pound is implemented by the United States, Canada will no longer have a viable scallop fishery.


BARRIER TO TRADE
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, since many Canadians consider that the American proposal is actually a non-tariff barrier to trade between our two countries, will the Minister discuss the matter with his United States counterpart in the hope of resolving this important issue?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have on a number of occasions raised these questions with my counterpart in the United States. I have certainly raised the proposed investigation by the American tariff authorities into fisheries importations into the United States from Canada. I
raised that question as a matter of concern, expressing our view that it is unnecessary for the Government of the United States to undertake a further investigation as to whether countervail is justified against fishery products because of previous investigations that have been undertaken which have proved that the case could not be made. Therefore, I will have no hesitation of raising this and other fisherey matters with the Secretary of State for the United States.


RESTRUCTURING OF EAST COAST FISHING INDUSTRY
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. The Government's failure to reach a decision on restructuring of the Atlantic fishing industry is costing thousands of jobs, including jobs in the Minister's own constituency. Why has the Government not reached a decision on restructuring, and fleet management and replacement, both of which are critical to the Atlantic Provinces and the Atlantic fishing industry?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is no doubt aware that the Government has given a negotiating mandate to Mr. Kirby to hold discussions with the Provinces, the industry, and all interested parties. That negotiation is under way at the present time, as I understand it. It will be our intention to reach a decision as quickly as possible when the negotiations take a form that it will be possible for Mr. Kirby to report to the Government, the ad hoc committee, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Post. I am sure the Minister is aware that Postmasters in small communities are now selling advertising in flyers to be printed and distributed by the Post Office to all those who receive mail. This is having a detrimental effect on the weekly newspapers in these small communities which rely on advertising dollars to sustain themselves. Why is the Post Office moving in this direction in direct competition with the small weekly newspapers, by selling advertising in flyers? What is the Minister going to do about it?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I shall raise this matter with the President of the Canada Post Corporation, after which I shall give the Hon. Member my answer.
April 27, 1983


FISHERIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I had hoped to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In his absence, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can take the question. The North Pacific Salmon Fishing Agreement has not been ratified either in Canada or in the United States. That being so, does the Parliamentary Secretary know whether his Minister is satisfied that the appropriate measures have been taken by his officials and that they are in place with regard to quotas, area and type allocation, to ensure that the various species of salmon will not be eliminated, particularly the Chinook and Coho? Also, is he satisfied that any regulations that have been put in place will be enforceable?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister I might attempt to answer the Hon. Member's question. I understand that he is referring to the agreement that has been reached between Canada and the United States. We have concluded that negotiation, and an arrangement has been initialled. It has not been carried any further because, as I understand it at the present time, the United States authorities wish to raise some further points. I know they want to raise some further points. In fact, Secretary of State Shultz advised me of that particular matter when I was in Washington a short time ago. We have not advanced the negotiations since then, because at that time we thought we had concluded an arrangement that had a balance of interest for both countries. Certainly it would be our view that any modifications that might now be proposed by the United States would have to maintain a balance of advantage for both countries and, particularly, maintain the advantages in a comparable way for Canada with those for the United States.


DANGERS ARISING FROM OVER-FISHING
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has answered that question. He avoided the main thrust because, of course, it is a Canadian domestic affair. Since he was on his feet to speak about the international aspects, could he advise us whether he is satisfied that the arrangements that are in place, or ought to be in place, will prevent the exacerbation of the situation between Canada and the United States by over-fishing in areas around the International Boundary, out at the mouth of the Straits of Juan de Fuca or off the Queen Charlottes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it is our view that the conclusion of that arrangement, if it could be ratified, would remove from our bilateral arrangements an
Oral Questions
issue of long-standing importance. If we could conclude this matter, it would be of benefit to Canada.


Donald W. Munro: The fishing season is open.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Hon. Member says the fishing season is open. There is no possibility that this arrangement can be ratified quickly because of the new points that have been raised by the United States.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Economic Development I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. Of the $2.4 billion for public works projects announced in the budget on April 19 by the Minister of Finance, what portion will be allocated to Alberta?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the Minister indicated that announcements under that program would be made in due course in the various regions of the country that are affected, for example, the areas that will benefit from those infrastructure projects. The water bombers program, for example, was one of the first announcements. There are over 100 projects in that program. A number of them involve approval of local councils, agencies and provincial Governments. There is a lot of co-ordination required. The difficulty was that had they been in place and firmed prior to the budget, any kind of pre-release of that information runs into the problem of secrecy of budget preparations. Those projects are being firmed up and will be announced in due course, I would say within the next few weeks.


CANADA PLACE PROJECT IN EDMONTON
Peter Elzinga: Madam Speaker, I would like some concurrence from the Minister with regard to a telegram which the Mayor of the City of Edmonton sent to a number of the Minister's Cabinet colleagues, stressing the importance that Edmonton places on projects such as these, considering that the present local unemployment rate is in excess of 13 per cent. In particular, he stresses the importance of the Canada Place project. Can the Minister give us any indication whether this project is being considered. If it is being considered, when can we expect an announcement in regard to it, and how much money will be allocated to the Province?


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the telegram that the Hon. Member refers to so I cannot make any comment on the project. The

April 27, 1983
Oral Questions
Hon. Member has not even identified the so-called project that is mentioned in the telegram.
Having said that, I am confident that there are many municipalities across the country that will welcome and will find great relief in the $2.4 billion that will be expended in every Province and many municipalities right across the country. There is no question that many municipal representatives are keenly aware of the problem of unemployment. No doubt, as these projects are announced they will be well received, particularly in those areas that have a high unemployment level.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. As the Minister knows, three Indian inmates, Gary Butler, Darelle Butler and Stuart Stonechild are in the twenty-ninth day of a spiritual fast in British Columbia and Alberta and are physically deteriorating. The prisoners are seeking full recognition of their spiritual religious practices, including the sweatlodge and the sacred pipe ceremony. In view of the fact that this practice of traditional native religions is a right and not a privilege that should have to be bargained for, what immediate action is the Minister prepared to take to recognize this fundamental right in all federal prison jurisdictions and to put an end to the historically racist policies of the Correctional Service of Canada in our prisons?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I can say to the Hon. Member that I have no sympathy at all for that hunger strike which is under way on the West Coast, especially since those Indians involved in it spent several weeks fattening up before the strike began.
We have an enlightened policy on native spirituality. The Indians took me to court in British Columbia and the policy was sustained as being consistent with the Charter of Rights. We have already built three sweatlodges at other institutions and federal penitentiaries across the country without the need for anyone going on hunger strike, and without the need for questions being asked of me by the NDP.
Further, two of these strikers are American citizens. If they would prefer to be imprisoned in the enlightened conditions in the United States, they can apply for a transfer to their own country. I can assure them that I will give my approval to that request for transfer.


APPLICATION OF POLICY
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I would be interested to know whether the Minister believes there is one standard for
Canadian prisoners and another standard for non-Canadian prisoners in his novel doctrine of prison discipline.
Last Friday the Minister admitted that native religious ceremonies have not been permitted in Canadian penitentiaries in the past, despite the disproportionate number of native people in Canadian prisons.
Will the Minister assure the House that, in drawing up new guidelines for these spiritual practices, he will fully involve Indian representatives from the Assembly of First Nations and prison Indian brotherhoods? Will he assure the House that there will be a very speedy resolution of this matter, particularly in view of the serious nature of the on-going spiritual fast which he blithely dismisses, despite the fact that human lives are involved?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, these individuals are striking on a volunteer basis. I think the Hon. Member should read the answer that I gave to the question on Friday.
In fact the policy has been changed. At present a policy is in effect which recognizes native spirituality and allows the expression of native spirituality in institutions although, as I indicated, that was not the case in the past. That policy is now in effect. It is an enlightened policy which is sustained by the courts.
I am reviewing all the practices myself, Madam Speaker. For example, I do not think the natives should have full control over the amount of sweet grass and rope that each individual can keep in his own cell, which is something that they want. I think a reasonable policy has been developed and I am reviewing it. I think it is a good policy.
As for the process and the speed with which we are building sweatlodges where there are native inmates in institutions, consistent with the other priorities of the Correctional Service of Canada I think we can be proud of the rate at which the new policy is being implemented.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO CORRECTIONAL SERVICE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. In the last nine months there has been a riot at Archambault when three guards and two inmates were left dead; there have been suicides and attempted suicides at Archambault, Edmonton, and other institutions; two weeks ago the three-member inmate committee at Archambault resigned en masse due to tension between guards and inmates; a week and a half ago two inmates were stabbed with picks at Archambault; last Friday a guard was murdered and an inmate wounded at Archambault, and last Sunday an inmate convicted of murdering a guard at Archambault last summer was-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a question?
April 27, 1983


Benno Friesen: Rather than depend on a sanitized report by the Inspector General of Corrections, will the Minister call for a full, open public inquiry into the conditions and the calamitous situation that exist in the Correctional Service of Canada?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I am keeping a very close watch on the problems at the Archambault Institute. Four investigations are now being conducted by the Inspector General, the police, the coroner and the Correctional Investigator who is also doing his jobs at Archambault.
In view of all the enquiries that are now being held, I can see no justification for adding another public enquiry at this time.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board which arises out of testimony which he gave to the Senate Health and Welfare Committee concerning Bill C-133, the act affecting the Public Service pensions and the application of the six and five program to that pension. At that time the Minister indicated that he would consider the Committee's recommendation to provide a threshold at the poverty level below which the recipients of superannuation whose total income was their pension, would be excluded from the six and five requirement. Has the Minister done that and, if so, what are the results of his undertaking with respect to this matter?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, this is something I would have to consider in consultation with my colleagues in Cabinet. In my view it is something we should do in the context of the debate on the Green Paper on reform of the pension system in Canada generally.


Madam Speaker:: May I ask Members to conduct their private conversations at a little lower level. It is beginning to be very hard to understand what is going on.


Walter David Baker: It must be because it is spring, Madam Speaker. This is the first nice day we have had.


DELAY IN MAKING DECISION
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Minister has indicated in his answer that he has not yet consulted his colleagues with respect to the matter. I would remind him that he undertook with the Senate on January 27 that such consultation would take place. Is there any reason for the delay in this matter? Is it absolutely the policy of the Government that we have to wait for the outcome of a parliamentary Committee which is
Oral Questions
studying another report, which is a report on another report, in order to deal with this matter which is very important to some Public Service pensioners?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I have been considering a number of issues connected with Public Service pensions, including that mentioned by my hon. friend, but they all relate to what might well be broad ranging issues connected with that plan. I think this is something that has to be the subject of careful consideration. One of the things to consider is whether this should be dealt with apart from considerations of the pension system available to Canadians generally.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In an earlier reply to a question put by the Hon. Member for Dauphin the Minister indicated that he was in a negotiating mood, or that he was always in a negotiating mood.
In terms of dealing with the problem of the Crowsnest Pass rate, the feeling on the Prairies is basically that the rate should be tied to the world price of grain so that it would rise or fall depending on what grain was selling for on the international market. Organizations like the Manitoba Pool Elevators have come out in support of this, as have a number of other organizations. Can the Minister indicate whether the Government is actively considering this as an alternative, or is it considering an amendment to the legislation that the Minister will introduce?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I thought that, in answer to a question put by the Hon. Member for Crowfoot a couple of Fridays ago, I went as far as I could on the subject. Some people thought that I might have ventured a bit too far. The idea which I expressed then was that obviously this was a concept, this was a wish, this was a desire, which seemed to find its way in the West quite consistently at this time. I expressed surprise that it was not brought up at the Gilson exercise at the time, but strangely enough it was not. It seems to have gained momentum now, and I indicated the Government was aware of that and could not be, I said, insensitive if there was a great request for it, but the request must be accompanied by a number of positive steps, because in a matter as complex as this, you cannot give everyone 100 per cent of what he is looking for. I was inviting people, therefore, to rally around that concept and leave aside some of their other wishes for example, the inclusion of other products, the elimination of variable rates, and all kinds of other matters which together constitute what is referred to as the "Crow" question.

April 27, 1983
Message from the Senate


PAYOUT OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government has not moved in the direction of changing the basic proposal which it talked about some time ago, the Pepin proposal, and made a change in favour of paying all the money which would be paid out, to the railways, and not splitting the payment half to the farmers and half to the railways?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I cannot say that we have not, because the final decision has not been made yet. At the same time my hon. friend, who is a democrat, as I am, cannot fail to witness the fact that both in the West and in the East there has been a movement, and a number of representations made to that effect. I may not think that this is justified. I may very well think that what I announced on February 1 was a superior program, but I cannot, as a democrat, simply ignore the fact that there have been strong protests against that part of the announcement which I made on February 1.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, yesterday in Question Period the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) challenged me to present him with some legitimate cases of farmers who are having problems with Section 31 of the Income Tax Act. I have here 30 of the more urgent cases from my riding.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Petition presented by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon-East (Mr. Ogle) on Tuesday, April 26, 1983, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-142, an Act to
amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, without amendment.


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
MR. MUNRO (ESQUIMALT-SAANICH)-QUESTION DIRECTED TO MR. DE BANfe
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, you will remember that during the Question Period I rose to address a question to the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane). In his absence, however, the reply was given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). Subsequently the Minister came into the Chamber at about ten minutes to the hour. This is not the first time, Madam Speaker, I have withheld, hoping that the Minister would show up. This time I asked the question and it was replied to rather unsatisfactorily by the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. If the Hon. Member is complaining about a Minister not being in the House, I must tell him that that is not a point of order.


Donald W. Munro: Well, I just-


Madam Speaker:: Well, it took quite a long time. I gathered from the Hon. Member's intervention that he was complaining because of the absence of a Minister. If it is something else he should come to the point very quickly.


Donald W. Munro: My further comment, Madam Speaker, was that I would hope the Minister would give me a reply to the questions I raised in writing.


Madam Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, may I say to the Hon. Member that there is a limit to how fast I can move. I left this City this morning for Toronto. I managed to be back before the end of Question Period.


Mr. Pinard:: He should have waited.


Pierre De Bané: Surely, the Hon. Member could have waited. Surely he should not have to ask for permission of the Speaker-


Mr. Lewis:: Point of order.


Pierre De Bané: -to write me a letter or to phone me-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.
April 27, 1983


PRIVILEGE
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw your attention, and the attention of the House, to a comment made last night, reported at page 24889 of Hansard, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Lapierre). I would like to point out the Parliamentary Secretary's statement wherein he refers to the Hon. Member for Peterborough most indignantly as a "frog basher" and accuses me personally of "francophobia". I would like to ask, Madam Speaker, under a question of privilege which I rose on, for a retraction, and failing that, for a referral of this matter-


Madam Speaker:: Order. First of all, the Hon. Member is now rising on a point of order. He is then telling me he is going to rise, or that he intends to rise, or did yesterday rise, on a question of privilege. If there was some unparliamentary language spoken in the House yesterday, the matter was probably dealt with by the Speaker who was then presiding over the proceedings. Obviously, the Speaker did not feel there had been any unparliamentary language, that whatever words the Hon. Member is referring to were the kind of sometimes violent, sometimes not so violent, debate which occurs in the House. There is no point of order and there is no question of privilege. At any rate, a question of privilege, I believe he knows, requires a written notice to the Speaker.


POINT OF ORDER
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I rise on three points of order with respect to the Main Estimates filed with this House, three matters which I believe the Chair should rule on, or at least I should draw to the attention of the Chair, so that when these matters are eventually brought to a vote the Chair can rule as to whether it is possible for the House to vote.
The first matter is Vote 40 for the Export Development Corporation. Under the estimates for External Affairs, on page 952 of the Main Estimates, under Vote 40, there is a vote required to allocate $35 million to cover losses of the Export Development Corporation. You will note, Madam Speaker, that the Export Development Corporation's financial statement has been filed with this House indicating that there are no losses. It would strike me that it is impossible, therefore, for the House to be asked to vote $35 million to cover losses for which the House is already apprised that there are no losses, the consequence being that that vote must, therefore, be stricken from the record or from the estimates presented.
Point of Order-Mr. Blenkarn
The second matter I draw to your attention, Madam Speaker, is a matter immediately following Vote 40 on the same page of the Main Estimates. It purports to be a statutory matter calling for $164 million to be transferred to the Export Development Corporation, presumably under a statutory authority contained in the Export Development Corporation's incorporating statute, being Chapter E-18 in the Revised Statutes, as amended. The only Section, Madam Speaker, under which any money can be possibly transferred to the Export Development Corporation is under the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Export Development Corporation Act. Under that Section there is a requirement for the Minister and the Cabinet to make a decision and then ask for the money. This particular matter is treated as a statutory non-budgetary matter. The fact is that it must be a budgetary matter because the terms of the Statute, being Section 11(2) of the Act, require that the Minister "may", if the Minister of Finance concurs, subscribe for shares. In other words, "may" is permissive. There is a requirement for a decision by the Governor General in Council. There therefore must be an appropriation which is directed to the House rather than the matter treated as a statutory matter. Therefore it must be put to the House for a vote. Unfortunately, the way the estimate is drawn and treated, it is a statutory, non-budgetary matter on which the House cannot express an opinion.
I therefore ask you to rule that the matter be treated as a budgetary matter, one that the House can direct attention to so we can express our opinion as to whether we should grant to the Export Development Corporation $164 million for subscribed capital and such other matters the Corporation may want or the Minister may seek.
The third matter I draw your attention to is Vote 25 under Industry, Trade and Commerce, found on page 14.6 of the Main Estimates. That deals with an appropriation for $185 million to be paid under the Small Business Investment Grants Act. Madam Speaker, you will know that this House dealt with that Act last week and it has now been dealt with by the Senate. The Bill provides that the entire Act expire as of April 1, 1983. Only applications applied for prior to that date could receive a grant.
The Minister has already received part of this $185 million under the advance payment we voted on earlier this year. There is certainly no grounds in the statutory law for any grant to be made under this Act, and therefore I ask that you rule that Vote 25 be ruled out of order, the matter having been dealt with by the House and no longer appropriately before the House.


Madam Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for raising these points. I will look into them and rule on them later.

April 27, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Domm PRIVILEGE


MR. DOMM-ALLEGED UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE OF MR. LAPIERRE
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, immediately following Question Period this afternoon I rose on a question of privilege and you ruled that I did not have a point of order. Perhaps there was some misunderstanding as to why I rose at that time. According to the Standing Orders, as I interpret them, a question of privilege can be brought to the attention of the Speaker without notice if it arises from Hansard or discussions in the House. I rose on a question of privilege, not a point of order, and I would ask the Chair to give consideration to my question of privilege at this time.


Madam Speaker:: 1 thought the Hon. Member had risen on a point of order. Let us now allow that he has risen on a question of privilege. Did he not tell me in his presentation that he was referring to proceedings which took place yesterday?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I was referring to proceedings which took place yesterday in this House during the adjournment debate. You will realize that at that time it is impossible to enter into a question of privilege; you have to wait until you have seen the remarks as printed in Hansard. In trying to present the case I would ask that you at least give me perhaps 45 seconds in which to make my points to show that this is a legitimate question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: First of all, the matter of unparliamentary language should be dealt with under points of order. That is why I thought the Hon. Member rose on a point of order. Therefore I do not see that he can deal with a matter of unparliamentary language under a question of privilege.
The point he is arguing now is that a question of privilege may be raised if it deals with the proceedings as shown in Hansard. I think he knows that a question of privilege may be raised without notice if it deals with proceedings of that day. The Hon. Member refers to yesterday's proceedings and that definitely requires a written notice. I am just putting the Hon. Member on notice now that the matter of unparliamentary language should be treated under a point of order. If it was not dealt with during the proceedings, it means that no one in the House had objection to it.
As I said, unparliamentary language has to be dealt with as it occurs. Sometimes Hansard has to be checked because it may involve interjections which the Chair might not have heard and an Hon. Member says that he does not think he uttered those particular words. There are two things that have to be considered, the actual words spoken and the fact that it created a disturbance in the House. Those two conditions have to be looked at in dealing with unparliamentary language.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, with all due respect, if the House is adjourned at six o'clock and there are no Members in the House, how do you raise a question of privilege?


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member is equating debate with an adjournment. If it happened yesterday, the matter has to be dealt with today by notice. If the Hon. Member had risen at the time it occurred or immediately afterwards, he could have dealt with it then. If he wants to raise a question of privilege, I need a notice.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I take it that the matter can be dealt with by proper notice from the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm). Words such as those used by the Hon. Parlimentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Lapierre) are absolutely objectionable. That is what the Hon. Member wants to clear up. They have appeared in Hansard, he has made his point that you cannot do it during the adjournment debate, and what he wants to ask the Chair is how he goes about seeing that language like that is stricken from the record. Surely what is at issue is the unparliamentary language of the Parliamentary Secretary.


Madam Speaker:: Well, I have told the Hon. Member three times that he can send me a notice. If he sends me a notice and describes briefly what his question of privilege is all about, I will hear him as I always do. That is simple and I said it three times.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I have great pleasure today in tabling another petition, this one signed by some 256 Canadians, mostly producers from many areas of Alberta. The petitioners pray that the Government will listen to their plea not to pass Bill C-85, an Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex, unless it first eliminates the clauses dealing with the buying and selling of all agricultural products.
These petitioners join with thousands of other producers in Canada in this request and all pray that the Government will hearken to their representations.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,720 and 4,768.
April 27, 1983

[ Text]


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	How many persons were (a) employed in 1981 and 1982 (b) are projected to be employed in 1983 at the Lacombe, Alberta Research Station as (i) executive directors (ii) research scientists (iii) biologists (iv) technicians (v) general farm labour (vi) laboratory staff (vii) support staff (clerical staff, secretaries, etc.) (viii) information officers (ix) administrative officers?
2.	Is there an expected increase in any of the categories in Part I in the future to cover the operation of (a) the new Meat Research Centre in Lacombe (b) any new research projects contemplated for this facility?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: As of April 1	1981	(a) 1982	(b) 1983(*)	Director	1	1	1(ii)	Research scientists	15	17	17(iii)	Biologists	2	2	1(iv and vi)	Technicians and laboratory staff	15	17	15(v)	General farm labour	32	30	29(vii)	Support staff (clerical and secretarial)	10	9	10(viii)	Information officer	0	0	1(ix)	Administrative officer	1	1	1-	Computer programmer	1 77	1 78	1 76
2. (a) and (b) No.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Was Ambassador R. M. Tait recalled from his job at the Canadian Mission to the European Communities in Brussels and, if so, what was the effective date of the recall?
2.	What were the jobs to which Mr. Tait was assigned after his recall and, in each case, what was the (a) effective date (b) physical location of the assignment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. No. Mr. Tait returned to Ottawa at the normal conclusion of his tour of duty as Head of Mission and Ambassador to the European Communities in Brussels on September 9, 1982.
2. Upon Mr. Tait's return to Ottawa and following a period of duty in External Affairs for debriefing, he returned on September 20, 1982 to the Department of Employment and Immigration from which he had been seconded for his appointment to Brussels. He was appointed Assistant Under-Secretary for Cultural Affairs in the Department of External Affairs on February 16, 1983. He took up his duties in the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa On that date.
Canada Labour Code
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the notices of motion for production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

['There is not unanimous consent.\n* *\n*']
Madam Speaker:: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceeding No. 67 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River) moved: that Bill C-267, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time that this particular Bill, Bill C-267, has been introduced in the House. It has been sponsored by myself for a number of years, and it will not be the first time that our friends in the NDP and Liberal Parties will combine in talking out this particular measure; in other words, defeating it in Parliament. The Bill attempts to correct what I consider to be some serious imbalances in our Canadian labour laws, both at the federal and provincial level. It attempts to bring Canada's labour laws into line with contemporary public attitudes and with practices in

April 27, 1983
Canada Labour Code
other industrial countries with which we compete in the international marketplace.
The Bill will be called "right to work legislation" by our NDP friends because it seeks to remove the closed shop and union shop provisions in the Labour Code. I prefer to call it a "freedom of association" bill.
Since the Bill was last debated in the House, certain important things have happened, not the least of which was the acceptance of entrenchment in our Constitution of certain cardinal principles of democracy, one being the freedom of association. Before our friends, the Liberals and New Democrats, decide to talk the Bill out, they may well be advised to take into consideration certain factors which have become evident since the Bill was debated the last time. We are in the midst of a very serious recession and it would be smart for them to consider the impact of our present labour laws on the average worker in light of the recession. They should also consider the impact of new entrenched provisions in our Constitution which deal with freedom of the individual, whether he be a worker or anyone else.
From the outset, let us not be stingy in giving full credit to the great pioneers or even heroes of the union movement. Let us give credit to their contribution over time, going back to the early time of the industrial revolution. Without doubt, their efforts resulted in a more equitable redistribution of that part of the industrial wealth and benefits and wealth which have been created by the machine, the benefits which have resulted from the multiplication of human energy by the machine.
We all agree that the role of unions in our society will become even more important, if not totally indispensable, as we make another transition from the era of the industrial society, and the revolution which was associated with the industrial society, to an even more profound revolution causing even greater social adjustment and upheaval. I am speaking, of course, of the transition into the information and microelectronic society.
Human energy is being multiplied at an ever-accelerating pace by the microchip, the computer and the robot. The benefits achieved by the industrial society over the last 200 years will be equalled over the next 20 years. It should not be very difficult for anyone to understand the incredible adjustments which must be made in our social structure to accommodate such rapid and profound change in the industrial workplace.
The effects of the industrial revolution have not been confined to the workplace and to the industrial relations process. Our society as a whole has undergone some very fundamental and profound changes in many other areas. One such fundamental change, of course, is the way by which the individual in our society relates to his Government. I make the comparison of this relationship today with the way it existed 200 years ago, in the pre-industrial society. In the agrarian society, it was important for a person to secure his comfort and economic well-being in old age by having a large and extended family.
There is no doubt but that the industrial society has brought with it a greater degree of freedom and a reliance by the individual, no longer on the extended family, but, rather, on the Government and organized society to which he is prepared to surrender a part of his personal freedom in return for the benefit of living in an organized society which affords very important social benefits. I am making this point to illustrate that the industrial revolution has brought with it a change from the large, extended family to the nuclear family, which is the order of the day today, just to illustrate how important the changes in the industrial workplace have become.
We are now moving into the information society which will produce even greater individualism and freedom, not so much in the political sense, but, rather, concerning economic comfort, freedom and security. However, that security and comfort will not be delivered by the large, extended family. We expect it will be left to the institution of government which we have chosen for ourselves to distribute in a fair and equitable way the benefits which were created by the industrial machine and which will now be created by a robot and a computer.
Unions can and must play a very important role in this new society, but it must be a responsible and equitable role. Union leaders must recognize and accept the fact that a third partner has entered the bargaining process, assuming the responsibility to protect the right and satisfy the aspirations of not only those in our society who can afford the protection of large, powerful, integrated unions, but of all workers in our society, including those who do not even have the opportunity to join unions. Of course, I speak of the Government and its many institutions as the third player in the future industrial relations process.
Let me talk about some of the institutions which we have already put in place to deliver some of the benefits that bring about this comfort and security. For instance, there is the minimum age law. No longer are there the sweat shops and 13 and 14-year old children working in the mines. There are very sophisticated laws respecting workmen's compensation and workers' safety. These are not laws that were brought about as a result of the unions' political power, although they certainly have played a role in it; they have also been brought about because of the incredible wealth that has been created and responsibly distributed by all participants in the workplace. We have a much more enlightened workplace than we had 200 years ago.
There is Unemployment Insurance that will carry us over the crises that occur from time to time as a result of the cyclical nature of our free market economy. The recent recession has been a perfect example of how important and beneficial these institutions are and how important it is to build on them. This recent recession could well have been as serious in social terms as the Depression in the 1930s if these institutions and insurance programs had not been in place. While there certainly was hardship and still is, it has been very much cushioned by the fact that we have these very important social institutions.
April 27, 1983

More of these institutions will be put in place. The Canada Pension Plan will be a most important social institution and I have no doubt that it will be actuarially sound because I believe that we all recognize, as partners in the industrial workplace, that this incredible wealth can be created with little human energy in the new information society. It will be shared equitably and a portion of that wealth will be put into a fund that will afford people who have made their contribution to the workplace at an earlier age a comfortable life with dignity and financial security. Again, unions will have a very influential role to play in persuading Governments, the third partner in this bargaining process, to bring about greater social benefits such as dental plans.
I do not speak of these benefits being affordable only for people who have the protection of a powerful union. I believe that if it is fair and right for a steelworker or a public servant to have a dental plan, it should be fair for everyone else, including those who are unable to belong to a union to enjoy those benefits.
The role of equitably distributing the wealth that will be generated in this new industrial workplace must be shared by the other two partners in the bargaining process. I have said that it is particularly important to recognize this fact because the unions in our country only represent one-third of our work force. Two-thirds of the people working in this country have no opportunity to join a union and the unions have not really been very interested in organizing them.
The recession has shown that workers' expectations of what their unions would deliver them have been betrayed and disappointed. In the crucial period during 1982 and 1983, the unions have not produced jobs or job security for those who are working. To the contrary, we have evidence throughout the country that, because of the irresponsible exercise of union power, some plants are shut down and people are out of work. Some have been deprived of work and have a more modest income than they were used to during the roaring 1970s as a result of the irresponsible exercise of union power.
Like the Depression in the 1930s, the recession will force us to adjust our attitudes, expectations and relationship in the workplace. For that reason, the long-term effects of this recession will be positive to some extent. While there is no excuse for the misery that was caused, there certainly will be long-term, positive effects, particularly if we all, Government, labour and business, draw important lessons from these crises.
The unions and their spokesmen in the socialist Party will have to adjust their attitudes as well. The best way they can do that would be to look around the world and see what other models are available for them to learn from and begin, in partnership with the other legitimate partners, the debate, and to build a new and more responsible and equitable union model in our country.
As I have said, there is even a more compelling reason. It is that Canadians are expecting certain fundamental institutional changes resulting from the patriation of our Constitution and the entrenchment of a Charter of Rights and certain principles of democracy in which we all believe. I am exaggerating somewhat because I doubt that our friends in the socialist Party believe in all of these principles. One such principle I
Canada Labour Code
wish to comment on is the freedom of association. That freedom permits the average citizen and indeed every individual which makes up the cornerstone of a free society to join any political party, church, religion or union of their choice and become an extra-parliamentary critic of Government. It is probably the most important, essential and precious element of democracy that we know.
That cardinal principle of democracy, freedom of choice, must be exercised both ways. No one should be compelled or coerced to join a political party, religious group, extra-parliamentary protest group or indeed a union, particularly if our laws are structured in such a way as to permit unions and their leaders to play a very active role in politics. By letting our labour law compelling a person to belong to a union remain in force, people are being deprived of some of their political freedoms.
I draw from the experience of other industrial countries with whom we compete in the markets of the world. I talk about socialist countries like Sweden, France and even Germany until recently. However, I should qualify that statement by calling these countries social democracies because unfortunately the New Democratic Party does not espouse principles of social democracy but principles of socialism. There is a very profound difference. In no other country in the world except the United Kingdom, where there is an equally irresponsible Labour Party from time to time, is this principle of freedom of association interpreted in any way other than I have just described-free to belong but free also to abstain. Free to be provided with the choice either to belong or to opt out is an important freedom.
This is Canada in a painful way working its way into the twenty-first century. I espouse a European-type model which would provide every Canadian worker with an opportunity to belong to a union. That would be a very important element in our labour law. Any union that wants to be certified would have to make itself available to every person who wishes to join, but no person should be compelled to join for no other reason than the right to work. No longer should we permit the sacrifice of this important and cardinal principle of democracy, the freedom of association. I hope that our Government, industrial leaders and union leaders will get together and this question will be tested in our Supreme Court. This, then, will be the last time that I have to stand up in Parliament to speak for the freedom of the individual in terms of his relationship with his union.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: I thank you for recognizing me today, Mr. Speaker. Listening to the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), I note his comments this time are basically the same arguments he put forward before. The Hon. Member from Prince George-Peace River is bringing before Parliament for the fourth time in a decade what, in my opinion, is an ill-considered and ill-advised

April 27, 1983
Canada Labour Code
proposed amendment to the Canada Labour Code. This particular incarnation is Private Member's Bill C-267.
On the last occasion he justified the repetition on the grounds that it gave him, and I quote:
-an opportunity to answer some of the criticisms levelled against the Bill the last time it was debated.
Will he consider it unfair if we take this opportunity to comment upon some of the arguments he raised before the House on February 6, 1979? I noted earlier that the Hon. Member virtually repeated himself in a number of instances. I will use some of his quotations from a previous speech to prove a point.
When the Hon. Member last spoke on this issue he was at pains to stress his view that opponents of the Bill deliberately had misnamed and misinterpreted the legislation. Although similar to American "right to work" laws, he preferred to call his Bill "freedom of association" legislation. He linked it to the contemporaneous debate over the entrenchment of a Bill of Rights, and this time he referred to the Charter of Rights, I believe, and said:
The cardinal principle of democracy is freedom of association, individual rights and collective rights.
He mentioned freedom of association again today. I suppose we are intended to read "liberty" for "democracy", but what relationship he meant "individual rights and collective rights" to bear to the principle clause is unclear in my view. Although their juxtaposition implies compatibility between the two terms, each being an integral part of "freedom of association" and "democracy", shortly after this assertion the speaker appeared to reverse himself asking:
To what extent, however, does the freedom of the individual have to yield to the collective rights of groups?
In spite of the speaker's apparent ambivalence his audience would, no doubt, have been all well disposed to forgive him his earlier confusion had he stuck to the high ground carved out and developed the important philosophical and practical issues posed by his question: To what extent does the freedom of the individual have to yield to the collective rights of groups? It is, after all, a debate stretching back probably at least to the first urban civilizations and counts among its more illustrious exponents such philosophers as Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and even Hume in later years.
Unfortunately it soon became apparent in the Hon. Member's previous speech in February, 1979 that we could expect no such learned consideration of the question by the Member for Prince George-Peace River. In fact, the direction his comments took immediately following would appear to justify a suspicion that the question was raised primarily as an excuse to launch an invidious attack against what I say are Francophone Canadians and trade union members.
Let me explain, Mr. Speaker. What were the collective rights in Canada of which he most feared the exercise? The most dangerous apparently was:
The right of the Francophone majority in the Province of Quebec and the Francophone minorities in other parts of the country to speak their language.
His subsequent protest that he appreciates this collective right and respects it seems only to highlight his pronounced fear that the exercise of the right is likely to lead directly to separatism, since he went on to say:
I cannot help but wonder if it could in some instances be taken to the point where a minority language group says, "Look, you are not giving us our way, we don't like you any more, we are going to leave the country".
I note that the exercise of the collective linguistic rights which he fears are the rights of the minority. On the abuses of collective linguistic rights by the majority, he is silent. It is a curious tack for a man to take who professes to be introducing amendments to protect the interests of minorities of one.
He deplores separatism, and I do too, when it involves minority linguistic groups but is a staunch defender of the right of individuals to separate themselves from groups even when these individuals might continue to enjoy benefits obtained by the efforts of those groups. Is the Hon. Member in danger of giving the impression that his opinions are based not so much upon principle but rather upon his own interests and the interests of his particular group? I followed these questions and I intend to give my opinions and the answers to them.
Unfortunately, the impression the Hon. Member gives is reinforced by his second illustration. Coming finally to the point, he reveals his primary concern and motive which, evidently, again in my opinion and with all respect to the Hon. Member, is to weaken trade union solidarity and cohesiveness. It is not the rights of the individual which concern him really but, rather, the ability of the unions when he said:
They are not getting their way at the bargaining table, not only to withdraw their essential service but to opt out of the country.
He only confuses the issue when he concludes the phrase by saying:
-regardless of what that means to the individual rights of Canadians.
May I ask the Hon. Member, "What rights of which Canadians?" Doubtless he is referring to a supposed right of some people to receive a certain service. That this supposed right to receive a service might be assessed in relation to the right of other people to work or to withhold their work as they choose, obviously, is a question which the Hon. Member has not contemplated or has decided not to discuss.
Had he chosen to open up the issue, in all intellectual honesty he would have been forced to question the assumptions upon which his amendment lies. At the very least, if he has any real grasp of the terms he was tossing around so lightly and, I hope that he does, he would have been forced to admit that he was not discussing individual rights at all but rather the collective right of one group measured against the collective right of another which, of course, was the same problem with his analogy of competing linguistic claims.
Even if the Hon. Member failed to discuss effectively the issues arising from his question "To what extent does the freedom of the individual have to yield to the collective rights of groups?", it is, nevertheless, a question well worthy of consideration. He might have provided convincing arguments if he had, for example, raised the issue of the individual
April 27, 1983

Francophone living in Prince George or, for that matter, the lone Anglophone in Riviere-du-Loup. To what extent is it incumbent upon the state to fund bilingual facilities to permit these individuals their claims to do business with the Government in their own language?
Let me make my point explicit. I am not referring to the language question only because the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River referred to it in the previous debate. There is a principle common here to the issues raised by his proposed amendment. In the case of the minority language question, the issue, as I see it, is to what extent the collectivity should be taxed to provide linguistic services to minorities, that is to say, to provide them their individual rights. It is a clear question of the collective or majority right not to be taxed against the individual right to receive services. There is the quid pro quo. Obviously there is no one right answer. I would not profess to have the only answer in Canada or in the world. I put forth my views for the consideration of the House.
As in all arguments over who gets what, the final choice will probably be made by a process of compromise. No doubt such a process is unsatisfying to the ideologues and extremists who would attempt to discuss the question in the absolute terms of rights, but it is precisely this sort of compromise that prevents countries from becoming unstuck. One great writer wrote at one time that the art of governing is in itself the art of compromise or the art of trying to move a country in the direction that the country itself wants to and should move, this by its own analyses.
The same arguments apply in the case of compulsory trade union membership and the payment of dues. The Hon. Member referred to this matter on three different occasions in his speech today. As one attempts to discuss these issues in terms of fundamental rights, one is inevitably thrown into endless and sometimes confused debate over the relative rights of the collectivity, meaning the group, versus the individual. Evidently the Hon. Member's failure to draw out the implications of the question posed is, in my view, an acknowledgement of the weakness of such an approach. However, since these are the grounds upon which the representative of Prince George-Peace River has chosen to base his arguments, we will have to take a closer look at them despite the unlikelihood of being able to draw any fundamental and definite conclusions.
At one point in his speech he asked rhetorically:
Why do I have to be compelled to belong to my union?
He asked that again today. At another point he maintained that in West Germany workers "cannot be compelled to join" unions and stated:
The right of the worker in an industry is that if he does not like what the union does he should not have to pay dues.
I believe I am quoting him correctly.


Frank Oberle: Not at all.
Canada Labour Code


Gilbert Parent: The Hon. Member says that I am not quoting him correctly. I tell him that this passage was taken directly from his speech on February 6, 1979.
The last statement concluded a paragraph of argument in which the Hon. Member attempted to turn around the cogent reasoning of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in a previous debate on the amendment. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre is not present in the Chamber, but he argued that the amendment, if applied to other conditions, could result in the claim, that "Because I am not a Liberal", or for that matter a Conservative, "and I do not agree with everything this Government does"-and he was referring to the Government of the day-"I should not have to pay taxes". By some bizarre and unexplained leap of fancy, the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River said that the position of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre illustrated his argument that "the union power in this country puts itself on an equal footing with the power of this institution and the power of Government".
Whether or not there might be any truth in the Hon. Member's claim that unions believe that "if I do not agree with what the Government is doing, I do not have to pay taxes", it would appear to be a statement completely irrelevant to the issue under discussion unless it is to illustrate once again that the Hon. Member, with all respect, is not at all concerned with the rights of the individual and that it is union solidarity which his amendment attacks directly.
If the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre will excuse me, I will attempt to explain the intent of his analogy to the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River. If I understand the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre correctly, he was referring to an old Conservative principle. What a disgrace that Liberals and socialists should have to lecture Tories on Conservative principles. I do so only with great deference. The principle is that once born into society we derive the benefits of society involuntarily. We could not live and develop without these benefits. However involuntarily we receive them, we are bound by our debt to society. When a child is born into Canadian society, he becomes a Canadian. He accepts all the rights of a Canadian and, by the same token, he accepts all the duties of a Canadian.
We discharge the debt referred to under the social contract by obeying society's laws. Those who seek to evade their obligations, we brand as criminals. Hence, whether or not we agree with the specific acts of a particular Government, our general debt to society is so overwhelming that we have no choice but to submit to these acts until, by the democratic process, we have the opportunity to seek redress. To act otherwise would be the limit of irrationality. General disobedience to the laws of established authority would lead only to anarchy, where the war of all against all in this state of nature would render life, in Hobbes' terms, "nasty, poor, solitary, brutish and short".

April 27, 1983
Canada Labour Code
Very similar arguments are applicable to workers in industries governed by collective agreement. As anyone well grounded in Conservative principles ought to know, our social obligations are not limited only to the state. The state itself is a composite of corporate groups, each of which acts in its own sphere to regulate and civilize the life of the citizen. Just as the individual is bound to obey the national laws because he is the beneficiary of ordered conditions imposed by the state, so too where a worker is the beneficiary of conditions negotiated by a trade union, even where he is on involuntary beneficiary, by accepting these benefits he contracts certain obligations to that trade union, that is to say, the paying of dues.
As in the case with the laws promulgated by our Governments, the trade union has the option of joining in collective action at the time of union elections to change union officials, if he does not like them or should he believe the policies and actions of the leadership to be inadequate. I, for one, believe that these elections of trade unionists are free and democratic. Either as a citizen or a trade union member, the individual in Canada cannot be compelled to take part actively in political or union activities. That is a matter of law and is one of the basic tenets of democracy. Canadians have the right of nonparticipation in political and union affairs. We witness the fact that at election time sometimes only 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the people take advantage of the opportunity to vote.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is not unanimous consent.
* *
*



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['Agreed.\nApril 27, 1983']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House, Ottawa,
April 27, 1983
Madam,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Brian Dickson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 27th day of April, 1983, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Esmond Butler
Secretary to the Governor General
* *

Nor are all workers in all industries even required to take nominal union membership under the current provisions of the Canada Labour Code. For the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River to suggest it is a matter of natural right for individual workers to benefit from collective agreements and yet be exempt from contributing to the maintenance of those institutions is as irresponsible, in my view, as it would be for him to say that individuals should benefit from institutions of the state and yet not contract any obligation for their maintenance.
Does the Hon. Member object that these are not the things that he advocates, that all he wants to do is to redress a perceived increase in union strength? I put it to him, and this is my last statement, that the amendment he is advocating, if passed, would destabilize seriously the union system in this country. It would lead to increased union rating of members, would threaten the financing of trade unions and could seriously undermine the ability of union leaders to reach agreements and guarantee their observation, and would surely threaten a degeneration of industrial relations in this country.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent) would permit me to ask a brief question before you recognize the next speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That could only be done with unanimous consent of the House. Is there consent to allow the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River to put a question?



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Oberle that Bill C-267, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to respond to this Bill. I want to use that opportunity because, as a new Member of this House, I have not had occasion previously to engage in the ritual of answering the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) on the Bill which he apparently brings forward every couple of years. In fact, this is my first opportunity even to hear his argument. I do wish to answer.
The Hon. Member's Bill would clearly have the effect of undermining or destroying bargaining units that have been agreed upon between a union and an employer by permitting an individual to claim the benefits of membership while refusing the obligation.
The Hon. Member claims we should copy certain other countries. He disregards the fact that these laws were built up over many years, at least half a century in Canada. In fact, they were built up under Governments, Liberal, Conservative or Progressive Conservative, federal and provincial.
It is rather amusing to hear the Hon. Member describe the effect of these laws, by implication, as socialist. That means that Liberal federal Governments and Conservative provincial
April 27, 1983

Governments are all socialist. In fact, the laws in Canada are closely aligned to the laws of the United States, and in some cases are modelled on United States laws. The Hon. Member is clearly implying that the United States is a socialist country. It is a very bizarre use of the word "socialist". When he asks us to copy selected aspects of certain European countries, which he calls democratic socialists by contrast with socialist Canada and socialist United States, it is really difficult to understand how he is using those words.
What we can understand is that as a matter of practical experience, with the help of a very famous Judge, the late Mr. Justice Ivan Rand, Canada did establish certain basic principles. I remember clearly the year after I came out of the army. There was considerable labour unrest in Canada. The famous Rand formula was established. It by and large resolved the very difficult situation of strikes and confusion in labour relations.
His principle ws that the workers in the unit must all receive the same benefits and services that are negotiated between the employer and the union. If a worker feels he has not received those benefits or services, he is entitled to sue his union in a court of law for not providing them. The union is compelled to provide those services. Therefore, Mr. Justice Rand argued that each member equally has an obligation at least to pay the dues of the union and in some cases to maintain memberhsip in it. This principle is said to be very strange, but I would point out that it has been adopted by all of the Governments of Canada and most Governments in the United States.
The previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent), pointed out the comparison with taxation. The minority must pay the taxes imposed and voted by the majority because the minority can also claim all the benefits of the programs carried out with those taxes.
Far from the unions arrogating unto themselves the position of Government, the fact is that in Canada the trade unionists are second-class citizens. Doctors can go on strike but they do not go to jail. Bankers can refuse their services but they do not go to jail. Storekeepers and oil companies can refuse to sell but they do not go to jail. Only union members are from time to time threatened with fines or jail if they do not work.
In that sense, they probably do lack something of the freedom of association that the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River claims to support. It is a deprivation of freedom that mere membership in a union should make a person vulnerable to fines and jail to which he would not be vulnerable if he were a member of a medical associaton, bankers' association or some such organization. The Hon. Member is not attempting to protect the members of the trade union from fines and/or jail in that sense. He never said a word on that side of the case. He wishes to protect them from having the ability to organize in solidarity so as to defend themselves when necessary against an employer.
The trade unionists have one basic, fundamental power. If they agree, they can withdraw their labour. The employer has a comparable fundamental power. By his decision, he can withdraw the opportunity to labour. He can shut the door.
Canada Labour Code
In half a century we have developed a structure of law and balances within the law that enables workers and employers to bargain using those two powers which 99 per cent of the time are held in reserve and not exercised but are available as a real possibility. Membership in the bargaining unit, the dues-paying obligation of the bargaining unit, is a part of that structure. It does not make paid unionists fully first-class citizens as bankers and oil company presidents are, but it certainly protects them from being completely dominated and ground into nothing by the bankers, oil company presidents and large employers.
It is interesting that the Hon. Member has such a persistent desire to disrupt the labour law structure in Canada, and presumably if he were in the United States he would be trying to disrupt the labour law there. If he had his way there would be no security in any union contract. It would be impossible for either union or employer to know whether workers in that particular enterprise were going to consider themselves bound by the obligations of the union contract.
After 18 years' experience working as a labourer in a factory, including 12 years' experience on the bargaining committee of my union, I can assure the House that the employer has very great respect for the union contract. He may try to get around it but he does not want to do away with it.
About 20 years ago there was a strike at the Royal York Hotel in Toronto during which the employer fired the employees. He sent letters to all strikers telling them that they did not work there any more and not to come back when the strike was over. The union took the employer to court and the first decision of the Queen's Bench was in favour of the employer on the basis of some statute dating back to 1597 or somewhere relating to master and servant.
Across the country the response came from major employers and industrialists that they were horrified at the decision. In very short order the Superior Court reversed that decision and said that the workers had a quasi-legal right to their job; that when they went through all the arduous steps provided by labour law to the point where they could legally go on strike, they had not quit. They were still entitled to their jobs.
If the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River wants to wipe that out and have jungle law in every place of employment under the jurisdiction he is talking about, then he should be frank enough to say: "Let's wipe out unions as legally recognized bargaining agents; let us wipe out contracts". Then every day on every job the employer would not know whether he has workers or not. Often the union would much rather strike during the life of a contract. It is the contract that prevents this. The employer relies on that when he bargains.
It is strange that the Hon. Member keeps bringing this matter up without stating what he thinks would result from what he is after. He has given us some new arguments today and perhaps this is the first time he has used the argument
24914

April 27, 1983
Canada Labour Code
about chip technology. He suggested that these benefits will come to people if the union leaders act responsibly. He never suggested that employers must be responsible. I assume he is content to have employers be irresponsible, and in fact some of them are in their treatment of labour.
The Hon. Member claims that benefits like workmen's compensation, the minimum wage, the Canada Pension and Unemployment Insurance came about because this is an enlightened country. He tried to do away almost entirely with the history of how those benefits were achieved. Each was won after a long campaign by organized labour. I do not remember any campaign by organized employers to provide these benefits. Employers conceded them as the most convenient way of regularizing certain situations, but in almost every case the thrust to develop those benefits came from organized labour and in many cases from the only parliamentary Party that sympathized with organized labour, the CCF-NDP.
We heard that two-thirds of the work force does not have the opportunity to join a union and that unions are not interested in organizing them. That is probably beside the point of the Hon. Member's argument but as a taunt it should be answered. It is false. The unions spend a great deal of energy, time and money trying to make it possible for workers to join unions. It is the employers who will spend and have spent thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars and at times even hire known criminals in order to intimidate, beat up, spy upon and lie against workers trying to organize a union or those engaged in the conduct of a legal strike. It shows ill grace for a supporter of business to taunt workers about not having the chance to join a union when the main obstacle to that is the action of many employers.
The Hon. Member also taunts unions with not having produced jobs. He must never have read a labour contract, at least not in the Province of Ontario. By law in Ontario every contract must have or is deemed to have a management rights clause which says that it is up to management to run the plant, to decide what work will be done and who will do it, subject only to its agreement with the union and the laws of the Province and the country. It is management's responsibility to provide jobs. To taunt the unions with not providing jobs suggests that the Hon. Member wants some kind of society entirely and exclusively ruled by unions. Whether he would call that socialist or not I leave it to him to say, but it is not what we have in Canada at the present time. As long as the company has the responsibility for providing the jobs, the unions do not.
Finally, we heard the plea for freedom of association. No person should be compelled to join a union or party. That is fair enough. The members have obviously voted for a union; if they had not there would be no union. They can choose whether to work in a union shop or not. I have friends who
have refused jobs because they would not work without the protection of a union. Members can not only change the officers but can decertify the union if they do not think it is doing a good job, and this happens, Mr. Speaker.
There is freedom of choice within a union. If a union wishes to put some money into a political party campaign it must ask permission of members through legal channels at a union meeting. That is a different situation from that of the board of directors of a corporation which can and in many cases does spend shareholders' money supporting the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party without asking shareholders if that is what they want to do.
It borders on hypocrisy for the Hon. Member to accuse unions of taking away freedom of association when in fact there is far more freedom of association for members of a union than there is for either the employees of the company as employees or, in many cases, for the shareholders of the company.
I have attended shareholders' meetings of a large mining company in this country on two occasions. It was evident to me how little power the average shareholder had, attending one meeting in a year. He was not provided with the full information about what was going on in the company; a group at the head table monopolised the time. That does not happen to the same extent in a union.


An Hon. Member:: He could sell his shares.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: An Hon. Member said he could sell his shares. He might just as well say to the employee that he can quit his job. For many people that is a choice and for many others that is not a choice. It has nothing to do with the quality of the internal democracy either within the shareholders' group or within the union group.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as long as the Hon. Member keeps being re-elected, we will probably have this debate every two years. I was glad to say my piece this time and I am sure the next time the Hon. Member brings it up there will be some new Members of the NDP caucus here to give him an answer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).

Shall all items listed under Private Members' Notices of Motions preceding item No. 69 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 27, 1983



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of implementing Recommendation Number 7 of the Standing Senate Committee on Health, Welfare and Science's Report entitled "They Served We Care" which called on the government to establish a Committee composed of officials from both government and veterans' associations to review and update those recommendations of the Woods Committee which have not been implemented and to identify, study and make recommendations about the anomalies which still exist in the treatment of veterans and their survivors and which also suggested that this Committee should study the apparent inequity to a divorced spouse who under existing legislation has no entitlement to benefits under the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act and which also suggested that the Committee study the apparent inequity of the manner in which veterans are compensated for periods spent as prisoners of war.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the reason I have presented this Motion at this time is to bring to your attention and to the attention of all our colleagues in the House of Commons the responsibility which falls on our shoulders regarding the treatment we give to the veterans of our country, and especially those veterans who were prisoners of war.
I have been concerned for some time that we have not dealt adequately or fairly in a great many cases with the pensions or benefits which our veterans are entitled to. In a great many cases we have a grey area, and I suppose in any given situation where there is a right and a wrong or a black and a white, you do have those grey areas. I believe that in these judgments which are handed down there are a considerable number of grey areas, and it falls to the judgment of the hon. members of the Commission to make the ultimate decision. In many of these cases, I feel there is not enough scope given to these areas and, perhaps, not enough consideration given to the ultimate decision.
The departmental comments on the 29th Dominion Convention Resolution of 1982, from the Department of Veterans Affairs, were issued by the Dominion Command of the Royal Canadian Legion in February, 1983. I find that the comment with regard to disability pensions and the benefit of doubt is dealt with. I will perhaps read this for the benefit of our colleagues:
Whereas the Pension Act clearly states that an applicant for pension is entitled to benefit of the doubt, which means it is not necessary for the applicant to adduce conclusive proof for applicable pension, but that the body adjudicating on the claim shall draw from the circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced, every reasonable inference in favour of the applicant:
Therefore be it resolved that all pension applicants continue to be given the benefit of the doubt as set out under Section 85 of the Pension Act.
Then, of course, the departmental comment on that, Mr. Speaker, is simply this:
In accordance with Section 85 of the Pension Act, all pension applicants continue to be given the benefit of the doubt with regard to decisions rendered by the Canadian Pension Commission and the Pension Review Board.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you have cases, as well as all Hon. Members of this House of Commons, with regard to requests for pensions on behalf of many of the applicants. I do not believe, sir, that the Commission goes far enough in the
Veterans Affairs
direction of giving the benefit of the doubt on these applications to the veterans. I believe we have room in which to move. I know that the question always comes up-it was mentioned in the decision which was made to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs last night-that it is a matter of finances. Of course, we should consider it really it would not cost that much in the long term. We have money, apparently, to move the Department of Veterans Affairs to Prince Edward Island. Far better, and I have always said this, to have taken that money and given it to the veterans for pension benefits rather than moving the whole Department out of Ottawa, because the veterans were very happy, and all the Legion members were happy and content to have the headquarters in Ottawa. They were very disturbed when their headquarters were moved. Certainly, the cost is a tremendous factor. How in the world can any Minister or any Department official say they do not have money to assist in the particular areas we are talking about when they can spend a massive amount of money to move the whole facility out of Ottawa?
In order to give credence to my Motion, I am going to deal with the conclusion of the report of the Senate of Canada Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Science. I will quote from it to explain what I am trying to accomplish as follows:
In the course of our research and the examination of witnesses your Committee was impressed by the many references to the Report of the Committee to Survey the Organization and Work of the Canadian Pension Commission. This task force, set up in 1965, was chaired by Mervyn Woods and submitted its Report in 1968. A great many of its recommendations were later incorporated in the 1970-1971 Amendments to the Pension Act and since then have been credited with having a major and beneficial effect on the treatment of veterans, ex-Prisoners of War and their dependents. On the other hand, many of its recommendations were not implemented. Our witnesses do not think that a massive study of all the legislation and bureaucratic structures dealing with veterans is necessary. They suggest, however, that the Woods report should be reviewed because a number of anomalies and inequities still exist in veterans' legislation and regulations. We agree with this suggestion. There are, for example, two inequities which require further study; namely, the treatment of the divorced spouses of veterans and the treatment of the Dieppe prisoners of war.
At present, the divorced spouse of a veteran has no entitlement to benefits under the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act. The Pension Act does provide that the Canadian Pension Commission has the discretion to make a grant to a divorced spouse. This discretion comes into play particularly if there is a court order or a maintenance order for some support during the lifetime of the veteran. Under the Canada Pension Plan, on the other hand, pension benefits are divided in half on the divorce of a contributor, if applied for at the time of divorce. We believe that this precedent as well as the new marriage and property legislation in a number of provinces should be taken into consideration in the proposed review in order to keep the legislation in step with present attitudes and new concepts of equality in the marriage partnerships.
Under the Prisoner of War Compensation Act veterans are paid disability pensions of from 10-20 per cent based on the length of time they were incarcerated. The Hong Kong veterans, however, have been entitled to a disability pension of 50 per cent because of the extreme severity of their long confinement. Other groups of veterans, such as the Dieppe POWs, were also held for long periods of time under abnormally harsh conditions but are entitled to a pension of no more than 20 per cent. Is it just to compensate those who were POWs for over 2xh years at a disability rate that is only twice the compensation offered those who were incarcerated for just 3 months?

April 27, 1983
Veterans Affairs
We understand that there are other possible inequities, and therefore we recommend that:
This, Mr. Speaker, is the centrepiece of my notice of motion today. This is the recommendation we want to support. Incidentally, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) would like to have been here to take part in this debate today but he had to attend a funeral in Winnipeg of a friend. The recommendation is:
(a)	the Government appoint a Committee composed of officials from both the government and veterans associations to review and update those recommendations of the Woods Committee which have not been implemented and to identify, study and make recommendations about the anomalies which still exist in the treatment of veterans and their survivors;
(b)	the Committee study the apparent inequity to a divorced spouse who under existing legislation has no entitlement to benefits under the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act; and
(c)	the Committee study the apparent inequity of the way in which veterans are compensated for periods spent as prisoners of war.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I defy anyone to establish completely the damage done to those people incarcerated in a prisoner of war camp. They never knew whether they were going to get out alive or when. They never knew whether or not they were ever going to see their loved ones again. I can understand the difficulty members of the Commission have, but I believe consideration should be given to this situation so that we can all feel these Canadians are receiving adequate and fair treatment.
Now, in the submission the Royal Canadian Legion made to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs last night, they said, with regard to another area of interest, deductions for income tax-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Is the Hon. Member presently quoting from a statement made before the Committee last night?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I should caution the Hon. Member about doing that because the rules forbid debate in the House on matters currently before Standing Committees of the House. The principle is that a matter cannot be in both places at the same time. I hope the Hon. Member will use extreme prudence in the way he presents his arguments.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I accept your direction, Mr. Speaker; I always appreciate your guidance. This has to do with the Estimates and a submission made by the representatives of the Legion. They will not be back again. It cannot be said that we are dealing with the same situation both in Committee and in the House, so I would hope you would just let me make this one point because it is pertinent to the case I am trying to make.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. If I allow the Hon. Member to go ahead and quote directly from a presentation made before Committee, which Committee has not yet reported to the House, I would be encouraging him to breach the rules of the House. So the Hon. Member may still refer to the matter, if I may be helpful, by taking an indirect approach.
Possibly if he did not say that the matter is before the Committee at this time, well, that would be quite fair.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments. Nevertheless, the point is simply this. The submission made by the Legion was that it had been told that the Act cannot be changed for another year or two. This concerns me because-I see the Chairman of the Committee here today and I am sure he would agree with me-we all know how slowly legislation moves in the House of Commons. When the suggestion is made that nothing will be forthcoming within the next year or two, you and I both know we should be into an election about that time and we will not have any opportunity of passing legislation then. Then when you go beyond the election, the matter is delayed further. So I find it very difficult to understand why these regulations cannot be studied to find out where these anomalies exist and action taken on them. We have to realize that these people we are talking about are getting older every year and we should do something along these lines for their benefit during this period of time. Otherwise, in a great many cases, it will be too late.
Therefore, I leave the suggestion with you, Mr. Speaker, that it is our responsibility as Members of the House to accept the recommendation from the other place and recognize that we too can fully appreciate that: "They Served, We Care".


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have a chance to participate in this debate. I do so not as Chairman of the Standing Committee and not to defend the Government, but as a war veteran. I do this as a duty to my friends who did not come back and to those who did but could not resume their activities in civilian life. I do this also because I have been involved with the work of the Committee for many years. I have been a witness to what not only this Government but many other Governments preceding this one have put in place, that is, what I consider to be perhaps the best veterans' social program anywhere on earth. That goes also for exprisoners of war. I do not think we could find anything comparable to the social and welfare programs we have adopted for war veterans. Because of this sense of satisfaction, I find I have a duty to take part in this debate and follow my friend, the esteemed and respected member of my Committee, the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers).
The Hon. Member has three parts to his motion, but I would like to deal mainly with the Woods Committee report. I gather others will want to deal with other aspects of his motion. Having been a witness to the activities of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and the many times that the Legion has come before the Committee as a witness, I find it distressing and surprising that such a motion is introduced. To me, the record of the Canadian Legion speaks for itself. Reference was made a few minutes ago to the meeting last night. Without faulting anyone, I would nevertheless like to say that in the brief remarks made by the representative of members of the Canadian Legion, I was under the strong impression that this exercise of their coming to the committee was, for them, the
April 27, 1983

best way to expose and to express the needs of the war veterans. At one point, they even expressed their satisfaction with the way the Government had always listened.
Mr. Speaker, whenever representatives of the Canadian Legion appear before the Committee, we must realize that it is an institution that was established by veterans themselves and which is heard, respected and also consulted by the Government. Only yesterday, someone was saying, and it is not the first time I have heard this, that the Canadian Legion is being consulted and that the Government, when it is considering legislation related to the welfare of veterans, consults the Canadian Legion. And in this connection, Mr. Speaker, we must not forget the tremendous sacrifices made by some of our veterans for this country.
The Royal Canadian Legion represents 99.9 per cent of our veterans, since it represents and works as we have already heard . . .It represents the Canadian Indian Veterans Association. There are local branches of the Royal Canadian Legion across the country, and every town, at least in Quebec, has its local branch of the Royal Canadian Legion, where veterans will go if they need financial or social assistance or if they have marriage problems.
I wonder whether my good friend, the Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) has considered the consequences if the Government agreed to form a new committee. I am sure my hon. colleague from Red Deer spoke in good faith, but I wonder whether this would not delay implementation of the measures proposed by the Woods Committee. It would be most unfortunate, and I am sure the Hon. Member would agree, if the implementation of certain programs were to be delayed, since when the Legion made its proposals as it did recently, when it asked for an increase in benefits for funeral expenses, I believe the Government considered this request and increased the benefits which were $125 at the time, to $500 or $600. The same applies to casual workers. A representation was made by the Royal Canadian Legion, asking Veterans Affairs and National Revenue to examine certain problems that arose for veterans. The petition submitted by the Royal Canadian Legion on behalf of veterans was accepted, and now, veterans are able to benefit. Thus, representations by veterans are routed to their local branches which are elected by other veterans. The local branches forward representations and requests to the provincial commands and the Dominion command each year, and these requests are forwarded and considered and in fact become a policy or representation of the Royal Canadian Legion.
Considering the record of the Legion and its success in taking such action, I wonder whether a new committee is really necessary. I wonder whether there is not a real risk that approval and implementation of certain measures will be postponed because a new committee would want to examine
Veterans Affairs
such proposals. Will this committee, like the present committee, if I am not mistaken, also have a majority of veterans who truly represent their former comrades at arms? I know that when petitions are made on behalf of constituents or a branch of the Legion in a municipality or riding, the Minister always listens very attentively to the grievances and representations put forward by Hon. Members, and the Ministers of Veterans Affairs I have known, the present Minister (Mr. Campbell) and his predecessor, have always been very attentive to petitions based on such representations. In fact, the Canadian Government and Canada have an outstanding record as far as veterans welfare programs are concerned. The measures that were approved to provide for the veterans of 1939-45 were adopted before I got back, since I was still in Europe when they were approved. This means that the Government-in fact all the Governments since the First World War-has been very receptive to the grievances and representations submitted through the Royal Canadian Legion by our veterans.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people are quite aware of the great sacrifices our veterans have made for their country, and I think that the words "They Serve We Care" do reflect how fairly we treat them. Indeed, our comrades in arms, be they from France or Great Britain, may very well feel somewhat envious of our veterans because of the benefits they enjoy. Besides, keeping in mind the care we have given them and the fact that we did go out of our way to make sure that justice was done to those who had given their lives to save democracy and everything else we held dear at that time when we were as young as 18, 19 or 20, I for one consider that the Governments, this one and others before, have fully discharged their responsibilities and, to those who have put their lives on the line and gave so much, we remembered and we can proudly say "They Serve We Care".
Once again, the representations we receive from the Royal Canadian Legion are passed along to the Government through the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. As I said earlier, the representations made by the Royal Canadian Legion are heard and examined, and we consult the Legion. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I do not see the need or even the wisdom of creating another institution which would be asked to do exactly what the Committee already does very well.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak too long on this particular motion by the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers). It is a matter which I think has been studied, debated and discussed for many years. It seems to me that having a long discussion today will not add anything new to the debate. It is a motion which deserves the support of the House and should be acted upon by the Minister.
In his motion, the Hon. Member for Red Deer refers to recommendation No. 7 of the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Health, Welfare and Science entitled "They Served, We Care". The recommendations contained in the

April 27, 1983
Veterans Affairs
Senate report rely quite heavily, in their arguments, on the report of the Committee set up to survey the organization and work of the Canadian Pension Commission, which in abbreviated forum is called the Woods Committee.
In defence of the Government the previous speaker suggested that the Minister of Veterans Affairs have always listened to the needs of veterans. I think he is absolutely right, and surprisingly frank and straightforward when he says that. He is absolutely correct when he says that they have listened. In this particular case they have been listening since 1968 and have probably listened since 1965. When they saw the size of the problem at that time they implemented the usual Liberal strategy of referring it to a commission rather than dealing with it.
They did that in 1965 and the Woods Committee digested the reference for a period of three years until 1968, some 15 years ago, when the Woods Committee report was issued.
The Government then listened from 1968 to 1981, when even senators became impatient, which is somewhat remarkable and perhaps even encouraging. They decided to study the Woods report and issued their report entitled "They Served, We Care" in 1981, I believe. The Government has been listening, reading and considering the Senate report since it was issued in October, 1981,1 believe.
The Senate report covered a number of areas in addition to the specific area that was referred to in the motion of the Hon. Member for Red Deer. The primary issue referred to in the motion deals with how a divorced spouse may be treated under the existing pension legislation. It is rather a serious question and I find it difficult to understand why the Government is being so slow and hesitant to improve the conditions of those individuals.
I am sure that other Members have letters, as I do, from women in Canada who are badly treated under the existing provisions of this particular piece of legislation. I know that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has been very actively involved in the development of veterans legislation, receives numerous letters from veterans across Canada. He brought one such letter to my attention in reference to this particular motion. It is from a woman who resides in Eastman, Quebec, and is in a very unfortunate predicament. She was married to two veterans. Her first husband is now deceased and she is divorced from her second husband. In addition to that, she is a battered wife and was defrauded of her life savings by her second husband from whom she was divorced in 1981.
This woman is a former public health nurse, is now terminally ill and is on welfare because she does not qualify for assistance under her late husband's entitlement, nor does she qualify for any benefits from her divorced husband. That is simply because divorce is not recognized by the War Veterans Allowance Program or the Canadian Pension Commission.
This is what the Minister said in a letter dated March 7, 1983, in response to a letter from the office of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre:
I agree that this woman's situation is indeed a tragic one and I sincerely regret that under the veterans' legislation there is no provision to assist her financially.
The Pension Act provides for the payment of pension to a divorced widow if she was awarded alimony or maintenance. In cases where the divorced widow was not awarded alimony or maintenance, the Commission may, in its discretion, award a pension to her if she is in a dependent condition and if, in the opinion of the Commission, she would have been entitled to an award of alimony or maintenance had she made application under due process of law. Dependent condition is defined, in the Pension Act, as being without sufficient income or assets, other than the premises in which the person resides, to maintain himself or herself.
I saw this letter last week and have gone over it numerous times since then. I have come to the conclusion that only a Philadelphia lawyer could possibly understand what the Minister means. I have still not figured out what the bureaucratic language would mean to a person who was trying to find out what his or her entitlement would be under that piece of legislation.
The Minister goes on to say:
With regard to War Veterans Allowance, the legislation defines "widow" as a surviving spouse of a deceased veteran who has not remarried, and a surviving spouse of a deceased veteran who has remarried and whose spouse of that marriage dies within five years of the marriage. As this woman's situation does not correspond to this definition, she cannot qualify for War Veterans Allowance as the widow of her husband. In addition, as she is no longer the spouse of this particular person, since this marriage terminated in divorce, she does not qualify for any portion of the benefits that may be awarded to him under our legislation.
The Minister then goes on to say that again they are considering the matter as they have since 1965 at least and actively since 1968 and again since 1981. The Minister goes on to say:
I am pleased to tell you that a thorough review of the War Veterans Allowance and Civilian War Allowance Acts has been in progress for several months. I can assure you that your suggestion with regard to remarried widows will be carefully considered in this review.
The woman since then wrote back to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre and said how encouraged she was by the last paragraph in the Minister's response. I am afraid that I will have to write her and tell her that, based on the information recently received from the Royal Canadian Legion, any hope for any positive result arising from that review will not take place for at least a further two-year period. At the end of that time, of course, we will have no idea whether the review will ultimately result in the Government's finally doing something to implement the recommendations in the Woods report of 1968 or the Senate report of 1981.
In addition to the recommendations made in the Senate report with respect to widowed spouses, they also made a number of recommendations about matters of continuing concern to the Canadian Legion. According to my discussion with representatives of the Canadian Legion, they are very supportive of a committee being established such as was recommended in the Senate report. That particular recommendation reads:
April 27, 1983

(a) the Government appoint a Committee composed of officials from both the Government and veterans' associations to review and update those recommendations of the Woods Committee which have not been implemented and to identify, study and make recommendations about the anomalies which still exist in the treatment of veterans and their survivors.
The Hon. Member who stood up to defend and support the Government by making arguments against that kind of committee being established is misreading the situation, in my opinion. The reason the Canadian Legion and I myself have come to the conclusion that such a committee should be established is, quite frankly, that the Government has given no indication that it intends to act on those recommendations. If veterans' associations were involved in recommending active implementation of his recommendations, then perhaps finally there will be some justice brought to this particular situation. After at least 15 years of study, consideration, thought, letterwriting and everything else, but never any concrete action, I think it is time there was some action.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity of speaking in a debate in the House of Commons that is concerned about veterans and their dependants. I can speak with a certain degree of integrity, I hope, because I served in the forces at the tail end of World War II. Although I was not in the war very long, I was in it long enough to get my wings. I have served in the militia for over 30 years since that time. I have expressed my concern for veterans, their loved ones and their needs over many years.
The Royal Canadian Legion has done and still does a great deal for veterans and so do other veterans' organizations. As a matter of fact, I have four branches of the Legion in my constituency, Branch No. 1, Branch No. 101, Branch No. 210 and Branch No. 217, to which I belong. I have belonged to Branch 217 for 35 years since coming out of the service and I have been concerned about veterans' problems for many years during that period of time.
In the eyes of other countries, Canada is in the forefront. We have a most enviable record in the ongoing development of veterans' programs and benefits. It is our duty as Parliamentarians to uphold that reputation. 1 believe the Government has done this over the years, regardless which Government may have been in power at the time. Our Governments have always been concerned about veterans.
I am informed that the average age of veterans today is nudging 63 years. Our present challenge is to nurture programs that reflect the needs of an aging veterans' population. I suggest that instead of looking forward, we are, in effect, looking backward in this motion. All of the considerations have already been given and the facts are known.
I share the expressed opinion of other Members in their assessment of the Senate report entitled "They Served, We Care". Obviously the Senate Committee on Health, Welfare and Science did not restrict itself to narrow issues. It ranged over a great swath of questions. Many witnesses were called. The Committee clearly felt that it had performed a creditable
Veterans Affairs
task. The Committee ensured widespread circulation of a specially produced publication.
In arguing against the establishment of a special committee, I suggest that we have only to look at the publication itself "They Served, We Care". This committee has covered everything as far as I can see. There is no necessity at this time to recreate the wheel by setting up another committee.
Here are the recommendations of a committe that went to so much time and trouble. This committee found apparent inequities in the treatment of two groups, divorced spouses and prisoners of war. This committee, instead of stating its opinion, recommended that someone else look at the issues. The facts are known, Mr. Speaker. Like them or not, the decisions have been made and it is time to stop the merry-go-round. I will get back to these particular issues in my remarks, but first I want to take a look at some of the other recommendations in the report.
One recommendation had been acted upon before the report's ink was dry showing that Parliament's concerns are invariably answered in the normal course of events. Another recommendation called for an end to delays in processing applications. This has always been a concern of the Veterans Affairs Committee, on which I have been serving for many years. We have considered time and time again the length of time required in order to process a pension application. Here is another recommendation that has been made redundant. The facts are self-evident. At the end of December, 1981, it took 334 days to process a disability pension application at the first level. Twelve months later the processing time had been slashed to an average of 99.1 days. Last month it had dipped to less than 80 days, and we hope that time will be reduced even further in the future.
The Commission has to draw information from outside sources. Of necessity, this takes between 60 and 90 days. Therefore, there is no longer any backlog with regard to pension applications at the first level. I am sure that all Members applaud this dramatic improvement. When I remember the clamour that used to come from the Conservative benches about the size of the backlog, I can only take their present silence on the subject as an indication of admiration for the job that has been done and for the reduction in the length of time in processing these cases.
Some of the other recommendations deal with the War Veterans Allowance Act. Members will know that officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs are undertaking a comprehensive study of this legislation, including the matters raised in the Senate report.
What I am pointing out is that veterans have many advocates and their views are heard. Just last week the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the dean of critics on veterans' issues, congratulated the Minister on his achievements since he took over the portfolio. There is progress all the time.
What about recommendation No. 7 which is the basis of this debate? I will not talk about the implementation or non-

April 27, 1983
Veterans Affairs
implementation of the many recommendations of the Woods report. This report is nearly 15 years old and I would be surprised if many anomalies had not been unearthed during that period of time. Rather, I want to discuss the specific issues the Senate Committee wants to put under the microscope.
First, there is the question of the apparent inequity to a divorced spouse who, under existing legislation, has no entitlement to benefits under the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act. I ask Hon. Members, where is the need for a special committee to probe into this matter? The circumstances are well known. Either you believe there is inequity or you do not. It is not as if this were a new issue. It has been around for years and the facts have not changed. Veterans receive benefits as compensation for their individual service in a theatre of war. They are granted to male and female veterans alike. They are not awarded to families because families do not serve in a theatre of war. Widows can receive survivors' benefits because they had been, until the veteran's death, the spouse of an entitled veteran.
But in the case of a divorce, the veteran no longer has a spouse. The benefits earned by a veteran are not transferable, not to his parents, nor to an ex-spouse. Opponents of this principle point to the Canada Pension Plan where the benefits are divided in half at the time of divorce. But, Mr. Speaker, Canada Pension Plan benefits are earned through financial contributions over the years. War Veterans Allowances and disability pensions are not awarded in return for financial payments that otherwise might have been part of the household income. They are given in recognition of individual service in war time and, of course, in the case of disability pensions, as recompense for individual injury.
No amount of study is going to change these facts. Arguments have been made that War Veterans Allowances should be regarded as is the Canada Pension Plan and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Such arguments have been rejected. So where is the need for further study? Take the case of a War Veterans Allowance recipient who is receiving the married rate. If this veteran is divorced, only the single rate is paid. Do we need a committee to decide if it is fair for that veteran to pay half the single rate allowance to an ex-spouse? I, for one, do not think so.
Now, let us look at the next matter officials would be called upon to examine. I want to quote verbatim from the conclusions in the Senate report. It reads:
Under the Prisoner of War Compensation Act, veterans are paid disability pensions of from 10-20 per cent based on the length of time they were incarcerated. The Hong Kong veterans, however, have been entitled to a disability pension of 50 per cent because of the extreme severity of their long confinement. Other groups of veterans, such as the Dieppe veterans, were also held for long periods of time under abnormally harsh conditions but are entitled to a pension of no more than 20 per cent. Is it just to compensate those who were prisoners of war for over two and one-half years at a disability rate that is only twice the compensation offered those who were incarcerated for just three months?
There, concisely and accurately, is the issue. If the Senate Committee could not come to a definite conclusion, why does it expect another committee to do so? What else is there to investigate? That Committee has investigated it all. Any such investigation would centre on the demands by the Dieppe Veterans and Prisoners of War Association for larger pensions for its members. That Association is being well served by its President, Mr. Georges Giguere. Mr. Giguere has appeared before committees in both Houses and has forcefully stated his case. He has met with the Minister. I would suggest that no person could have been more diligent in presenting the case of Dieppe prisoners of war.
We can argue whether or not successive Governments have reacted properly to those presentations, but we cannot argue that Dieppe POWs have not been heard. We sometimes forget that Canada is one of very few countries in the world which has any prisoner of war compensation at all. We have every reason to be proud of our legislation. Surely our record shows that prisoner of war associations have been given sympathetic hearings over the years.
I know the Minister regularly reviews the claims of Dieppe prisoners of war and is in possession of any facts that would be brought before a committee. In conclusion, these issues have been exhaustively studied. They have been studied and difficult decisions have been made. There is no reason to slough off responsibility on another committee. Although I have every sympathy with the issue raised and I congratulate the Hon. Member for keeping issues pertaining to veterans and their families before the House of Commons, I do not see any need for the motion to consider further the advisability of implementing recommendation No. 7 since it has already been considered.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) accept a question?


William Kenneth Robinson: I will accept a question unless my time is up.


Thomas Gordon Towers: In view of the canned speech the Hon. Member has just presented, would he agree that the Government will take action immediately if it will not set up the committee as recommended by the Senate Committee? It is fine and dandy with me if he agrees that the Government will take some action immediately and not wait a year or a year and a half as has been suggested. Certainly a committee could meet and report back in two or three months. This does not necessarily mean that it has to go on so long. Will the Hon. Member guarantee that the Government will take some action on this matter, not just leave it sitting, as it has been for the past several years?


William Kenneth Robinson: I think the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) asked a very good question which he should put before the Minister when he is in the House during Question Period.
April 27, 1983


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, in September 1981, Mr. A. D. McCracken was commissioned to examine the administrative and adjudicative procedures of the pension process. Mr. McCracken was asked to report to the Minister on possible changes in the pension system to allow a shorter period between the time veterans first apply for disability pension benefits and the disposition of their claims.
Mr. McCracken reported that from mid-1979 to mid-1981 the rate of decisions fell significantly and, as a result, the backlog of applications awaiting adjudication had risen by June 30, 1981 to 4,395 from some 2,800 in March, 1979. Of this total, over 16 per cent had been on hand for more than 12 months. Apart from these backlogs in the pension system, Mr. McCracken also reported that there were almost 3,000 cases with district pension advocates throughout the country, of which 37 per cent had been on hand for six months or more. That was 700 more than was normally the case.
As the Hon. Member opposite indicated, we are pleased to note that there has been significant change for the better. Recently the Minister reported that very substantial progress was made with respect not only to the question of dealing with the backlog of the Canadian Pension Commission but also dealing with the processing time. He noted that where formerly the process was taking around 334 days or nearly a year, it was reduced to some 79 days.
1 want to contrast the optimistic report which gives all of us satisfaction with a letter I received yesterday from a constituent, Mr. G. Lars Thompson of Penticton. The letter revealed frustration and resentment as a result of a series of events that had affected him in his relationship with the Canadian Pension Commission. He began his letter by writing:
I am asking for assistance in obtaining case histories of the experience of veterans with the Canadian Pension Commission. As you are aware it can take years for the Canadian Pension Commission to process a claim that could have been completed in a matter of days. The ridiculously long time that it can take to process a veteran's claim would indicate that the Commission wants the veteran to become discouraged or die before a pension award is made.
I do not believe that is the case, but the letter indicated a frustration in dealing with what veterans believe to be a cold, unfeeling bureaucracy. It revealed a resentment which develops in one who feels that he is being denied a benefit to which he is entitled.
The Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) in mentioning the provision of benefit of doubt that would affect those situations in which veterans cannot provide all specific proof but can produce evidence to substantiate the circumstances they present in their plea for help. Perhaps the frustration and resentment comes about because it appears that where doubt exists there is very little benefit extended to the claimant.
I had wished to bring a matter to the attention of the House concerning prisoners of war and the failure to settle accounts with certain prisoners of war who were held in Stalag III in Germany, however I do not have the time at my disposal today and I will leave it for another day. I also see that my friend
Veterans Affairs
across the way is anxious to get the floor, so I will terminate my remarks and give the floor to him.


Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) for allowing me perhaps a minute or a minute and a half to speak very briefly on the motion of the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers).
The report entitled "They Served, We Care" prepared by the Committee in the other place has been justly praised in many quarters. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) has also added his praise of this report. It reflects a thorough and responsible look at the broad range of veterans' issues. As we know, it contained seven recommendations. I should point out that some of them no longer have relevance as they were answered in the normal course of time.
It would seem that the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) is really concerned about the last recommendation concerning the Woods report. We do know that these particular issues and subjects have been argued, analysed, discussed and dissected time and again.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Then let's have some action.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: There has been action, as many veterans and veterans' organizations throughout the country know. It is quite evident to any member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs when representatives of the Veterans' organizations appear before the committee. In correspondence individual Members receive from veterans' groups, we see that a great deal of action has been taken.
I realize my time is up. I would like to have been able to further enunciate the actions that have been taken and certainly the broad policies which this current Minister in particular has undertaken.
[Translation}


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Before proposing the question on the motion for second reading and reference of Bill C-405, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, (Benefits to adopting parent), the Chair ought to enter a caveat as to the procedural acceptability of this Bill.
When a private members' Bill provides for an enlargement of the class of possible claimants or for an increase in the benefits payable under the Act, the charge on the Consolidated

April 27, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
Revenue Fund would consequently be increased. Therefore, in my view, any such Bill would be a "money Bill" which must be introduced by a Minister of the Crown and accompanied by the recommendation of the Governor General. However, since the Chair does not want to take too much of Private Members' time to rule now, I intend to allow the debate to take place on this Bill until such debate comes to an end, and then I will rule on the acceptability of the Bill.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moved: that Bill C-405, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, (benefits to adopting parents), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, if I should be lucky enough to get to the point where you have to rule on the admissibility, or inadmissibility of the Bill, I will want to present an argument as to why it is admissible. In the meantime, may I say that the use of the term "parent" in this Bill is intentional. For too long our society has thought of the parenting function as the duty of women alone and has not included responsibility of fathers to their children. This Bill accepts that co-equal responsibility at the outset.
This Bill is not specifically about fathers or mothers, but about the arrival of children in new homes as a result of adoption. Some provisions are already in place to assist natural mothers with the arrival of their children. In our view, they are certainly not adequate or all-encompassing. Canadian maternity benefits, compared with those in Sweden, France, Italy and Israel are stingy. When you can take two years' leave with pay in other countries, the 15 weeks in Canada seems somewhat inadequate. This Bill would extend to adoptive parents the benefits that apply to natural parents. There are excellent reasons why it should be enacted.
In many provincial jurisdictions, adoptive parents are required to spend time at home with their new child. This is necessary for the health and development of these children. The time for settling in ranges from a few weeks to several months. It can be required by either provincial Act or regulation of a sponsoring agency. The number of families which can have only one wage earner and numerous other factors has led to today's situation where few families can afford, and as a result may not wish, to have someone adopted into their home.
Unemployment keeps a lot of people at home, but that would not qualify them for adoption. Someone must take time off from their employment to be with an adoptied child. This is a significant disincentive to potential adoptive parents. Why should that be so? If the Government and Parliament can do this for natural parents, it is equally as important for adoptive parents, particularly when it concerns young children. This Bill
will redress this injustice by giving adoptive parents the same leave provisions as natural parents.
Second, but no less important, for the most part the person taking time off work would be the woman, the person who faced the most difficulty getting a job in the first place. This is all the more so if it is a good job. Without the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act extended to them, adoptive parents would have no right to return to their former place of employment, as does a natural parent. Surely that is another disincentive to becoming an adoptive parent.
This Bill attempts to provide the same privileges for those, who, bless their hearts, adopt a child, newborn to teenage, into their homes. Some time should be spent by one or both adoptive parents with the child. All we ask is that the 8 or 15 weeks be provided, as is the case with natural parents.
I have good reason to believe that Members from all Parties agree with this Bill. I am not wedded to my Bill being passed, whether or not it is in order. If the House is agreed, the subject matter of the Bill could be referred to the appropriate standing committee, particularly if the Chair rules that it is not in order. The subject matter could then be considered by an appropriate committee and incorporated into legislation. The Government can have all the credit, as far as I am concerned.
This measure is long overdue. This Bill has been placed on the Order Paper either by myself or by a former colleague for a number of years. I hope that today the House will agree to deal with the Bill. If Your Honour disputes its eligibility, 1 wish to make a number of arguments in favour of its being an appropriate Bill. Failing that, having the subject matter referred to the appropriate committee would be a small step toward implementing a necessary piece of social legislation under the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). I commend him for his initiative in bringing this Bill forward. I have two immediate reactions to his suggestion that Unemployment Insurance benefits should be extended to adoptive parents.
The first is that this is not a new subject; it has been considered on many occasions over the last ten years. The second reaction which I should like to emphasize is that adoptive parents certainly deserve consideration in the special problems they face.
What is the most appropriate means of dealing with what appears to be a legitimate social concern? A proposal to extend Unemployment Insurance benefits to adoptive parents should not be dismissed lightly. We have to see how adoptive parents and natural parents differ under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and then decide how Unemployment Insurance can assist both groups. The adoptive parent plays an absolutely essential role in our society and the adoption process brings the joys of parenthood into many lives.
April 27, 1983

There have been dramatic changes in adoption in society over the last several years. At one time the majority of adoptive children were infants and there was a large number of infants available for adoption. Now, changing social values have radically altered this pattern; birth control measures are more sophisticated and acceptable, and single mothers are more and more tending to keep their babies instead of putting them out for adoption. For these reasons there is no longer a large surplus of babies available for an insufficient number of prospective parents. Quite the reverse is true in many cases.
Social values on adoption are also changing in many ways. For example, it would have been virtually unheard of 10 or 15 years ago for a single parent to adopt a child. This is happening more and more in today's world. Children's Aid Societies are encouraging the adoption of older children. In many cases these are children with behavioural, psychological or physical problems. Their needs and the needs of their parents are therefore different from the needs of many adoptive parents in the past.
It is evident to anyone who has studied the area that there are circumstances in which adoptive parents will have more difficulty in caring for their new child than is the case with many newborn infants. It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the pressures in an adoptive family attempting to care for a child who has been bounced from one foster family to another, a child who lacks a sense of security, of love and of family warmth. There is no question that in many cases such adoptive children have serious psychological problems and that the new parents must provide continuous care and supervision which will require one or other of the parents to remain at home. Consequently, there may very well be income problems in the family, and it is here that Governments and social agencies must become involved.
One of the criteria, not necessarily the most important, in arriving at a decision on adoption, is the financial circumstances of the family unit. Just as important is the question of whether the needs of the particular child can be met in the family environment of the adopting family. Children's Aid Societies pay a great deal of attention to the suitability of the family. Some of the factors involved in their evaluation are that the marriage situation be a stable one, that adequate emotional stability and security be provided. Parents must demonstrate their ability to handle the problems which will arise in adoptive situations. They must show that they are emotionally able to accept a child and that they will be able to understand and deal with the child's problems and point of view. These are extremely important considerations. They are sometimes complicated by the issue of financial security.
The core of my concern here is not whether adoptive parents may need some form of support. Some will, others will not. I believe the issue for us to consider now is that if we agree in principle that adoptive parents in general should get some form of support through the UI program, then what is the best legislation this House should support to do it?
Unemployment Insurance Act
I believe that this Bill does not represent the best this House could legislate. Let me explain. In general, the specific provisions of this Bill display a lack of understanding of the principles underlying the current provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The qualifying period and entrance requirement proposed is too stringent, given what is now in effect for maternity claimants. Why should adoptive parents be subjected to considerably more restrictive requirements than natural parents? It may well be that, upon further study and consultation we would see fit to have substantially different requirements for adoptive parents. But it does seem inequitable, at first glance, to treat the two groups of claimants differently.
Other provisions of this Bill relate to the way in which benefits could be paid and the length of the benefit period. First, the Bill does not provide for a waiting period, and in doing so conflicts with the insurance character of the UI program. We must remember that the waiting period is comparable to a deductibility clause in a private insurance plan. And, clearly, if there is a waiting period for maternity benefits and if, as the explanatory note to the Bill says, "an adopting parent should be entitled to benefits equivalent to pregnancy benefits", then why should there not be a waiting period in the case of benefits for adoptive parents?
The Bill also proposes to pay benefits for only eight weeks after the adopted child starts to live with the new parents. Some years ago this House legislated that maternity benefits should be paid within a more flexible time frame. It has tended to endorse a more generous attitude to providing modern women with income protection that is commensurate with the critical social role they play in the welfare of future generations. Parents with adopted children play an equally important role. Any motion to provide them with UI benefits should therefore reflect a reasonable and studied attempt to provide comparable income protection. The principle of equity demands it. Any motion to provide them with UI benefits should therefore reflect a reasonable and studied attempt to provide comparable income protection. Furthermore, the maternity benefit provisions themselves have been subjected to detailed scrutiny over the past few years, and many interested groups have made sensible suggestions that would streamline UI maternity provisions and make them more equitable. The Government has been reviewing the provision of the current legislation with a view to proposing changes.
Legislation on benefits for adoptive parents should, therefore, be considered in the context of this review to ensure they are both equitable and consistent with current trends to modernize legislation so that it can provide temporary income protection to those who cannot work due to the initial demands of post-adoption or post-natal care.
Let me stress again that I am not disputing the validity and worth of paying benefits to adoptive parents. Adoption plays, we all know, a vital role in our society, in providing good homes for disadvantaged and parentless children. It also makes it possible for those who cannot have natural children, or choose not to have them for whatever reason, to experience the rewards of becoming parents.

April 27, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
I am suggesting that it is our responsibility to look at this matter in more detail, to develop such legislation more carefully on the basis of consultations already held with various groups interested in such a decision before we bring in legislation to pay benefits to parents who adopt children. In opposing this Bill-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Elon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but I understand we are going to be interrupted shortly. Since we have little enough time for private Members' Bills, and in order to facilitate dealing with my Bill, I would like to ask the unanimous consent of the House to agree to sit for whatever time past the hour of six o'clock in order to provide the complete one-hour debate for my Bill?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Does the House agree to the proposal put forth by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin)? Is there unanimous consent?


An Hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is not unanimous consent. The Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. McCauley) has the floor.


Gary Francis McCauley: Mr. Speaker, I will quickly conclude because I know my friend, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), has a few remarks he wishes to make on this Bill.
In opposing this Bill, this House would not be voting for or against adoption. Nor would this House be voting for or against giving some form of benefits for modern families who may need some temporary income support while caring for an adopted child during the first months. After all, in some ways, the role of parents who adopt children is often harder than that of the natural parent. But I find I cannot support this motion because its specific provisions do not accord with the principles underlying the existing provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the advice of qualified experts and the legitimate interests of private and public sector groups in Canadian society.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I would like it on the record, Mr. Speaker, that it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Schroder) who denied unanimous consent to have this matter discussed-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. That is hardly a point of order. The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis).


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I echo the sentiments of my friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), to the effect that it is regrettable that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Schroder) refused unanimous consent.
I am pleased to rise in support of this Bill, Mr. Speaker. I believe, as expressed in the Bill, that an adoptive parent should
be entitled to pregnancy benefits the same as natural parents. 1 addressed this matter in the House of Commons last Fall. I note, Mr. Speaker, that in 1981, a task force on Unemployment Insurance recommended that the change be made. That recommendation was made in the interests of equity and fairness on the theory that benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act should be extended to newly adoptive parents. Parents who adopt children face the same physical, mental, social and economic adjustments as natural parents, and they often have no advance notice of the date of adoption. I have received letters from concerned constituents. I would like to quote from a letter I received from a woman in Penetangui-shene, who said:
Even though, in my case, I have contributed to the UIC for approximately eight and a half years, I will not be eligible-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Schroder) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Schroder:: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to deny unanimous consent to continue past six o'clock and allow the speaker to continue.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: You may understand that, I do not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Chair to take that as a withdrawal of the refusal to give unanimous consent? It was taken as such. The Chair should make absolutely sure that there is unanimous consent to prolong the debate beyond the normal time of adjournment, which is six o'clock in this case, so as to complete the full 60 minutes of debate provided for under Standing Orders. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It is so ordered.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for reconsidering his position. I was quoting from a letter from a woman in Penetanguishene who made the point that she had contributed to UIC for approximately eight and a half years and that she will not be eligible to collect any benefits once her chosen child arrives. She also makes the point, Mr. Speaker, that the Children's Aid Society requires that a parent be in the home full time for a minimum of six months. The Children's Aid Society recognizes that there is indeed an adjustment period which in fact is even more vital in forming an adoptive family. I have another letter, Mr. Speaker, from a woman in Orillia who suggests that adoptive parents, both male and female, go through the same emotional adjustments as natural parents. I also have representations from the St. Columbkille's Catholic Women's League in which they agree that adoptive parents should receive Unemployment Insurance maternity benefits the same as natural parents.
I want to put this on the record, Mr. Speaker, because, with five natural children, I know there is an adjustment period. I know from our family friends who have adopted children that there is a physical and mental adjustment which should be addressed. I believe it is absolute discrimination that adoptive parents should not have the same rights under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and I would urge the Government to
April 27, 1983

consider referring this matter to committee, or to include it in the upcoming revisions to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I listened as my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. McCauley), addressed the fact of adoption, but in my opinion I do not believe he addressed the discrimination which now exists. I do not believe this is a partisan issue. I do not believe it is something on which political Parties will rise or fall. I just believe it is something which the House should make right for adoptive parents. We should hurdle the red tape and the bureaucrats in this case. We should do what is right.
I would urge upon the Government to reconsider and reopen the Unemployment Insurance Act so that adoptive parents can have the same rights as natural parents, and that the present discrimination which exists under the Unemployment Insurance Act can be finished and terminated once and for all.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with this opportunity to speak to the Bill introduced by the Hon. Member. I feel this is an important Bill because adoption is becoming increasingly widespread in this country, and it is only sensible to have measures that will provide effective assistance to people who are helping others by adopting a child or even several children, because in many cases, people are adopting more than one child. The concept behind Bill C-405 is clearly explained as follows:
An adopting parent should be entitled to benefits equivalent to pregnancy benefits, considering that problems faced in adoption are as great as or greater than those occurring during pregnancy.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the basic concept of this Bill deserves to be supported. The problem is to find out how this piece of legislation could be implemented effectively, and I have taken the trouble to check with the Department to find out what can be done in terms of hearings for children who are adopted, and whether the measures proposed by the Hon. Member could be implemented immediately.
Mr. Speaker, this subject is not particularly new to our debates in the House of Commons. In 1980, the Canadian Human Rights Commission made a statement on the subject and said that something had to be done about-
Unemployment Insurance Act



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Deputy Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
["Order, please. In accordance with the order made earlier today, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 6.33 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Thursday, April 28, 1983']
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Honour the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Honour was pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-136, an Act respecting Small Business Investment Grants-Chapter 147.
Bill C-142, an Act to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act- Chapter 148.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the Motion of Mr. Benjamin that Bill C-405, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (Benefits to Adopting Parent), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to comment further on Bill C-405 which was introduced by the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
As I pointed out earlier, Mr. Speaker, this Bill is important because of its principle and because of the people it concerns. 1 think it is very important to increase the public's awareness with respect to families who adopt children and I also think the Department should be particularly concerned about this matter.

April 27, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
I would like to point out that Unemployment Insurance officials have been considering the problem for ten years, and during that time, Members on all sides of the House have regularly pointed out to the Minister of Employment and Immigration that adoption has become a specific phenomenon in our society.
However, I think we must be particularly careful when we consider parents who are going to adopt. I think the Department is having trouble at this point in properly defining various criteria that would make adopting parents eligible. For instance, there is an increasing tendency among unmarried mothers to keep their babies instead of giving them up to the Children's Aid. This is a new development. Before, it was much easier to adopt children because being an unmarried mother was socially more or less unacceptable, while today, we are seeing more and more single parent families, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for couples to adopt a child. As a result, there are fewer children available for adoption, while the number of people who want to adopt is rising. Orphanages are gradually disappearing.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing a shift in certain social attitudes, to the point that even single individuals are being considered as adoptive parents and do, in fact, adopt children. This would have been unthinkable a few years ago, while today, it is no longer the exception, since single people may adopt children. The profile of adoption has changed considerably over the years. People are adopting older children who may be suffering from physical or emotional problems. Such children and the parents who adopt them have specific needs, and it is important that they should be defined in legislation, because we need a set of criteria that will govern the subsequent implementation of the legislation and its regulations.
We must consider children who are passed from one family to another and are suffering from a lack of security and a lack of love and human warmth. Many of these children have serious behavioral problems which require special and constant attention. In addition, the people who are now considering an adoption have different expectations than those of the preceding generation. The same applies to children liable to be adopted.
We do not find such a definition in the Bill nor the scope of its enforcement. This is what I find difficult. As I said earlier, in the Explanatory Note to his Bill, the Hon. Member says and I quote:
An adopting parent should be entitled to benefits equivalent to pregnancy benefits considering that problems faced in adoption are as great as or greater than those occurring during pregnancy.
As I said earlier, the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the minister responsible for the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act have been considering the problem for well over a decade due to the difficulty to delineate the scope of the legislation.
There is one other important issue, Mr. Speaker, i.e. the adopting family must comply with certain standards. Thus we should make sure that the couple is truly stable and that adopting parents will be able to face difficult situations, because the mere taking care of children should not be confused with an actually responsible and legal adoption. We see an ever increasing number of families who assume the responsibility of children without gaining their legal custody or actually adopting them. Now this Bill should be more specific on that subject.
People who are considering adoption must, in accordance with the requirements set forth by the adoption agencies, have a reasonable annual income since it is often required that one of the parents should leave his or her job during a period which could extend up to six months. Such a standard leads us to further consider possibility of providing some financial aid to those people, especially in the case of a two-income family. Moreover, the purpose of the unemployment insurance program is to provide with temporary assistance people who lose insurable jobs. We should make a distinction between an unemployment insurance scheme and social measures.
I believe however that some important matters must be cleared up in this respect. On the other hand, it has been established that most pregnant women work until one or two weeks before giving birth and receive maternity benefits during the weeks following the birth or births. It is therefore not very likely that most of these women could not go back to work until 17 weeks after the birth of their child. This is an important point with regard to the bill introduced by the Hon. Member. It is not that the principle itself is bad, but the Hon. Member tends to confuse a social measure with the Unemployment Insurance Act itself, which states that a woman must have at least 20 weeks of insurable employment to be eligible for pregnancy benefits on leaving her job, while the Hon. Member wants an adopting parent to be entitled to unemployment benefits. I imagine that the Hon. Member means people who are employed. Should benefits be paid to an adopting parent if the child is five days, two weeks or six months old? It is possible to adopt three, four and five year old children, but the bill does not make any distinction between cases.
Another point should be made. Not only has the Department been reviewing this problem for some time, but the Minister concerned, Mr. Axworthy, has made known his intention to speed up a review of all problems related to adopting parents. As I said earlier, everyone has been considering this problem for ten years, but Mr. Axworthy has promised to speed up the review-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. This is the second time that the Hon. Member has called the Minister of Employment and Immigration by his name. He should always refer to the Minister by his portfolio or his constituency.
April 27, 1983


André Maltais: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has asked his Department to speed up its review so as to be able to better respond to the concerns expressed by the Hon. Member.
At the moment, it is impossible to grant benefits to adopting parents before this wide ranging study is completed. First, we must define clearly how the Act will apply to adopting parents, since there are a great number of possible solutions. There are many ways to meet the objective suggested by the Hon. Member. We would have to define clearly how such benefits would be provided. Would both parents be entitled to them at the same time? This is an important question since we are speaking about adoption. We are not dealing with pregnancy as such. If both parents work and one of them stays home, for instance the father, would the benefits be sent to the father, the mother or the child? What should we do?
Perhaps we might review the documents and reconsider the possibility of paying benefits for adopted children under the age of 6, in other words those who have not yet started school. This limit could be raised to cover older children because, as I pointed out earlier, a child can be adopted when he or she is one day old, or at the age of 8, 9 or 10. There is also the possibility of paying benefits only in cases where, in conformity with the requirements of the adoption agency, one of the parents has to stay home to look after the child; in other words, it would be a matter of establishing the cause and effect relationship between the child and the adopting parent. There is a strong possibility of excluding adoption through marriage as well as any other situation not directly related to adoption or birth.
Mr. Speaker, another aspect of the study has to do with cases where benefits could not be paid to the parents before the arrival of the child; then, the rules concerning regular or health benefits would apply to the natural mother during the period before delivery. It can readily be seen that this does indeed raise a few questions.
I think that this calls for serious consideration before we take a final decision and introduce a sound piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we will have to consider as well the need to repeal the rule which restricts the maternity benefits to the first 15 weeks of the benefit period because, obviously, we are talking about adoption and not pregnancy. In the case of adopting parents, we will also have to re-examine the 10-week rule which might be irrelevant since then it would no longer be a matter of being unavailable for health reasons because there would have been no childbirth.
Finally, any change to include the adopting parents would be affected by existing conditions concerning maternity benefits. A full review of the Bill would be required so as to avoid any contradiction between conditions concerning natural parents and those concerning adopting parents. The Hon. Member has spelled out very specific provisions in his Bill. I
Unemployment Insurance Act
think that Members on both sides of the House will agree on that. But still, the questions I raised earlier deserve more careful consideration because if we extend the general coverage of the law to all kinds of situations, the legislator will not be in a position to make all kinds of exceptions once the law has been adopted. We must therefore look into every aspect and every possibility to be quite sure that the law will still be operative under practically all circumstances. However, Mr. Speaker, the way it is worded I think that, in light of the questions I raised earlier, there will be a great many exceptions which will have to be examined if the Bill is adopted as is. And what the Department is recommending at this stage, is that its own studies be completed, and I think that it might then be useful that such information be made available to Hon. Members, to see whether actually the Hon. Member's concerns have indeed come up in the course of the studies currently in progress. It might also be important at that stage that departmental information be made available to Hon. Members so they know what is going on within the Department.
In that area the Government might be well advised to have Hon. Members involved to a greater extent in the studies and analyses carried out within the Department, because it is very difficult for any Hon. Member to draft a Bill all by himself, with very limited resources, when for ten years the whole Department has been studying and reviewing a problem that is indeed fundamental. It is so fundamental, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Rights and Freedoms Commission already has ruled that there is discrimination in adoption cases where no benefits are extended. Therefore, the Hon. Member's concerns are quite legitimate, but the Department might be urged to expedite matters, because increasingly adoption is becoming a wonderful fact of social life, and many foster families would like to suggest as a goal the implementation of the Hon. Member's proposals. There is however the problem of how to proceed with this. Where should the line be drawn between the plans for maternity and the plans for adoption? And where should the line be drawn between unemployment insurance as job insurance, and a social measure that would provide extra income to foster families?
So at this stage there are three important distinctions to be made, and, honestly, the Department would like, before taking a final position on the Hon. Member's proposal, to ensure that the Act can be reviewed in depth to allow to draw the lines between those three cases. Certainly the Hon. Member will recognize at this point in time that fairness is very hard to achieve on these three distinctions. And for the benefit of Hon. Members who have a genuine concern about this matter, it should be pointed out that when an overall assessment is made of the regulations to be applied in maternity cases, we see there is a very close link with the mother's health. That is why people are allowed to choose, either to quit working for a number of weeks before confinement or to keep working

April 27, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act
almost to the very moment of confinement and claiming those weeks thereafter. So this is strictly a matter of the mother's health. This is a decision to be made by the physician and the mother. And what we have there is someone who is contributing to the unemployment insurance scheme and is thus insuring her job. And this covers maternity cases.
Now where adoption is involved, is there a need that unemployment insurance benefits be the same as in maternity cases? A one-, two- or three-year old child, for instance, does not require the same kind of care as a newborn child. And if within the family there is help for the mother, for the family, is there a need to have benefits for a foster child? Because if one or two or three children are cared for, unemployment insurance benefits may not be required. Because in such a case, one receives family allowances and, in addition, the tax credit for children, and that is where the distinction must be made. The proposed legislation does not make this distinction. I will conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, because time is running out-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member permit a couple of quick questions while he is completing his remarks?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Would the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary accept to answer questions?


André Maltais: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Does the Hon. Member realize that this Bill has been on the Order Paper for some six years or more, in my name for the past three years and in the name of a former Member of Parliament for three or four years prior to that? He should realize this when he talks about the Department's considering the matter.
Also, does he realize that the Bill indicates that only people and their employers who have paid UIC premiums would be entitled to benefits as adoptive parents? All the other matters he is raising are totally irrelevant.
[ Translation]


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, firstly, I agree with the Hon. Member for Regina West that the Department does not act very quickly. Moreover, I also agree that after six years of studies, it would seem to me that results should be coming. However, the Minister is presently indicating that, first the Department is moving at a faster pace in finalizing the research, the studies aimed at establishing the difference between the various situations I was referring to earlier. Second, I am fully aware, and that is underlined in the Bill proposed by the Hon. Member for Regina West, that, obviously, the person who is entitled to unemployment insurance benefits already has insurable employment, although presently,
maternity benefits are much more related to a person's health situation than to an adoption case. There is a distinction to be made between these two situations. When you adopt a child who is two, three or four years old and when you already can count on help at home, does the child really need as much attention as if the mother had actually given birth to the child? In my opinion, there are distinctions to be made. That is what the Department is presently considering in a final evaluation, Mr. Speaker, before arriving at a final decision on the suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Regina West.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly in support of the Bill to say how ironic and irritating it is to listen to Government Members complain about alleged inadequacies of the Bill, giving them as their reasons for not wanting it to be read a second time and sent to committee. As the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) pointed out, if they did not like the way this Bill was written, they have had some six years in which they could have brought in and tabled a Bill of their own that addressed some of the matters raised.
We clearly have here an attempt by the Government to prevent this Bill from going to Committee, to prevent its subject matter from being considered and to prevent any changes in the unemployment insurance legislation that would eliminate the discrimination which now exists against adoptive parents. If Government Members have that intention, why do they not just be honest with the Canadian people and come out and say so, rather than pretending that they sympathize with the Bill and agree with this or that? They will keep talking until the hour has expired in order to prevent it from going to Committee. That is exactly what I do not intend to do. I would like to continue, but I will not as I want this matter to go to Committee.
I hope the Government will have some second thoughts and let the matter go to Committee. What harm could be done by allowing this Bill to go to Committee so that Members of Parliament have an opportunity to discuss it and make some decisions regarding it? I have had constituents write to me on this issue and I have written to them indicating my support. In fact, I wrote to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) on the matter. There is no doubt a consensus within the House that some changes need to be made which would eliminate all discrimination. Why does the Government keep stonewalling the Bill? Why not let it go to committee?


Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the concern of Members opposite who ask why we should not discuss this and let it go to committee when collectively we seem to be saying the same thing. We like some of the thoughts expressed in the Bill. As has been pointed out, it has been around for a good number of years in one form or another, so why talk it out now and procrastinate further?
April 27, 1983

Like other Members in this House, I too have received representations from my constituents on the subject. At first blush, it seems that fair is fair, that if we do it in one instance, why not another? Over time there are other instances that seem to be simple and clear-cut. However, when you examine them closely, they presents all kinds of problems.
Let me begin with the suggestion that it may be more appropriate for us to get into this legislation after the Department completes its studies.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: The Member opposite asks why. We are dealing with a matter in respect of which we have an Act that is designed to deliver protection to people who lose the benefit of jobs, whether through being dismissed, a plant shutdown or a period of natural pregnancy and birth. There is a physical reality that has to be addressed during that period and we have to take certain measures with regard to it.
We then get into another principle, if I can have the indulgence of the House to philosophize for a moment. While any proposals of this nature may be tiresome and take a long time to resolve, they must be the subject of thoughtful deliberation and much consultation. I believe the debate this afternoon adds to that.
We can all recall the time when people who could not work because of illness were not paid. If they were ill, that was too bad. In many instances people were not paid anything unless their employer was particularly benevolent or they where the sons or daughters of the owner.
There evolved a conscientious and great social system in which a period was allowed for sickness. The original intent was that people who were ill would be protected by others; the plant owners, and fellow workers who had to pick up the slack. Therefore, these people would not be out of pocket. After all, it is not the individuals fault that he is sick. There really were extenuating circumstances.
After a while, the notion seemed to creep into the system that if Charlie Brown had a week's sick time this year, whether or not I need sick time I should be given a week's sick leave, or at least have the benefit. There was a drastic change in the setup. It started out as a conscientious effort to be fair to people who under certain circumstances were not able to perform their work for a period of time.
We now come to the proposed legislation before us today. It is a kindred matter. We have recognized the need to assist many women who cannot work for a period of time during a natural pregnancy and after delivery. The legislative measure place is the Unemployment Insurance Act. It might perhaps have been designed in another fashion, but I think there is some justification for it. I do not quarrel with it.
My colleague mentioned the delivery system for social programs and I wonder about that when dealing with an insurance-type program. We have now a dilemma in that
Unemployment Insurance Act
people adopting children say they experience the same kinds of things as the natural parents. They are not exactly the same things. I do not think we can have universality in the way we deliver services to the people of Canada. It would be nice if we could afford it, and that is the other difficulty I have with this piece of legislation-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In most Provinces a parent who adopts a child is required by law to stay home for six months, so that parent loses his or her job. Why are the Liberals making so many excuses? If they do not want to pass the Bill why do they not say so instead of being so hypocritical.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That may be an interesting contribution to the debate but it is not a point of order.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks whether we have been sincere. I do not think we want to impute different motives to different people. I am talking the Bill out, that is true. That is an honest statement. But that does not indicate that the Government is not interested in the subject matter.
I was trying to make the point that a problem of timing is involved. We are already being hit on all sides with difficulties under the UIC Act and are not able to deliver everything to people who require it. I believe that in the course of time we have to address these matters with great care and deliberation. There are many problems in our society that have been around longer than many of us would care to admit, but all things come about in due time.
I come back to the idea that the Hon. Member has done the House, the people of Canada and adoptive parents, a service by bringing forward legislation that underlines the sense of urgency which exists in many quarters to have something done in this area. That is worthwhile. What we say in this House has some significance in the process, otherwise we might as well stay in our ridings. This Bill should convey a sense of urgency to the responsible officials to deal with the matter with move vigour and enthusiasm.
The Hon. Member opposite reminded me of some of the technicalities of the adoption process and the law in most Provinces. We appreciate these facts, but we have to ask if we can come up with the money to do the things we would like to do, desirable as they may be, or whether we further weaken a system that is already weaked by further demands on it.
I find nothing wrong with the Government saying that it likes the idea, and that there is a need in many instances for the adoptive parents to be given due consideration, along with natural parents. I should like to see that happen, but this involves time for proper and thorough deliberation. The Member of the Official Opposition condemns the Government for taking precipitous action in other areas. He joins his colleagues in saying that there has not been enough discussion about this, that or the other thing, that there is not enough listening, yet when one tries to make the point that we have to examine the matter more thoroughly-

April 27, 1983
Unemployment Insurance Act


Gordon Edward Taylor: How long, six years, seven years, ten years?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Six years, maybe ten years? There are some problems which have been around for thousands of years. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I am under the same pressures as the Hon. Members opposite from constituents who are adopting children, but I am satisfied-and I do not have the years of experience or the illustrious career of some Hon. Members opposite, and perhaps I am being naive-that my representations on the subject, which have been added to the many representations made here, have at least got me a very quick reply. This is something that occurred to me before I have had those representations made to me in my riding office. The response I received was immediate, it was sympathetic and it was logical. The response was, "We are now in the process of studying. We do have a problem of financing."
Perhaps one of the reasons this has been kicking around for so many years is that representations are being made in the wrong area. I do not see anything wrong with taking another look at that aspect of it. If we do not spend a little more time dealing with social problems-and all of us pride ourselves on
our social conscience in this House-trying to bring them into a broader context to make sure they are not just ad hoc types of things or things done in isolation, we are going to have even more problems with budgetary matters. My memory is not that good, Mr. Speaker, but I do not believe the previous Government in its short time in office identified this as a burning issue which it wanted to get to immediately. I will say this, however, there has been good outcome as a result of this kind of a debate this afternoon. I do believe that the onus is now on the Government, and on Hon. Members of this side of the House, to look at this situation carefully and initiate some action.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. In accordance with the order made earlier today, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.33 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, April 28, 1983