1987-11-25

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, today friends of the Old Man River are in court to oppose the decision of the Alberta Government to build a $350 million dam that would flood 7,000 acres of land. The dam would ruin the ecology of the river, would destroy trout habitat, and would eliminate deer and caribou grazing areas by flooding.
The Old Man River is the last untouched river in Alberta. For centuries native people have relied on this river for their livelihood. Just below the proposed high water line there are more than 200 tepee rings and what is believed to be the most westerly medicine wheel in Alberta. The valley of the Old Man is a spiritual sanctuary for the native people.
The Alberta Government should resist pressure by the 300 landowners who will benefit from the irrigation provided by the dam but who do not have to pay for its construction. The heritage, spiritual, and ecological values the river offers are far more important than agricultural growth in a country which already has agricultural surpluses.
The Friends of the Old Man deserve the support of all Canadians. Everyone who feels strongly about the heritage and value of this magnificent river should write to the Premier of Alberta and to Alberta Members of the Legislature and register strong opposition to the building of this dam.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, today I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Robert Arcand, president of the
Societe d'entraide economique du Quebec and of Financiere Harricana Inc. of Amos, Abitibi.
Mr. Arcand received a doctorate from the University of Quebec in Abitibi-Temiscamingue, the second time a prominent resident of our region has been awarded a honoris causa doctorate.
Mr. Arcand had the courage to take over the Societe d'entraide economique after it had hit rock bottom, and it was not easy. Putting that company back on an even keel has been an outstanding achievement in Quebec.
In his testimonial, Mr. Jean-Louis Dulac emphasized that Harricana Metal Company of Amos started from scratch and now enjoys international recognition. His example goes to show that progress and expansion have no limits.
In his statement, Mr. Arcand expressed gratitude and underscored the contribution of his wife Pierrette and his children Annie, Marie-Claude and Sebastien.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Abitibi and Temiscamingue are proud of Robert Arcand of Amos.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, last year crews on herring boats were being charged to work on herring boats. Non fishermen leased licences for exorbitant prices and many vessels doubled up on licences.
Today the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) announced half measures to correct the situation. He bans vessel owners from charging workers for the right to work, but he has placed no safeguards to guarantee that fishermen will not be paying through lower wages or lower percentages of the over-all catch.
The Minister ignored the advice of his own Pacific resource council which recommended in October that seine vessels be allowed only one licence and that gillnet licences be issued only to bona fide fishermen. Instead, the Minister has frozen the leasing of licences. While this prevents the further doubling up of licences, it does not solve the problem of existing multiple

November 25, 1987
licensing. He has locked the barn door but the horse has already gone. He will allow further purchase of second and third licences in May, 1988, to replace leasing.
Since 1983 fishermen have asked for changes to the herring licensing policy. They were told to be patient. The measures proposed by the Minister will allow multiple licensing to continue. Patience is a virtue, as the saying goes, but is it any wonder that fishermen on the British Columbia coast are losing their patience with this Government and this Minister of Fisheries?


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, in my riding last Saturday night, on November 21, I was in La Sarre to attend the first "Excell'Or" gala evening organized by the local Chamber of Commerce. The purpose of this event, a "first" and very well organized, was to publicize and recognize the outstanding performance of business people who participate in our community's economic growth. More specifically, I would like to mention two of our award winners. In the category "Big Business", the Howard Bienvenue Company of La Sarre won the award. In the category "Person of the Year", the award went to Mr. Jean Perron, president of Normick Perron.
Mr. Speaker, we congratulate the winners and finalists, and recognize in them the entrepreneurship and initiative of the business community in Abitibi West. To the organizers of this unforgettable evening, I say bravo, and until next year!


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in Dominion, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, it has become quite clear that Canada Post has every intention of changing the present level of service from that of personal service to community mailboxes.
In rural Canada the post office is a meeting place. It is a place for information on Canada and on other residents in
communities. Canada Post is trying to close the post office in Dominion because the Government of Canada sees the post office as a grabbag chance to make money.
With respect to replacing the services of the post office in Dominion, Cape Breton, with supermailboxes, I have this to say. Fifty per cent of the 3,000 person population of Dominion is made up of senior citizens. Surely the Government should not have to see senior citizens at 70 years of age walking in the snow to get their daily mail.
On November 10 a resolution was passed by the Municipal Council in the town of Dominion, forwarded to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) on November 12. It was followed up by a citizens' meeting attended by over 300 individuals on November 16. A letter was forwarded to the Minister on November 18, 1987, requesting a personal meeting with him in order to terminate the regressive actions of Canada Post to close the postal services in Dominion, Cape Breton. The citizens, the municipal council, the Tory MLA in that particular constituency, as well as the provincial Legislature are against this regressive action by Canada Post.


WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary are an important event for Canada and the world. Recent actions by some Olympic officials unfortunately reinforce the idea that politics and sport do not mix. The Olympic Trust claims sole rights to use the word Olympic, its derivatives, and the "stick man" symbols.
In Ottawa they tried telling the Olympic Ski Shop, the Olympia Restaurant and the Olympic Tuck Shop that they could not use the word Olympic. It is ludicrous that they would have to change their company name or logo. The Hull Olympics hockey team, a team in its fourteenth season, would not appreciate being told that it is infringing trade mark laws and would have to change its name.
The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) has put an end to all this nonsense as Olympic officials have agreed to stop harassing small businesses. The Minister is not only concerned with the importance of these games to all Canadians but that our reputation in the international sports world not be marred by this petty squabbling. The Olympic Trust should never mind the trees and start worrying about the forest.
November 25, 1987


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have received quite a bit of correspondence from Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform, including an anthology of remarks on race made by Canadian forefathers. As a result, I have written this letter to Mr. Paul Fromm:
This is to acknowledge receipt of the anthology of racist views expressed by various significant figures from Canadian history. While I appreciate this review 1 must tell you that even as a child I was made thoroughly familiar with them and their implications in a most compelling and unforgettable way.
You will of course appreciate why I am less convinced than you and your colleagues in C-FAR that I am a less worthy Canadian than those with more purely European characteristics.
Since as an academic I have an interest in the thoroughness of any intellectual endeavour may I suggest that you consult the literature on race and racial purity published just before and during the Holocaust. You may there find additional quotes to bolster your case.
For my part 1 will continue to believe that multiculturalism is the trend for Canada's future.
However should I prove wrong I would appreciate your advice on where I might resettle. Doubtless my lack of racial purity will make it difficult-
It is signed Howard McCurdy, MP.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, as I stated yesterday, I am proud as a northern Ontarian and also as a Progressive Conservative of the FEDNOR Program the Government has successfully delivered to the people of northern Ontario. The recent criticism in the press and from the opposition benches cannot be justified.
I wish to point out a particularly glaring misstatement of the facts concerning the FEDNOR representative from Timiskaming, Mr. Pat Birney.
This gentleman served from 1943 to 1945 in the Royal Canadian Air Force. He is the Past-President of the Royal Canadian Legion and life member of the Royal Canadian Legion.
He was a construction superintendent for 20 years and was for 20 years councillor for the Town of New Liskeard. He was the Mayor for two years and Vice-Chairman of the Timiskaming Health Unit. He was President of the Children's Aid Society and a member of the South Timiskaming Planning Board, the Director of the Northern Ontario Development Board for seven years, and President of the Tri-Town & District Association for the Mentally Retarded.
This gentleman is an excellent representative of Timiskaming. He deserves proper recognition. He will continue to contribute greatly to the FEDNOR Program and to northern Ontario. It is absolutely sickening to hear opposition Members suggest otherwise.

[ Translation]


TRIBUTE TO JUSTINE LACOSTE-BEAUBIEN
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, last week I had the pleasure of attending a party to launch the biography of Justine Lacoste-Beaubien, founder of the Sainte-Justine Hospital. The book was launched on the eightieth anniversary of the hospital, the first Francophone hospital in Montreal. Today, Sainte-Justine Hospital still enjoys the respect and appreciation of the entire community. Since its founding in 1907, Sainte-Justine has cared for over 1,500,000 children.
Justine Lacoste-Beaubien and a group of women volunteer workers saw and met the challenge. Justine Lacoste-Beaubien, founder of Sainte-Justine Hospital, was a woman ahead of her time. She did not wait for today's pressure groups to fight for the concerns of her contemporaries. She was a brave woman who led the way for many of us. She is a role model for all Canadian and Quebec women. She has left us a legacy of eighty years of loving care, and we thank her for that legacy.
Today, Sainte-Justine Hospital is in financial difficulty, and I want to ask the provincial Government to take action to prevent a number of its clinics from closing.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Aurele Gervais (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise today to speak about the new economic development program for northern Ontario called FEDNOR. Under this new program, the Government of Canada, for the first time ever, designated northern Ontario as a distinct economic region requiring special economic assistance.
The $55 million in outright grants or incentive loans plus an additional $15 million for guaranteed loans which will generate a total of $100 million have been earmarked for northern Ontario entrepreneurs and small businesses. This is new money in addition to all other provincial and federal programs.
I had hoped that all MPs from northern Ontario would have rejoiced at this good news and would help make the program

November 25, 1987
Oral Questions
work for the economic betterment of northern Ontario and their respective ridings. However, lo and behold, to my disappointment, instead of trying to help, some Liberal and NDP Members decided instead to attack the FEDNOR board members unfairly.
Come on, colleagues! Forget the partisanship and personal attacks. There are many good things for communities in your ridings in this excellent FEDNOR program. I invite all MPs, MPPs, mayors and councillors from northern Ontario to cooperate and work together closely with the FEDNOR board in order to bring full benefits to northerners for whom the program was designed.


BROADCASTING
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, this morning my caucus colleagues and I met representatives of the Action Day Committee for Canadian Programming. They came here to express their concern about the state of Canadian radio, television and film production. Their heartfelt message was clear. Action for Canadian programming must be taken now before it is too late.
The committee pointed out that public broadcasting in this country is in trouble. The CBC, starved of funds, is having difficulty operating. As well, production of Canadian feature films and television drama faces an uncertain future. Less than 5 per cent of all drama on Canadian television stations is Canadian. Fewer than 3 per cent of the films in our cinemas are Canadian. That is unacceptable. The arts create a mirror for society. Film and television are potent instruments to help a society define itself.
I join the Action Day Committee in urging that we move together as a nation to develop our film industries and public broadcasting. The show must go on.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister 1 will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Both he and the Prime Minister know that energy pricing, wine distribution policy and marketing boards all fall within provincial jurisdiction. Yet they also fall within the ambit of the Prime Minister's
trade deal with the United States. The Prime Minister says he is going to implement the deal with or without provincial consent.
Has the Deputy Prime Minister consulted his Leader and is he aware of the constitutional precedent established 50 years ago that the Parliament of Canada does not have authority to implement a treaty on matters within provincial jurisdiction? If so, does he have some new constitutional rule that he would like to make us aware of?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman knows very well that signing international treaties is strictly the prerogative of the federal Government. I do not think that should be a question in anyone's mind. I do not know whether the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is suggesting some sort of provincial veto in these matters.
The fact is that the free trade arrangement we have negotiated is good for all regions of Canada, including Ontario. It is good for the sectors to which the hon. gentleman referred. If there are some difficulties I suspect they will be resolved in the co-operative manner reflected in the way this Government has carried on for the last three years.


IMPORTANCE OF AGREEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was talking not about signing the agreement but about implementing it. I want to refer the hon. gentleman to the Labour Conventions case decided 50 years ago which clearly dealt with the issue of provincial jurisdiction. Knowing that the Prime Minister has great confidence in our Ambassador to the U.S., Mr. Gotlieb, I will also refer him to Mr. Gotlieb's book Canadian Treaty Making where he says quite clearly at page 85: "The Parliament of Canada cannot, through making a treaty, legislate in fields of provincial jurisdiction and jurisdictional competence." That is quite clear.
This morning the Prime Minister told reporters in effect: "Don't worry about what I said yesterday about implementing this treaty or about infringing the Constitution; wait until you see the final text." That is precisely the point. We have not seen the final text.
The Prime Minister is meeting with the provincial Premiers this evening, tomorrow and Friday, and there is no final text. The committee of the House of Commons is on the road and there is no final text. Business and professional people across the country have no final text, yet the Prime Minister is insisting on ramming this deal through Parliament and insisting on meeting the date of January 2 when the people of Canada have no opportunity to analyse the final text.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 25, 1987


John Napier Turner: Is this the Deputy Prime Minister's view of how the Government and Parliament ought to be dealing with a matter of such importance to the cultural, economic, and social life of Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue and a very important debate. That is why I am surprised that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition wants to tear up the agreement before he even sees it. I find that very irresponsible.
The fact of the matter is that there has been a lot of debate on this issue in the House and in the country, starting with a Royal Commission which was chaired by his former colleague which cost Canadian taxpayers some $24 million. It made a very comprehensive analysis of the total economy of Canada and a very thorough examination of the pros and cons of a free trade arrangement with the United States of America.
There have been two weeks of parliamentary hearings by the committee and there will be two more. There have been several days of debate in this House. Question Period has been dominated by this issue.
I know that the right hon. gentleman has been laid up in the last week or so. We regret that and welcome him back to the House, but I am sure he had the opportunity to follow the debate even from his bedside. I hope that he will continue that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Broadbent:: From his bedside? Cheap shot, Don.


Mr. Gauthier:: You are pretty sick yourself.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am not as sick as the hon. gentleman who does not have the guts to stand up and say what he says from his seat.
I suggest that the first priority of business for the right hon. gentleman should be to get back to his riding to sort out the difficulties he has there, because there is obviously a difference between his position and the position of his constituents.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not recommend the Hon. Member's bedside manner to anyone in the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I understand that the Prime Minister is having some difficulties in his riding of Manicouagan. I invite him, on behalf of the people of Quadra, to come on out to Quadra and we will take him on head to head on that issue right in Vancouver.


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


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, since you have the adjacent riding, I will nominate you as arbitrator.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FREE TRADE-QUERY WHY CANADA MUST FOLLOW UNITED STATES AGENDA
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was against free trade during his campaign for the leadership of his party. In the last election campaign he did not mention a free trade agreement with United States. And now he wants us to adopt an agreement, although no one has seen the final text. And when we do see the text, it will be too late to change it . The Prime Minister maintains the agreement must be adopted by Parliament in December, in time to be signed on January 2. I am not trying to mess up the Government's secret plans to have an agreement signed by the Prime Minister and the President of United States in January, but could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House why we have to follow the U.S. agenda to analyse our case here in Parliament and clarify the situation for Canadians?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada on this issue is very clear. 1 think the Leader of the Opposition has a responsibility to make his position clear to the Canadian people as well.
We know that he is in favour of free trade. He said, at one time, that he was in favour of this deal but would like to improve it. Then he said that he did not like it and so was going to tear it up. This week he said that we should be doing all our business through the multilateral negotiations of the GATT, and last week his members were condemning the GATT ruling.
Where does the Leader of the Opposition stand on this important trade issue? He owes the country and this House the service of telling us very clearly where he stands.


Mr. Garneau:: Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister wants to know the position of the Liberal Party and my Leader he can read Hansard. We had this debate in the House in March. If he reads Hansard he will know exactly what our position is.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: What is the date?


Raymond Garneau: They are asking for the date. I will give you the date of June, 1983, to see what your Prime Minister was saying about free trade.

November 25, 1987
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHY AGREEMENT MUST BE SIGNED SO QUICKLY
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the First Ministers' meeting starts tomorrow. One of the items on the agenda was supposed to be the trade agreement with United States. Now it seems the legal text, which it seems will be more than 1,000 pages long, is not available.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister sign a final agreement more than 1,000 pages long on January 2, before the provincial Premiers have had a chance to read and examine it and decide whether they want to adopt legislation and regulations covering areas that come under provincial jurisdiction and are included in the Agreement the Prime Minister absolutely wants to sign the day after New Year's?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Member's question is absolutely absurd. This whole process has been conducted through the consultation of the First Ministers. There have been innumerable meetings with the Prime Minister and the First Ministers. There will obviously be more.
Clearly, there is nothing in the document or in the process that has been established that is alien to the First Ministers. I can assure the hon. gentleman that that will continue. It is regrettable that the final text is not available. We had hoped that it would be, but I think it is important at this stage of the game to ensure that all details are sorted out in a proper manner because our commitment, first and foremost, is to obtain the best deal for Canada. That continues to be our sole objective.


REASONS FOR URGENCY
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the issue of the final text of the Agreement. We do not have the text and neither do the provincial Premiers. When they see the text it will be too late, since the Prime Minister of Canada, without final and binding consultations on the legal text, will have signed a contract, a treaty with President Reagan that will commit the provinces in areas that come under their own jurisdiction.
1 want to ask the Prime Minister and especially the Deputy Prime Minister why they feel it is so urgent to make Parliament reach a decision on a text at least 1,000 pages long, and all in three weeks' time. Why is it so urgent to have this document signed on January 2?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Government
have been up front and forthcoming in this process all along. As soon as the "Elements of the Agreement" were completed they were tabled the very next day in the House of Commons and made available to all Members. That has formed the focus of debate. It is expected that the final text will be fully consistent with the elements.
As far as continuing debate is concerned, enabling legislation will have to put this agreement into place. There will be debate on the floor of the House of Commons. There will be committee hearings, there will be Senate approval, and there will be ample opportunity for all Hon. Members to get involved in all aspects of the debate. And there will be ample opportunity for all Canadians to come before any legislative committee that will be considering this.


GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO IMPLEMENT TREATY-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by welcoming back to the House the Leader of the Official Opposition. I wish him well in his health. I noted he challenged the Deputy Prime Minister to a debate in Vancouver Quadra on this matter. I just say good luck. The Deputy Prime Minister has so far refused to debate this subject even in his home Province of Alberta.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: In the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Yesterday the Prime Minister said-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: They do not want to hear the Prime Minister's words, Mr. Speaker. I can understand that, but I thought they at least would be respectful.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister said yesterday:
The right of the federal Government of Canada has never and never shall
be, challenged to negotiate and implement foreign treaties.
As is not unfamiliar, the Prime Minister is wrong. Will the Minister of Justice now confirm that the right of the federal Government to implement treaties within provincial jurisdictional authority was not only challenged but successfully challenged in 1937? Will he confirm and state clearly to the House that what the Prime Minister said yesterday was wrong?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any serious student of constitutional law would doubt the right of the federal Government to enter into treaties on behalf of the people of Canada. Furthermore, I am really amazed at the complaining we hear with respect to this historic treaty on the
November 25, 1987

part of the Opposition. Predecessor Governments have never gone to the extent of having these matters debated by committees of Parliament. They have never allowed the matters to come for ratification before the House of Commons.


John Napier Turner: That is wrong. That is absolutely wrong.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is totally unprecedented, and the Liberal Party is particularly vulnerable in this regard.
All I can say with respect to this transaction is that, once this transaction is completed between the two countries, it will then be incumbent upon us to move on the areas with respect to jurisdiction which is in the federal Government, and I simply say that I know all levels of government will co-operate with the federal Government in that regard.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister said all levels of the federal Government will co-operate with the federal Government. That is encouraging. One would hope that would be the case.


COMPLIANCE OF PROVINCES
John Edward Broadbent: On page 35 of the "Elements of Agreement" both national Governments are obligated to obtain the required authority from state, provincial and local governments. Is the Minister of Justice saying that that clause was put in there by accident? Is he saying that Ambassador Yeutter of the United States, when he stated publicly that they expected provincial compliance, was just indulging in mere rhetoric? Or will the Minister of Justice at least acknowledge the truth to the House of Commons, that for this agreement to be operative, as the Macdonald Commission previously pointed out, and as everyone who has looked at the free trade agreement understands, provincial agreement is required? Will the Minister concede that?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm for the Leader of the New Democratic Party the fact that the Government of Canada is totally, constitutionally, morally, and in every other way, able to enter into this treaty on behalf of the people of Canada. The fact that there is a question with respect to certain elements which impinge upon provincial jurisdiction, I think is interesting, but it is not fatal to any agreement between the two countries.
I simply reiterate the position put forward by the Prime Minister and by the Minister for International Trade that we are confident that, in the final analysis, once this agreement has been concluded, all levels of government will co-operate in doing the appropriate things in order to bring this agreement to fruition.


PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in fact said something quite different. The Minister
Oral Questions
of Justice should acknowledge that. He said "implement". He did not say just "negotiate" an agreement.

But according to the Minister, for the time being the federal Government agrees on the fact that, if the agreement is to be effective, issues which fall within the provincial purview must be endorsed by the provinces. Is that true for the Government? Yes or no?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same in either of the official languages of Canada. I simply reiterate what I said previously. We are satisfied with our constitutional ability to enter into this agreement with the United States for an enhanced trade arrangement with that country. We believe we have the jurisdiction to bring it into full force and effect. We know that the provinces will co-operate in areas which may affect their jurisdiction.


BROADCASTING
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, for ourselves and our children's sense of belonging, we need to see and know more about ourselves as Canadians, particularly on our television and theatre screens. At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, your chances of turning on a television set set or buying a ticket for the movies and finding a Canadian story are less than 5 per cent, and that is very sad and dramatic.
My question is directed to the Minister of Communications. What is the Minister planning to do with respect to the shortfall in Telefilm funding which, as she well knows, will result in further decreases in television and film productions in Canada? Is the Minister not aware that the CBC and the private broadcasters are caught in a bind and will not be able to meet their new Canadian content commitments? What concrete action is the Minister planning to take with respect to this very serious deficit?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity this morning to meet with representatives of the Action Day Committee. I may say I was very pleased with that meeting. I consider it to have been very helpful and productive. Members of the committee and I are agreed on the need for more and better Canadian programming on both the public and private networks. In the past we have attempted to do that very thing through such support measures as the Broadcast Development Fund which is now permanent, and through the new Feature Film Fund of $165 million over a five-year period.

November 25, 1987
Oral Questions
Those programs have had a very beneficial effect and I regard with some pride programs like Degrassi Junior High, Loyalties, and John and the Missus which have come to our Canadian screens as a result of these programs. These support programs will indeed continue and others will be introduced.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the promises regarding past performance and the future needs are certainly not going to be met by the Minister's words. It takes action to meet that deficit.


FILM DISTRIBUTION LEGISLATION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, talking about action, 10 months ago the Minister of Communications promised film distribution legislation that would mean more money for investment in Canadian films. She has written a Bill. I have a copy of the Bill. When will the Minister deposit this Bill in the House? Or is she in the process of vetting it so it will have no teeth? Or has the free trade agreement interrupted the scheduling of the tabling of this Bill?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about action. I may say that in this past year we have introduced a Public Lending Rights Program which, for the first time, reimburses our authors all across the country. The former Government would not do it.
We have also, for the first time in 60 years, introduced amendments to the Copyright Act which will be very beneficial to our actors and authors. If the Hon. Member would stop trying to stonewall the Copyright Bill, the broadcasting industry, the authors and the actors of this country would be a lot better off.
I have also given a commitment that we would introduce legislation which will make Canada a separate market for film rights and which will give Canadian distributors access to those rights. That will be done. I have said it will, and it will be done.


AMOUNT OF CANADIAN PROGRAMMING ON TELEVISION
Simon Leendert de Jong: My question is also directed to the Minister of Communications. The Minister also met members of the Action Now Group this morning. My caucus colleagues and I also met this morning with representatives from the Action Day Committee.
In our discussion the committee pointed out that less than 5 per cent of all drama on Canadian television is Canadian, and fewer than 3 per cent of films in our cinemas are Canadian. I am sure that the Minister agrees that that is unacceptable.
Is the Minister now prepared to agree to the Action Day Committee's key recommendation that minimum targets be agreed to for the production of Canadian television, drama, and feature films for distribution in Canada on public and private outlets?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.
I know that this is the first question that has been raised by the Hon. Member as critic, and I welcome him to that post. I may say that if he had been there previously, he would have heard me say over and over again that it is our goal to increase Canadian programming, and to have more and better Canadian programming on both the private and the public networks.
I have made proposals to the standing committee on this matter. I have taken the message to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, and to the CBC, on how this can be done.
I would hope, knowing that I have the support of such interested people as the Action Day Committee, that we will look at the whole aspect of an incentive fee which will allow more Canadian programs to be produced. I welcome the support that I have received from the committee today.


INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to thank the Minister for her kind words in welcoming me as the critic for communications. I was the critic in 1982 and at that time I heard many of the same promises that the Minister is making today from the then Minister of Communications, Mr. Fox. It has been a long time coming.
I am happy to hear that the Minister is in agreement with the commitment that the action group has requested, which is an additional 800 hours of new TV drama each year, and at least 50 low-budget feature films annually to be produced in this country.
However, what we are all concerned with, Madam Minister, is your commitment. This requires new money. On the other hand, we are concerned when we hear members of your Government talking in terms of privatization of the CBC-


An Hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is a very experienced Member of the House, and he knows the appropriate manner to put a question. I would ask him to do so.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kindness in allowing me to place my question.
My question to the Minister is the following. When will she announce and introduce the legislation that she has promised in order that the film industry and all Canadians can indeed judge how determined and committed she is?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, since this is a day for handing out compliments, I want to say to the Hon. Member that back in 1982 he would have heard whatever Minister was here making comments about the Copyright Act and changes to it.
May I say that the Hon. Member's predecessor strongly supported the amendments to the Copyright Act. We would
November 25, 1987

welcome him in committee in order that we could get on with the Bill. It will have a very beneficial impact on authors and artists in this country, and the way we are able to produce Canadian broadcasting.
I can also assure the Hon. Member that, in looking at the broadcasting policy and the new Broadcasting Act which will be coming in before too long, the resources that will be needed for such changes will indeed be there.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In Ottawa last February 2, Mr. Hatcher of Atomic Energy of Canada stated before the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry that he did not think the Abitibi region would be considered as a possible nuclear waste disposal site. Today Montreal's Polytechnical School is seeking funds from Atomic Energy of Canada to make a study. Here is my question, Mr. Speaker: Before undertaking any study on possible nuclear waste disposal sites in New Quebec and Abitibi, and before giving grants to this group, would it be possible for the Department to make immediate representations to have Atomic Energy of Canada officials meet with the Inuit, Crees and Naskapi with a view to honouring the James Bay Agreement, because we do not want Abitibi and northern Quebec turned into a nuclear dump in the coming years?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's ongoing concern on behalf of his constituents.
To my knowledge, AECL is not prepared to enter into this form of a study. But I can also assure my hon. friend that the James Bay-Quebec Agreement provides for environmental protection, and provides for the necessity of discussions with the people of the James Bay area.
I can also assure the Hon. Member that the James Bay Agreement and the environmental protection provided therein will be honoured, and any decision will have to take place with the agreement of the people who reside in the James Bay area, the Cree, the Naskapi, and those citizens who are responsible for implementing the review.
Oral Questions


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the difficult circumstances of shipyard workers in Quebec. The Quebec Minister of Industry and Trade said that the Minister of State (Transport) informed him that work on Phase II of the six frigates would be done, without tenders, in the shipyards in New Brunswick. Members from the Atlantic Provinces are saying that all six frigates will be build in shipyards in the Atlantic Provinces, and the Minister of Supply and Services would have Quebecers believe they will have one or two. Quite simply, shipyard workers, both in Quebec and Atlantic Provinces, want to know the truth. Will the entire contract for building the frigates be given to shipyards in New Brunswick or will the work be split between Quebec shipyards and shipyards in the Atlantic Provinces? Yes or no?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Supply and Services is not here today, but he specifically answered that question the other day. The record indicates the Government's position.


QUEBEC SHIPYARD WORKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister ought to read Hansard. The Minister of Supply and Services has said nothing, and he is good at talking out of both sides of his mouth, one side for the Atlantic Provinces and one side for the Lauzon shipyard near Quebec City. This is what we want to know: Do you know, or can you say, whether or not all six frigates will be build in shipyards in New Brunswick or whether the work will be split between various shipyards, either in Quebec City or in the Atlantic Provinces, and whether certain projects will ensure that 3,000 shipyard workers in Quebec who are now unemployed will have work after the holidays? Yes or no?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of Supply and Services stated the other day that a decision is pending, all matters are being considered, and the decision will be given reasonably soon.

November 25, 1987
Oral Questions TRADE


UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON GROUNDFISH IMPORTS FROM CANADA
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Today we learned that while the American negotiators were negotiating the trade agreement with the Minister and his Government, on the other side of Washington the Americans were placing an embargo on fish imports from Atlantic Canada.
Nothing has been done about the countervailing duty on Atlantic groundfish. The American Government has now imposed new embargoes on Canadian imports.
Can the Minister tell the House what other measures or actions by the American Government is he aware of that threaten Canadian jobs and industry?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries I wish to advise the Hon. Member that this was an action taken by the Secretary of Commerce of the United States at the behest of the New England Fishery Management Council.
The Americans have size restrictions on the catching of fresh groundfish down there, and using that as a subterfuge they are now applying those size restrictions on imports of fresh whole groundfish. They state that their intention is to have the restrictions extended to fresh fillets of groundfish.
The Government put in a strong protest to the American Government on November 10. We requested that the ban be lifted. We know that other companies, even American companies, are opposing this action. As a matter of fact one company has initiated legal action against the U.S. Secretary of Commerce for having approved this action.
The National Fisheries Institute of the United States has also approached the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.


An Hon. Member:: Here we go.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am glad to see that the hon. gentleman who interjected reads something, because I thought he was entirely illiterate.
We are going to continue to work toward a bilateral settlement. However, if we fail to resolve that matter bilaterally, then it might well be our turn to take a matter to the GATT of which the hon. gentleman's Party opposite is so fond.


SPIRIT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT-EFFECT OF U.S. ACTION
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already admitted to the House that the Americans have violated the spirit of the
trade agreement by interfering with our grain exports. We now have another example, apparently in a diplomatic note, of what the Government has called the "undermining" of the agreement.
Does this not show, before we have even seen the text of the agreement, an absolute lack of faith on the part of the American Government in this deal?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is an action taken by the New England Fisheries Management Council.
It was at their instigation, and it is allegedly to do with protection in the catching of undersized fish. Of course they realize, or they should realize, that in Canada we have the most efficient and best fisheries management policy in the world and that, therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to apply these American rules to fish imported from Canada.
If it were extended to fillets, it could mean something like reduced Canadian exports of those products of between $25 million and $30 million. It is obviously a subterfuge. Unless the matter is settled to our satisfaction, we will certainly have to proceed to the GATT to get it reversed.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. The CBC will not allow the Saskatchewan Government to advertise free trade on its stations in Saskatchewan.
Will the Minister explain why political advertising was allowed on CBC during the Quebec referendum but was not allowed for a political ad in Saskatchewan?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, because I knew that there was some concern about this matter I made inquiries and found that CBC Radio-Canada did not carry any advertising for either the oui or non side during the Quebec referendum. I looked into that particularly. Private stations may have done so, but the CBC did not.
I found, however, that while they did not address or allow advertising from either of the protagonist sides during that referendum, there were ads during that period, one which dealt with anti-alcohol abuse and ended with the slogan "say no", and another with regard to seat-belt legislation which ended with "buckle up for Quebec". Those ads were used at that time, but there was no advertising accepted from either the federal Government or the Government of Quebec.
November 25, 1987


U.S. RESTRICTIONS ON FISH IMPORTS FROM CANADA-SPIRIT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responding on either international trade or fisheries. It concerns the American trade embargo, their restrictions on fresh groundfish exports from Atlantic Canada.
As 1 read the preliminary transcript of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, it clearly states that both Parties recognize that "this agreement is subject to domestic approval on both sides. Accordingly both parties understand the need to exercise their discretion in the period prior to entry into force so as not to jeopardize the approval process or undermine the spirit and mutual benefits of the free trade agreement".
My question is for whomever in the government wants to respond. Will the Government now admit that this latest provocation against our fishery undermines the spirit of that stand-still clause?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly glad to have the support of the hon. gentleman for the free trade agreement. It is the first sign of common sense on the benches over there that we have had in some time.
As a matter of fact, there are continual protests from Members opposite about protective actions taken by the United States and, when the Government brings forward a solution so there will be a lot better regime in force, they then oppose the solution.
It was on October 1, 1987, before the free trade arrangement was signed, that the United States Secretary of Commerce approved this emergency measure prohibiting imports of round whole cod and haddock under 19 inches, but he can depend upon it that we are going to press the point strongly. Since then there has been a signing of this arrangement, and that is another argument that we will press strongly.


George Roland Henderson: The Minister did not answer the question on the stand-still clause. It is obvious that the Government, in its negotiations with the United States, has been standing still while the Americans have been negotiating circles around it.


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO PROTECT FISHING INDUSTRY
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister and the Government what real action will they take with the Americans to protect our Canadian fishing industry. I do not want all those grand words and buffoonery that we hear from this Minister from Newfoundland every day. I want some action, the people of Canada want some action, and fishermen want some action.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. gentleman is aggravated because we
Oral Questions
pulverized him on his little opposition day motion last Friday, so I will not take umbrage at his name calling here.
The action which is going to be taken is that we have delivered a note of protest to the United States. We have a free trade agreement that is going to reduce tariffs on Canadian fish to zilch over the next five years, so that our higher value-added processing can be done here in Canada. That is tremendous progress. The Hon. Member forgot to mention that in his comments.
If necessary, we are going to the GATT where we had success last week in connection with user fees that were imposed by the Americans. If necessary, we will go to the GATT just as other aggrieved parties go to the GATT. We are one of the 95 members that are entitled to go to the GATT, which the Member's Party and Leader support with such great affection.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister who answers for Canada Post Corporation. In certain municipalities-and in Jonquiere's Petite France neighbourhood, to be more specific-there is strong opposition to the installation of superboxes.
Can the Minister tell me what is the position of Canada Post Corporation management concerning the installation of superboxes on their territory?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is introducing supermailboxes in an effort to improve service while keeping costs in line.
Of course it works with the municipalities in terms of placement of the boxes and to ensure that it is done in keeping with over-all municipal plans. However, the final decision on whether or not to use them is one which rests legally with the Canada Post Corporation.


CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. At a meeting on Monday between the Justice Committee and some 20 federal parole

November 25, 1987
Oral Questions
officers in Kingston, we were informed that senior Ontario corrections officials last week attempted to influence the way in which senior staff testified before the committee by suggesting that their careers could depend on what they said to our committee.
What action has the Minister taken to deal with this clear attempt to muzzle witnesses appearing before the justice committee, and what will the Minister do to ensure that no further such intimidation takes place?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I was aware through media reports of the concerns of the Hon. Member. As a result, we had occasion this morning to discuss these allegations with the Commissioner of the Correctional Service Canada who denies the allegations. He tells me that they are incorrect and without foundation.
Indeed, it was Correctional Service Canada officials who recommended and suggested to the Justice Committee that they come down to Kingston to tour the facilities, and have assisted them in every way in this endeavour.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is so far from the truth as to be utterly absurd.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER SPEAK TO PERSONS ALLEGING INTIMIDATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. We know that parole officers are deeply concerned about the impact of privatization, inadequate resources, and intolerable working conditions. Why would the Minister not accept the word of parole officers that, in fact, senior prison and parole officials have been trying to muzzle people who appear before the committee? Why will the Solicitor General not do the right thing and speak directly to those people who made the allegations, and learn for himself just to what extent his officials are trying to prevent the truth from being told about a system in crisis?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I have already advised the House, this has been discussed with the Commissioner who does not agree with those allegations.
In addition, over the noon hour I called the chairman of the committee and discussed the allegations with him. I can assure this House that the comments made by my hon. colleague are not shared by the chairman of that committee.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Today the Dominion Marine Association, the Canadian Trucking Association, as well as the Canadian Bus Association have all come out strongly against the free trade agreement and are asking the Government to suspend negotiations on all transportation issues in the free trade agreement for a period of 90-days. The trucking and shipping modes alone carry over 420 million tonnes of cargo and employ some
400.000	Canadians.
Will the Minister intervene now and apply the 90 day moratorium demanded by these groups? There is still time to save this industry from the ravages of the trade agreement. Will the Minister act now?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is part of a pattern of gross over-exaggeration, induced hysteria, and plain and utter nonsense that is given us by Members opposite. The Canadian trucking industry is in no danger whatever, no danger, from the Canada-U.S. free trade arrangement.


An Hon. Member:: Says who?


John Carnell Crosbie: As a matter of fact, if it were subject to the Canada-U.S. free trade arrangement it would be protected in the future from the threat of any further American protectionist action. It is simply silly to say that there is any threat to the Canadian trucking industry from the Canada-U.S. agreement. The real dispute, the real objection, is to the deregulation that occurred with the Motor Vehicle Transportation Act, not with this free trade arrangement.


REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister. This industry is totally unprotected. So how can the Government ignore the representations of spokesmen for Dominion Marine Association, the Canadian Trucking Association, and the Canadian Motor Coach Association? How can the Government ignore the representations of the
400.000	workers? Why not take action by enforcing the 90-moratorium sought by these associations? Will he do something to protect the 400,000 workers?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, once again we hear wild, unsubstantiated silly statements made by an Hon. Member opposite. The Canadian truckers are in an extremely competitive position vis-a-vis United States truckers. Over 1,000 of them operate in the United States now. This free trade arrangement will do
November 25, 1987

nothing to harm them. It will only help assist them in their efforts, together with the deregulation policy of my hon. friend, the Deputy Prime Minister. Cease your attempt to scare Canadians.


Mr. Ouellet:: Help the Americans.


Ms. Copps:: It is a bloated falsehood.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise that the time allotted for Question Period has expired. I note the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre rising and I will try to be sure that I see him tomorrow.
I might just say to Hon. Members that we did not do as well in the number of questions today as perhaps I and others had hoped, especially after the last several days when we were doing very well. Perhaps we can do better tomorrow.
The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege regarding the handling of my Private Members' Bill C-204. The question concerns the nature of Private Members' Bills, how they will be handled, whether or not they will be obstructed and whether or not there will be two classes of private Members in this House, namely, private Members who are Conservatives and may get their Bills passed and private Members who are not Conservatives and who will have their Bills obstructed.
There have been three private Members' Bills which have been adopted since parliamentary reform, a reform which we all know was intended to give private Members the opportunity to have serious business dealt with, debated in the House, voted on and sent to committee and returned for approval. Only three private Members' Bills have been passed, and all three of them have been Conservative Bills. Some of them have been dealt with very, very quickly indeed.
Yet in the case of my Bill, it was introduced and read for the first time October 6, 1986. It was finally read for the second time after many hours of debate on May 29, 1987.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. All of what the Hon. Member says about the number of Bills passed, who sponsored them and the chronology of her own Bill may be very accurate and may be of considerable interest, but I would ask the Hon. Member to let the Chair know what is the point of privilege.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the point of privilege is that there has been obstruction of my Bill. I wish to give you details of that obstruction and I wish to show that it has been treated
Privilege-Ms. McDonald
differently from other Bills. That is the reason I referred to the other Bills. I do not think it is a coincidence that Conservative Bills have been passed and mine has not.
My Bill was approved at second reading. It was referred to committee. It took a long time before the committee received it. There was a delay of 12 sitting days before the first meeting was held. Standing Orders require that the committee meet within two sitting days. There was a further delay of 19 regular sitting days between the third and the fourth meetings of the committee. There was active obstruction in the committee during that period, June 26 to October 6.
There has been one chairperson and, of course, it is the Speaker who appoints the chair. The chair has acted in a biased manner. There has been a deputy chair acting in his absence. On five occasions a deputy chair has substituted for the chair. In one case, the person who substituted was an Hon. Member who has himself declared a conflict of interest, in effect, on the subject, namely, the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) who has been an active Member of the committee. He has obstructed work on the committee, has acted as the chair, and I will refer to the details in a moment, Mr. Speaker. He was actively obstructionist in meetings yesterday. He circulated to all Members of this House a statement declaring that he had an interest in opposing the Bill because of a private interest, that "I freely admit that I am biased because in the real world I am a wholesale distributor-"


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is in some difficulty. Hon. Members know that generally speaking it is not the Chair's function, nor does the Chair procedurally have the authority, to interfere in committee proceedings.
The Hon. Member may well have a complaint. It is not for the Chair, certainly at this point, to say one way or the other. The difficulty I am having is identifying a point of privilege.
I must say to all Hon. Members and to the public watching and listening that privilege concerns something done which makes it impossible for Hon. Members to carry out their duties as Members of Parliament. It might, but generally speaking, does not arise just because someone may not be getting a Bill through a committee as fast as one likes, getting a motion supported or getting witnesses recognized. That is a matter of the internal workings of the committee.
I am not saying that there might not be a case where activities of a chairperson or the activities of other Members in committee might well amount to a point of privilege, but I am having difficulty-I am not diminishing in any way the Hon. Member's complaint-in seeing it as a point of privilege that the Chair can resolve. I will hear the Hon. Member further. I would ask her please to try to isolate exactly what the point of privilege is.

November 25, 1987
Privilege-Ms. McDonald


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, there are two particular points 1 wish to make. When a government Bill is before a legislative committee, there are normally five members of the committee who are committed to passing the Bill, five government Members who have voted for the Bill at second reading. There may be two members opposed but there are not more than two. There may be no members opposed, depending upon the nature of the Bill.
My private Member's Bill, however, is before a committee which has two members in favour of the Bill and in fact five members opposed to it. It is the exact reverse of the way a government Bill is treated.
A procedure under Private Members' Business that is intended to make it possible for private Members' Bills to be passed, as my Bill was passed at second reading, has been obstructed by the nature of the appointments to the committee. I submit that committee appointments should reflect the same principle for private Members' Bills as they reflect for government Bills. There ought to be a preponderance of members favourable to the Bill on the committee. The chairman ought to be someone who is favourable to the Bill and someone committed to being fair to all Members. That has not been the case.
Finally, I would like to refer to a very particular instance of obstruction which occurred yesterday, an instance which certainly interfered with my ability to handle the concerns of other Hon. Members with the passing of this Bill, a Bill which has been approved by the House.
Yesterday I had proposed that the witnesses who were before the committee be sworn. I had given the chairman advance notice of this so that he could be prepared for it. The chairman passed this information along to his deputy chairman and the meeting was ready to begin. The chairman was waiting for one Conservative member to arrive. Two opposition members and the Conservative chairman were already present.
The chairman of the committee who has publicly opposed my Bill then left the chair, went out to the hallway to greet the incoming Conservative member and told him not to enter the room until there was a sufficient Conservative majority to defeat my motion. That is the utmost of bias. It is unfair-


Mr. Shields:: How did you know that?


Lynn McDonald: The Hon. Member was heard by other people in the room telling the Conservative member not to enter the committee room. The meeting was late. It was held up until there was a Conservative majority. My motion would have passed if that member had been allowed to enter and the meeting had started on time. The witnesses were ready.
I submit that that is a very gross interference with normal procedure. It is unfair and my basic principle is that parliamentary reform is designed to give private Members a chance. When a Bill is passed on a free vote with no obstruction in
debate, what good is that if the Bill is then obstructed by the Government using its majority to gang up members of a committee against the Bill? It is quite wrong.
Government Bills go before committees with a preponderance of Members who are in favour of the Bill. Once a private Member's Bill has gone through second reading, the same principle should apply. If it does not apply, then the parliamentary reform designed to make it possible for private Members to have serious business considered will simply be a farce.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member with interest. While she may very well have a grievance and may be somewhat unhappy about the proceedings and the result, I would submit to you that I doubt very much whether or not she has a question of privilege.
As well, the point should be made that in the exercise of dealing with her grievance, she has in fact imputed a number of motives, either directly or indirectly, to a number of Members, if she has not made outright allegations against the chairman of that committee, the Hon. Member for Sarnia- Lambton (Mr. James), and against the vice-chairman, as well as indirectly against the Whip of our Party who is responsible for allocating membership to that committee.
The Hon. Member contends that the issue of private Members' Bills is handled in a somewhat different fashion than government Bills and that there has been obstruction. I think we all recognize that this is a private Members' matter and there are no government Whips present. There is no exercise of Party discipline. It is not an issue on which Party discipline is imposed. I think the record is fairly clear on that, considering the votes that have taken place in this Chamber on matters that have been brought forward by private Members from both sides of the House.
I take it that the Hon. Member is suggesting that the committee membership should be selected on the basis of the position the members take with regard to a particular issue. I think that would be a gross injustice. The Hon. Member may have a grievance and may take issue with the position that was taken by the members of that committee, but surely if we start selecting members of a committee on the basis of their predetermined positions on a given issue, that would be the greatest farce we could ever perpetuate upon the democratic process.
What we have here is as well a reflection upon a vote that was taken in a committee. I think we all recognize the rules in that regard. I know that it is improper for anyone to reflect upon a vote that has been taken in the House of Commons, and essentially the same rules apply in committee as apply in the House of Commons.
I do not argue with the grievance the Hon. Member has put forward about which she feels very strongly, but I think that in the enthusiasm and vigour with which she has presented her
November 25, 1987

case, she may in fact have inadvertently violated a number of Standing Orders, procedures and parliamentary traditions herself.


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member cites members of the Conservative Party, and I think it is totally unfair that she should do so. I was one of the members who sat on the committee when that particular item was selected to be voted on. We certainly treated it like a private Member's Bill in the spirit of parliamentary reform.
I believe that the Hon. Member is merely facing a situation of private Members exercising their rights under the auspices of parliamentary reform. That is simply it.


Mr. Speaker:: As I have indicated, I listened very carefully to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazan-kowski) and the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain). In the interests of erring on the side of caution in this matter, I will reserve.
I can indicate to the Hon. Member that certainly part of her complaint about the speed or otherwise of the passage of her Bill is something I do not look upon as a question of privilege. I can indicate that I am having some trouble accepting the proposition that because the Hon. Member was unsuccessful in a vote in committee with respect to swearing a witness, that that amounts to a question of privilege.
However, the Hon. Member has made some pretty severe allegations about the chairperson. The Chair is conscious of the fact that the chairperson is appointed by the Chair although the other members of the committee are not appointed by the Chair.
As I say, from an abundance of caution and in order to give this matter every careful consideration, I will reserve and return to the House on it at an appropriate time. I hope that any comment I may have to make then might be helpful. Before I close off, I see that the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister is rising and I will hear him.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in your usual manner of exercising an abundance of caution, for which I compliment you, I think the other point should be made, and I was remiss in not making it. Since the chairman and deputy chairman have been imputed in this, it might be appropriate, in the consideration of this matter before you make a final decision, that they may have the opportunity to be heard as well.


Mr. Speaker:: I take with careful note the intervention of the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister, and if in any way it would seem appropriate to hear both Hon. Members further before I should make any decision I will do so. I want to be absolutely sure that this particular matter is handled as fairly as possible.
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
Again, in closing, I might say to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood that the Chair, in suggesting that part of her complaint is not a question of privilege, is not in any way ruling or giving an opinion as to the force of the complaint or, for that matter, the reason for it. I want her to know that I am speaking procedurally and not trying to stand in judgment on things in respect of which it is really not the role of the Chair to stand in judgment.
I will do the best I can and report back to the House. 1 thank Hon. Members for their courtesy and contribution.



Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, this morning I gave Your Honour notice of a serious question of privilege concerning certain events which took place earlier this week in Kingston, Ontario, during a visit to that city by the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. The standing committee decided to undertake a comprehensive study of sentencing, parole and related matters involving corrections in Canada. For the purposes of that study we decided to hold hearings in a number of centres, indeed, to visit a number of correctional facilities, meet with parole officers and others involved in parole, sentencing and corrections.
Your Honour will be well aware of the significance of a study of this nature, having been in this House when the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, as it then was, chaired by a distinguished parliamentarian, Mark MacGuigan, now Mr. Justice MacGuigan, conducted a similar study and reported to this House some 10 years ago. It is a serious and important subject about which Canadians have a great deal of concern.
Seven members of the standing committee arrived in Kingston on Sunday evening and began the hearings with a tour of the Collins Bay institution on Monday morning. At that time it was apparent that there was a great deal of interest in the work of the standing committee on the part of officials from national headquarters. Indeed, a number of those officials accompanied the committee from Ottawa, as well as the legislative assistant of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher). The committee was somewhat surprised, I think it is fair to say, at the interest displayed in our work by those officials, as well as obviously being pleased.
The committee indicated to those people that while they were free to participate in any public aspects of the visit, any meetings which took place with officials of the correctional service, the parole service or others should be in the absence of those officials for reasons which I think are quite clear. We

November 25, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
were concerned that line officers and so on should be able to testify freely without any suggestion that senior officials might in any way be influencing their evidence. That was done and those officials did not attend any hearings of the committee.
There were two events which took place that Monday which in my view constitute a very grave situation, and at least one of which gives rise to a breach of the privileges of Members of this House, in particular Members of the standing committee.
First, the committee learned that on the eve of our visit to Millhaven institution, six prisoners were transferred from Millhaven to Kingston Penitentiary. To be precise, this was done two days before we arrived. One of those six was one of two members of the inmates committee elected at large by all the inmates, a Mr. John Avery. Certainly the timing of that transfer was at the very least coincidental. We were told it was done for security reasons. The individuals involved were a negative influence in the institution and for that reason the institution was not prepared to agree to transferring Avery back so the committee could meet with the full inmates committee. However, there was a conference call and Avery was on the line from Kingston Penitentiary to Millhaven.
In the course of that transfer, documents that Avery wanted to present to members of the committee were left behind. I asked the warden of Millhaven whether we might obtain those documents with the written authorization of the prisoner involved. I was told that was not possible because the prisoner was in Kingston Penitentiary. I then asked that the documents be sent to Kingston Penitentiary and that the prisoner have an opportunity to give them to me as a member of the committee. He wanted to do that to assist us in our work.
The documents were sent over, the prisoner went to the box in which the documents were located and discovered that four of his file folders containing critical information he wanted to bring to the attention of the committee had disappeared.
That is a rather serious matter. A prisoner wants to present evidence to a parliamentary committee. He is moved from the institution where we were to meet with him to Kingston Penitentiary and his documents were not moved with him. When those documents finally come into his hands so he could present them to a member of the committee for circulation among members of the committee, four of his key file folders had disappeared.
That is the first point, and the only possible conclusion one can draw, since those documents were in the custody of the Correctional Services of Canada, is that for some reason they were deliberately removed from his file. If there is another explanation I would welcome it, but what other conclusion can there be?
The next matter I want to draw to Your Honour's attention is one from which by far the most serious conclusions must be drawn. On Monday evening the seven members of the standing committee had a meeting with some 20 parole officers as well as a number of senior parole supervisors and the District
Director of the Eastern Region of CSC Parole. At that meeting we were addressed by the senior officials of the parole service. Following their presentation, there were some questions and answers and they withdrew. At that point the committee was left with approximately 20 parole officers, fulltime employees of CSC involved in parole supervision. These are professionals, a number of them with many years of dedicated service in the field.
These people indicated first that they had some difficulty in even getting agreement to a meeting without their supervisors being present. They indicated that initially their supervisors insisted that two of them be present and that only two parole officers be present during the meeting with the committee, and that those four appear at the same time. The clerk of our committee, after consulting with the chairperson, made it very clear to the officials that that was not acceptable. We wanted to give the line staff an opportunity to appear directly in front of the committee. We rejected the attempt by management to insist that they appear at the same time.
During that meeting with the approximately 20 parole officers a variety of concerns were expressed with regard to their intolerable caseloads, the implications of privatization, and inadequate resources to do the job which they have been asked to do on behalf of society.
During the course of the presentations to our committee one individual indicated that two meetings had been held the previous week involving individuals who would be appearing before our committee. One meeting was held with the parole officers, the line people about whom I spoke. Attending that meeting were a number of individuals from national headquarters in Ottawa, including a gentleman named Moe Royer who I believe is the Commissioner's executive assistant, a number of other officials from national headquarters, and some officials from regional headquarters.
They met with the parole officers and I understand that at that meeting they discussed the manner in which public servants might appropriately give evidence before a standing committee of Parliament. A legal opinion was apparently handed out at that time prepared by the Privy Council Office indicating what was and was not acceptable in terms of giving evidence. I do not believe that there was any threat, intimidation, or suggestion with regard to the giving of evidence at that meeting. Indeed, I believe that one individual at that meeting suggested that people should feel free to give their evidence in a candid manner. At that particular meeting there was no attempt whatsoever to influence the way in which evidence was given.
However, one parole officer did inform the committee that his supervisor had attended a separate meeting last week. In attendance at that separate meeting were senior management officials from the Ontario regional office including the Deputy Regional Commissioner, Jim Phelps. I believe that Mr. Don
November 25, 1987

Clark, the Regional Director of Operations, was also present at this meeting. In addition to these senior regional officials, the senior parole supervisors from that region were present.
During the course of that meeting it was suggested by senior officials of the correctional service in the Ontario region that the individuals present at that meeting should not offer criticisms of the federal Government or the Correctional Service of Canada in giving evidence to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General the following week. Indeed, it was suggested to the persons in attendance at that meeting that they might be making a "career decision"-and those are the words that were used by the parole officer- depending on what sort of evidence they gave to members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
The members of the committee were informed that the subject of privatization was used as an illustration. Those senior officials who were present were told that they should not in any way levy criticism of government policy or the policy of the Correctional Service of Canada in their evidence before the committee.
I am sure that Your Honour recognizes the gravity and seriousness of this situation. A parliamentary committee is undertaking an important study of sentencing, parole, and corrections in Canada. It is absolutely critical to the success of that study that people working in the field, including parole officers and correctional officers, should be able to give their evidence to that committee without any suggestion of intimidation, threat, or manipulation of their evidence.
Suggesting to senior officers of the parole service that they were not free to testify as they might see fit about the parole system in Canada was quite clearly, in my view, an attempt to gag, muzzle, and influence the evidence that was presented to our committee.
The committee cannot do its job if that is going to be happening. The committee process becomes a charade if individuals are afraid to give evidence before the committee or if the evidence they give has been vetted by their supervisors.
Indeed, after the formal part of that meeting I was approached by a young woman who is a parole officer. She informed me that she was asked to go through some sample questions and answers. One of the questions put to her as a question which the committee might ask was with regard to whether there were adequate resources for the parole service in the Kingston region. It was suggested to her how she might answer that question without being critical, without, in effect, telling the truth.
This goes directly to the core of our privileges as Members of this House and, indeed, as members of a standing committee of this House. This attempt to manipulate the evidence presented to the committee, in conjunction with the other activities to which I have referred, including the disappearance of key documents which a member of the inmate committee wished to present to the Standing Committee on Justice and
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
Solicitor General-and indeed this particular matter in isolation-surely constitutes a fundamental breach of the privileges of Members of this House.
I left that tour yesterday at noon as, I believe, did my colleague, the Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), who will doubtless be speaking oh this question of privilege as well. I left because I did not want to participate any further in that charade.
I hope that Your Honour will recognize that I have indeed raised a prima facie case of breach of privilege today and that, that being the case, the appropriate disposition of this matter is to allow the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to examine carefully what has transpired. It has been suggested by the chairperson of the standing committee that this is second-hand information. The fact is that the committee heard from a parole officer who spoke to his supervisor who attended that meeting. Surely it is only right that a parliamentary committee have an opportunity to call as witnesses those who were involved and ask them exactly what happened on that occasion.
The Solicitor General said during Question Period that he talked to the Commissioner of Corrections who promised him that there was no problem, that this did not happen, that there was nothing wrong. I do not doubt for a minute that the Solicitor General has confidence in the Commissioner of Corrections but, with all due respect to the Solicitor General, that is just not good enough. It is not the Government nor the Commissioner of Corrections but Parliament itself which is affected by this attempt to control the flow of evidence to this committee.
I hope that the Solicitor General will conduct his own inquiry rather than only asking the Commissioner of Corrections whether he was satisfied that it happened. The Solicitor General is apparently not prepared to do that. The public can draw their own conclusions on that.
However, our job as parliamentarians is surely to ensure that our privileges are not in any way diminished as a result of the actions of government officials or others. It would be my submission-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member has made some comment concerning the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) and what he is or is not prepared to do. The Solicitor General has not had a chance to rise in reply to the comments of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), but all Members will know that the Hon. Member for Burnaby did ask questions during Question Period. It seemed to the Chair that the position the Solicitor General was then taking was that, having had some information concerning the serious matter that the Hon. Member for Burnaby raises, he checked with some of his officials and was informing the Hon. Member that his official or officials denied the allegation contained in the question of the Hon. Member.

November 25, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
If the memory of the Chair is correct, I do not think the Hon. Solicitor General basically went any further than that in his reply to the Hon. Member in Question Period.
At least for now, I would ask the Hon. Member for Burnaby to confine his remarks, as he has been doing with some skill, strictly to the question of privilege, and not to get into another area which may be the subject of a later political debate that does not assist the Chair very much at the moment. I would ask the Hon. Member to continue and conclude his remarks.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, certainly my understanding was that the response of the Solicitor General was that he had consulted with the Commissioner of Corrections and was satisfied, based on his assurances, that the incident in question had not occurred.
However, as Your Honour has indicated, there is a fundamental distinction between whatever action the Government and the Minister might take, and the question as to whether or not there has been a breach of privilege of Members of this House.
Indeed, I will conclude my remarks by noting that, based on the information which I have brought before the House, at this point 1 am prepared to move the necessary motion should Your Honour find that there is a prima facie case of breach of the privileges of Members of this House. I believe that the only way we can determine exactly what did transpire is precisely to send this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to allow that committee to call the necessary witnesses in the appropriate atmosphere and get to the bottom of this.
As a Parliament, we must send out a very clear message to those who would work in this committee in the future, and to those who are prepared to stick out their necks in some cases to give evidence to this committee, that they will not in fact be subject in any way to reprisals as a result of giving evidence before this committee.
Finally, I have given notice of my intention to raise this question of privilege to the chairperson of the committee, the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney). In view of the fact that that Member, and I believe some other Members of the committee are in Kingston today, I suggest that they certainly be given an opportunity to make whatever representations they believe to be appropriate with respect to this question of privilege. I would assume that any ruling would be deferred until they have been given an opportunity to make submissions on this very serious question of privilege.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, as the critic of the Solicitor General's Department for the Official Opposition I was present in Kingston, at Collins Bay Penitentiary and Millhaven Institution, at the same meetings as the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). I want to
share with the Chair my impressions and my understanding of what occurred.
I regret very much that the Hon. Member for Burnaby has chosen to raise this matter today with the full knowledge that the committee is still in the Kingston area conducting its affairs. I also regret that the Member has chosen to use such inflammatory and provocative language in view of the very tense situation at Millhaven.
The Millhaven Institution just outside Kingston has a cell capacity of 536 inmates. On October 14 of this year an inmate was shot and killed by a guard, who shot from a tower in an attempt to break up a fight that was taking place in the yard. Following this particular incident there was a sit-down strike, and for approximately the last two weeks the inmates have been locked in their cells for 23 hours a day. They have been allowed out for an hour a day for meals and so on. Their meals have been cut back-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) has the obligation in this House to cover this particular Department and these matters. He has spoken forcefully on occasion in this House and has raised some of these matters before.
However, I would ask that the Hon. Member confine himself specifically to the alleged question of privilege that the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has raised. Otherwise, I am afraid we may get into a long debate about the conditions in one prison or other. While those are very serious matters, and I know that the Hon. Member and other Members take those matters very seriously, we will get a long way from the procedural point that the Chair is seized with in this particular application.
I would ask the Hon. Member for York South-Weston to assist the Chair and discuss specifically the point that the Hon. Member for Burnaby has raised. The Hon. Member may or may not agree with the Hon. Member for Burnaby in bringing the matter before the House at this time-that may be a matter of difference between them-but the Hon. Member for Burnaby has brought this matter to the Chair.
I think the point is quite clear to all Hon. Members and it is on that point that I ask the Hon. Member for York South- Weston to assist the Chair. The Hon. Member may not agree that it is a question of privilege, but the Chair does not know exactly yet which position he takes.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to give the Chair and the House some background in order to understand the situation at Millhaven resulting in the transfer of the six inmates, and the reasons why we were told Mr. Avrey and the five other prisoners were transferred out of Millhaven to Kingston en route to Archambault in the Province of Quebec, and why the telephone conference took place.
The Member for Burnaby talked about documents that went missing and about the transfer of Mr. Avrey. As I understand
November 25, 1987

his question of privilege, it is based on two separate points. One was the transfer of six inmates out of Millhaven on the eve of the visit of the parliamentary committee, and the second leg of his question of privilege concerned the evidence that was given to the committee by the parole officers on Monday evening in the Kingston area.
With regard to the first point, I was trying to indicate to the Chair the situation at Millhaven. It is tense. As the Chair may or may not know, the inmates are privy to television sets and information that is available to the general public. One must understand that the inmates are in their cells for 23 hours a day. They are watching the news and understand what is going on in the United States with the uprising in the two institutions there. They are aware of the work of the committee.
Six inmates were moved. On Monday morning, while we were at Collins Bay, the Member for Burnaby insisted that Mr. Avrey, whom we were told was a member of the inmate committee at Millhaven, be moved back to Millhaven, together with the others, in order to meet with the committee.


Svend Johannes Robinson: On a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I hear the Hon. Member for Burnaby on a point of order, I should perhaps make some comment here. I will, of course, hear the Hon. Member for Burnaby, but I say to the Hon. Member for York South-Weston that, perhaps after the Hon. Member for Burnaby has raised his point of order, the Chair needs to know whether the Hon. Member for York South-Weston is supporting the position the Hon. Member for Burnaby has taken or is rising to indicate that in the opinion of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston there is not a point of privilege here. That is the point in respect to which I think I am called upon to keep the debate.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I just wanted to suggest, with respect, precisely the same thing. There are two fundamental issues; the first is the question of the transfer of Mr. Avery, a member of the inmate committee, and the disappearance of his documents, and the second is with respect to the alleged interference with senior supervisors and suggestions with respect to their careers.
At no time did I suggest that all six of those who had been transferred be sent back to Millhaven. I certainly did ask that Mr. Avery, as a member of the inmates committee, be transferred back. I would hope the Hon. Member in recounting events, if they are to be relevant, at least would be accurate as well.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure all Hon. Members try very hard to be accurate and to the degree they succeed, the Chair is, of course, assisted.
Perhaps it is appropriate now for the Chair to respond partially to what I have heard. I will hear the Hon. Member
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
for York South-Weston, but, as I understand it, it is the intention of the Hon. Member for Burnaby that 1 consider whether or not two events that happened; first, the moving of one prisoner prior to the arrival of the committee and the apparent alleged disappearance of some documents; and, second, a further situation which the Hon. Member for Burnaby said took place in which he alleges there was some kind of pressure or interference by officials with those with whom the committee was meeting as people to give evidence about their duties and responsibilities and the work they were doing, constitute a question of privilege.
As I understand it, the combination of those alleged facts amounts, in the words of the Hon. Member for Burnaby, to a question of privilege because it was a deliberate attempt-that is the position of the Hon. Member-to keep the committee from getting information the committee indeed ought to have had. If I have misunderstood in any way the Hon. Member's position, then I am sure he will correct me, but it seems to me that that is the issue. I would ask Hon. Members when they rise to give me their help and confine themselves to that issue and resist any temptation to wander very far away from it, although hopefully most of the time we try to follow a bit of common sense, and it is impossible to discuss something like this without knowing a little of the background. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston has assisted the Chair in that. I do not think there is any need to go any further. I will hear the Hon. Member for York South-Weston and I hope he will keep in mind what 1 have just said.


John V. Nunziata: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the morning at Collins Bay Penitentiary we met with officials from the Correctional Service of Canada, in particular, those responsible for security at Millhaven Penitentiary. They confirmed in fact that the six inmates, including Mr. Avery, were moved. They also indicated to the committee that from a security perspective, it was not appropriate to move the inmates back. At that particular point in time I questioned the reasons the inmates were moved in the first place. I also pointed out to the committee that, having made that decision to move the inmates from Millhaven to Kingston, it was not within the jurisdiction of the committee to overrule the security staff and insist that these inmates, whether all six of them or Mr. Avery himself, be moved back to the institution.
They advised us if that were to occur, although it was physically possible to move these inmates and Mr. Avery back, it would not, from a security perspective, be a wise move.
On behalf of the Official Opposition I took the position that we ought to defer to the security people, to the Correctional Service of Canada. If something went wrong, I, as a member of the committee, did not want to be held responsible for overruling the advice of the security people. The security people advised us at that point in time-this is the Monday morning at Collins Bay-that an attempt would be made to hook up Mr. Avery by way of a telephone conference call with the inmate committee and the Standing Committee on Justice

November 25, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
and Solicitor General at Millhaven Institution, so, in effect, Mr. Avery could be present via telephone to make submissions to the committee and to his co-inmates who were on the inmate committee. The Hon. Member for Burnaby objected to this particular course of action.
We carried on with our responsibilities that day. When we returned to the hotel, the Ramada Inn in Kingston, the mother of Mr. Avery and his wife, together with a number of other wives of inmates, were at the hotel. They met with the Hon. Member for Burnaby. I also met with the women involved. I spoke to the father-in-law of another inmate who had been transferred. They asked me to visit Mr. Avery at Kingston Penitentiary. I told them I did not think it was necessary at that point in time.
As I understand, the Hon. Member for Burnaby did in fact go to Kingston Penitentiary that Monday night to visit with Mr. Avery, presumably to discuss the conditions at Millhaven Institution and to obtain whatever information was necessary to satisfy the Hon. Member. The following day members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General met with the inmate committee of Millhaven Institution. Mr. Avery was on the line from Kingston Penitentiary by way of a telephone hookup. He was able to hear what was happening at that particular meeting. He was able to make submissions. The chairman of the justice committee gave members of the inmate committee every opportunity to make submissions with regard to conditions at Millhaven Institution. Mr. Avery was given every opportunity. I, as a member of the committee, asked Mr. Avery a number of questions. I asked members of the inmate committee a number of questions. Documents were in fact presented to the committee by members of the inmate committee.
Mr. Avery did indicate over the telephone that he felt certain documents were missing from his file. Notwithstanding, Mr. Avery made submissions with regard to conditions at the penitentiary. This is where I part company with the Hon. Member for Burnaby. Rather than participating at that meeting, rather than trying to understand what was happening, the Hon. Member for Burnaby was not present at the meeting. He chose not to be present. Of course, he was not present with Mr. Avery at Kingston Penitentiary. Rather he chose to occupy his time elsewhere while the committee was meeting with Mr. Avery.
On the first point, with regard to the transfer of the inmates from Millhaven Institution to Kingston Penitentiary, it would be my respectful submission that there is not a breach of privilege. We might very well question the reasons these inmates were moved, and I intend to pursue that particular matter. I pursued the matter with the warden at Millhaven Institution. I asked him the reasons, and whether he considered it appropriate to move those inmates. Having made that decision to move the inmates, including Mr. Avery, the Correctional Service of Canada did give Mr. Avery the opportunity to speak to the committee. If the Hon. Member
for Burnaby had acted responsibly and participated in that meeting-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask that the Hon. Member for York South-Weston to put aside for the moment whatever views he might have of the conduct of any other member of the committee, and again confine his remarks, which he has done at least partially, to the question of privilege.
As I understand it, the Hon. Member for York South- Weston is taking the position with the Chair that, with respect to the movement of Avery or others, in his opinion, that does not constitute a question of privilege.
However, there is the other part of the question of privilege which is a serious matter as alleged by the Hon. Member for Burnaby, and that is the question of whether there was interference with employees of the service either designed to or having the effect of limiting the information that they wanted to give to the committee. I would ask that the Hon. Member for York South-Weston address that particular point.


John V. Nunziata: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To conclude the first point, the committee, the inmates involved, were given full opportunity to address the committee, make submissions, and present documents. At the conclusion of our meeting, we also invited the inmates' committee to forward any other documents to the committee for its consideration in its deliberations.
With regard to the second aspect of the Hon. Member's point of privilege, at that meeting on Monday evening at the staff headquarters in the Westlake Building, the parole officers made some very serious allegations.
I should point out that during the evidence given before the committee one particular parole officer read from a brief. At the conclusion of his submissions I asked that parole officer if he was prepared to leave a copy of the brief with the committee. Quite understandably, the parole officer was concerned with regard to his own future employment. At the beginning of his submissions he asked the committee if he could be given witness status. He also asked the committee if he could receive any assurance that his evidence could not be used against him. He made some very serious allegations. But I should point out that the evidence given by the parole officers was not direct evidence. The Hon. Member for Burnaby indicated that. He stated that the parole officer was told that his supervisor had attended a separate meeting. The parole officer was not present at the meeting, but he was told by someone else that that person was present at the meeting and certain information had transpired.
As a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, you understand the weight that ought to be given to hearsay evidence. Based on the evidence that was given to the parliamentary committee, the Hon. Member for Burnaby has drawn the following conclusions which I submit the evidence does not lead one to conclude, at
November 25, 1987

least at this point in time. The Hon. Member stated, "There was an attempt to gag, to muzzle, to influence the type of evidence to be presented to our committee". The Hon. Member for Burnaby also indicated that "the evidence was vetted". He also stated, "There was an attempt to manipulate evidence". At another point, the Hon. Member talked about the disappearance of key documents.
With regard to the muzzling, the gagging, or the attempt to influence, there is no direct evidence. There was no direct evidence before the committee. But having stated that, the allegations were serious enough to deserve an investigation. Even though the parole officers were not prepared "to go public", they did in fact give in camera evidence before a committee.
I hope that prior to drawing the conclusions that the Hon. Member for Burnaby has drawn, an opportunity will be given to investigate these particular allegations. As I understand, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) has undertaken to investigate the allegations in order to understand what occurred at the meetings in question, and then to report back to the House.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are always two sides to every story. Unfortunately, certain Members decide to draw conclusions after hearing only one side of a particular story. 1 would ask you, Sir, prior to making your decision in this matter, to hear the other side of the story. I do not know what the eventual investigation might show, but we have a responsibility to act responsibly in the circumstances rather than proceeding to condemn individuals and to draw conclusions before we have all the information before us.
There were other members of the justice committee who were present at the meetings in question. I hope that the Chair will at least seek the opinions of the others to determine what in fact is the accurate version of events.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments with respect to matters that arose from the submissions of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston who, at least until today, I had understood was the official critic of the Liberal Party. The Solicitor General seems to have jumped into bed with that Member. 1 want to suggest-


Mr. Speaker:: There is always a temptation to enter into some good-natured and partially partisan comment on the part of Hon. Members. When we are discussing a point of privilege, and especially where there is a suggestion made that something very serious might be taking place that ought not to have, 1 would ask that all Hon. Members refrain from making partisan comments and direct their remarks to the information that the Chair needs, and that is the issue of privilege which has been brought in front of the Chair.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will refrain from any further comment on the comments of the Hon. Member.
It was suggested that perhaps it might be appropriate to wait until the other members of the justice committee returned
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
to the House to raise this point. As Your Honour will confirm, there is a duty and obligation on Members of this House to bring to the attention of Your Honour, at the earliest possible opportunity, any alleged breach of privilege. 1 believe that in bringing this matter before the House today and asking that Your Honour reserve any decision until members of the justice committee have had an opportunity to make any submissions that they may see fit to make, I am performing the requirement that I have to perform in terms of the rules of this House in bringing the matter before Your Honour at the earliest possible opportunity and not waiting. The suggestion by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston that I should have waited to bring this matter before the House, and I know that he is a relatively new Member, but certainly with experience he will-


Mr. Speaker:: I have no quarrel with the Hon. Member for Burnaby for bringing the matter before the House today. Of course, there is a rule of which we are all very familiar, that a question of privilege should be brought at the earliest opportunity. From some things stated by the Hon. Member for Burnaby and the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, I took it that there is some disagreement between them over exactly how this might have been handled. That is a matter which is interesting to the Speaker, but it does not affect what the Speaker is called upon to do, and that is to either find a prima facie case of privilege, or to find that there is not a prima facie case of privilege.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby will conclude his remarks.


Svend Johannes Robinson: On that particular point, I wish to make it clear to Your Honour that while 1 was referring to two separate events, that is, the transfer of Avery in particular on the eve of our visit and, of course, linked to that the documents which disappeared which he wished to present to the committee on the one hand, and the meeting which took place with supervisors on the other, I was not in any way suggesting that those two events together constituted a breach of privilege.
Indeed, it is my submission that the alleged attempt to influence the nature of evidence given to the committee in and of itself constitutes a breach of privilege of Members of this House. I want it to be made very clear that I do not seek to establish any linkage between those two events.
In other words, should Your Honour find that there was not a breach of privilege with respect to the transfer of one of the prisoners, as my colleague for York South-Weston has suggested that, in my respectful submission, would in no way diminish the significance of the other circumstance with respect to breach of privilege.
Finally, I would note that while it has been suggested, again by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston in his submission, that there was no direct evidence with respect to the attempt to influence the information that came before the justice committee, surely that fundamentally misses the point.

November 25, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
The people who could give direct evidence of that were the same supervisors who were told that if they did in fact in any way contradict government policy, or criticize Correctional Service Canada, their jobs could be on the line. Obviously it is not surprising that those same individuals would not get up in front of their fellow supervisors and say to members of the justice committee they had been approached and it had been suggested to them that they not present the facts as they saw them. Of course that was not going to happen.
Fortunately, due to the courage of one parole officer, we learned that in his conversations with his supervisor that his supervisor told him that this is what had happened. I am suggesting that this allegation is serious enough that it warrants careful examination by the appropriate committee of the House. The fact that it was not made directly by one of the individuals involved is neither here nor there, particularly given the fact that after the supervisors left it was suggested by parole officers themselves that in a number of respects their evidence was not in fact entirely accurate, particularly with respect to the impact of privatization.
I would hope that Your Honour would recognize that in terms of the integrity of this process, in terms of the privileges of Members of the House, and in terms of the fundamental importance of individuals seeking to give evidence in a totally unfettered manner before a committee of the House, it is absolutely essential that we get to the bottom of the matter. It is not good enough to leave that investigation to the Solicitor General. It is not his privileges as Solicitor General which have been breached. Rather, it is the privileges of each and every member of the house. As the guardian and custodian of those privileges, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that you would make the necessary finding with respect to a prima facie breach of those privileges in order that the House might conduct the proper investigation.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to be brief and I will attempt not to stray too far from the point.
I think it has been accepted by all Parties that I was not there and that I was not directly involved in this matter. Indeed, it is not a matter involving the House per se, but a matter involving the parliamentary committee.
Having said that, with respect to the transfer of inmates I basically accept the submission put forward by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) in that indeed they were transferred for security reasons and that, upon hearing the request to have Mr. Avery participate, I am advised that a conference call was arranged so that he could participate to that extent.
I am also advised that at the request of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) a special visit was facilitated to
Kingston Penitentiary for the Hon. Member so that he could visit with Mr. Avery, and I understand he did.
With respect to the second point, I really cannot comment in the sense that that meeting was held in camera. None of my officials, none of the officials of the Solicitor General's Department, and nobody from Correction Service Canada was involved or present at that meeting, so I am not in a position to comment other than to say that I put the general question to the Commissioner on whether or not he gave any instructions, or if he was aware of any instructions by anyone in his department, to attempt to influence, muzzle, or gag the evidence given by any of the employees of CSC.
It seems to me from a brief discussion I had with the chairman of the committee over the noon hour that indeed there was some evidence put forward at the in camera meeting which was could be paraphrased, I guess legally, as hearsay. Beyond that I am really not in a position to comment.
It seems to me that the committee is seized of this matter, and I submit that it is a matter for the committee to decide at this point. It is open to the committee, certainly upon their return, to decide how to deal with these allegations.
I will certainly facilitate the committee in any way to make witnesses available and to carry out necessary investigations or things of that nature, but I do not think that it is a question of a breach of privilege per se in the House.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the second leg of the question of privilege, I should make clear to the Chair that the parole officers involved did in fact have an in camera meeting with the committee. They in fact had the opportunity to speak frankly, and in fact they did speak frankly because they made certain allegations. The committee met with them. They heard the evidence. The people who gave evidence at that particular committee chose not to "go public" or to allow their brief to be part of the proceedings of the committee. They just brought certain matters to the attention of the committee. The committee was not given any documentary evidence or direct evidence. They were presented with hearsay evidence, and I leave that with the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: This is an important matter. I notice that the Hon. Member for Burnaby might want to say a few more words, but I will accept what I think was the original invitation of the Hon. Member for Burnaby to hear other submissions that might assist me, and this afternoon adjourn the matter. I will have discussions with all Hon. Members; there are other Hon. Members who very well may want to make a comment. I wonder if I could indicate to the Hon. Member for Burnaby that I will hear him again but that at the moment 1 think it is appropriate to adjourn the matter. I thank all Members for the assistance which they have given to me.
November 25, 1987



Mr. Speaker:: I should like to deliver a brief ruling. On October 30, 1987, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) rose to express his view that his privilege as a Member of Parliament had been breached when Canada's Ambassador and Chief Negotiator for Trade with the United States was reported to have likened opponents to free trade to Nazis. The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) also found offence in the report of Ambassador Reisman's remarks.
The Chair has had an opportunity to review the matter and must point out to the House that, as stated at the time by the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis), comments made outside the House are not likely to prevent Members from doing their jobs properly, which as Hon. Members know is the essence of privilege.
It is very important, again to the public who are watching and listening, to indicate that something can be inflammatory, can be disagreeable, and can even be offensive, but it may not be a question of privilege unless the comment actually impinges upon the ability of Members of Parliament to do their job properly.
Without belabouring the point, I would refer Hon. Members briefly to a decision by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on April 29, 1971, when he said in part:
In my view, parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of
free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a member to discharge
his duties in the House as a member of the House of Commons.
Hon. Members will understand, of course, that the position taken by the Chair in no way condones the sort of language attributed to Ambassador Reisman. However his remarks, whatever they may have been, remain beyond the scope of the privileges of this House.



Mr. Speaker:: The very same day, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Mrs. Copps) rose on a question of privilege, separate but connected, interpreting the statements made by the Minister of Internal Trade (Mrs. Carney) during the Question Period as an indication that she was supporting the comments made by Ambassador Reisman.

I have carefully examined the official report of that day's Debates and I find that what was said, at least in the opinion of the Chair, does not amount to evidence of that suggestion.
Petitions
I thank Hon. Members again for their interventions. I hope my comments today have helped clarify the matter.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: for leave to introduce Bill C-91, an Act to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to table in the House a petition with 272 signatures which are to be added to the other 30,463 which I have already tabled. The petitioners are residents of Chibouga-mau, Dolbeau, Saint-Gedeon, Saint-Prime, Roberval, Magog, Saint-Tite, Cap-Desrosiers, LaSalle, Metabetchouan, Sherbrooke, Saint-Felicien, Albanel, Gaspe, Lac Megantic, Joliette, Alma, Verdun, Laval, Sainte-Foy, Murdochville, Montreal, Shawinigan, Grand-Mere, Matapedia, Mistassini, Trois-Rivieres.
Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are asking Parliament to make it compulsory for car manufacturers to install inflatable air bags to protect front seat drivers, and to provide backseat drivers with adjustable combination lap-shoulder safety belts.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have a duly certified petition with several hundred names on it coming mostly from Port Alberni, but also from a number of other British Columbia communities on the coast including Victoria, Powell River, Mansons Landing, Vancouver, Qualicum, Courtenay, Campbell River, Nanaimo, Tahsis,

November 25, 1987
Order Paper Questions
Tofino, Denman Island, Parksville, Ahousat, Surrey and Malahat.
The petitioners point out that there is a great danger of accidents while nuclear armed and/or nuclear powered ships are in Canadian ports. There is a threat to the environment and to Canadian citizens. Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to urge the Government not to purchase nuclear powered submarines for Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-51, an Act to prohibit the advertising and promotion and respecting the labelling and monitoring of tobacco products, be read a second time and referred to the Legislative Committee considering Bill C-204 (Non-smokers' Health Act).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question on on the motion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the legislative committee considering Bill C-204 (Nonsmokers' Health Act).

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Gerry Weiner (for Minister of Employment and Immigration), moved that Bill C-90, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker and Hon. Members, today I am pleased to begin the debate on Bill C-90. This Bill is an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act to extend the variable entrance requirement, the VER.
According to the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act a person applying for UI benefits must have a minimum of 14 weeks to qualify. But since the late 1970s the VER has been used to make this requirement more flexible and responsive to the needs of unemployed Canadians, especially those numerous Canadians who lose their jobs and have 10 to 13 weeks of insurable employment to their credit. According to the VER, the number of weeks that an unemployment insurance claimant needs to qualify depends on the rate of unemployment in the region where he or she lives. Therefore, in regions of high unemployment claimants can qualify for benefits with as few as 10 weeks of insurable employment.
As Hon. Members know, the present VER legislation is in effect only until January 3, 1988. We propose to renew it again in order to enable thousands of Canadians living in regions where the economy is weaker to qualify for UI benefits.
Statistics show that the Canadian economy is doing well. The country as a whole has gained an extensive new lease on life since the recession and it is continuing. However, in some regions economic recovery is slower and the rate of unemployment remains higher than the national average.
The principle of the VER recognizes that it is more difficult to find and keep a job in a region of high unemployment. This is, in fact, one of the most important aspects of the UI program since it takes into account the labour market conditions in each region of the country. If the VER is not renewed, Mr. Speaker, all claimants will, as of January 4, 1988, have to show that they have 14 weeks of insurable employment in order to be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. This means that more than 100,000 unemployed Canadians could be unable to meet the entrance requirements
November 25, 1987
[Stage Direction]
to receive U1 benefits. Thousands of Canadians would thus find themselves in difficulty and most would have to turn to other sources to support themselves and their families. They would inevitably have an impact on provincial welfare programs. Our Government wishes to continue to provide financial support to Canadians in the designated regions, that is, to those who need it the most. It is important that Bill C-90, which renews the VER for a 12-month period, be passed as quickly as possible. In this way, unemployment insurance claimants will know where they stand with regard to their entitlements.
As I mentioned earlier, the VER enables us to recognize economic disparity between regions when deciding the entitlement of UI claimants. It is in this connection that the VER was created and it is for this reason that we want to continue it for the next year.
I am asking for the support of all Members in passing this amendment for the renewal of the VER for a 12-month period until January 3, 1989.
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Government and the Minister finally saw the light, even if for only a short period of time, on the issue of the variable entrance requirement. It was only a few short months ago that we heard the Minister and the Government speculating about abolishing the variable entrance requirement.
Obviously the Government and the Minister have had a conversion on the road to Damascus. Only a few short months ago, they believed that those who are unemployed in Toronto, where there is an unemployment rate which is currently at about 5 per cent, should have the same access to the unemployment insurance fund as those who are unemployed in St. John's or the riding of Gander-Twillingate, areas which have unemployment rates of approximately 18 per cent, 20 per cent or 25 per cent depending upon the age group.
When we in the Opposition got wind of the fact that the Government was planning to change the variable entrance requirement and to make the application of unemployment insurance eligibility equal across Canada, regardless of the employment situation, regardless of regional disparities, regardless of inequities, we of course raised Cain in the House of Commons and in the communities. We convinced the Government to back off on its intention to change the variable entrance requirement.
The variable entrance requirement means that for those in Toronto to qualify for unemployment insurance, they have to be unemployed for more weeks than those in St. John's because the general unemployment rate is lower and theoretically the chances of finding a job are better in Toronto than they are in St. John's. Hence it is called the variable entrance requirement. It is a principle in which we believe. We think it is primary to redressing some of the regional inequities and
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
imbalances in Canada. Unfortunately, the Government does not agree with that.
This particular piece of legislation only extends the variable entrance requirement for one more year. If the Government really believed, as we do, that it is important to allow a more liberal interpretation of the unemployment insurance system in areas with high unemployment, it would have extended it for five years. I believe, although I stand to be corrected, that when previous Liberal Governments introduced variable entrance requirements, the extension periods were generally up to five years. The Minister is shaking his head to signify no, so I stand corrected.
Clause 1(6) of the Bill reads in part: "during the period of 133 months," and the figure 33 is the change in the legislation. Presumably, at one time someone had agreed to have the variable entrance requirement in effect for 100 months because that is the way the Act was written.
We will certainly support the variable entrance requirement and we believe in it. Indeed, we prevailed upon the Government to keep it a part of the unemployment insurance system. However, we want to know why the Government is extending it for only one year.
I have a theory which I would like to propose for consideration by the House today. We know that 1988 will be a tumultuous year for the Government. When the variable entrance requirement was originally introduced by the Liberal Government, there was no possibility of the existence of the Prime Minister's free trade agreement with President Reagan, but there is such an agreement now. We know that a preliminary agreement was signed on October 4, and we know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is determining the timetable of that particular piece of legislation, an agreement of 2,000 pages we have not even seen yet, so that it is passed by January 2 because the Prime Minister wants to have his picture taken with the President. It is a sad and sorry situation when the Parliament of Canada has its agenda determined by a photo opportunity.
Thankfully, the American Congress's timetable stretches for a little longer. The American timetable requires that once the President signs the document, it returns to Congress for further consideration. There could be several months of delays before American Congressmen do or do not put their John Henrys to the document along with the Ron Reagan and the Martin Brian.
When Congress finally agrees to this bad deal-and I am sure it will want to sign it because it is certainly in its best interests-we may have a period of grace of about a year from now. Let us say that the whole thing is cleaned up by next fall. The Minister's agreement to extend the variable entrance requirement for only one year is a clear message that he wants to leave the option open at the end of next year to do away with the variable entrance requirement. He wants to ensure that if the Government decides to abolish the variable entrance

November 25, 1987
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
requirement, the door will be open to do so. In fact, this provision is rather short lived for a piece of legislation.
Why would there be any relationship between the variable entrance requirement and the trade deal? There is an element of the deal that has not been thoroughly exposed to public discussion, and I believe the public has a right to know about it.
We have heard the Prime Minister and the various Ministers in the House, on the hustings and up and down the streets of Portage and Main and the streets of Montreal, say that our social programs have remained untouched by this deal. In fact, because there is no guarantee that our social programs will be protected, our social programs are indeed very much up for grabs. Our unemployment insurance scheme is very much subject to a possible frontal assault by the Americans, and I will explain how that may occur.
When the Canadians decided that they wanted to get themselves into this deal with the Americans, one of their stated objectives was to guarantee access to the American market and another was to eliminate these trade irritants that are constantly cropping up, trade irritants like the one that cropped up when the Americans complained that our fishermen were unfairly subsidized because they received unemployment insurance benefits during the off season. Our Prime Minister promised that, in hammering out this deal, he would deal with the question of the American perception of what constitutes an unfair subsidy. However, he failed. The Americans and the Canadians could not come to any kind of reconciliation on what constitutes an unfair subsidy, so they agreed that they would hammer out this rather contentious and thorny issue over the next five to seven years.
We have a trade deal where Canada is giving away energy, and control over our own drug prices and investment. At the same time we have not managed to secure from the Americans once and for all a guarantee of what constitutes a subsidy.


An Hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member says "nonsense". Yesterday I stood in this House with four glossy documents, part of the $12.5 million propaganda package put out by the Government which, thank God, the CBC in Saskatchewan has been smart enough not to air across that province, and I defy any Member of this House to stand up and show me where it contains an explicit exemption for medicare, unemployment insurance- this is relevant.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to bring to the attention of the Hon. Member, who has been here now for three years, that there is such a thing as relevancy. I know the Hon. Member is getting to the Bill and I am sure she will carry on.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is very relevant. Over the next five to seven years we and the Americans have to sit down and negotiate exactly what constitutes an unfair subsidy. The Americans have already shown their cards in that they claimed that our fishermen were receiving unfair subsidy by receiving unemployment benefits in the off season. They would not receive those benefits if we did not have a variable entrance requirement. If you had the same regulations in St. John's, Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, or Gander-Twillingate as you do in Toronto, then you would not be able to give fishermen unemployment insurance benefits. My premise in standing up to highlight the Government's failure to extend this legislation beyond one year is based on the fact that it wants to leave the door open to cave in to the Americans on the trade deal as it relates to unemployment insurance and it does not want to close off its options.
What if the Americans and Canadians sit down over the next five years and decide, for example, that pregnancy leave is an unfair subsidy? Millions of women in Canada of childbearing age are eligible for paid leave while they have children. That is acknowledged and accepted by all Canadians. There was some reluctance on the Conservative side when the legislation was initially introduced, but it exists nonetheless. It is a statement we make as a society that we value our children, our families, and the women of this country. We feel they need time to nurture their children.


Mr. Thacker:: Unless they are the unborn.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Pardon me?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Unless they are the unborn.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member is getting on to another subject, which is important but not relevant to this particular discussion.
If the Canadian negotiators hold true to the form in which they gave away FIRA, drug prices and everything else before they even got to the negotiating table, we may find ourselves three, five or seven years from now bargaining away things like maternity benefits. We may bargain away unemployment insurance benefits for fishermen. We may accede to claims made by the Americans that medicare is an unfair subsidy.


Mr. Mayer:: What a bunch of nonsense.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Now we are getting into the nitty-gritty of what this bad deal is about and why the Government refuses to extend it beyond one year.


Charles James Mayer: Why not blame the snowstorm on the agreement and get everything in there?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry this Bill is being rammed through in order to provide a photo opportunity for the Prime Minister. However, I hope Canadians will start to look at exactly what this deal is going to mean for them.
November 25, 1987

I am a Canadian who has seen the American system. That system does not want pregnancy benefits. It does not believe in a variable entrance requirement for unemployment insurance. That system is, generally speaking, not as supportive of its female half. The American Constitution has not even recognized women's equality.
If I were running an American company which was in a sector predominantly employing women, and I saw that my Canadian counterpart had a chance to keep all his skilled labour on during pregnancy because the Government offered pregnancy benefits, I would go to my Government and say that the Canadian Government is offering pregnancy benefits and that it is an unfair subsidy; it is putting me at a disadvantage. The women in my company do not get paid when they leave for that reason and I often lose good labour and the possibility to compete as a result. This is possible because the two parties in this bad Mulroney-Reagan deal have not been able to come together and define specifically what constitutes a subsidy. Everything and anything is up for grabs, including medicare, pregnancy benefits, and child care benefits.
The Minister is shaking his head. I believe that is the reason he is bringing in a variable entrance requirement which will be good for only one year. He does not want to lock us into a long-term strategy which says that in various parts of Canada we can be unemployed for varying periods of time and still qualify for unemployment insurance. He wants to leave the door open to cave in to the American claim, which has already been made, that Canadian fishermen are unfairly subsidized because they get unemployment insurance benefits during the non-fishing season. Unfortunately, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) does not understand the unemployment insurance system. If he did, he would know that a claim of unfair subsidy has already been laid by the Americans in this respect, and one way the Government will be able to cave in to the American demand is by abolishing-


Charles James Mayer: But it was not substantiated.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -the variable entrance requirements, which will then set a uniform policy across the country. That means that if you are living in Toronto or Corner Brook or Victoria, you will have to be unemployed for the same number of weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance. I am sorry he does not understand the system. If he did, he would realize that the reason the Government is bringing in this legislation for only one year is to keep its option open.
Mr. Speaker, this is why I am very glad we were able to convince the Government not to implement Mr. Forget's recommendations concerning unemployment insurance. For a while the Government did toy with the idea of doing away with what is called the variable entrance requirement.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
I am glad the Government finally saw eye to eye with the Liberal Party which said that the legislation should contain provisions to account for different circumstances in different regions of the country. For instance, as a result of measures taken by this Government with respect to lumber, workers in northern Ontario or northern Quebec are now without jobs. And if the unemployment rate is higher in Timmins, Cochrane or Kaspuskasing, for example, these workers must have more ready access to unemployment insurance benefits than others in Toronto where the lower unemployment rate ranges from 4 to 5 per cent.
This principle, which aims at reducing to a certain extent the disparities between the regions, has always had the support of successive Liberal Governments. We all know that there are regional disparities and that unemployment is now very low in Southern Ontario. On the other hand, in Newfoundland, where unemployment is quite high, if you live in a town where unemployment has reached 13, 15 or 20 per cent, it is much better to have faster access to unemployment benefits than if you live in a town where unemployment is only 5, 6 or 7 per cent and where there are more job opportunities.
In rejecting the recommendations of Mr. Forget to make the system uniform and the same for everyone, which would disadvantage those who live far from the business centres where unemployment is low, why is the Government extending application of the Act by only one year? Why not ask for five years to reassure all the workers that the rules of the game will not change during the negotiation of the Mulroney-Reagan agreement? The reason why it is interesting to examine this Bill in the context of the Mulroney-Reagan agreement is that we already know what is going on, in spite of the protests of the Prime Minister. Not too many Canadians may have believed him, but he has stated both in the House and elsewhere that our social programs would never be touched.
Mr. Speaker, I challenge any Member of this House to show me what guarantees have been included in the text of the Agreement for our senior citizens or for unemployment insurance. These guarantees do not exist.
Actually, Canada and the United States could not agree on what is meant by a subsidy. As we know, fishermen have already been hit by a claim from the Americans indicating that unemployment insurance benefits to our fishermen were an unfair subsidy. That already has been going on. It is in all our newspapers. We know our fishermen are threatened by that claim from the Americans that unemployment insurance benefits to fishermen are an unfair subsidy.
The Canadian Government and the Americans could not agree on what constitutes a subsidy. In the matter for instance of maternity benefits to women, and as we know we have programs in Canada to help women so that they may have 60 per cent of their salary paid by the unemployment insurance program. Will the Americans claim, once the agreement is signed, because there is nothing written down to guarantee those programs to Canadians, will they claim before the

November 25, 1987
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
binational tribunal that in women intensive industries-with women at child bearing age-women benefits are an unfair subsidy? If they do that, and if the binational tribunal finds that unemployment insurance benefits to fishermen, UI benefits to pregnant women, old age security pensions, medicare programs are unfair subsidies, we will have to withdraw those benefits because of that Reagan-Mulroney deal.
This is why, Mr. Speaker,-and it is not hard to guess what the motives of this Government are-this bill which has its roots in liberalism, should take into account the differences between the various regions as far as the accessibility to unemployment insurance is concerned. Why just a one-year extension? I think, Mr. Speaker, that the reason why there is just a one-year extension is that the Government wants to maintain its right of withdrawing those benefits either from fishermen or women in different regions and to replace the variable entrance requirement with a standardized system which would be agreeable to the Americans.
The Government is not trying to give Canadians a satisfactory system by introducing a bill which will aplly during only one year. It wants to leave the door open and be ready to say by next year to fishermen and pregnant women: We are sorry, but the Americans have decided it is an unfair subsidy that should be withdrawn. What other motive . . . The Minister has left because he is afraid of having to answer the question. He thought he could conceal the problem to the Opposition and say: "Well, it is a fine bill and we will acept it". We would be ready to approve or endorse it but for more than a year, Mr. Speaker. If the bill is to be in effect for only one year, it is obviously because this Government wants to use an option in the Mulroney-Reagan deal to question the possibility of providing unemployment insurance to fishermen, women and people living in remote areas such as northern Quebec and keep the door open to a plan already set up by the Americans, a plan to pay fishermen which should be scrapped.
That is the position of the Americans who seem to think that handing out unemployment insurance benefits to fishermen should be against the law. But we strongly disagree with that policy. We believe that with this kind of variable entrance requirement we guarantee and protect the right of Canadians from coast to coast to benefit from or have access to programs designed to restore some form of economic balance between regions. Mr. Speaker, the reason why the Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds) (Mr. Mayer) gets so upset when I raise the matter of benefits for pregnant women, benefits for fishermen, and even benefits for medical assistance such as Medicare, benefits for the elderly and pensions, the reason why he is so upset is that he does not want Canadian men and women to realize the full impact the Reagan-Mulroney agreement might have.
Mr. Speaker, all we are asking the Government, anxious as it is to have the Prime Minister photographed with the President of the United States on January 2, all we are asking the Government is at least to give Canadians all the facts. And
one of these facts, as I see it, highlighted by the ever so slow decision-making process of the Government in introducing this unemployment insurance change for only one year ... The Government cannot guarantee that no existing or future social program will be affected by the Mulroney-Reagan Agreement. And it cannot give us this guarantee because of a major flaw in their approach. They wanted that trade deal at all cost. The Prime Minister himself said that before striking a deal he wanted to know precisely what would be accepted by the Americans in terms of subsidies. But why is there nothing in writting in the four documents that have been published and distributed by the Government? Why is there nothing in writting saying that the prime Minister will guarantee to Canadians that unemployment insurance benefits will not be affected by this deal, that maternity benefits or medicare will remain untouched? He should guarantee that there will be no change-even if we know that he has already made that kind of commitment, which was worthless anyhow-and that old age security benefits will not be affected by this deal.
Why could they not agree with Americans on what constitutes and unfair subsidy?
OO)

It could not decide or get together with the Americans to agree on what constituted an unfair subsidy. Therefore, it left everything out of the agreement but claims that medicare and pregnancy benefits are safe. However, the opposite is true. There is nothing in writing. Since the two parties have agreed to sit down to negotiate over the next five to seven years what constitutes an unfair subsidy, it is quite clear that our social programs are at risk not only in the future but now. It is quite clear that our unemployment insurance benefits are at risk.
The Americans have already stated their intention to argue that fishermen's benefits are an unfair subsidy. The Americans and Canadians could rationalize that the fishermen are only a small portion of the population who can be cut away as bait and negotiated away in the same fashion as the wine industry and grape growers were negotiated away.
We may see the fishermen ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits some three to seven years down the road. The variable entrance requirement is the key element to fishermen having access to the benefits about which we are speaking.
Why does the Minister introduce a Bill that only extends the period for one year if the Government is convinced that unemployment insurance is not up for grabs in the trade deal? Why does it not extend the period for seven years, beyond the period of negotiation for unfair subsidy, so that Canadians will know that the Government has committed itself in writing to five to seven years of variable entrance requirements, thereby guaranteeing that this particular program will not be put up for grabs during the period of negotiation of an unfair subsidy?
November 25, 1987

I suggest that this one-year extension dovetails rather nicely with the time by which the American Congress is expected to pass the trade deal and when it could possibly take effect in a number of sectors. It is possible that next year, after the Government has its trade deal it could do away with the variable entrance requirement.
Perhaps we will hear that this measure was simply introduced to keep the Opposition quiet and that the Government does not sincerely believe that someone from Gander

Twillingate should have access to unemployment insurance more quickly than someone from Toronto, even though the unemployment insurance rate may be 15 or 20 points higher. If that is not the hidden agenda of the Government, why does the Minister propose to extend this for only one year? Why does he not introduce a Bill that will extend it for five to seven years in order to give Canadians the assurance they want?
Frankly, we do not trust the negotiating skills of the Prime Minister. I believe the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) is well motivated. One could breathe a little easier if he were prepared to maintain the variable entrance requirement for the next five to seven years as part of the unemployment insurance package, in the knowledge that our fishermen will be protected and women will still have the option to take pregnancy leave.
The Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds suggested that I might as well blame the snowfall on this trade deal. I bring to his attention that it is not only the Opposition that has called the future of Canada's social programs into question.
The President of the British Columbia Business Council appeared before the trade committee. We know that British Columbians are forthright and honest, and he told the committee that while he favoured the deal, it could put medicare at risk.
The committee holding hearings on the free trade talks is only visiting the capital cities of each province. It listened to a total of eight interest groups from British Columbia, four of whom were picked by the Government, two by the Liberals and two by the NDP. One of those four chosen by the Government members of the committee was the President of the British Columbia Business Council. He finally admitted that the assertion by the Opposition as well as the National AntiPoverty Organization, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and people throughout the country was correct, that our social programs and the unemployment insurance variable entrance requirement, which is a key foundation to the unemployment insurance system, are at risk.
This business spokesman who came before the committee said that this particular deal will pose a threat to medicare.


Mr. Holtmann:: It proves we are not biased when we select our people.


Sheila Maureen Copps: They are not biased when they select their people. The Member agrees with the President of the British
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
Columbia Business Council who says that medicare will be threatened as a result of this deal.
Let us get beyond the dollars and cents argument and the glowing rhetoric of the Prime Minister who says that this deal will mean new prosperity and will open new boundaries. The fact is that it will be a continental economic constitution, as referred to by the President of the United States. We are concerned about the impact of this deal on our way of life in Canada, on the education of our children, on the kind of health care system we have, and on the kind of unemployment insurance mechanisms we have to help those who need that social safety net when they are out of a job. Not only are these concerns being expressed by members of the Opposition, but they are also expressed by those Canadians who have been characterized by Government spokesmen as Nazis and regional racists because they want to know what will happen to such things as pregnancy leave and unemployment insurance benefits.
Why did the Government not get a written guarantee in the deal that these programs would never be touched? It could not agree so it said: "We will sign the deal. We will give away energy, drug prices, foreign investment, and in the next five to seven years we will renegotiate what constitutes an unfair subsidy". As far as I am concerned, this particular Bill, the variable entrance requirement which is extended for only one year, is a further piece of evidence to show that the Government's long-term agenda is to dismantle our social programs and our unemployment insurance as we now know it. I would love to go on in much greater detail, but I see the clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-90 which is the extension of the variable entrance requirement for a year. We all know that this variable entrance requirement came about because the previous Liberal Government, in its wisdom, saw the need. In fact, it was going to be a wait of 14 weeks before one was able to collect unemployment insurance. I sat on the committee when Bud Cullen was the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and there was considerable flak from the back-benchers, so the Trudeau Government of the day backed off and brought in this variable entrance requirement. In fact, it wrote into the Bill that after a certain period of time the variable entrance requirement would be dropped and 14 weeks would apply right across the country.
I thought I should give you that background information, Mr. Speaker, to this debate on Bill C-90. Subsequent Governments since that time, as the clock hands moved closer together to 12, always brought in a Bill to extend the variable entrance requirements. This is why this Bill is before us today.
In 1984 we had to bring in a Bill. In 1985 and in 1986, we had to bring in a Bill, and now here we are at the crucial hour and we have another Bill before us. The New Democratic

November 25, 1987
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
Party caucus has no problem with supporting this Bill. I want to assure the Minister that we can go bang, bang, bang and put it through all stages. However, 1 want to use this opportunity to say a few things about the unemployment insurance program and about its administration.
First, the very fact that the Government has to extend the variable entrance requirement is an admission that it has not done a very good job, indeed, it has done a very poor job, in ensuring that in the hinterland of this country, in the regions, employment is created. I know the Government boasts about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been created. If it has done that, Newfoundland should not still be sitting at 17 per cent unemployment. If the Government had been successful in dispersing employment evenly across the country, there would be no need for a variable entrance requirement. It is an admission of failure on the part of the Government. It knows that it would not be politically wise to let the variable entrance requirement of 10 weeks to 14 weeks die in January of 1988 and go to a 14 week period across the country because it would receive a considerable amount of flack. Its job-creation programs have not done the job they should have done, particularly in the regions, and we now have the spectre of the Government entering into a free trade deal, and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) saying that we can expect the loss of up to 500,000 jobs.
While urban centres in central Canada will be hard hit by the Minister's prediction, think, Mr. Speaker, of what it will do to the hinterland of the country. For example, in my riding the present unemployment rate is 11 per cent. In Newfoundland it is 17 per cent. In many regions we are looking at double-digit unemployment. We really have not improved the situation in the hinterland, and everyone cannot live in Toronto, I want to tell the Government that. Many of us who live in northern Ontario would like to remain there and raise their families there.


Mr. Keeper:: There are no houses in Toronto.


John R. Rodriguez: People moving to Toronto are creating all sorts of social problems. There is a lack of housing. We know about the overloaded sewage disposal system. We know about all of those things. They are very evident. The Minister himself said that because of the free trade deal this country could lose up to 500,000 jobs. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in his speech to the Exporters of Canada here in Ottawa said that labour adjustment programs would have to be put in place. Then we have an argument in this House as to whether he said it, or who said it, and he said he said it and who said he said he said it, and he did not say he said it. No one believes that Party over there any more, anyway, and this just reinforces the fact that the Prime Minister is not believable on this issue.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration said we would lose up to 500,000 jobs. Just six months or seven months previously the Solicitor General, the Hon. Member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Kelleher), said we would lose up to 800,000 jobs. At the time he was Minister for International Trade.
That is what the Government said. Let us keep that in mind. This is not scare-mongering by the New Democratic Party. It comes from the lips of government Members who hope we will forget. I want to say that I am quoting Ministers of the Crown. They are the ones who are declaring that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost to the economy.
The second thing that bothers me about this legislation has to do with the deficit in the unemployment insurance program. A short while ago the Minister announced that he was not touching the premium rate for unemployment insurance, that is, the amount of money paid into unemployment insurance by employers and employees. In fact what he did was to increase the level of the maximum insurable earnings. He went on to say he was not touching the premium rate, leading people to think that somehow or other they will not have an increase in what they are paying into the unemployment insurance program. I think that was pure subterfuge because, in fact, by increasing the maximum insurable earnings, the average employee will pay some $43 a year more, and employers, since they pay 60 per cent and the employees pay 40 per cent, will pay some $57 more a year. Small businesses will pay $57 more a year per employee.
So while the Government did not cut the premium rate by adjusting the maximum insurable earnings upwards, it is collecting and taking from each employee an average of $43 per year more. What is the Minister going to do with that money? He stated that he wants to retire the deficit in the unemployment insurance program. That deficit was accrued in a period of recession in the early 1980s.
I wish you to keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, those figures that I am putting on the record. In 1986, the unemployment insurance program generated a surplus of $721 million based on the present rate structure. All of that $721 million was applied to the deficit. Based on the present rate structure, the projected surplus this year in the unemployment insurance fund will be $1.6 billion. That is the surplus, and it will be applied to the deficit. It took four years of recession to run up the deficit in the fund. Employees are now paying large amounts of money out of their pay-cheques and pockets as premiums, and small businesses are paying considerable amounts of money per employee into the unemployment insurance fund, and it is generating those types of surpluses.
This is the moment while the Government is adjusting the maximum insurable earnings upward-and I have no problem with that-to cut the premium rate. By increasing the maximum insurable earnings, if it could take in the same amount of money, in the next fiscal year the Government could generate another $1.6 billion. This is the time to give a break to employees and small businesses. Instead, the Minister is keeping the rate at the present level and increasing the maximum insurable earnings. If the present state of affairs continues, I would project that in the next fiscal year there would be a surplus in that fund of more than $2.3 billion.
November 25, 1987

There is no reason for this type of pick-pocketing by the Government. That is what it is, it is pick-pocketing by the Government. 1 say to the Government, shame on you. At a time when the fund is generating those types of surpluses-and I know that Tory back-benchers will all think it is the appropriate time to privatize the unemployment insurance program, we know that that is what we might hear from them-this is the time to give workers and small-businessmen a break on unemployment insurance.


Jack Harris: Why won't they?


John R. Rodriguez: The Hon. Member for St, John's East (Mr. Harris) says, "Why won't they?" I simply think that it is once again the bureaucracy in the Employment and Immigration Department exercising undue direction to the Minister. This is a Department where the bureaucracy runs the elected officials.
I have looked at this Department long and hard, and I think that the direction has come from the Deputy Minister and those minions and nabobs who surround and advise him. They want to be able to say that they wiped off the deficit in jig time. "We are efficient administrators". It is an indirect taxation on workers and employers in this country.
They all talk about getting government off the backs of workers and employers. Here was a chance to give them a break. Instead, the Government wishes to get that deficit back in 2.5 years rather than over a period of four years. That is my concern.
The other concern I have is about this variable entrance requirement. I am not as paranoid as the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) who spoke before me. The Hon. Member saw this as some plot with respect to the free trade deal coming in for one year and then cutting out unemployment insurance. I have a similar concern, because when the free trade discussions commenced, we started to get leaks from behind closed doors that the Americans wanted our social programs on the table. Remember that our UI was on the table, our medicare program was on the table, our family allowances were on the table. Old Simon came to the rescue, and Simon says, "We got them to take it off the table".
It does not take a heck of a lot of ingenuity to figure out that the Americans won this one, because they took it off the table and they have seven years to define a subsidy. It will take seven years once the economy of this country gets locked in with the American economy, and how are we going to say no? We will have been in there for seven years, and then we will find out that the Americans will bargain toughly, and that indeed we have unfairly subsidized, for example, fishermen on the East Coast with unemployment insurance.
I am amazed at how naive the Government is on the whole question of the free trade agreement and the possible impacts that it might have on our unemployment insurance program and our other programs such as medicare, family allowance, maternity benefits, and a whole host of others.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
It seems to me that, while we have no quarrel with the principles of the Bill, and we are prepared to have the Bill go through in jig time, we have to ask, what was the Government's intention with unemployment insurance?
We remember those intentions very clearly in November, 1984 when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) made his financial statement in the House and announced severe cutbacks to the unemployment insurance program. It was designed to take some $500 million out of the unemployment insurance program. The Government received a considerable amount of flak. As a result, the Forget Commission was established to study the unemployment insurance program. We all saw behind that a sinister move on the part of a Government that was mesmerized by cut-backs and cutting deficits. We saw a sinister move by the Government to get a report that would recommend Draconian changes to the unemployment insurance program.
Sure enough, Mr. Speaker, you could have laid your money on it and you would have got no odds at all, because Claude Forget produced a report that this Government would surely have loved to have taken to its bosom to implement. The people of Canada put heat on the Government, as surely as they will put heat on the government Members in respect of the free trade agreement. They will put their feet to the fire. They will stick matches under their toe-nails and light them. It seems that that is the only way that we can make an impression on the other region of their anatomy. It seems that we must do something extreme to the bottom end to get something in at the top end. That is the only way.


Lynn McDonald: How about sticking their fingers in the toaster?


John R. Rodriguez: It is more dramatic to put matches under their toe-nails and light them, because that gets them hopping around. In that way they have to think.


Mr. Weiner:: We don't smoke so we have no matches.


John R. Rodriguez: That is what happened in terms of the response of Canadians to the report of the Forget Commission. They pulled the Government up short. It made government Members stop and think about what they were going to do with the recommendations of the Forget Commission.
I saw a scathing attack on the Government by its friend and bosom partner, Conrad Black. He chastised the Government for not having implemented the Forget Commission report. Do Hon. Members remember the article? Can we imagine Conrad Black castigating the Government? This is the Conrad Black who treated his workers at the Dominion Stores so beautifully! He went into the pension kitty and took out the money. Instead of increasing or creating equity, he created a lot of debt for the company and walked away from it. This is the person who castigated the Government in a recent article by saying that it should have put the Forget Commission report into effect. As

November 25, 1987
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
well, Donald Macdonald recommended changes to the unemployment insurance program which were similar to what the Forget Commission came down with.


Cyril Keeper: Is he a Conservative?


John R. Rodriguez: I do not know what he is now. God only knows. However, he was in fact a supporter of the Forget Commission report. He wanted it put into effect.
Now the Government is responding to what we have been saying or what we have been suggesting was common sense. Instead of penalizing the poor, instead of picking on the hinterland, instead of punishing the unemployed because there are not enough jobs in their areas, the Government should spend the time and effort to devise employment strategies in the regions. These strategies can only come about-and we have been saying it to this Government and to the previous Government-when a Government is an active Government. This can only come about when a Government involves itself in planning the strategy and in being part of the implementation of the strategy.
One of our fears in respect of the free trade deal is that once it gets on the fast track it will be Amtrak from here to kingdom come, and never shall a government interfere in the economy of the country. It will be running on the Reaganomic fast track. My Party has expressed the fear that that deal will take away from any subsequent Government-


Lynn McDonald: Harmonization.


John R. Rodriguez: We notice how they use words such as "harmonize". The word "harmony" suggests being in tune.


Lynn McDonald: It suggests harm.


John R. Rodriguez: The Hon. Member is getting ahead of me. "Harmony" suggests that somehow they are in tune. That is the musical connotation of the word.


Cyril Keeper: What about discord?


Jack Harris: Whose tune are they playing?


John R. Rodriguez: They are playing Ronnie's tune from "Sundown".


Jack Harris: And Brian is singing.


John R. Rodriguez: That is the musical connotation. The Hon. Member referred to its root word "harm". The guy sings "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling" in harmony or discord with Ronnie in Quebec. There he was singing it up, and the guy thinks that everything else must be on the same note.
We believe that the downside of the agreement will be harmful. Instead of harmonizing Canada, it will be harming Canadians. It will be creating irreparable harm to the country.
It is a justifiable fear that programs like the unemployment insurance program will be sacrificed when the Americans get
around to harmonizing-and let us hope that they will not be around for too much longer-what we have with what they lack.
I said that I wanted to talk about the administration of the unemployment insurance program. Over the last year I have seen one of the most frightful administrations of unemployment insurance I have ever seen since I came here in 1972 when the Government announced that pension income would be considered earned income. We had a subsequent backing away from that until Bill C-50 was passed in the House last spring.
What has happened is that many Canadians who should have been entitled to unemployment insurance were told, when they applied in December, 1985 and in January, 1986, to use up their pension income and severance pay and then to come back and file for unemployment insurance. When they came back in April to file, they were told that they did not file a claim before January 5, 1986, so they were not eligible to collect what Bill C-50 delivered.
We have a frightful mess across the country. Thousands of Canadians have been denied unemployment insurance benefits. By my calculation, 30,000 Canadians who were entitled to it did not get unemployment insurance because of the pensions and severance pay they received when their companies closed or when they had to leave the Armed Forces. It was a frightful maladministration of the program. Today we still have thousands of Canadians who are trying to fight with the bureaucracy to establish a claim. We deal with them every day.
The Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration decided that it wanted to take a look at the Department and its administration vis-a-vis unemployment insurance and employment programs. We were led by the Hon. member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) who exhibited some independence from the Government. We had staked out the areas in which we wanted to move. Lo and behold, the Government could not stand that kind of independence, moved in the goon squad, and had him removed. It put in his place a new chairman who promptly got the committee to buy the Malaryk book on the Department of Employment and Immigration. Its second move was to cancel the appearance of witnesses before the committee. The witnesses arrived. The meeting was cancelled. This cost the committee SI,500. This is the kind of action which the Government takes. A soon as we were getting closer to examining the Department, the Government decided it could not stand that, that the bureaucrats, the nabobs in the bureaucracy would be supreme, and their political minions ran in to defend them.
The Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration have to understand that they are elected to make decisions, that they are not the mouthpieces of the bureaucracy. They ought to
November 25, 1987

listen to those who are elected in the House and to the advice they get about what is happening in the country, even from within their own Party, and particularly reports that are unanimous. Several unanimous reports on immigration came out of the immigration committee to the Government, as well as reports on refugees and on unemployment insurance. These have been ignored. I suspect they have been ignored because the bureaucracy at the top has said, "this is too costly, this is impractical, this will not go and that will not go".
What I look for and what most Canadians look for in people who are leaders, and people who are in the Cabinet are political leaders, is leadership and courage. When I look across the floor, there is a vast shortage of those particular qualities. The Department of Employment is an example. One only has to read Victor Malaryk's book which documents the litany of problems within this Department. We mentioned, for example, the problems of unemployed people who are trying to get through to unemployment insurance offices to inquire about their claims, but they could not get through on the telephone because the phone was busy, busy for an hour. We complained about that. One would think that that is a simple, mechanical, administrative question.
People complained to the Government and voiced complaints to members who sat on the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. These concerns were raised along with a whole host of other problems and recommendations for changing the structure of the administration, in other words, reminding the Ministers that money should be put in at the front end where you interface with people who need service. That is where the money should be spent, not on increasing administrative staff here in Ottawa.
What was the Government's response? The Government said that it would pick certain centres and put in a few more phone lines. But we are still waiting. If you put more lines in, it means you have to hire more people to answer the phones. It means that if you say service to the unemployed should be paramount, you have to deliver that service to the unemployed. I found that people have been hired only on term in the employment centres, and, regularly as clockwork, they get laid off and they go on unemployment insurance. Yet there is work there to be done. There is counselling to be done. We raised the matter of overwork of the employees, the competent employees, in those offices across the country who are striving to come to grips with a massive workload of unemployed young people going to employment centres who are given a form to fill in. There is no opportunity to have them sit down and be counselled. There are no opportunities for testing and no opportunities for trying to establish what is the best training program for this person.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there was a time when every woman who went into an unemployment centre looking for work was sent off to be trained as a hairdresser. Similarly all the men were sent off to be trained as stationary engineers. We had hairdressers coming out of our ears and we had stationary engineers we could line up all the way from
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
Sudbury to Toronto. Then it was discovered that there were not enough jobs for them. As long as they were kept in a classroom and in a training institution for a couple of years, it kept them off the unemployment rolls. From that we went on to training people to be heavy duty machine operators.
Why is it that after Canadian Jobs Strategies have been put in place, community futures, the regions of Canada are still experiencing this deadening unemployment rate? Why is it that we still need a variable entrance requirement? In my experience, the unemployed people-as I go across the country and I travel through my own community-want to work.
I had a mother call me on the phone this morning complaining bitterly that her son has been out of school now for two years and cannot find a job. He went to the employment centre and there on the wall were jobs available in certain occupations, but they were only for people who were on welfare. I understand that is progress, but why do we need that kind of program? This mother saw that as clear discrimination against her son. Why is it that we cannot develop a program that creates employment for all people, not only for those on welfare? Why can this not be done? By tying in ourselves into a trade deal that will prevent future Governments in this country from involving themselves directly in planning and implementing programs for the benefit of Canadians, the Government has surrendered.


Blaine Allen Thacker: That is not true, and you know it.


John R. Rodriguez: It is true. Let me go through the steps again.
One, seven years from now people will sit down and devise what a subsidy is. In that seven-year period, we will have locked ourselves in even more closely to the American economy. That far down the track, there will be no way we can say that we do not like that definition of a subsidy, that we believe UI is not a subsidy and want out. There is no way we will get out.


Blaine Allen Thacker: There will be no unemployment in seven years.


John R. Rodriguez: Pardon? In that seven years, we will experience all sorts of harassments because the Americans will not have given up the right to countervail. They can continue to countervail, and the mechanism is really designed just to implement American law, not Canadian law.
I do not know where the Hon. Member is coming from. We know that the Americans have always viewed unemployment insurance as a subsidy. They have made that quite clear. They have just taken a breather, and in the meantime, they will be chipping away at it and we will live with their trade harassments.
I wanted to put those thoughts on the record, even though we will support this Bill. We do not want to cause greater

November 25, 1987
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
hardships for unemployed Canadians than they have experienced already. We must support this Bill. We do not want to delay it, we will expedite it.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have very little time to consider a Bill that is very important indeed. This Bill concerns workers in Canada's remote areas in all our provinces, and it also concerns fishermen in the Maritimes. The purpose of this Bill is to provide an extension for existing legislation introduced by the previous Liberal Government, under which workers in remote areas, where unemployment rates are higher, do not require as many weeks of insurable employment to be eligible for unemployment insurance as workers in larger urban centres where it is easier to find a job. For instance, in Montreal it takes about twenty weeks of insurable employment to be entitled to full unemployment insurance benefits during a certain period. Under the existing legislation, fishermen, for instance, in remote areas like the Gaspe and the Magdalen Islands, were entitled to unemployment insurance after ten or twelve weeks of employment. Considering that job creation in these areas is practically impossible, these people would otherwise have had to go on welfare. In some cases, because the fisherman's spouse had an income or because the family had property, certain assets and a boat, they were not eligible for welfare benefits. So these people would have been doomed to poverty.
At the time, the Liberal Government introduced this amendment to cover a fairly long period until such time as thorough review of the unemployment insurance system had been made.
I understand, and I think it is unfortunate, that the NDP Members disagree with the principle. They would prefer to see everyone treated the same. They do not agree that special measures should be taken to help fishermen and people working in remote areas, but 1 think that today, at least, they do agree on this Bill. However, we should be concerned about the fact that the Government is asking for a one-year extension only. In 1985 and last year, it was understandable the Government should ask for a one-year extension because it had set up a commission of inquiry to review the whole unemployment insurance system. The House will remember the Forget Commission and several task forces set up by the Department of Employment and Immigration. There was also the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. Nearly $8 million was spent in the course of making recommendations to the Government for a genuine reform of the unemployment insurance system. Unfortunately, everbody remembers that the Government has wasted this money and tossed in the waste basket the recommendations to amend the Unemployment Insurance legislation, including those, quite valid in fact, presented by the Committee on Employment and Immigration, an all party committee.
Mr. Speaker, it was understandable for the Government to seek a one-year extension, because everybody expected a
thorough reform and that the amendment before us would become a permanent part of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Today, however, the Government comes up with a one-year extension, when it is about to sign a free trade agreement with the United States, and when we know that the Americans seem to consider the payment of unemployment insurance benefits in remote areas of the country as a sort of disguised subsidy-
Why-and that is the question I should like the Minister of Enmployment and Immigration to answer, and that is one of the amendments we are going to put forward in committee- did he not propose an amendment which would be good for four, five or ten years? If this measure is good for one year, it should be good for the year after. Why, at the very last minute just before the holiday season, did he propose an extension? In view of the fact that the Government has decided not to carry out a global reform of the unemployment insurance scheme, why did the Government not propose amendments to extend for the next ten years this legislation which is important for men and women working in remote areas?
Is it because the Canadian Government expects its American counterpart, following the signature of the free trade agreement, to say: Listen, this is the way competition works, these are unfair subsidies, this unemployment insurance scheme has to go. Automatically, the Government will not table this amendment next year and say to his American friends: Mission accomplished, gentlemen. Mr. Mulroney will tell Mr. Reagan: Yes, I am at your service. Canada's lackey will help you. We will not table again this amendment and fishermen will be penalized because of their incomes from unemployment insurance benefits, and all the other conditions will be affected by it.
Mr. Speaker, I know that I shall speak tomorrow or the next day, as I will have some time left, but I would like to point out that, when we speak about reducing wasteful spending, this Government also cut back the unemployment benefits of older workers. After a fight of 17 months, 46,000 of these workers received their benefits. Unfortunately, the Conservative Members took no part in this fight. In all Canada, 46,000 workers received an average of 10,000. There was 18,000 in Western Canada. These older workers got their money thanks to their own persistance and also thanks to the Liberal Official Opposition. However, some people are still being penalized.
The Government still discriminates against older workers. There are still 9,000 older workers in Western Canada who did not get their money, 3,000 in the Atlantic provinces, 13,000 in Ontario and 15,000 in Quebec, for a total of 42,000 throughout Canada. In addition, 2,000 older workers are in what is called the grey zone having taken an early retirement under the existing legislation before January 5, 1986. The Government then required these people to claim unemployment insurance benefits. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, what happens when
November 25, 1987

someone loses his job because his company is closing down on December 31. We all know that the worker would automatically receive his severance pay on December 31. When this worker goes to the Unemployment Centre on January 7 or 8, the Minister of Unemployment and Immigration will unfortunately refuse to give him his full unemployment insurance benefits.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
Mr. Speaker, I know that I shall still have about fifteen minutes left at the next sitting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It's being 6 o'clock, the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, November 26, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers