1988-09-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I have two items to deal with today. First, I am pleased to table the Government's response to the twelfth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
[Editor's Note: See Today's Votes and Proceedings.]


WAYS AND MEANS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(1), I have the honour to lay upon the Table copies of a Ways and Means Motion to amend the Income Tax Act.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(2), I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of the said motion.


UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING FORCES
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to report to this House with a great deal of pride the selection of the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces as recipient of the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: I am sure that all Members of the House will join me in expressing their pleasure at this announcement.
This prize has particularly special meaning for Canada. For many years peacekeeping has been accorded a prominent place in Canadian foreign and defence policy.
This Government has made peace and security one of the basic objectives which have framed our approach to the formation of Canadian domestic and international policy over the last four years. Indeed, peacekeeping was one of the primary goals identified for the Canadian Forces in the 1987 White Paper on National Defence.
The effective participation of Canadians Forces in virtually every United Nations peacekeeping operation since the Second World War has contributed directly to the easing of tensions in trouble spots around the world. If there is one thing for which Canada is held in high regard it is our support for the United Nations and for its peacekeeping efforts.
Canada has served on 11 separate UN peacekeeping missions from Korea to the Middle East to the Belgian Congo. We have participated in eight different U.N. truce supervisory or observer missions from Kashmir to Yemen to Lebanon. Finally, we have not restricted ourselves to UN operations alone but have also contributed our expertise to four other non-UN multilateral peacekeeping operations.
Our record is a proud one. Today, almost 2,000 Canadian Forces personnel serve around the world in a score of countries furthering international peace and goodwill. I have in the past indicated in this House and elsewhere that these dedicated officers and enlisted personnel deserve the unqualified support of all Canadians. Polls have indicated that most Canadians do indeed share this point of view.
Peacekeeping has long deserved the type of international recognition and support which today's Nobel Peace Prize announcement embodies. The UN's peacekeeping efforts in the past 40 years have finally received their just recognition, as have those nations, such as Canada, which have actively supported and contributed to such efforts.
Peacekeeping has a special place in Canadian hearts. I think I can say that we invented peacekeeping. Or, rather, the late Prime Minister Pearson invented peacekeeping. For his pivotal role in seeking the peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1956 Mr. Pearson was justifiably awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Today's announcement is a second Nobel Prize involving Canada and its peacekeeping efforts. I join all Canadians in extending our congratulations and our best wishes to our peacekeeping forces around the world. Their job is difficult and dangerous. But their dedication over decades has done much to further the cause of peace in the world.

September 29, 1988
Statements by Ministers


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Official Opposition to say how pleased we are to see that the Nobel Prize Committee has awarded this year's Peace Prize to UN peacekeepers.
[DOT] (M10)
Canada plays a special role when it comes to the concept of peacekeeping. I think it is clear-and history records this- that this very concept was something created by a Canadian. The late Right Hon. Lester Pearson, when he was Secretary of State for External Affairs in the Government of Louis St. Laurent, at that time convinced the United Nations to establish a force made up of troops of member countries, including Canada, in a way which resolved the Suez crisis of 1956. As a result, Mike Pearson received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1957.
It occurred to me that it might be said that the awarding of this year's Nobel Prize for Peace to UN peacekeepers is almost like the award of a second Nobel Prize to Mike Pearson, because the award announced today is a confirmation of how important, how valid, and how successful the concept that Mike Pearson developed in 1956 has proven to be over the years.
This award is a tribute, certainly, to the troops of the member countries who have participated and are participating in UN peacekeeping operations around the world, and Canadians have proudly played a leading role in all such forces since their inception. They played an important role with the force created to resolve the Suez crisis, and they are playing an important role today in maintaining the truce which has ended the gulf war between Iran and Iraq.
This award is indirectly a tribute to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Javier Perez de Cuellar and his staff, for their work in bringing about the truce in the gulf war and generally in doing more than has been done for quite a few years in advancing the role of the United Nations in resolving conflicts and preventing them from breaking out into world wars of a scope which has caused such destruction all too often in the past hundred years.
If this award is a tribute to the Secretary General of the United Nations, it is also in recognition of the importance of the United Nations itself in helping to maintain an atmosphere of peace and security in the world. I know that all Canadians are very pleased to find that the peacekeepers of the United Nations have been awarded this year's Nobel Prize.
This is not the first time that UN agencies have been awarded the Nobel Prize, but certainly, because of the role of a Canadian, Mike Pearson, in creating the concept of peacekeeping by the UN, and also because of the role of Canadian troops in all United Nations peacekeeping operations, Canadians, I am sure take great satisfaction in this year's Nobel Prize for Peace.
I conclude by again stating how delighted we are in the Official Opposition that this award has been given to the
Peacekeeping Forces of the United Nations, and I am sure that all Canadians are delighted in the same way and extend their warm congratulations to all those participating in United Nations peacekeeping operations, the forces of Canada and the forces of the many other member nations of the United Nations who are doing so much to justify this Nobel Prize for Peace.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I would like to join with the Minister and the spokesman for the Official Opposition in congratulating the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces on being recipients of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. I think it is particularly appropriate when we know that over the years this Nobel Peace Prize tends to go to individuals, which is understandable. But the fact remains that over those same years there have been many, many individuals unrecognized in this special way who have been keeping the peace on the ground, where it counts.
We know that over-all, between 1947 and 1988, more than 80,000 Canadian servicemen and servicewomen have participated in 15 peace-restoring, peacekeeping, and truce supervisory operations mounted by the United Nations, and in three truce supervisory or observer missions conducted outside the UN framework.
In 1988, this very year alone, over 1,400 Canadian Forces personnel participated in international peacekeeping forces and observer missions. I am also told that since Korea 79 Canadians have died while serving in peacekeeping forces, something which many Canadians may not know.
What we are recognizing or what has been recognized today in the awarding of this Nobel Peace Prize is the terribly significant and sometimes dangerous role that many Canadians have played, as I said before, on the ground or on the line, literally, in some cases.
I had the opportunity to visit the Green Line in Nicosia, as I am sure the Ministers have had the opportunity to do so, and on a day-to-day basis Canadians there are put in a position where they sometimes have to confront people who are threatening or actually moving into territory that they should not be moving into, and these Canadians put themselves in a very vulnerable position.
That is the kind of real peacekeeping we are recognizing here today. I can say, as has been indicated by previous comments, that the peacekeeping role that Canada has played all these years is something that all Canadians agree on and with. We may disagree with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) on nuclear submarines and on first-use policy of NATO or Cruise missile testing, or whatever the case may be, but I think there is consensus on Canadian defence and foreign policy on the role of the Canadian Armed Forces and being available to the world for these kinds of peacekeeping operations.
September 29, 1988

We need to ask ourselves, 1 suppose, the larger question of how we keep the peace, not just between smaller countries who are fighting but between the superpowers, and that is where the debate enjoins with the Government.
For the moment, let us all come together and rejoice in the fact that the work that many Canadian men and women have done over the years in peacekeeping operations has been duly and honourably recognized.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ACID RAIN
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee on Acid Rain to which, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the committee requests a comprehensive response.
I would like to point out to the House that the report that I am presenting this morning is the accumulation of work done by a group of Members from all three Parties. Acid rain is a killer, and we must all work together to prevent any further damage in order to give our children's children the Canada they deserve. This is a good step forward. Some hope has been restored.
1 am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you as a former Minister of the Environment will be very, very interested in this report, because I am well aware of your grave concern as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings ]


PETITIONS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by people in my riding, but also elsewhere in Winnipeg, who are concerned about the whole matter of schizophrenia as a major illness in Canada, affecting about 1 per cent of the population and causing severe mental anguish and suffering to the patients and their relatives, and costing Canadian society more than $3 billion annually in direct health care and other support costs.
The petitioners state that recent research findings, including those obtained in Canada, have shown the illness to be a
Petitions
biochemical brain disorder in part caused by genetic malfunction. Schizophrenic patients, their relatives and friends, desperately hope that a cure and method of prevention can be found as soon as possible through larger research efforts dedicated to schizophrenia.
The petitioners further state that the research effort in Canada dedicated to schizophrenia is extremely limited and not commensurate with the burden that the illness imposes upon Canadians.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that research efforts related to schizophrenia will, in the future, be commensurate with the seriousness of this illness in Canada.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in my riding, there is a very active environmental group that wants to present a petition. This group is called Les amis des arbres or "Tree Lovers Coalition". These people ask us to fight pollution, to support local initiatives, to consult the population and to support them, even financially.
Mr. Speaker, what is interesting about this group led by Phillip Norton is that it deals with little things. By dealing with all these little things, we will fight pollution and this ties in very well with what my colleague just said.
So I am pleased, on behalf of the people of Valleyfield, Franklin, Beauharnois, etc., to present this petition.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions on what is probably the last full day of Parliament before we enter an election.
The first petition indicates that, on June 12, 1988, when the South Moresby Park Agreement was signed, the federal Government committed itself to spending $20 million or more to explore for hydrocarbons in the South Moresby Marine Park.
The Queen Charlotte region has higher earthquake activity than the San Andreas fault, and the Hecate Strait has among the roughest and most unpredictable seas in the world.
The undersigned petitioners state that they do not want any more hydrocarbon exploration activities to take place in their coastal waters, nor do the petitioners want the Government to pay for any such activities from this day on. This petition was circulated by the Greenpeace organization.

September 29, 1988
Questions on the Order Paper DEPORTATION FROM CANADA OF SALLY ESPINELI


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my second petition concerns Sally Espineli a Filipino woman from Winnipeg who was discriminated against on the basis of her marital status. The Human Rights Commission made a special appeal to the Minister of Immigration (Mrs. McDou-gall) to allow Miss Espineli to remain in Canada until her human rights complaint had been heard. Nonetheless, Espineli was deported on August 31, 1988.
The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to instruct the Government, through the Minister of Immigration, to bring Sally Espineli back to Canada in order that the Human Rights Commission can hear her case in person.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions dealing with the question of free trade.
The first petition is signed by residents of Winnipeg, and towns in Manitoba such as Beausejour, in which the petitioners state that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States.
The second petition is signed by residents of towns and cities in Ontario, including St. Catharines, Kingsville, Niagara Falls, Cambridge, and Leamington. In part it states that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in the course of bilateral negotiations, promised that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised.
The third petition is signed by residents of Nova Scotia from Dartmouth, Sackville, Halifax, Bedford, and Shad Bay in which the petitioners state that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada policy freedom to determine its own economic future, and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.
[ Translation]


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, again today, I have the duty to present some petitions to you. The first one comes from people in my riding, from Saint-Louis and Richibouctou, and the second, from residents of Albert County in southeastern New Brunswick, from the communities of West River, Hopewell Cape, Hopewell Hill, Shepody and Riverside.

The petitioners deplore the action of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) changing
the eligibility period for unemployment insurance from 10 to 16 weeks.
[ Translation]
The petitioners demand that the qualifying period be 10 weeks, as it was before.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the Minister's statement, Government orders will be extended by 11 minutes, after one o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Otto Jelinek (for Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: that Bill C-158, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to speak on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Jelinek) to address third reading of this Bill, which is important, and I believe all Members agree is important to the unemployed in the weeks and months ahead during the coming year.
During second reading debate and Committee of the Whole stage, Members expressed concern about some areas of unemployment insurance, and that has certainly been taken into consideration. It is for this reason that the Minister of State has asked for a comprehensive review of economic regions so that we can correct some of the things that are wrong with unemployment insurance with respect to the variable entrance requirement. This is the first time that it has been done in 12 years, and it is highly necessary to do so.
September 29, 1988

The unemployment insurance program plays an important role in our social security system. Unemployment insurance benefits replace lost income. They help maintain the stability of local economies, and also help to protect the jobs of people employed in most communities. Bill C-158 contains an extension to the variable entrance requirement from January 4, 1989, to January 6, 1990, to allow the unemployment insurance program to continue to respond to regional differences for the next 12 months. We do not want to create hardship. The extension of the VER will be tangible demonstration that Parliament recognizes the difficulties many Canadians face in finding work.
If the VER is not extended, up to 80,000 recipients in high unemployment regions could find themselves without work, without pay, and unable to meet the eligibility requirements for unemployment insurance benefits.
I am asking the House to approve this amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act to maintain the status quo until we have the results of the comprehensive review of economic regions. We will not make changes to this important social program in a haphazard manner. If, when the review is completed, we will feel it is appropriate to make changes, we will come before the House with a detailed plan for the future. It may be that we find the VER, or some variant thereof, to be the best possible way to deal with regional differences, but let us await the evidence.
For the immediate future, unemployment insurance applicants must be assured of the situation regarding their admissibility. Through failure to extend the VER, we do not want anyone to find himself or herself in financial difficulty. Therefore, I ask for the support of all Members of the House that Bill C-158 may be passed with the minimum delay.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-158, which is an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act to extend the variable entrance requirement. As the Parliamentary Secretary said earlier, the VER has been used for a number of years to maintain the ten-week eligibility period.
Mr. Speaker, although the Bill will maintain the current system and will, in certain cases, be beneficial to Canadian workers, it will do nothing at all for the people of New Brunswick, especially those in the southeast and the entire southern part who are affected by the variable requirement.
In June, the eligibility period for our workers went up to sixteen weeks, in July it went back to ten weeks and then went back up to sixteen weeks in August, where it is now, in September.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
What happened? When Statistics Canada does its surveys to determine the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in southern New Brunswick, it does about 700 individual surveys, that is, 400 in the Moncton urban region and about 300 in the rural region.
According to these surveys, the unemployment rate in the city of Moncton is very low, and in rural areas it is very high. This means that when both rates are combined and seasonally adjusted, the average rate for the last three months drops below 11.5 per cent, which requires a change in the eligibility period.
The section we propose to change will do nothing for the people of New Brunswick. There are several sections in the Unemployment Insurance Act that have an impact on eligibility. These include Section 17(6), the section we are amending today, and also Section 17(5) and Section 35.
Under these provisions eligibility for and entitlement to UI benefits are determined by three-month average of seasonally-adjusted unemployment rates for the UI economic region in which the UI claimant resides. These unemployment rate estimates are provided monthly by Statistics Canada as a by-product of the Labour Force Survey.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we are changing only one part, one section, namely 17(6) and not Section 35, which is a shame for the people of New Brunswick.
When workers experienced the first change in July, many people were taken by surprise. They were relieved when in the following month, the 10 week period was reinstated. Subsequently, however, the eligibility period went back to 16 weeks.
Mr. Speaker, in June I received petitions, letters and any number of telephone calls. The same thing happened in July: telephone calls, petitions, letters and visits. The same thing in September: more calls, more petitions and even more visits and letters. In September however, I detected a note of aggressiveness among the workers affected by this measure.
Why? Mr. Speaker, you must realize that in our region, unemployment insurance represents a considerable adjunct to people's income. The workers felt aggressive towards the Department because it had failed to make certain changes. They felt this way because the Minister had made changes in the regulations to accommodate people in another region. These changes were to take effect as of September 11, 1988. According to the Canada Gazette: Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, pursuant to paragraph 58(t) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, is pleased hereby to approve the amendment made by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission to the Unemployment Insurance Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1576, in accordance with the schedule hereto, effective September 11, 1988.

September 29, 1988
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 The change was made in the Outaouais region:
One of the regions is that of Outaouais (UI economic region 49) comprising the city of Hull and the rural areas in the Gatineau River valley northwest of Ottawa. Unemployment rates for Hull have tended to be substantially lower than those for the rural portion of the Outaouais economic region.
Because of the preponderant influence of Hull in the production of these estimates those for Outaouais tend to understate the difficulty of finding employment in the rural part of the region, with the consequence that UI benefit conditions may be more stringent than economic circumstances warrant.
That is why the people in our region have started to show signs of aggressiveness. In their case, changes in the eligibility period are affecting them adversely, but the Government refuses to take any action. It did in the case of another region, as I just pointed out. People are starting to ask questions. Why weren't the same changes made for New Brunswick? What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a case of gross injustice.
When we talk about the eligibility period and mention ten weeks, some people say 10 weeks isn't very long. Anybody should be able to find work for 10, 15 or even 20 weeks. Mr. Speaker, if enough work was available in my region or in every region in New Brunswick or every region in Canada, people would prefer to work 20, 25 or 30 weeks or even all year round.
The fact remains that for some workers in New Brunswick, 10 weeks of employment is hard to find. Some occupations and certain types of work are seasonal. Fishermen, for example, are guided by the fishing seasons. If we look at the lobster fishery, which provides employment for most of the people in my constituency and in some other New Brunswick ridings, the fishermen, their assistants and the factory workers are limited to 10 weeks for the simple reason that the fishing season is only 10 weeks. There is no question of extending the season. The resource is just not there to support more fishing.
Not only fishermen and those involved in the fishing industry have difficulty. Thare are also construction and forestry workers. Sixteen weeks of work is very hard, and in some cases impossible, to find. Ten weeks is hard enough.
So how does one explain to the people of New Brunswick that the Government really does not want to listen? It remains insensitive and reading the words of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary raises some doubts about the Government's sincerity, because this Government has already disappointed New Brunswickers in the past and it is doing so again.
I refer to the words of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, who last Friday, when he introduced changes on second reading of Bill C-158, said, as reported on page 19558 of Hansard, which I quote:
Unfortunately, in some regions, economic recovery is slower and the rate of unemployment remains higher than the national average. A failure to extend the variable entrance requirement at this time would have serious negative consequences for those regions.
He continues:
One of the priorities of our Government is its desire to help those regions that are experiencing economic difficulty. The VER ...
. . . variable entrance requirement . . .
. . . 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.
And I could go on.
Mr. Speaker, this speech could be used to justify changes to the regulations under section 35. So why not make all the changes to ensure that all workers are treated the same way! How can one explain to the people of New Brunswick that this Government, on the one hand, says that it wants to treat them fairly and, on the other, just ignores them?
How can this Government explain to the people that it will not make the changes required to render justice to New Brunswick workers? The speech of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Friesen), is meaningless. It did not accommodate all the workers. The speech is further rendered meaningless because government Members last Friday defeated a motion that would have established a fixed period of 10 weeks. The amendment was proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) and defeated by government Members who said they wanted to render justice to all the workers.
We have to question the sincerity of the Government and the Minister. We were assured last week that the Bill would not come before us last week, but that it would come this week instead so we would have enough time to propose amendments enabling us to make it fairer to all the workers of Canada. But, no, the Government last Friday wanted to push the Bill through. Two amendments were proposed and both were defeated. How can we not doubt the sincerity of the Government, Mr. Speaker?
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Government's approach to this issue is totally unacceptable. The Minister is shirking her responsibility, which is to protect the workers. Her inertia is totally unacceptable.
What I find strange in this debate, Mr. Speaker, is that no other New Brunswicker rose to defend the interests of workers in the province. No Member and no Minister said a word, yet we do have two New Brunswick Conservative Cabinet Ministers in this House. The only Minister who did show some interest in this matter is New Brunswick Labour Minister Mike McKee who came here to Ottawa to confer with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall). Her efforts-or mine, for that matter-were to no avail because the Minister simply said she would study the situation, even after the Forget Commission spent millions of dollars reviewing our unemployment insurance program and after a standing committee of this House produced a report on the same subject.
September 29, 1988

Mr. Speaker, this is a good opportunity to talk about the U1C program. It is very useful to some people because it provides additional income to make ends meet, stabilize the local economy, and ensure at least some standard of living. As I said in my opening remarks, our people would much rather work full time all year for the simple reason that they are hard-working men and women who do not like to remain idle. They would welcome year round employment which would bring in a lot more money than UIC benefits ever do.
Some people maintain that unemployment insurance payments make life too soft for our workers. Mr. Speaker, I object to such comments. Some working couples in New Brunswick are in a situation where the man or the woman earns $6 an hour, 40 hours a week. That brings in $240 a week or, over 50 weeks, an income of something like $12,000 a year. The partner also works 40 hours a week at $4.50 an hour, or $180 a week. If he or she is lucky enough to work for 10 weeks the take-home pay is $1,800. And if subsequently, he is eligible for unemployment insurance, he will get $108 per week for 40 weeks, which will give him another $4,300. This means the couple has to live on $18,100, which is less than our nontaxable allowance here in the House. However, when they buy groceries, they have to pay the same price we do for groceries or for other services.
I think a comparison would be useful. There are people who say we spend too much money on unemployment insurance and that some people take advantage of the system. Recently, I saw all kinds of press releases on my desk announcing grants to various businesses in my region and other regions. There was one grant for $160,000, and that isn't much as government grants go, when you consider that some are for millions of dollars. This was a grant for $160,000 to one individual, to help him set up some kind of building. If we look at the person who gets $4,000 a year, that person would have to be on unemployment insurance for 40 years to get the equivalent of the grant that this individual received in one lump sum. So we shouldn't say we are spoiling people with unemployment insurance. We are just giving them back a certain amount of income that gives them a measure of stability.
Besides, the money spent on the unemployment insurance program is subsequently spent by recipients on food, shelter and clothing. The purpose is to help them meet their basic needs, which in many cases cannot all be met.
What should we do, Mr. Speaker, with this program? Instead of making it more restrictive we should try and expand it. Recently, at the beginning of the academic year in community colleges in New Brunswick, many young people came to my office. They had trouble with unemployment insurance. They had worked and were eligible for unemployment insurance, and they decided that since they were no longer employed and had nothing to do, they would be better off going to college to take a course. However, a number of these young people were not lucky enough to be eligible for a regular manpower program. When they were not selected by the
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
Department of Employment and Immigration and decided to continue their education anyway, they were told: Too bad, we are going to cut off your unemployment insurance. So the only option these young people had was to stay home in order to collect unemployment insurance, because if they left home to take a course, they were no longer eligible.
Changes should be made in the program to deal with this kind of situation and to unable young people to continue their education. People often say young people should go back to school to continue their education and learn a trade. In this case, however, when they were willing to do so, they were told: No, stay home and collect unemployment insurance. The program could be expanded and this would be entirely in line with the recommendations of the Standing Committee of the House on Labour, Employment and Immigration.
In the first part of their report, they said, first, that everyone should be treated the same, wherever they live.
[English\
Second, meeting the longer-term needs of employees for stable employment and financial security and of employers for an appropriately trained and educated workforce should be recognized as legitimate objectives for the use of the unemployment insurance program. Third, employers and employees need a simple, intelligible and easily administered program.

And I could go on.
Further on in the Committee's report, they said that the eligibility standard should not be tightened and the level and duration of benefits should not be reduced in regions of high unemployment. They also believe that beneficiaries in all regions should be treated the same way. It was a unanimous report of this Committee, where, of course, all Parties were represented.
We could have taken the opportunity given to us, when changes were proposed to the Unemployment Insurance Act in Bill C-158, to accommodate all workers. We could also have made the changes recommended by the Labour, Employment and Immigration Committee, whose first recommendation was to adopt 10 weeks of insurable employment as a common eligibility standard.
So why was this opportunity not taken? All the arguments are there, all the documentation is there. So why did the Minister choose to study this problem again when all the data to make the decisions are there and especially when we know that some changes have been made to the regulations to accommodate workers in some regions of Canada?
So why refuse to make the changes needed to accommodate New Brunswick workers? That is a question which the Minister and this Government will have to answer for New Brunswickers.

September 29, 1988
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
At the stage we are now, it is impossible or almost impossible to amend the Bill, for the simple reason that the only acceptable amendment would be to refer this Bill to a committee for further review, which would only delay the Bill more.
As 1 said right at the beginning, even though this Bill does not go far enough to accommodate the people of New Brunswick, it must still be passed because it will do some good for some people, some workers.
So, Mr. Speaker, although I support Bill C-158, I ask the House, all Hon. Members and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) to take immediate action to change the Unemployment Insurance Regulations so as to reinstate the 10-week qualifying period.
New Brunswickers demand this justice and they deserve to be treated the same way as all other working men and women, wherever they live in Canada.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have my back-up here, and I always like to have a back-up. Anyone who is Minister of State for Finance is a good back-up.


Mr. Gauthier:: Is there a new buddy-buddy system here?


John R. Rodriguez: He is preaching for a cause here today. He wants me to go easy on the next Bill which is about banks. He recognizes that there will be a new Government sitting on the other side after the election, and he is here preaching for a position. I have decided that he is a good candidate to be the ombudsman for the banking system.
I want to participate in this debate on third reading of Bill C-158, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971. This Bill is better known as the amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act, amending the variable entrance requirement. People watching might want to know what the variable entrance requirement is. Back in 1977, under the previous Liberal Government, the variable entrance requirement was introduced into the Unemployment Insurance Act. What it did was to divide the country into 48 economic regions. In order to participate in the unemployment insurance program, an individual who is unemployed and eligible would require a certain number of weeks depending on the unemployment rate in that region. The higher the unemployment rate in the region, the lower the number of weeks required to participate.
For example, an individual living in a region that had 6 per cent unemployment or lower, would require 14 weeks for a renewal claim under the unemployment insurance program. An individual living in a region with between 6 per cent and 7 per cent unemployment, would need 13 weeks. An individual living in a region with between 7 per cent and 8 per cent unemployment, would need 12 weeks. An individual living in a region with 8 per cent to 9 per cent unemployment, would need 11 weeks, and for an individual living in an area of over 9 per cent unemployment, 10 weeks is required. Therefore, if one lives in a region that has a double digit unemployment rate,
only 10 weeks of insurable earnings are required to participate in the unemployment insurance program.
That variable entrance requirement was introduced in 1977, and here we are 11 years later and we still have need for that clause in the Unemployment Insurance Act.
While the New Democratic Party will give quick passage to Bill C-158, I think it is important that we go on record that the solution to the problem is not this temporary clause that was put in the Act in 1977 to recognize regionally disadvantaged areas of the country. We do not see that as the solution. In fact, every single time we have to renew this variable entrance requirement, such as we are doing today in Bill C-158, which will take us to 1990, we are admitting that in this country we have not been able to resolve the problem of regional disparities.
After 11 years, seven of them Liberal and four of them Conservative, we are still unable to deal with the most serious economic problem of this country, regional disparities. We have been unable to spread out economic development in this nation. We are still saying that the solution to regional disparities is to make provisions in our social insurance programs so that areas that are condemned forever to be high unemployment areas will have easier access to our social programs such as unemployment insurance. This is an admission of failure on the part of this Conservative Government, and the Liberal Government also failed. Governments came up with DREE, DRIE, ERDA, 1RDP, FEDNOR, the Atlantic Opportunities Agency, the Western Diversification Fund, a whole host of these things, and we still have need for the variable entrance requirement. In fact, of the 48 economic regions under the unemployment insurance program, 23 require only 10 weeks to be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. Fifty per cent of the 48 regions still have double digit unemployment rates. I think that this is an indictment of failed policies over the last four years of this Conservative Government.
What has been the Government's principal underlying regional development? It is the jail-house principle. If we want to diversify regionally the economy of a community, we put a jail in the community. That is the Government's response. Manicouagan has high unemployment. Individuals there require 10 weeks to participate in the unemployment insurance program. So what the Government does is to put a jail in Manicouagan. We have a problem in Newfoundland with high unemployment. They build a jail there.
It is a sad commentary when we have replaced well thought out regional diversification programs with this jail house principle. It is a sad commentary when communities vie with each other and compete with each other for the sake of getting a jail because that is the way to get 60 more jobs and, with other spin-offs, 100 more jobs. That is a sad, sad commentary of this Government. On the eve of an election, to bring the variable entrance requirement for renewal before Parliament is a sad commentary.
September 29, 1988

What are the hopes for the future? This Government signed the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal and in fact condemned the regions to being forever hewers of wood and drawers of water. In fact, it prevents any direct intervention by a Government with respect to incentives or subsidies or in terms of helping regions to diversify their economies.


Mr. Scowen:: That is not true and you know it.


John R. Rodriguez: It is true, and the Tories are very sensitive about that. It is a clear surrender. The only part of this country that is going to have jobs is the Golden Horseshoe in Ontario. It is significant to note that while the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will get up and blow his horn over the 60 days of the next campaign, talking about how many hundreds of thousands of jobs he has created, the vast majority of those jobs are created within a 60 mile radius of Toronto. Everybody in Canada cannot live in the Metropolitan Toronto region. There are parts of this country, such as the region I come from, the Sudbury basin, which has a right and expectation to economic development.
We are a mining community and we are proud of that tradition. We believe that we have some expertise in hard rock mining. One would think there would be an economic strategy developed that would recognize that here is an area that ought to be a centre for mining technology. Its post-secondary institutions should be developing the kinds of research and development in mining that would allow this country to be in the forefront of such things as the detection of rock bursts. One would have thought the Sudbury basin, which is recognized all over the world as being a leader in the mining of nickel and copper, would be the centre for the development, production and manufacture of mining equipment. The scoop trams on the ground and the robotics that are now infiltrating the mines should be produced in the Sudbury basin. Yet, 70 per cent of the mining equipment used in the mines in the Sudbury basin are imported into this country from Sweden, Finland and West Germany.
After 11 years of attempting to diversify this country regionally we find that the only solution that the Tories have is the continuation of the Liberals' inability to do anything about the problem when they were the Government. Their only answer is to renew the variable entrance requirement, to recognize it, to enshrine it in legislation, and to tell the victims of the lack of the Government's ability to deal with regional disparities that at least things will be made easy for them to get on the unemployment insurance rolls. That is the answer from the Government and it is not good enough.
Is it because they lack the will? No sooner did they win the election in 1984 that in November of 1984 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stood up and made an economic statement. In the economic statement he had something to say about the unemployment insurance program. He did not say that the Government was going to work to eliminate regional disparity so there will not be a need for the variable entrance
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
requirement, so there will not be a need for regional extended benefits, because that is the other little part of this game. The little scam is that if we have a high unemployment, "rate we can extend your benefits beyond the 49 weeks in the Act".
What did they do in the economic statement in 1984? No sooner had they won the election that they said that the retirment benefits, the pensions of all those who take retir-ment, will be considered as earned income. That was a time when in many of the regions the resource companies were having a rough time and were encouraging workers to take early retirment to protect the employment of younger workers. They got caught. They got it coming and going. They were losing their jobs, they took the early retirement, the Government changed the rules, and they lost their UI benefits because the pension was then considered to be earned income.
We on this side of the House objected to that. We asked the Government why it would do that. The Government said that was only the first step, that it was going to hire 800 Keystone Cops that would go across the country and enforce the Unemployment Insurance Act. It was going to get tough with the cheaters. So while, on the one hand, it said it was saving some money by making pension income earned income, it was hiring 800 Keystone Cops to go across the country to get tougher with the unemployed. That is how the Government resolved the problem.
What about the real problems? The Government said it was also going to undertake a study. It set up Mr. Forget with a commission that spent $6 million to study the unemployment insurance program. He came back with such right-wing recommendations that not even this Casper Milquetoast Government could accept those recommendations. Therefore, the Forget Commission report, which cost the taxpayers $6 million, is sitting on a shelf gathering cobwebs.
A standing committee of this House made up of Members from all sides, with a majority of Conservatives, studied the Forget Commission report and came back and said that the variable entrance requirement is basically unfair, that the real problem is regional development. The variable entrance requirement simply institutionalizes the unfairness.
The committee dealt with the issue that if you were unemployed in Toronto, where the unemployment rate is very low, and you are 39 or 42 years of age, and if you are 40 years of age and living in St. John's, Newfoundland, the effect of unemployment is the same. The older worker in southern Ontario who cannot get a job and the worker in Newfoundland who cannot get a job are experiencing the same difficulty. No one is to say that just because he is living in an area where there is low unemployment he should be able to get a job and that the person in Newfoundland will have difficulty getting one because the unemployment rate is high. The effects of unemployment are the same. The feelings of frustration about not being able to get a job because you are an older worker are the same.

September 29, 1988
Bank Act
So the standing committee recommended that, instead of going to a variable entrance requirement, we go to 10 weeks no matter where you are in the country. That recommendation was unanimously approved by Conservative Members, Liberal Members, and the New Democratic Party Members on the committee. The thinking was that if we cannot light a stick of dynamite under the Government to come to grips with regional development and regional disparities as a result of lack of economic development, then maybe we could focus its attention because if the cost in the social insurance program were to be very high then it would have to pay attention to that particular problem.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, the standing committee's report is sitting on a shelf on the same level as the Forget Commission report gathering cobwebs and dust. So now, in the Government's dying days, the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration (Mrs. Vezina) said in a press release dated September 16 that she is going to set up a study of the variable entrance requirement. One more time we will go back to this business of studying the variable entrance requirement.
We have studied the unemployment insurance program to death. We have studied the variable entrance requirement and the regional extended benefits program to death. That is not where the problem lies. The problem lies with fulfilling what the Prime Minister promised, which he has not delivered, that is, jobs, jobs, jobs. We are talking about jobs in the regions of this country. When the election is on we are going to remind this Conservative Government that it has failed the people of Canada.
You cannot offer to the people of the regions of the country the sop of a variable entrance requirement. Although it may deal with the present, there is nothing in there that holds hope that things are going to change in the regions and that when we, at great expense, educate our children in those regions they can find jobs in those communities and take their place side by side and help to support the community which gave them their shelter and their education.
I want to say to you and to the people of Canada, Mr. Speaker, that there is hope because there is a Party here on this side of the House, the New Democratic Party, which recognizes the inherent and generic problem. It is not the VER but the question of regional development and of creating employment opportunities for regions in northern Ontario, eastern Canada, northern British Columbia, and right across the country so that when you grow up in a community you are able to take your place in that community when you reach manhood or womanhood.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


BANK ACT
Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-140, an Act to amend the Bank Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on June 30, 1988, I had the honour to inform this House of the Government's policy regarding service charges as they apply to personal accounts in financial institutions. I am sure that many Members will recall the positive contribution to this policy development process made by the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.
The committee helped to focus attention on a significant public issue which was created when services were unbundled by financial institutions. Unbundling these services made it possible for the financial community to better tailor and market retail services. It was perhaps fairer to unbundle them than to have the user pay. But I believe that same financial community failed to make it clear to customers that individual services would have charges attached to them.
You know, Mr. Speaker, as a result of this customers had insufficient warning, in my view, that service charges were being imposed. They also had insufficient warning that they were being increased. The public, accustomed to free retail services, was by turn puzzled, then annoyed, and then infuriated and outraged with what was happening.
I know that there are many in the financial community who think that the Government has no place telling business how to operate. However, in this instance there is clear evidence of the need for government action.

While wishing to avoid price regulation, it was the Government's view that this issue could best be resolved by ensuring that the essential conditions for real competition existed. First among these conditions is an informed consumer. To ensure this, the Government adopted notification and disclosure of service charges as the key components of its legislative initiative.
September 29, 1988

In doing so, we wanted to ensure that Canadians would be in a better position to make informed banking decisions and price comparisons. Moreover, we were convinced that free market competition, not government regulation, was the best way to bring about fair pricing practices.
To sustain such a system, it was necessary to require that institutions create and publicize mechanisms for handling consumers' complaints. Moreover, we felt that the Government had a role in monitoring and publishing information about the relative prices of financial services.
To this end, my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), agreed to publish tables comparing the relative costs of such basic services.
This publication will ensure that financial institutions continue to comply with their voluntary undertakings. The first such publication was released on August 31, 1988. [English]
The Superintendent of Financial Institutions has examined actions taken by financial institutions to remove various service charges. His report shows that in almost every case, compliance has been achieved or will be achieved in the very near future. I regret that I cannot use visual aids in the House. I went into my bank this morning where I saw a notice to revise fees, which I asked the bank manager if I could take home as a souvenir. He very kindly gave it to me to bring to the House today. I regret that I cannot table it and show it to the House this morning.
The Superintendent's report shows that in almost every case compliance has now been achieved or will be achieved in the very near future. Bill C-140 was one of two elements in the Government's response to the public's concern. The other elements of that response resulted from individual discussions I had with the major financial institutions in Canada.
The principal outcome of these discussions was the voluntary elimination of certain charges for personal account holders. Furthermore, the institutions acted voluntarily to ensure that basic personal banking services were available at little or no cost, as this display which I cannot show indicates.
As a result, six service charges, which most Canadians found to be objectionable, have been removed by various federal financial institutions. Specifically, recipients of NSF cheques are not charged for depositing such cheques in their personal accounts. There is no charge for closing personal accounts that have been opened for more than 90 days. For basic personal accounts no charges will be levied when the balance falls below a specified minimum. There are no charges now for transactions resulting from the institution's error as opposed to the customer's error. Administration and transfer fees on fixed term deposits, notes and GICs will not be increased during the term of these instruments. Finally, for dormant accounts with balances over $10, customers will be charged only if they have not responded to a letter advising them that a charge could occur.
These are substantive improvements. I am very proud that this Parliament, this Government, has had the influence to
Bank Act
bring this about. Much has been achieved through voluntary action.
However, to complete this initiative legislative action is now required. There are those in the House who would like to legislate everything and have nothing done voluntarily, even though all three Parties, as I noted during the hearings of the committee, were willing to have a voluntary approach to this. We do believe that a great deal has been accomplished through voluntary compliance-as a matter of fact, everything that we wanted to have accomplished. But to complete this initiative some legislative action is now required. Fet me briefly explain what is required and what the major provisions of this legislation are.
Bill C-140 is intended to improve the standards that banks must meet in notifying and disclosing service charges to their personal account holders in Canada. The Bill will also require for the first time ever that banks create and publicize procedures for handling consumer complaints. They are not required now by law to have a procedure. My hon. friend opposite mentioned to me a case this morning in which there is not a complaints procedure in a particular branch. This will be the law of Canada. They will have to have a complaints procedure in place. As a matter of fact, most banks and most branches as well as large trust companies have this procedure already up and running. It will now be required by law as a result of this Bill. These procedures will be submitted to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
When customers open a personal account they will be entitled to receive the following. First, they will receive a copy of the contract to which they have agreed. This was not necessarily the case before. They will receive a list of the service charges applied to the account. When you go in to open an account, Mr. Speaker, or when your son or daughter does, for the first time ever they must not only get a contract to take home but they must have a list of the service charges which will be applied to that account, which is disclosure, the heart of this Bill. Third, they will be given information on how they can expect to be notified of any modifications on the charges must be supplied. Fourth, they will receive information on the bank's procedures for handling complaints, this must be there when you open an account. Right now, this may or may not occur. This will be required as a result of this legislation.
The Bill also requires that banks provide ongoing disclosure of services charges on personal accounts. One cannot make our system work without notification. How can you decide whether you are going to change banks or not, because you do not like the level of service charges, if you do not have adequate notification that the services charges are going to change? We require adequate advance notification of changes. Not everybody gets a statement in the mail, but most personal account holders do. For those who receive statements, this notice must be included with their statement. It must be at least 30 days in advance, that is for all of us who receive statements in the mail, and that is most people.

September 29, 1988
Bank Act
Changes will also be posted at least 60 days in advance in the branches and at banking machines. So if you do not get a statement in the mail, there has to be a notice in the bank or at the banking machines. By the way, that is an improvement on what the committee recommended, that the banking machines as well have changes in fees.
I am very, very proud of this, because this notification will make the system work. This will allow the consumer to shop and to go to the bank manager and say, "I have had enough of these charges. I hear that the trust company or bank across the street does not charge nearly as much for service charges. I am going to change my account". You cannot make that decision if there is not adequate prenotification and adequate disclosure of what fees are.
I respect very much the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), but when this Bill came forward he said something which was patently untrue, and the Bill has made this clear. That is, in addition to these measures, significant penalties for breach of the disclosure and complaints provisions are also included. The penalties provide for a maximum fine of half a million dollars for a violation of these provisions. These are large fines, they are five, ten times more than what is presently in the Bank Act. The Member for Ottawa-Vanier said there were no penalties. There are penalties, and there are enormous penalties. I hope that he will acknowledge that.
Recently, I announced as well that the Government intends to bring forth some amendments to this Bill, to reach beyond helping personal account holders and to help the small business sector. Although the committee that looked at this piece of legislation did not look at small business, 1 was determined to get our response to the committee, which had to do with individual accounts, personal accounts, in order to get our response on the record. Therefore, we brought out our response.
1 also wanted some time, a few months, to use that as a model for our response for small business. A great many of these principles are equally valid for small business.
Therefore, I notify the House today that the Government intends to bring forward amendments to Bill C-140 which will extend similar notification and disclosure methods to business account holders in Canada.
This package, complete with amendments, and the passage of this legislation will ensure that business has greatly enhanced information about the cost of financial services. Banks will be required to keep a list of all their standard charges for business services. Such lists must be made available to the public for examination, upon request, in bank branches doing commercial business.
If you are a very small business operator, you may not want a list to take home of every conceivable service charge. That could be a very long list for businesses. It should be available to you, either on a computer screen or in the branch in written form, and that is established in this legislation. Such lists must
be made available to the public for examination, upon request, in the branches doing commercial business.
Among other things, this will include the standard charges applying to loans and the standard charges applying to mortgage renewals.
All Members of Parliament get complaints from time to time about charges connected with loans and charges connected with renewing mortgages. These must be spelled out in this list as well. The information will include the information on standard application and search fees and on the cost of wiring funds abroad.
From now on, all the core business account charges must be published in a brochure, which can be taken from the branch. Both corporations and unincorporated businesses, including farmers, will now be able to shop around for the best deal. This core list will be outlined in the regulation.
I have to tell you that these amendments on behalf of the small business community and farmers and unincorporated businesses are made in order to respond to our belief that proper notification and proper pre-notification is essential to making the system work. We are also responding to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and other small business groups who have argued that this is essential. They are very, very pleased with these amendments that we are bringing into the Bill to cover and to help the small business community.
As a result of these changes, when making contractual arrangements, businesses will know the base against which they are negotiating. Those who do not want to negotiate a package will have better information about the cost of their banking services.
I would like to say a word about that. Most businesses actually have a customized arrangement with their banks. They go in and say, "Listen, I am going to be asking for all these bank services during the year. What are you going to charge me for them?" They will quote a number, $2,000 or $3,000, and you will want to compare that with what it would be without having a customized relationship or a contractual relationship that is customized for you in particular.
This will now be possible because all the fees must be made available for those who are not on a customized contract basis in the bank branch, and the small business operator can make that comparison and decide whether it is better to have a customized approach or to pay the standard fees as they occur.

Mr. Speaker, 1 believe that the package of initiatives, both voluntary and legislative, this Government has brought forward amply demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that there is real competition in financial services both at the retail and commercial level. Government monitoring will serve to underpin that competition.
September 29, 1988

Mr. Speaker, this Government believes that real competition, not regulation, is the best means of ensuring that Canadians have access to the broadest spectrum of financial services at the lowest cost. The informed consumer is the key element in real competition. Once the measures 1 have outlined are in place Canadians will be equipped to make better choices and the consequent competition will work to the benefit of all.

Let me conclude with this. I plead with Members on all sides of the House this morning to recognize that if we today can pass this in all stages and in committee stage, we can have a regime in place tomorrow, or close to tomorrow, for consumers, for individuals, and for small business in Canada. Those who hold up this particular Bill-the heart of which, by the way, was agreed to by all three Parties in the standing committee who looked at this question-may be making this impossible.
I plead with Members on all sides of the House-because all sides of the House participated in putting together this solution-to support this Bill. Let us have debate in the Committee of the Whole rather than sending it to a legislative committee. I can answer all the questions there. I can help with answers on regulations pursuant to the Bill. This Bill is one of the more important things that any Government can do for consumers and small business. Let us get it done, and let us get it done quickly.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 know there are no questions at second reading, following the second speaker, but since the Minister did refer to some of the comments I made last June 30 I wonder whether the House would agree to let me clear up the situation with the Minister?

The Minister stated that, in my statement on June 30, I made certain allegations. I would like to clarify that statement, if the Minister will accept a question from me, in order to make sure the record is straight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?
Some Hon Members: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On June 30, 1988, when the Minister introduced the measure, in his statement to the House I did not see at the time he made the statement, any indication that there were to be penalties. It is true at the time that I stated, as reported at page 16962 of Hansard, June 30, 1988:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs recommended fines or penalties of up to $10,000 for a first offence and up to $100,000 for each subsequent offence committed within a period of three years. There was no mention in the Minister's statement this morning of any serious measures or penalties to force the banks to act.
That is exactly the position in the morning. It is true that the Minister went to the press theatre on Wellington Street and made a statement and sent out documentation. In the
Bank Act
documentation given to us at that time there were indeed penalties. At the time I made the statement, and the Minister must be honest-I know him to be an honest person-I had not heard any indication in his remarks that morning that he intended to proceed with penalties.


Thomas Hockin: I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention and that is accurate, as 1 remember it. I believe the Hon. Member is correct. I do not think I mentioned the provisions that were made for penalties in my speech in the House. However, I was able to elaborate on those details later when questioned about it in the press setting. The Hon. Member was made aware of those penalties then. I was curious this morning to know whether he approves of those penalties, and I gather he does.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Our critic, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), will be here after lunch. I wonder if the Government would be willing to suspend the sitting in order to give our critic an opportunity to make the appropriate comments on second reading of Bill C-140 at that time, that is, shortly after Question Period.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: There have been some consultations, and I believe the Minister has indicated potential amendments to the Bill. The House might be well served with an opportunity for the Minister to meet with opposition Members of both Parties and explore the possibility somewhat, at some time later this day perhaps, to move on in terms of the Bank Act.
The business which will be called immediately after Question Period is Bill C-152, an Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Language Institute. I think there is a predisposition in the House to move that Bill through its final stages relatively expeditiously. If there is some kind of agreement coming out of the negotiation to come back to the Bank Act and perhaps put some of the amendments in place that the Minister has in mind, or others may have in mind, we would be able to come back to it as soon as we complete Bill C-152. That is the priority item for after lunch, and I think people are geared up for that immediately following Question Period.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to debate second reading of this Bill. I recognize that the Liberal critic for this Bill will be not present until later. I would suggest as a compromise that I proceed with my speech on second reading and I will take my alloted 20 minutes. We can leave the 40 minutes allowed for the critic of the Official Opposition when she returns after three o'clock at some point if we get back to second reading of this Bill.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am in the hands of the House. I recognize that we can do just about anything by unanimous consent. I certainly recognize that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has a point. He could make his speech and the House could suspend its sitting. I am in the hands of the House. I do not have any quarrels.

September 29, 1988
Bank Act
1 could make my speech. I have it here. I just want to make sure that the amendments the Minister intends to propose are before us and that the Hon. Member for Trinity, who is our critic, has had the opportunity to look at them. That may have an influence on her remarks. I am trying to be as cautious as possible here. 1 certainly do not object to the Member having the floor at this time, if he wishes.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Government very much appreciates the spirit, and we have no trouble with the idea. If, at a later point this afternoon, agreement cannot be reached on the amending and to move the Bill totally through the House we can find some time, after the heritage Bill has been dealt with, to allow, by unanimous consent, or whatever way is necessary, the critic for the Liberal Party to have the normal 40 minutes. The Government is quite prepared to support that all the way. I think we should come back to that later. That would be desirable. Even if we cannot do so, I think we should attempt to make time this day for the Liberal critic.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Perhaps I have not heard the words properly. I do not want this Bill to be held up in the House. If it can be passed today with the Minister's amendments, that is fine with us, and we could give expeditious passage to this Bill.
If I understood the Parliamentary Secretary correctly, he said that we can get back to this Bill after we have dealt with the Bill respecting the Heritage Languages Institute. I would hope that that would not be a condition of getting back to Bill C-140. In other words, I hope the Government has the intention of passing this Bill today in all stages, or at least getting it through the House before we adjourn at six o'clock.
I do not want to have a precondition put that the heritage Bill will be accepted before we go back to the bank Bill. Our critic on the heritage Bill is not here, as you know, and I would also like to consult with him.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Negotiations and discussions can proceed. It is my understanding, from earlier negotiations, that there is a clear predisposition among all Parties to pass Bill C-152 today. Since Members have not seen the amendments, we cannot have a final agreement in relationship to the Bank Act. So we are simply signalling that the thing we agreed to do, we would do first, and then we would do the other, as far as we can, and hopefully we can take it all the way.


John R. Rodriguez: We in the New Democratic Party have very grave concerns about Bill C-140, which I will outline in my second reading speech. I cannot express any hope, and I cannot wish that the Government could have this Bill dealt with today. As a matter of fact, it has to be examined thoroughly because it is a powder-puff. It is a puff cream Bill and it is cosmetology. It is not an effective Bill, and I do not want to participate and to pontificate on something that is so ineffectual. It is like getting swatted over the back with 50 wet spaghettis, and I cannot accept it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have to come to some decision at some time. There are two possibilities. One suggestion is that we adjourn until two o'clock. That suggestion can only be
agreed upon by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent that we call it 1:11 p.m.?
Some Hon Members: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Therefore, we will proceed on debate. I will recognize a Member from the Official Opposition. The Hon Member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, given the comments made by the Hon. Member from the NDP, I think I should protect our position, and not getting any information from the Government as to whether it will proceed this day, I think I should make my remarks which are pertinent to Bill C-140.
The Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), our critic in this area, would have liked to be here this morning. Unfortunately, she cannot, but she will be here this afternoon and possibly will participate in the debate later on.
We now begin the second reading debate of Bill C-140, an Act to amend the Bank Act. As I said previously, it was introduced on June 30, 1988, in response to the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs dated June 6, 1988, on personal financial service charges. I will provide briefly a background to this sensitive and important issue.
All Members of Parliament have heard from their constituents on the topic of financial service charges for consumers. Complaints and concerns were so omnipresent that the standing committee decided to look into it. On March 29, 1988, a background paper by the committee's research staff was released. It concluded that when financial institutions began to compete for business by paying higher interest rates and providing more services, they imposed fees too quickly and without much sensitivity.
The report stated that, on average, routine financial service charges per family cost about $100 a year. This is not excessive. However, the problems stem from lack of information about them. The committee held public hearings during April to hear from consumer groups, financial institutions, and Government. Our focus was the consumer's need for information and the recent changes in levels and structures of service charges.
On June 6, 1988, the committee tabled its report which called for regulations to provide better information on charges, provide certain basic services without charge, such as low balance accounts often held by children and low-income individuals, and prohibit certain charges altogether. For example, the committee recommended the following fees be prohibited: fees to close an account which has been open for more than one year; and fees levied when customers fail to make transactions on an account. The committee also proposed that penalties for banks that failed to do the above be stiffened, an that the office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions create an internal office to deal with consumer complaints.
September 29, 1988

My Party wholeheartedly concurred in the recommendations of the report. The banks responded defensively. The Canadian Bankers' Association said that the committee's recommendations were "interventionist" and went against the stated free enterprise philosophy of the Government.
On June 23, 1988, the Efon. Member for Trinity spoke to an opposition motion put by the NDP. Strangely, after tabling a minority report, they then moved a motion to support the committee report. The Hon. Member said at the time that neither blatant bank bashing by the NDP, calling for regulation at any cost, nor a staunch Conservative anti-regulation policy were useful in this debate. More careful consideration is required in this matter. She concluded that regulation of financial service charges should be a last resort. Instead of responding defensively, the banks should have admitted they went too far and too fast with their user-pay notion, irritating, confusing and inconveniencing their customers. The whole fiasco was a botched public relations exercise on the part of the banks.
On June 30, 1988, the Government responded to the committee's report in the form of Bill C-140. Earlier that week, five of Canada's six major banks said they would voluntarily comply with the committee's recommendations. The main purpose of the legislation at the time was to assure Canadians that the Government would simply monitor the banks' voluntary compliance. I also expressed my dissatisfaction with the Bill in the House on the same day. I said that the Government caved in to the banks. I called for more specific measures, namely inclusion of time limits in the legislation so Canadian consumers would know when services would be provided that treated them with fairness.
What is the status of the banks' activity in this area? On August 17, 1988, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) tabled the report of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions regarding compliance by banks with the voluntary measures, and preparation for implementing future measures with respect to bank service charges. The conclusion? As of that date the survey done by the office indicated that four banks, the Royal Bank, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Scotiabank, and the Bank of Montreal appeared to be complying with the letter and spirit of the voluntary measures agreed upon. One bank, the National Bank, reported it was in compliance except for the withdrawal of the NSF charge back fee. This was to be done by November, 1988. Another bank, the Toronto-Dominion, was in compliance except for the provision of a no-frills account.
As a result of this report, a member of the standing committee withdrew his Private Members' Bill that would have legislated the now voluntary measures. Therefore, it appears that voluntary compliance has occurred in large part. Consumers, aware of where it has not occurred, can take their business elsewhere. They can act. They have a choice.
Bank Act
I will now turn my attention to the issue of financial service fees for small businesses. That is an important matter which I do not think was addressed sufficiently. At the time of the tabling of the report on personal financial service charges, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business made its views known. It wanted equal time and fair treatment from the banks. The Minister responded that he wanted small businesses to be treated largely the same as consumers, and that he would change the legislation to ensure this. He announced his intention to do so on September 15, less than two weeks ago.
The CFIB understood that the committee focused on the consumer aspects of the service charge issue, and therefore could not represent the interests of small business at the time. However, as stated in its brief to the committee during the hearing, small business concerns in this area are at least as important for three basic reasons.
First, small businesses typically have less choice in their financial dealings than do customers, since their freedom to switch business relationships with bankers is more restricted than for consumers. Second, the magnitude of service charge costs to small business is proportionately greater, often totalling hundreds of dollars.
Third, unpredictable and sizeable changes in bank service charges can have a dramatic negative impact on the ability of small businesses to plan their operations and cash flow, and could in turn affect the viability of the businesses themselves.
The CFIB asked the Government for something it usually does not ask for, government intervention, so that the Government would uphold for small businesses the measures taken voluntarily by the banks for consumers. The Minister of State for Finance said in his statement on September 15 that he expects increased competition in the financial sector to play a key role in ensuring reasonable service charge practices. Yet the CFIB also argued that any positive benefits from deregulation of financial services have yet to be seen for small businesses. It claims that the most apparent effect of deregulation to date is that the profit margins on big business lending have been narrowed, causing banks to resort to the imposition of larger and more numerous service charges on small businesses. Also, small businesses are captive customers who suffer greatly as a result of such cost saving actions as closing unprofitable bank branches in small towns on which small businesses often depend.
They felt that the effectiveness of voluntary compliance is suspect "in such an unbalanced market context". Their recommendations were as follows. One, complete information regarding current levels of and changes to service charges must be available to small businesses. Two, charge-back fees for NSF cheques must be eliminated for small businesses. Three, annual monitoring of bank practices in the area of small businesses ought to be put in place.

September 29, 1988
Bank Act
The CF1B tried to negotiate better treatment on service charges with the Canadian Bankers' Association but made no headway on the NSF charge-back issue. The Government gave no quarter here either or anywhere else on that issue in its announcement to extend similar disclosure and complaint resolution benefits to businesses.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, here are the Government's measures for small businesses. Consistent with what is now proposed for personal accounts, the amendments to Bill C-140 and the draft regulations will, first, entitle businesses when they open accounts to receive an enhanced disclosure of charges applying and information on the institution's procedures for handling complaints. Second, they will ensure that banks make available to the public for examination, on request, a list of all charges for business services in their branches doing commercial business. Third, they will provide for ongoing disclosure of core account-related business charges through a brochure available to the public. Fourth, they will provide thirty-day pre-notification, through statements, of changes in account-related charges. The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions will also mediate complaints on behalf of small business account holders.
While all of the recommendations of the CFIB were not accepted, the organization is said to be pleased that most of their issues were dealt with. The main concession that small businesses did not achieve is the cancellation of the fee banks charge for depositing an NSF cheque, and God knows they do get them. The Government has promised to monitor the situation. If it does not improve, tougher action supposedly will be taken. We will see.
I and my Party will be watching closely to see if the disclosure of information on financial service charges continues. We will also carefully monitor whether consumers and small businesses are treated with fairness and consideration in the weeks to come. We are dealing here with a very important issue. We are dealing with small businesses which create a very large number of jobs in Canada. It is an appeal to Canadians by the small business community to be sensitive to their needs.
I recommend that the Minister be very open and fair in dealing with this problem.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I was just having an interesting discussion with the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin). He was pleading with me to let this wet spaghetti Bill, Bill C-140, pass. He was pleading with me. He was crying. He was saying "Please". This is the man who called me a Johnny-come-lately. I called him a Tommy-come-never.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Here he was sitting on my left trying to outflank me on the left and he was appealing. I knew I was on my left because that is where my heart is. The Minister was pleading with me. I could see the tears rolling down his cheeks. He was saying: "Please, please-


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do want people to look closely at me. I am certainly not crying. I am not a very emotional person. I was trying to argue with the Hon. Member that it would be very much in his interests to see this Bill passed today. He disagrees with me, so he does not have to go on with any further theatrics.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, folks watching on TV may have seen the Minister on my left and they might have wondered what was happening. Was I surrendering silently to the Tory Juggernaut? The Minister says he is not a very emotional person. But he was crying inside and laughing on the outside.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: On the tenet of the proposition that he made, he was propositioning me. He was saying to me that half a loaf is better than no loaf. I know that anybody who lays that argument on me has surrendered the basic argument. He said: "Please, half a loaf is better than no loaf. Isn't it better that they get Bill C-140 than nothing at all?"
Let us just see what Bill C-140 says. It reads:
-immediately after Section 202 thereof, the following Sections:
"202.1 A bank shall not open an account in the name of a customer unless, at the time the account is opened, the bank provides the individual who requests the opening of the account with
(a)	a copy of the account agreement signed by that individual:
(b)	information in writing-
(c)	information in writing-
Then it goes on:
(i) any increase to the charges referred to-
Shall be in writing, Mr. Speaker, in subparagraph (d) we find:
(d)	information in writing-
(e)	such other information in writing as is prescribed.
202.2 A bank shall disclose, in the prescribed manner, to its customers and to the public, the charges applicable with respect-
It is more in writing, Mr. Speaker. In writing, in the prescribed form. Then it goes on:
A bank shall not increase any charge applicable to an account with the bank or introduce any new charge applicable to an account with the bank unless the bank discloses such charges in the prescribed manner.. .
Obviously in writing, Mr. Speaker, in triplicate, with the appropriate colours going to the bureaucrats in the Bank of Canada, to the Minister and every other minion around. That is what it says. Then here is the classic in clause 202.4:
September 29, 1988

A bank shall establish procedures for dealing with complaints made by customers of the bank . ..
The bank will start watching itself. It is like putting Count Dracula in charge of the Red Cross blood bank. You put the banks in charge of hearing complaints. It says in here that there will be a local banker who will hear your complaint, and if you are not satisfied the local banker will funnel that up to a regional banker, who will then, if you are not satisfied, funnel it up to a national banker. That is supposed to be an effective system of redress for consumers. Then it goes on to say:
A bank shall file with the Superintendent a copy of its procedures established pursuant to subsection (1).
In the appropriate form, Mr. Speaker. That means in writing, with the appropriate copies to the appropriate minions. Then it says:
A bank shall, in the prescribed manner, provide customers of the bank who have complaints with respect to their accounts with prescribed information on how they may contact the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
So it will be informing them, in the prescribed form, in writing, of course, with the appropriate number of copies to the appropriate minions and on and on. Then you start looking for the meat among all of the potatoes. You cannot find one morsel of meat, not one morsel. This is a deliberate attempt to denude the forests of this country. I can imagine the number of trees it will take to pass all this information in the prescribed form, in writing, with the appropriate copies to the appropriate minions. Give me a break, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister comes over here with his crocodile tears and suggests that I should accept this half a loaf. I would not even call it bread, Mr. Speaker. Man does not live by bread alone. He has to live by some substantive amendments to the Bank Act that give customers of the bank some security with respect to their dealings with the bank. That is what we need, not this Casper Milquetoast Bill. I see it is one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 10 minutes past one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.10 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Government's spending spree on energy megaprojects once
again shows the Tories talking one way and acting another. Despite the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) words on the environment, echoed by the Energy and Environment Ministers, it is clear that Tories do not understand that an energy policy is an environmental policy. Look at the record.
In November, 1984, they cut the energy division of the National Research Council, wiping out research on renewable energy, energy conservation and energy alternatives. While billions are committed now to oil megaprojects, to sweeten the pill a feeble commitment is made to research on energy alternatives and conservation. Clearly the Tories prefer to buy votes through megaprojects. That is their energy policy.
For us, an energy policy is an environmental policy. We are committed to shifting our dependence from non-renewable to renewable energy sources. We must work hard on energy efficiency, aim at a sustainable energy policy, and look beyond the next 40 years instead of the next four.
* *
*


NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement that this year's Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to the United Nations for its peacekeeping efforts makes this day a special one for Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces. Our contribution to international peacekeeping is well known.
While former Prime Minister Pearson raised the profile of this important aspect of the UN's work when he accepted the 1957 Nobel Peace Prize, Canadian participation dates back as far as 1947. We have contributed to 23 different United Nations and non-UN multinational peacekeeping and truce supervisory missions in the last four decades. No other nation has such an enviable record.
Over 80,000 Canadian Forces personnel have participated in international peacekeeping efforts over the years, from Korea to Kashmir, from the Congo to Cypress, and from Lebanon to Viet Nam.
Canadian soldiers have given their lives in distant lands while wearing the blue beret of the United Nations. These dedicated people have worn that beret with pride, knowing that they were contributing to world peace and international security.
I join with other Canadians in saluting the peacekeeping forces serving abroad and in congratulating them on a job well done.

September 29, 1988


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration Mrs. McDougall) is squandering $9 million per month to stop employable people from working. Today, the Metro Toronto Community Services and Housing Committee is examining a report that about 9,000 refugee claimants in Metropolitan Toronto are waiting for their immigration inquiry and examination under oath without which this Minister will not let them have a work permit. Therefore, Metro's Community Services Department must give these refugee claimants over $4 million per month, although three-quarters of these people are employable and willing to work.
According to Immigration Canada, over 25,000 refugee claimants in Canada were denied job permits as of August 12, with more claimants coming in at about a couple of thousand per month. In September, the Minister cancelled all inquiries and examinations under oath till further notice. Therefore, likely more than 20,000 or 25,000 refugee claimants in Canada have been refused work permits by the Minister's policy and will be refused for many months to come. The total cost to taxpayers must be well over $9 million monthly, or $100 million annually.
Shame on this wasteful, anti-refugee Government.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians can take pride in the successful launch today of the U.S. space shuttle Discovery. Full marks go to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a federal Crown corporation responsible for developing the peaceful application of nuclear energy.
AECL was instrumental in testing and verifying the shuttle's O-rings. Those rings are synthetic rubber seals which prevent the escape of hot rocket gases through the joints that connect the three main segments of the shuttle booster rocket.
In contracts totaling nearly $3 million with Morton Thiokol of Utah, AECL developed test procedures, quality control requirements, and inspection methods to ensure the performance and the integrity of the redesigned O-ring. Indeed, Canadians can be proud of our contribution to today's successful launching.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, once again we have proof that the Government is only a recent convert to the cause of the environment. This summer, from June 29 to July 17, plants, crops, and people along the Saint John River were subjected to an aerial spraying of the herbicide 2,4-D.
I and all the people of New Brunswick were shocked to learn that the Armed Forces, who contracted the spraying program near CFB Gagetown, did not bother to give advance warning to land-owners living adjacent to the area. Furthermore, the 2,4-D was sprayed under unsuitable wind conditions that ensured that even more land would be contaminated. To top it it all off, the Forces refused after the fact to accept any responsibility for this contamination.
The Government's negligence in this spraying has not only severely inconvenienced the people living in the area, but it has also taken a severe toll on farmers' crops and their livelihoods. The Armed Forces and the Government have to accept responsibility for what has happened. The people who have been affected must be compensated for crop losses, and measures have to be taken to make sure that this never happens again.
Every day the Government tells us that it is here to help people. A mistake has been made. People have been wronged. The Government must not pretend that nothing has happened.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, today in Halifax there is a meeting of provincial Ministers of Transport with the Minister of Transport of Canada (Mr. Bouchard).
Marc-Yvan Cote, the Quebec Minister of Transport, will be asking for a delay in the abandonment of the Franquet-Chapais rail section in Abitibi.
I appreciate Mr. Cote's excellent work, having myself been working for more than two years on this very difficult matter. This is the only line providing a direct rail link between the Abitibi area and the Chapais-Chibougamau resource area.
I ask the Minister of Transport to correct CN's decisions in this regard as soon as possible, and I urge him to support the rehabilitation of the Franquet-Chapais rail line.
Mr. Speaker, with men like Marc-Yvan Cote, Denis Lamarche and the members of the Senneterre unions and the CRDAT Committee, we may feel sure that this fight is not over in Abitibi.
September 29, 1988


HUMAN RIGHTS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada continues in its unacceptable oversensitivity to the views and perceived needs of the Indian Government when it comes to matters dealing with Canadian Sikhs. The case of Balkar Singh is an example.
Mr. Singh, a Canadian, has been held for almost a year now without any charges being laid, and the Canadian Government has been very short on efforts to ensure due process for him, to explain its inaction on his behalf, or to explain what else it may be doing with respect to the case of Mr. Singh.
Instead of being an uncritical ally of the Indian Government, the Canadian Government, at the same time as it takes an understandably hard line against terrorism of any kind in Canada or in India, should vigorously encourage the Government of India to respect and protect the human rights of Sikhs in India and elsewhere, should recognize the seriousness with which Sikhs regard the assault on the Golden Temple, and should press India to bring to justice those guilty of attacks on Sikhs during the days following Indira Gandhi's assassination. Uncritical acceptance of the views, the interests, or the perceptions of the Indian Government is not in anyone's interest.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, last week in an interview the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) again repeated the claim that free trade will destroy our unique system of supply management in farm products. This statement has no basis in fact. It has been repeated in a partisan fashion without any supporting evidence in the hope that Canadians will eventually believe it. Other statements like those dealing with complete access to our resources and the sale of water are equally in error.
Our supply-management schemes work because we close our borders to imports of poultry and dairy products beyond a historical level of imports, and these arrangements are established under the GATT agreement. Our ability to control our borders continues under the Free Trade Agreement. We have agreed to protect that part of the industry that might be hurt as tariffs are removed. That has already been done in dairy products.
The supply-management schemes in Canada are secure. Any statements contrary to this are inaccurate and are made only for partisan purposes.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say how gratified I was to learn today that the Conservative Party has finally found a spot for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Conservatives are very quick to praise AECL for its successes. I have done so in the House over the past four years. However, I would remind Hon. Members that it was this same Government that cut $100 million out of research and development in Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's budget and then went on to cut $70 million out of its reserve fund.
If the Tory Government wants to use AECL and to praise it, it ought to open up the wallet of the Government and give it the money to do the job. The Government has robbed it blind. The Government should get back into research and development and mean what it says.
O)
AECL has done a tremendous job over the years. It is part of the great success of the Shuttle takeoff today. So get with it and give AECL the money to do the job.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, in the last days before the coming election campaign, let me Thank all those men and women municipalities and socioeconomic groups in my constituency that supported me in obtaining results on major issues.
The establishment of a water treatment plant in Rouyn-Noranda, the location of a regional office of the Department of the Secretary of State, the Temiscamingue Airport, a full-fledged employment centre in La Sarre, flow-through shares, the establishment of a Department of Senior Citizens, all these are examples of projects that are important for my community and that were accomplished because of the involvement of people in my area.

September 29, 1988
Mr. Speaker, I am certain my fellow citizens' satisfaction with this Government's accomplishments will be reflected in widespread support for the Progressive Conservative Party during the coming federal election, because ours is the only party that is really committed to regional interests.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I read with astonishment the 40-point program of the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner). I had to wonder whose document 1 was reading. It started off with a mortgage assistance plan through the tax system, but I read in Hansard the Liberals saying: "It is simply not equitable. It simply does not serve the people who need help". That was said by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). He went on to say we shouldn't try to bribe Canadians with their own money.
In 1984 it was the Conservative Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he was in Opposition who said exactly the same thing. He said: "We will stop the tax grab on the middle-income earner". But was it not the Liberal Leader, when he was Minister of Finance, who created tax unfairness through tax dodges for the rich and famous?
The document continues: "equal pay for work of equal value is a basic right", but it was this same Liberal Leader in 1984 who said that we should not force this on the banks, that it was premature to do that, even though it had been the law since 1978.
There was a promise of $5 billion for municipal water and sewage. Was it not the same Liberal Leader when he was Prime Minister in 1984 who said he could not make that commitment?
The document talks about eliminating the substandard housing on reserves, but the backlog grew during Liberal years.
Surely, they jest!



Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, with great pomp and ceremony, the Liberal Leader made public his party platform which would mean more debts for us as Canadians, for our children and grandchildren.
Lavoisier once stated that nothing is gained or lost when chemical substances combine or separate. In the area of
economics, nothing is lost, nothing is gained. The Liberal Party's policy has always been to spend without creating anything. Mr. Turner's election platform would put an end to our economic recovery, exert enormous pressure on our interest rates and bring about inflation rates similar to those Canada experienced in 1980-81.
His election platform is inconsistent. Canadians no longer want periods of borrowing and inflation. They want the Progressive Conservative Party to administer Canada in the 1990's.


SOCIAL JUSTICE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, Premier Getty of Alberta stated in his own province that Quebec has received everything the Bourassa Government has asked for.
I can prove him wrong, because this Tory Government has failed to fulfill its promise of a true banking centre in Montreal. This Tory Government has failed to establish in Montreal a space agency with at least 50 per cent of the space research contracts. This Tory Government has failed to award $130 million to develop Montreal's Vieux-port. This Tory Government has managed to close the shipyard in Sorel and the Vickers shipyard in Montreal by refusing to grant them part of the contracts for the new frigates. Moreover, this Tory Government has allowed the demise of all the industries involved in railway transportation, including Bombardier, Canadian Steel Wheel, Angus Factories, and the CN maintenance workshops.
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Government is not getting everything Quebecers are seeking from this Tory Government.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, today is an important day in the history of Canada's space program. At around five o'clock this afternoon, the Canadian Ministers responsible for Science and Technology will sign, for Canada, the agreements governing our participation in the space station. The Canadian Ministers will sign the intergovernmental agreement with their partners from the United States, Europe and Japan, and the memorandum of agreement with NASA.
September 29, 1988

For Canadians this project will create spin-offs totalling $5 billion, create 80,000 person-years and provide a unique opportunity to participate in a project with some of the most daring technology in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I want to join Canadians in congratulating the Americans on the launch of their space shuttle this morning.
Oral Questions
Millions of Canadians who enjoy a pretty good life in this country must feel ashamed when they see where the Mulroney Government has led them.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Is there a time limit, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Kaplan:: And you may not like to hear this.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a story here from the Victoria Times of September 21. Carol Pickup of Saanich, British Columbia, made public an internal post office memo she said was designed to teach Saanich a lesson for refusing to co-operate with Canada Post with respect to the installation of supermailboxes. The memo states:
Please be advised that any new customer for supermailbox delivery will not be issued a compartment, even if the (green) box has spare compartments.
The reason for the above is, Saanich council has refused to co-operate with Canada Post.
Please ensure you follow the above.
* *
*


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Government likes to talk about the growth which has occurred in the last four years in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: One of the growth statistics not mentioned is food banks. If indeed these have been good times, why have we seen an estimated increase in food banks in Metro Toronto from 40 in 1984 to 160 today? This is private charity used by poor people, over half of whom are children. They are lining up in prosperous Tory Canada to get food.
Food banks have a valid role when someone's house burns down, when a traveller is robbed, or a battered wife leaves home, but the new role for privately sponsored food banks is to fill the gap in social programs, to keep poor people and their children alive until the end of each month.
Under the Conservatives, holes in the safety net are growing, and this is the proof. The Canada Assistance Plan which was introduced by a former Liberal Government was a commitment by this Parliament to a minimum standard of decency for all who live in this prosperous land. It has been betrayed.


TELEVISION
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago our local cable companies moved the House of Commons channel from No. 16 to No. 50. Anyone who did not have a super converter in order to get channel 50 was simply out of luck. A lot of people were very unhappy about this, especially a lot of seniors. Many of them called my office to say so. In fact, my constituency office at Bank and Alta Vista lost access to the House of Commons broadcast.
There was a loud outcry. In fact you, yourself, Mr. Speaker, expressed some concern. I called, and they listened.
I want to congratulate Vic Reed who is the general manager of Skyline on St. Laurent Boulevard, and Bill Kincaid of Ottawa Cable on Richmond Road. They have set an example for other cable networks across the country.
In spite of what everyone says about us here in this House, they do like to watch us on TV.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for Fitness and Amateur Sports. For several days Canadians have watched with increasing incredulity as the Minister displayed incredible incompetence in deciding to hang Ben Johnson before he even had the opportunity of a fair hearing. This morning at a press conference we heard the Minister time and again insist that the reason he had to suspend Ben Johnson for life was because he was acting on a regulation. The Minister should know that in fact no regulations exist governing the suspension of athletes. Why does he continue to repeat that he had no discretion in this matter, hiding behind regulations, when he ought to know that no regulations exist governing the suspension of athletes?

September 29, 1988
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker I can only refer to a document called Canada Drug Use and Doping Control in Sport, a Sport Canada policy update which reads as follows:
Violations and Sanctions
1 (a) Any athlete who has been proven through appropriate due process to have used banned drugs in contravention of the rules of his/her respective national and/or international sport federation will be suspended forthwith from eligibility for Sport Canada's Athlete Assistance Program and any other financial or program support provided directly to athletes or indirectly by Sport Canada via national sport organizations (i.e., national championship funding, national team program support, etc.)
The policy that we applied is exactly that. Furthermore, I can point out that on the same page, on the use of steroids, it says:
Individuals proven to have violated antidoping rules involving anabolic steroids and related compounds will be subject automatically ...
... I stress "automatically"...
... to a lifetime withdrawal of eligibility for all federal government sport programs or benefits.
That is what the Sport Canada policy is. Those are the rules that I follow for any athlete in Canada, including four weight-lifters who never reached the Games.
(Translation]


DISQUALIFICATION OF BEN JOHNSON-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, since his initial decision to jump on Ben Johnson, the Minister has referred to certain regulations. We know now there are no such regulations but only a policy that gives the Minister full discretion with respect to life suspensions. My question to the Minister is this: How can he claim that he gave . . .

. . . appropriate due process to Ben Johnson. If he reads his own policy statement, which is not a regulation, he will see that it says:
Any athlete who has been proven through appropriate due process ...
What does he consider appropriate due process?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, read verbatim what the regulations prescribe:
Violations and sanctions:
I (a) Any athlete who has been proven through appropriate due process to have used banned drugs in contravention of the rules of his/her respective national and/or international sport federation will be suspended forthwith from eligibility for sport Canada's Athlete Assistance Program and any other financial or program support provided directly to athletes or indirectly by Sport Canada via national sport organizations (i.e., national championship funding, national team program support, etc.)
And a little further Mr. Speaker:
Individuals proven to have violated antidoping rules involving anabolic steroids and related compounds will be subject automatically to a lifetime withdrawal of eligibility for all federal government sport programs or benefits.
Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had taken the trouble to read through all the regulations, which were in fact distributed to members of the press, she would have noticed that after two years, these athletes may appeal their suspension to the Minister, and it will be up to the Minister who is the incumbent at that time to decide whether or not to maintain the suspension. That is exactly what the regulations provide, Mr. Speaker. We are treating Mr. Johnson exactly the same way we would treat any other athlete in Canada.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace the Minister doesn't know what a regulation is. This morning he claimed he was forced to act because of a regulation, a regulation that doesn't exist! I therefore would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister or the acting Prime Minister the Minister responsible for Fitness and Amateur Sport has proven to be totally incompetent, doesn't even understand what a regulaiton is and doesn't realize that according to his own policy the Minister has full discretion I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minster whether he will relieve the Minister of this case and ask for the resignation of the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport), who has made a mess of the Ben Johnson case.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly I did not expect any better from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. It was quite obvious that she and the federal Liberal Party of Canada intended to take this approach, which is certainly not helpful in clarifying the events around the suspension of Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to say that the Government's policy, the Government's behaviour towards this athlete is no different from our attitude towards other athletes, including several weightlifters, and no one ever. .. Mr. Speaker, it's funny, but one wonders where the Hon. Member and her fellow members were when we were applying exactly the same sanction in exactly the same circumstances to other athletes. Her memory is rather selective. Personally, 1 don't think she is acting in good faith.


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is again directed to the one who still claims that he is able to be Minister of Public Works. I shall ask him this. This morning, we had the opportunity as a group to hear the famous cassette that, again, casts doubt on the whole contracting procedure in
September 29, 1988

the Department of Public Works and on the Minister's judgement, diligence and competence, since he did not give the letter to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in a timely fashion. But I want to ask the Minister, with all the facts that are known, with all the questions raised by this Moisie affair, which is starting to smell rotten, would it not be more honest for him to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, the Privy Council or the Treasury Board to conduct an independent investigation on the conduct of department officials, on the influence exerted in that affair and on the awarding of the contract, which in the end should probably have been cancelled because of extenuating circumstances?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, there is an appropriate committee of the House of Commons which can convene a meeting, if it is thought desirable by Members, to look into any question, including the one posed by the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member has referred to a cassette. If it gives all the messages that he indicates, I hope he has put it in the hands of the RCMP.


Mr. Boudria:: They already had it. You said so in the House the day before yesterday.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I would like to direct my supplementary question to the same Minister. His colleague, the Minister of Transport, was accused one day and he was not afraid to table in the House all the pertinent documents, and he was available for any questions.
This Minister is trying to hide behind the RCMP. We are talking about ministerial responsibility. We are talking about negligence, competence, all kinds of qualities that that Minister does not have-competence for sure.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, since this is not only a criminal matter but a question of ministerial responsibility, is the Minister ready to submit his resignation or his whole case to the Privy Council or the Treasury Board for an impartial inquiry?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member indicated that this was a criminal matter. It is in the hands of the RCMP. I think we had better await the outcome from them.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has recently discovered the importance of the environment in this country.
Oral Questions
I have here some internal departmental documents from the Ministry of Energy. Why, in light of the so-called priority given to the environment, did the Cabinet decide in the month of August to cut back on the budget of the energy conservation part of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, from some $74 million in 1988-1989 to $40 million within 18 months?
Why that cut-back of major consequences for energy conservation in this country when the environment is supposed to be a major priority of the Government?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly comment on a document 1 have not seen and do not know about. The Member waves it in front of the House. It could be anything.
The premise of his question that the Government has only recently discovered the environment is fundamentally wrong. I remind him and all Members of the House that it was this Government that came into power at a time when, for example, motor vehicle exhaust emission controls were one-third as stringent here in Canada as those in the United States. Now we have the strongest such controls of any nation in the world.
When we came into office the controls on lead in gasoline were one-tenth as stringent as those in the United States, and now we have the strongest program on lead in gasoline in the industrialized world.
This is the Government, after all, that established five new national parks and has set the stage for two new national parks which we hope will be created before long. More national parks were created in three and a half years alone than were created in a decade and a half under the previous Liberal administration.
The premise of the question is wrong. I think the Hon. Member might like to do a little bit more homework on his questions before he comes into the House.


POSITION OF CABINET
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Perhaps the Minister should answer the question and not the premise.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have here in my hand a copy of a document, Mr. Speaker, that states: "In August, the Cabinet made a decision to cut back on the budget for energy conservation in this country from $74 million a year in 1988-89 to some $40 million a year in 1990-91 and, in terms of person years in the next two years, from 303 people to 60 people". I want to ask the Minister why, in light of the so-called priority for the environment, did the Cabinet in August decide to make major cut-backs in the conservation of energy?

September 29, 1988
Oral Questions


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I think the premise of any question would be relevant to any answer to the same question.
In any event, if the Hon. Member wants to measure the commitment of the Government of Canada to the environment, perhaps he would like to look at the figures which indicate that five months into the current fiscal year the Government of Canada, through my Department, was already spending $20 million more than the previous Liberal Government did in the entire year when last it was in office.
If you add to the budget of my Department, Mr. Speaker, all the expenditures that have been drawn from other Departments for major environmental initiatives of the Government of Canada, you will see that we have far exceeded inflation in expenditures on the environment relative to that which was spent on the environment by the previous administration.


AMOUNT OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, four years ago the federal Government spent some $525 million on the issue of energy conservation. Now it is down to $74 million, a cut-back of around $500 million in four years.
I also want to know-perhaps from the Acting Prime Minister-why a proposition made by the Minister of Energy last spring that the Government spend $525 million over five years in energy conservation was cut back by the Cabinet in August to some $253 million. Why was the proposition of the Minister of Energy turned down? Why was it cut back from $525 million to $253 million? Why was that done?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member comes into the House and he picks one program and he says that because it is not exactly the same as it was when we took power in September of 1984 that there has been a cut-back, or an elimination, or some reduction in our commitment to the environment. I think he should judge us on our over-all record.
For example, this is the first Government to bring in a major environmental Bill, recently passed by the Parliament of Canada and proclaimed on June 30, since Environment Canada was established in 1971, that is, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This is the Government that overhauled the National Parks Act, for the first time in over half a century, in addition to all the new national parks we have created.
I advise the Hon. Member and his Party when he wants to compare our record with that of previous admistrations to look at the over-all record-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York West.

OLYMPIC GAMES-DISQUALIFIED ATHLETE-PRiME MINISTER'S POSITION


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minster of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport.
After congratulating Ben Johnson last Friday the Prime Minister was quick to support the life suspension given by the Minister responsible for sports on Monday evening. Now the Prime Minister has not only reversed himself by ordering a full inquiry under the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister, but in so doing he has completely undermined the integrity and credibility of his own Minister responsible for sports.
I would like to ask the Minister to confirm whether the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's office was consulted about the life suspension handed down Monday evening. Second, how could the Minister justify the Prime Minister congratulating Ben Johnson Friday, condemning him Monday, and backtracking now in order to have a full inquiry to prove or confirm his innocence?
Can the Minister tell us where the Prime Minister stands and when he will stop running from one position to the next?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that if he takes the time to read the statement the Prime Minister made on Monday night I think he would see that the first thing referred to was the personal tragedy that would afflict Ben Johnson in such circumstances. I think that is a feeling that is shared not only by him but by all Members of this House, and certainly by myself. For now, I do not think that anything that we can say-certainly not by the Liberals-will change the situation.
We have proposed an inquiry. I have stated that we are going to get on with it as rapidly as we can in a context in which we can gain and collect information in an organized way, certainly not through all sorts of scurrilous allegations coming from all sorts of sources.


HOLDING OF INQUIRY
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, it is curious that the Minister skirted the question concerning whether the Prime Minister knew of the life suspension before it was announced by the Minister. What shocks Canadians is that the Prime Minister is bouncing around the issues rather than standing and taking a firm position and giving the benefit of the doubt to a Canadian champion and a Canadian's innocence, and then let the inquiry make that determination.
I ask the Minister responsible for sports this question. This morning he failed to confirm whether this inquiry would be fully open and public. Can the Minister confirm and give his undertaking to this House that the inquiry will be fully open and public? Can he also assure us that it will take place immediately after the end of the Olympics, and that it will not be delayed by any possible election campaign?
September 29, 1988


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that now we are really getting to the root of the matter. The Hon. Member from the Liberal Party is clearly on record as saying that he wants to have this during the election campaign. Now we know why. Members of that Party could not care less about Ben Johnson. They could not care less about the doping issue. The only thing that they-


Sergio Marchi: That is a lie.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to refrain from using words across the aisle that 1 might have to comment upon later.


HOUSING
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Housing I want to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works. I want to ask the Minister about the Government's new-found interest in Toronto and in Canada's housing crisis. 1 specifically want to ask him about the housing site at the Toronto Downsview Airport.
Yesterday I met with a group of concerned people about housing at the Downsview Airport on a piece of property that the Government sold to a private developer two years ago for about $14 million. Today, houses are being built on that site for which the bottom asking price is $680,000 and the top price is $950,000.
1 want to ask the Minister what strings is the Government going to attach to developers who are going to be involved in the newly released Downsview lands to make sure that the housing which is constructed there is affordable and not luxury housing.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, in response to the pleas of a good number of Conservative Members from Toronto, the Government for the past year and a half has been reviewing what we might do to deal with Toronto housing problems. Just two weeks ago we made an announcement which is virtually going to create a new city in the middle of Toronto with the Downsview project. That will allow a great deal of affordable housing.
The amount that will be involved is consistent with the policy of the Province of Ontario. Those are the guidelines we follow. We are going to work closely with provincial and municipal Governments to establish the appropriate blend, the mixture that is good for the area. I would hope that the Hon. Member will respond to this kind of initiative that Toronto Members are requesting.
Oral Questions
. CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING-GOVERNMENT POLICY


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, we have yet to find out the details of that initiative. The problem is not only in Toronto, it is right across Canada.
This group pointed out to us yesterday that since 1984 the Government has slashed funding for all kinds of housing across Canada, including in Halifax. I want to ask the Minister if the Government is so interested in making affordable housing a priority in Canada, why it is doing nothing about its policy of establishing unit prices for co-op housing that makes it impossible for many of those groups to build co-op housing on Downsview and elsewhere.
I want specifically to ask the Minister a question concerning a co-op housing group in Halifax called the Greenstem Housing Co-op which is about to go down the tubes because of the Government's policy on co-op housing units.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, 1 can advise the Hon. Member that the people involved in the co-operative housing movement in Halifax are very appreciative and fully applaud the initiatives that the Government has taken. More co-op housing has commenced in the last four years in Halifax than in the previous ten years.
I can also say that the amount of money that we make available to housing generally for co-ops and non-profits across Canada is adjusted in accordance with cost of living increases. It is reviewed at least twice a year to respond to various conditions.
We have delivered 40 per cent more to those most in need than any other Government has on any other program.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
For more than 13 years, the Ouje-Bougoumou Cree community has been asking for recognition under the James Bay Agreement. About two weeks ago, Quebec finally set aside land for this community. Newspaper articles show that intense negotiations are underway and that progress has been made.
Mr. Speaker, my question is as follows. In view of the positive developments on the question of land and the intense discussions between the Cree representatives and the federal negotiator, can the Minister tell the House what the federal Government intends to do now to see this matter through in the interest of all signatories of the Agreement and especially of the Ouje-Bougoumou Cree and their chief, Abel Bosum?

September 29, 1988
Oral Questions


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government is also eager to settle the matter of the Ouje-Bougoumou Cree. The first step was to select some land, and this was completed recently. The second is to create a new band.
Now, the Government of Quebec and the Grand Council of the Cree have taken 13 years to find a piece of land where the new band can settle and this land has just been found. Thirteen days later, you would like me to come up with an immediate answer.
I have said that we want to settle this matter and I have instructed our negotiator and asked him to proceed with an offer that will be put on the negotiating table next week so that the Ouje-Bougoumou Cree band can be created and the case finally resolved, which will allow us to bring in legislative amendments to the Agreement and the Act concerned as soon as possible.


PUBLIC WORKS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, and I am not sure if there is one in the House. It is a question that should not be answered by the Minister of Public Works because it touches upon his conduct.
I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister why the Government feels that the whole Moisie affair can be left to the police. Does this mean that the Government has abandoned its own conflict of interest guidelines of ethical standards for Ministers which are so clearly violated by this case?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, some people like to beat a dead horse to death.
Yesterday the Hon. Member's Party initiated a new 50-point platform-


Some Hon. Members:: Forty.


Stewart Donald McInnes: I would have thought that they would have been raising questions relative to the national interest as indicated in that particular platform, rather than perpetuating something that we have been over and over.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, if there is an Acting Prime Minister in the House, I direct my question to him.
Is it the position of the Government then that as long as the criminal law is not violated, the Government is free to use its public trust to confer benefits on its friends, on its relatives, and on its cronies?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as a former Solicitor General the Hon. Member should know that the Government does not interfere with criminal investigations. However, the type of questions that have been raised by members of the Liberal Party today indicate why they have fallen to third place.


PUBLIC WORKS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Public Works responsible for Harbourfront in Toronto. The Minister knows that Harbour-front is already a mess, such as Downsview is shaping up to be.
As the Minister knows, eight years ago the federal Government agreed with Toronto City Council that Harbourfront was to include affordable housing, family housing, schools, local stores, public parkland, and waterfront access. Now it is becoming mainly housing for the rich.
In view of the unanimous Harbourfront Review Committee resolutions which I sent to the Minister this morning, will he assure the House that he will stop all further building in Harbourfront until the Royal Commission, headed by the Hon. David Crombie, has reported publicly?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member did indicate that I received this advice this morning. We are not going to act too hastily. Of course there is the Royal Commission headed by the Hon. David Crombie. I will be consulting with all groups that have an appropriate influence and an opinion on this matter, before making any final decisions.


REQUEST THAT HARBOURFRONT RESIDENTS BE CONSULTED
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, for the Minister's further help I will send him a copy of a petition I have just received from Toronto residents asking that there be no further building south of Queen's Quay.
Since the Hon. David Crombie has not answered any of the inquiries from Harbourfront residents, or their elected representatives on City Council, will the Minister direct him to place Harbourfront Residents' Association representatives, and the two Ward Six aldermen of City Council, on his commission and the committees thereof, or at least to confer and consult with them immediately and frequently?
September 29, 1988


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, there are not many boundaries on the nature of the inquiry by the commission headed by the Hon. David Crom-bie. I know, and he has indicated to me, that he will be consulting with all groups that have an interest, and indeed I have confidence that he will follow that procedure.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: He has ignored them and refused to answer.

[ Translation]


DISASTERS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence who is responsible as well for civil defence.
Last August 25, the Minister of Transport, in the presence of the Minister of the Environment, promised the Saint-Basile victims that the Conservative Government would contribute $ 1 for every dollar spent by the Government of Quebec.
Quebec now expects to pay almost $6 million to the residents of Saint-Basile.
Can the Minister assure us that the federal Government will spend half that amount, as Quebec Government Minister Rocheleau is requesting?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will know, there is an agreement between the federal Government and the provinces to cover federal contributions to emergencies. The news release that was issued at the time referred to that agreement.
It is done on a sliding scale, as the Hon. Member will likely know. Indeed, over a certain figure the contribution could go above 50 per cent. The manner in which it works is the following. After $1 per capita has been spent by the province, the federal Government starts to make a contribution; 50 per cent of the next $2 per capita of provincial expenditures are eligible for cost sharing; 75 per cent of the next $2 per capita, and 90 per cent of the remainder.
[ Translation]


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT PAY $3 MILLION TO VICTIMS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responded as I expected. He has just admitted that the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Environment misled the people of Saint-Basile.
The Minister of Transport did not make any restriction when, anxious to promote his own political career in front of the victims of Saint-Basile and the media-this is on tape-he
Oral Questions
stated unequivocally that his Government would give $1 for each dollar spent.
So here is my question to the Minister responsible for civil defence. Your Quebec counterpart with respect to civil defence sent you a letter asking that your Government live up to its commitments. Will the Minister find a way to hand over the money the Minister promised the people of Saint-Basile? Expenditures of $6 million! The Government is to pay half of that. Will the Minister honour that commitment?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member accuses us of trying to make political capital out of a situation, and then engages in histrionics of this nature.
What was indicated at the time was that the federal Government would respond in accordance with the formula, and we will indeed do that. Depending on the contribution by the province, the federal contribution could go above 50 per cent. All this will depend upon the contribution made by the province.


TRAGIC DEATHS OF BELUGAS IN ST. LAWRENCE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mrs. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known fact that beluga whales are dying in the Saint-Lawrence River. The causes of the pollution which is killing them have been known for quite a while.
Why does the Government not put an end to this carnage by enforcing the Fisheries Act, an already existing and effective measure? Why is the Government not taking any action to stop the killing of beluga whales?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, scientific analysis of the blubber of Belugas indicates one of the offending pollutants, for example, is Myrex, which has never been manufactured or even marketed in Canada. Its origins are as far away as New York, into the Niagara River, which in turn empties into the Great Lakes and from there into the St. Lawrence River Basin. That is one of the reasons why this Government signed with the Governments of the United States, of New York and of Ontario, the first ever four jurisdiction agreement that will slash all toxic loadings into the Niagara River by 50 per cent by 1996. That is the kind of strong environmental action this Government has provided in this area as in others.

September 29, 1988
Oral Questions MINISTER'S POSITION


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, when I asked a question about this situation in April the Minister talked about the utmost priority in acting. He said that with Royal Assent to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act we would be in a position to act quickly. He now seems to be saying we are not going to be in a position to act at all.
Why not use the Fisheries Act? Why not use CEPA? Canadians do not care which Act is used, but they want to see an end to this killing of whales. What specific action can he promise to undertake, given the seriousness of this problem?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is one instrument and we are using it. Another instrument is the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement which we completely overhauled in favour of cleaning up the Great Lakes by including all sources of pollution, not just toxic chemicals; by setting targets and schedules for the clean up of the Great Lakes; and by weaving into the fabric of this binational agreement mechanisms for accountability to ensure that not only this Government but future Governments live up to the targets and schedules I mentioned.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONS PROPOSED TALK SHOW GUIDELINES
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. Radio open-line talk show hosts are very concerned that the CRTC is planning to make some serious changes to the rules for talk shows which will curtail the host's ability to choose guests, and put in place prescreening procedures for callers. Could the Minister tell the House if these changes are indeed going to be put in place and, if so, how are we going to ensure freedom of speech is not threatened?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. As many people are aware, the CRTC has invited the public as well as broadcasters to react to the proposed guidelines regarding open-line shows. In fact the closing date for those submissions is today. Anyone wishing to comment on these proposals has been invited to submit their views on this issue.
I want to make it very clear, however, that these guidelines were never intended to interfere with freedom of expression. That is not their intent. The CRTC is trying to find methods to provide balanced and well informed programs.


FOOTWEAR IMPORT QUOTAS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade and concerns the beleaguered Canadian footwear industry.
In 1984, on July 26 to be exact, the Minister's boss, the Conservative Leader, promised the footwear and textile workers "stability through the rigorous enforcement of our existing international rights and obligations, including if necessary establishment of global quotas and a controlled increase of import volumes".
In 1986 the Government abolished quotas on imports of men's footwear. This resulted in the loss of 3,000 jobs in Canada. Import quotas on women's footwear are scheduled to end at the end of this November. This will likely result in the loss of thousands more jobs. Given that, will the Minister finally, at the eleventh hour of the Government's regime, honour his Leader's commitment to the footwear workers of Canada and extend quotas on women's footwear for at least two years? Or is he just simply going to sit by and allow more jobs to be lost because of his inaction?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I assume an election must be getting close because the hon. gentleman is worried about boots. He is certainly likely to get one when the election comes.
There is no emergency with respect to the question of footwear. The question of whether quotas should be continued or not will be dealt with in the normal course of events after a careful survey of the present situation in Canada. There is no chance that thousands of people are going to lose their jobs as a result of any change in quotas. That is simply the hon. gentleman using his usual scare tactics to attempt to stir up the electorate.


JOB PROTECTION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the people in my riding who work in the shoe industry are not amused by the minister's answers. They want to keep their jobs. I therefore ask the Minister of Trade how he can explain the fact that, in 1984, when his government came to power, Canada was producing 45,000 pairs of shoes per year and that now, in 1988, after the 1987 elimination of quotas on men's shoes, that number is down to 38,000 pairs. Given the fact that 7,000 jobs have been lost in this sector, what does the Minister intend to do to protect the rest of the workers who will also lose their jobs if this Government persists in doing nothing? Will he immediately assure Canadians that he will protect jobs in the shoe manufacturing industry? This time, I would like to get more than platitudes for an answer.
September 29, 1988


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have something other than nonsense in the way of a question. The situation is that this country lives by its exports. One-third of our gross domestic product comes from exports. One of every three Canadian jobs comes from exports. Therefore, we have to be participants in the GATT system. We have to engage in fair trade. Therefore, we have to take great care with respect to import controls and quotas and so on with respect to some of our industries which may be vulnerable to foreign competition.
The footwear industry is one of those industries which has been protected and we will continue to protect it, always being very careful so that we observe the international conventions which apply and do not endanger our exports which are very important to Canadian workers.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, last Monday my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan got the following response from the Minister of Transport: "As soon as I have a good explanation, or any explanation, I will give it to my friend". I would like to ask about the benefits of deregulation and privatization and whether someone, anyone, on the government side could answer the question posed last Monday.
Air Canada has granted a maintenance contract outside this country for the first time, involving an L-1011 aircraft being serviced in Great Britain. Why is the Government allowing Air Canada to set this kind of precedent by exporting maintenance work outside its own facilities rather than blending specialized workers into crews doing routine maintenance, as is allowed under the present collective agreement with the machinists?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by Air Canada, and I am sure the Hon. Member will recognize that Air Canada makes its own decisions on a daily basis, that as the airline's own in-house maintenance capacity has been fully utilized it has subcontracted the special maintenance work for one L-1011 aircraft to a U.K. firm.
1 may say that this is a single contract for a thirty-day basis only, and is for specialized maintenance work.
Oral Questions


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, there go another 250 Canadian jobs on one aircraft down the drain.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would like to ask the
Minister a further question, Mr. Speaker. It has to do with a question which the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) asked yesterday concerning the hiring of American air traffic controllers.
In 1983 the Liberal Government stopped training air traffic controllers and the Conservatives did not start again until four years later.


John Carnell Crosbie: We did. You can thank me for that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why, as soon as the Government and the Deputy Prime Minister began dreaming about a brave new world of deregulation, was there no thought given or action taken to arrange the immediate resumption and expansion of training of air traffic controllers in Canada?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 thought that the Deputy Prime Minister had answered these questions very clearly yesterday.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, he did.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I might also say it is important that we realize that the issues we are dealing with require some urgency whether in the repair and maintenance of aircraft or in the usage of air traffic controllers. I would think even the Hon. Member would recognize that.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
During the past few weeks the Opposition has made numerous accusations that a substantial number of people in western Canada were exposed to nerve gas testing in the 1960s at the Suffield Research Station in Alberta.
I do understand that a toll free number has been established for those wishing more information, and that is very good for individuals. Could the Minister tell this House, and indeed all the people in southern Alberta, just what exactly has been done? Does he have a list of people who are suffering longterm effects?

September 29, 1988
Business of the House


Henry Perrin Beatty: No,
Mr. Speaker. We have opened up the telephone lines. We have started to receive some calls and we will follow up on each one of them. Mr. William Barton will continue with his inquiry.
As the House will know, on Friday the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) demanded an emergency debate here so individuals could be encouraged to come forward and present themselves for medical tests. Since that time my office has been in touch with hers on three occasions. 1 have written three letters to her to ask that the names of the individuals who have made, in her words, these numerous calls, be made available to the Department of National Defence. To date, she has refused to produce them.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question for Question Period. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. CN Route before being privatized deducted $1,000 per truck from each trucker as a security hold-back. When the Company was privatized this fund was turned over to Transport Route Canada. It was a fund amounting to about $200,000. This fund has completely disappeared along with other moneys that have been put into it.
Why would the Government, a Government headed by Canada's most famous ex-trucker, turn over the truckers' own money to somebody else without at least getting the proper security to make sure that that money would be there for the truckers?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I always give great care to the questions put by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, Mr. Speaker. I will see that query is passed on immediately to the Minister of Transport.


INSURANCE FUND QUERY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, this $200,000 is now lost to the truckers. It is their own money. Not only that, but the truckers have been paying 4.8 cents a mile toward an insurance fund. That insurance fund of hundreds of thousands of dollars is no longer there. Truckers with claims, some of them over $100,000, do not have the fund to draw from.
Why is this Government which created this mess refusing to help these truckers? They are innocent parties in the Government's messing of this whole situation.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do understand the concerns that have been raised by the Hon. Member. As I said, I will see that these are relayed immediately to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of State for Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: I will come to Hon. Members in just a moment for the usual Thursday afternoon question, but I have an announcement I must make first.

[ Translation]


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I received a communication from the Hon. Hugh Edighoffer, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, forwarding to this House resolutions adopted by the Legislative Assembly and concerning the Constitution.
Hon. Members may obtain copies of the resolutions from the Table, in both official languages.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Government House Leader. This being Thursday afternoon, I am asking him the customary question about the business the Government intends to call over the next ensuing time period. I am sure that we are all very interested in his answer.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that this afternoon we will commence, and hopefully complete, the report and third reading stages of Bill C-152, the Heritage Languages Institute Bill. If time permits following the deliberations on that Bill, we will then resume second reading debate on Bill C-140, the bank services charges Bill that was commenced during this morning's sitting. We would continue that tomorrow, perhaps. We hope there will be no further filibuster from the Opposition on this important Bill.
On Friday, we will go to second reading debate on Bill C-149, the postal services review board. On Monday, we will resume debate on Bill C-149, followed by second reading of Bill C-128, the Bill for the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. Perhaps Monday afternoon we will have a House Leaders' meeting to discuss the balance of the week.
September 29, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 also ask the Hon. Minister when he is going to proceed with a Bill to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts in relation thereto.
This Bill was introduced and read a first time on June 30, 1987. It was debated only one day, March 16, 1988. It was sent to a committee and you, Sir, gave me the honour of being chairman of that committee, for which 1 thank you very much, but it so happens that I only thank you for being the chairman of a committee that does not sit because we have not yet finished studying that Bill in the House of Commons. It is a very important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is one of the most important pieces of legislation which would update the Elections Act and which includes major amendments concerning the way we operate under the Elections Act.

May I therefore ask the Hon. Minister whether he has any good news for us on this very important matter. I am anxious to get working on the Bill.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I thought that we would be dealing with election expenses on a more practical basis next week. We would like to proceed with this Bill, but it is being held up by the proposed Liberal amendment which takes care of the pledges of campaign refunds to candidates and the ability to assign them to banks.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Deputy Government House Leader did not answer any questions with regard to future House business. I was wondering if perhaps that question could be redirected to the Acting House Leader of the New Democratic Party who could explain what the House will be doing in December.


Mr. Speaker:: That may have gone over some people's heads, but not everyone's.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-152, An Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: 1 have a ruling to render regarding Bill C-152, an Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
Institute. There are six notices of motion in amendment on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-152, an Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute. I am prepared to rule on those motions.

Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in order. They will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 5 and 6 deal with reports by the Minister. They will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.

I will now call Motion No. 1 in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).

The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis is moving the motion. I understand there is unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Prud'homme: Motion no. 1
That Bill C-152 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 3 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"retention and use of languages, including native and aboriginal languages, other than".


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely grateful to my colleague who, I think, will speak after me . ..

He will be following but will allow me to say a few words on this Motion No. 1.
It is a very plain, simple motion, and I would very much appreciate it if the Minister would reconsider and accept the amendment. We could do it here. The rules are flexible. After listening to the few remarks I would like to make and the remarks of my hon. colleague who put this amendment, if the Minister sees fit, perhaps we will not have to vote and the Minister would gladly accept this amendment.
Why do we ask to put in the purpose of Bill C-152, an Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, the words "native and aboriginal languages"? The Minister knows how strongly 1 feel about these matters. It all goes back to what Canada is all about. Long before my esteemed colleague from Toronto who put the motion came to this country, and this is the history of Canada, the ancestors of the Hon. Minister were probably in this country, and long before the Hon. Minister's ancestors were in this country, my ancestors were in this country, in the 1600s.

September 29, 1988
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
It is all very well to talk about the two founding races, the two official languages, but I have always made sure to remind Canadians that long before my French ancestors came to this land, there were people living in this land. These people were the native people. Why would it not be possible, I kindly ask the Minister, to make an addition to the Bill to recognize in concrete terms the contribution of these people, to make them a little different, to give them something more than all the rest? After all, as 1 said, this was the harmonious development of our country.
There were in Canada aboriginal people and natives. Then my ancestors came to this country in the 1600s. They did not discover this land. "Discover" is a word that I do not like very much. It is like discovering something. They happened to come to a place that was in existence where there was already an organized society. They took the land and later on, though we do not need to explain the history of Canada, the British came by and fought with the French in the St. Lawrence River and everywhere else in that part of Canada and they took the land. They made it a British colony and then gradually it became semi-autonomous and then autonomous.
Then we had the Canadian flag. On February 15, 1965, we proclaimed the flag. Then we had a national anthem. O Canada became the national anthem. I was a member of the committee which studied that. We told the House, under Mr. Pearson, that O Canada should be the national anthem and it was only proclaimed on July 1, 1980, event though les Canadiens fran^ais, which I say because there is no translation for that, had been singing it since July 1880. It took 100 years before we got together in Canada to proclaim it.
All that, in a nutshell, explains the harmonious development of our country, the harmonious constitutional development of our country with repatriation of the Constitution under Mr. Trudeau and with the Charter of Human Rights under Mr. Trudeau, incomplete as it may be, not to start a debate with Meech Lake.
I say to the Minister, why not? He is an honourable person.
I have known him for quite some time now in Montreal. What would this amendment do? It would make people happy. It would make people feel that they are recognized.
We should never hesitate in this country. Every day, every week, every month, every year, we should not hesitate to recognize that long before all of us, you, Mr. Speaker, the Minister, 1 and my esteemed colleague from York West who put this motion, were here in Canada, there were some people here and they were the native people and the aboriginal people.
Will this motion be abusing anything? No. I checked very carefully to see if there was a good reason not to accept this. The Minister is now a full Minister. He does not need to consult with Cabinet. He is well respected. The Minister could say: "On second thought, it makes sense, it does not take anything away from the Bill". We are not trying to lower the standards of the Minister's Bill, we are just trying to add something. Is that not really the spirit of the McGrath reform?
I have been here close to 25 years. I am not one who disagrees because we have to disagree. I have my own style, my own approach, to the political process. But if there is to be a true spirit of the McGrath report. . .
[ Translation]
... if the parliamentary reform that was advocated by a highly esteemed Member of the House, Mr. McGrath ...

. . . who is now the Lieutenant Governor. If the McGrath report on the reform of the parliamentary system is to mean something, would it not be a good example to accept this amendment?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For fear of being accused of saying somewhat surprising things only in English, I must also ... for men and women of Canada, of Quebec .. . because 1 know Quebecers. I am one of them. I am a Quebecer. And 1 know that Quebecers who are, as we say, of old stock . .. right now, nobody knows what collective name to give us. The Minister is also a Quebecer, as the Speaker is.
I say Quebec men and women know very well the history of Canada. They know their ancestors came here, to a country already inhabited by people, Indians, Eskimos. There were people living on this land. The land was not created out of nothing, uninhabited. It had its first citizens. The best way to achieve what I call social peace, harmony in a good society is to make sure everyone feels comfortable in this country, in this province or part of the country, knowing he is recognized. People want their dignity. That is true everywhere, in all parts of the world. People want to have their dignity recognized.
Well, if the Minister accepted this well-thought-out amendment which is not a controversial one, we would not have to vote on it!
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I leave the matter in the hands of the Minister.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I and all members of the New Democratic Party support the idea and proposal that there be established a Canadian Heritage Languages Institute. It is not surprising we do that. I was born in Canada but both my parents came here as immigrants from eastern Europe. They came because they thought, and they were correct in their thinking, that Canada would be a good country for them, for their children and for their grandchildren. They realized that in the part of Canada to which they immigrated, English was the language of business and English was the language spoken in most homes. They accepted that and learned to speak the English language.
They believed, and I think history has proven them to be correct, that they could be better Canadians if they helped to maintain and foster the language they brought with them. I
September 29, 1988

have some knowledge of the culture and history of their ethnic group. They were right, as are all the one-third of Canadians who are neither of Anglosaxon or French origin who believe, and have believed, and have at least verbal acceptance of their belief, in the desirability of fostering and supporting the language, culture and history they brought with them. That was first accepted when the Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission brought down its report and particularly when Dr. Rudnyckyj, of the City of Winnipeg, who was one of the members, added to that report his own recommendation that favourable consideration be given by Governments to support the language and culture of the one-third of Canadians who are neither Anglosaxon nor of French origin.
That concept was not always accepted by the majority of people in Canada. In my Province of Manitoba there came a time when a directive came down from the Government of Manitoba to the Department of Education that it was not only improper but illegal to conduct classes in our schools in the French language. There was a time when a similar dictate came down in reference to the teaching in the schools of the Ukrainian language. I am happy to say that that view has long ago disappeared in the Province of Manitoba.
In my city it is now possible, if parents wish, for students to have one-half of the curriculum taught in English and the other half taught in one of three different languages, German, Hebrew or Ukrainian. There is a very extensive program for fostering and supporting heritage languages after the regular school hours. Students have the opportunity to be educated in 12 or 14 different languages, depending on the ethnic group from which they come. 1 think that is a tremendous achievement and one which could be well matched by other provinces. We support in principle the establishment of this Heritage Languages Institute.
But I must say I am shocked and amazed that the Minister for Multiculturalism (Mr. Weiner) would not accept the amendment contained in Motion No. 1. Who has more right to have their language recognized and supported than the native people of this country? With the exception of one or two Members of Parliament and perhaps one or two Members of the Senate, the rest of us are either immigrants or the sons, daughters or grandsons or granddaughters of people who came here as immigrants. So while this institute will foster the knowledge of all the languages of people who have come to this country over the last 100 years or so, the Government is not prepared to accept an amendment which would include the languages spoken by our native communities.
I find that very strange. First, I think it is unfair. Second, I consider it to be completely unrealistic. Does the Government not know what is going on in many cities in this country? Does the Government not realize that in cities like Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, probably Edmonton, and Vancouver, there is a flood of native people, including many young people, moving into the core areas of these cities? I have not been able to get a number which is accepted by Statistic Canada or by other federal or provincial government Departments, but it has been
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
estimated that the native population in the City of Winnipeg is somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 people. One need only drive around Winnipeg any day of the week to see how the areas in which they live in Winnipeg have gradually extended geographically. I am sure the same is true in the other cities I have mentioned, and maybe others as well.
One need only talk to teachers in the City of Winnipeg, or in some other towns in Manitoba, to get a horrifying picture of what is happening. There are native students who move in and out of the city and in and out of the schools. A native student in elementary grades can attend anywhere from eight to ten schools in one year.
The native people of this country need all the support they can get. They have been mistreated ever since the white man came to this country. It is going to take generations to right the wrongs which have been created. The problems are accelerating in our schools, in our welfare system, and in our jails and penitentiaries. The number of natives involved in all of these is growing at an increasingly escalating rate. We need to deal with these problems. One of the small ways in which we could deal with the problem is by including native people as one of the groups that can get direct help and benefit from this new institute.
I appeal to the Minister. Will he not be realistic? Will he not accept the fact that this Bill is not cast in stone the way it is at this time? It is not perfect. Will he not at least give serious consideration to a proposed amendment which makes sense and which would help improve the lot, not only of this institute but of the people who have been excluded from deriving benefits from this institute as the Bill is drafted at the present time?	'


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank once again my colleague the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) who has a lot of experience in his riding, in the country, with minority and multicultural groups, and with this program. I am grateful to him for having started the report stage debate while I was busy on some other business.

It is with pleasure that I participate at report stage because it is important. It is important because it gives us an opportunity, as Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, at perhaps the eleventh hour, to ask the Government to consider a number of changes that would not diminish the Bill in stature, substance, delivery, or nuance, but would in fact strengthen, enrich, and improve a Bill which at some point in time will become the law of this country. While the principle of this legislation is certainly one that needs to be supported from all sides of this House, this piece of legislation has various gaps and holes that could be corrected in this place.

September 29, 1988
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
It is also important because of the way this Bill was treated. Notwithstanding the fact that there is, in principle, agreement from all sides on this Bill, at the first organizing meeting of the legislative committee, which is normally intended to sketch out the business agenda for the committee vis-a-vis the Bill, the Government tried to proceed into a clause by clause deliberation.
The Government wanted to get this Bill back in the House and approved without giving the public the assurance that the policy of multiculturalism that we embrace, federally speaking, as a Parliament, is going to be lived out on the streets of this country day in and day out. I find it offensive that the government Members pushed this Bill from start to finish during the course of that one day proceeding. I find it offensive that government Members embrace the theory that they know it all, that they know what changes should be made, that they do not have to go to the public or to another meeting. That is simply not good enough.
The fact is that at those very deliberations government Members said that the reason we could not go to the public to get their input is because we were going to run out of time because of the impending national election campaign. That may have more to do with this Bill than the words that have been uttered up to now. That is offensive because it speaks of doing the right thing for the wrong reason. 1 take offence to that kind of tactic.
The Minister is present and I commend him for that. He said at his appearance before the committee that he is prepared to consult and co-operate with Canadians. We then proceeded to the shambles that we witnessed. I am hopeful that the Minister will take under serious consideration the changes that we are asking him and his Government to make.
The first motion, as was elaborated on by a number of colleagues before me, is very straightforward and very simple. When we talk about the Heritage Languages Institute I want to be very precise and very open. Therefore, in Motion No. 1, I include the words "native and aboriginal languages" because nowhere in the Bill does it suggest or state that our aboriginal languages are going to be included as heritage languages for the purpose of this Bill.
The impression is left that the two official languages, which get support from other programs and other Departments, are not included but there is a grey area with respect to the aboriginal languages which belong to our aboriginal peoples. The aboriginal people wish to be reassured that their languages, too, may be considered as heritage languages for the purpose of this Bill, that those languages, too, may receive the support that we are prepared, through this Bill, through this institute, to grant to other languages.
The Minister might say that he does not have to put it in the Bill to support native languages. While that may be true, the other side of the argument can also be easily put forward, that is how do you hurt the Bill by being as specific as you can?
In various journals it is not clearly understood whether heritage languages does or does not include our aboriginal languages. For example, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the leading national umbrella group, if you will, of the various cultural communities across this country, put out a document in March of 1988 entitled "The Other Canadian Languages; A Report on the Status of Heritage Languages Across Canada". It was very interesting to note that on page 4 of this report submitted to Members of Parliament it said:
Heritage Languages in Canada are generally considered to be those languages other than the Official Languages and Aboriginal Languages which have their origins the world over.
In the Canadian Ethnocultural Council's report of March, 1988, they are essentially concluding that when we speak of heritage languages in this country we are not referring to either English or French and the aboriginal languages. It was with this intention that I put forward Motion No. 1. It would amend Clause 4, which now states that the purpose of the institute is to facilitate throughout Canada the acquisition, retention and use of languages other than the official languages of Canada. My motion would change the clause to read: "-the acquisition, retention and use of languages, including native and aboriginal languages-".
I raised this issue in the little time that we had at the first and only meeting of the committee following the organizational meeting. There was then a subsequent meeting of the committee which studied the Bill clause by clause. 1 raised it at a time when the Minister was present. I believe he took in the various arguments that were put forward.
He informed the committee after other thoughts and testimony was outlined that he would somehow take the matter back to his government shop in order to take a serious look at it. I am hoping that the Minister will respond to this one amendment which would clearly not abrogate the intention of the Bill. It would not weaken it. I think it is a small and minimum price to pay to reassure our native communities that the languages which they speak other than our official languages will for the purpose of definition be included in the Bill which will set up the heritage languages institute.
Native groups did not have a chance to come before the committee, as would have been their legitimate right, to make the point themselves because the Government saw fit to rush the Bill back into the House in somewhat of an unprecedented move as far as other Bills are concerned. Because of those reasons and the arguments that we have put forward, I am hopeful that the Minister will see fit to make this very slight yet important amendment to the Bill. In this way it will be a much more healthy Bill. It will eliminate the questions with respect to whether or not aboriginal languages are in or outside the legislation. I look forward to a response by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
September 29, 1988


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the Minister did not stand up to respond to the very pointed and good questions of the Hon. Member as to why aboriginal and native languages are not included by way of direct reference in this legislation. I saw that the Minister was hinting that he might get up. 1 hope he intends to get up to say that he will include such a provision. I hope that that is his intention. 1 must say that while it is against the rules of the House to mention the presence or absence of particular Members, 1 am glad that the Minister is here in order to hear this debate today.
I think this is a matter upon which he can move to make changes now. 1 am sorry I do not have unlimited time in which to speak. If I did I would stay on my feet until the Minister made the change. It is a simple and ordinary change. It is abysmal, shameful and dreadful that this legislation on heritage languages should have been dealt with before the committee to the exclusion of aboriginal people. There was no opportunity for groups to say how they felt about it. I am sure that was as a result of inadvertence on the part of the Government. It was because of the headlong rush toward an election that this happened. However, the Minister can still correct the oversight.
1 must say that I am glad as an aboriginal person, as a native person, that I have the opportunity to express my point of view with regard to this matter. It is shameful that the elected representatives of aboriginal people across the country did not have a chance to comment on the Bill. I want to comment briefly on it since I have but a little bit of time here.
The legislation simply states that the purpose of the institute is to facilitate throughout Canada the acquisition, retention and use of languages other than the official languages of Canada that contribute to the country's multicultural heritage.
I must say that we are all Canadians. There is only one Canada. It is because we are confident in our citizenship that we are able to tolerate the cultural differences that exist in our country and, in fact, that we are able to celebrate them. Therefore we are able to recognize as this Bill does that multicultural heritage. We can also recognize the official languages. But this Bill fails to recognize the existence of aboriginal people in Canada. That is what the amendment seeks to change. The amendment seeks to include in the wording of the clause the words "native and aboriginal languages".
The fundamental point is that the legislation here is going to create an institute that will make resources available for the preservation of languages. That is important. It is important that aboriginal people have a part of those resources. But it is not enough to be able to stand up and say: "Okay, under this legislation we could make the money available anyway".
Why do half a job? Why have half a loaf when a specific reference can be made? Aboriginal people do not fit under official languages. Cree is not an official language of Canada. It does not fit there. Aboriginal languages do not fit under multicultural heritage. Native people are aboriginal people. They are the first people of this land. They do not fit under an ethnic group. They do not fit under multicultural.
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
The Bill should be drafted so as to fit the social, the political and economic reality of the country. It can be done. It will not hurt to accept the amendment which my colleague has put before the House. The Government should agree to the amendment. The Bill will be the better for it. There may be other amendments on which the Minister might want to reflect more in depth before he accepts them, or perhaps he might feel that they would have to go to committee for study. Perhaps that will be the case. However, this amendment is a simple one. What it does is recognize the reality of Canada. It recognizes the fact that aboriginal people are a part of the country. At the same time that official languages are recognized multicultural heritage is recognized. What is unacceptable is recognizing the multicultural nature of the country and the official languages of the country while ignoring the aboriginal people.
Mr. Minister, the time for that is gone. The time in which aboriginal people will silently be ignored is passed. I must conclude that the Bill came before the House in this form out of a sense of haste because of the results of the polls that came out this morning. The Reid poll indicates that the Conservatives are ahead and that the NDP are hot on their tail with the Liberals lagging behind. Of course, the Reid poll tends to favour the Conservative Party I must say more than does the Gallup poll. Given the results of that poll, the Conservatives are in a big rush to go to an election and in so rushing forget to do a decent job on legislation.
Let us slow down. Let us take a deep breath. Read the amendment and accept it.
The Government should listen to groups and reflect upon the reality of the country. The time is long past when native people will accept half measures. It is time to recognize that aboriginal people and native people are a legitimate and fundamental part of the country. Just saying that they can be fitted in under the umbrella of multicultural heritage is not going to be well received in native communities across the country. Native people are aboriginal people. They certainly do not fit under official languages.
I ask the Minister to accept the amendment rather than trying to skate around with some sort of explanation.


David Orlikow: He has no explanation.


Cyril Keeper: My colleague says that he has no explanation. I give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. I assume that he will get up and respond to the comments that have been made by Members on this side of the House. I hope his response will be adequate to the situation. I hope that he takes the initiative in his own hands and says: "Yes, this makes a great deal of sense". If we are going to preserve languages in this country, then we ought to preserve not only the languages of multicultural groups, Polish, Ukrainian, Portuguese, Filipino, et cetera. They are legitimate. Not only should we preserve the languages of the French and of the English but we ought to preserve and promote the languages of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. I ask the Minister to rise to the challenge, to indicate that he is accepting this amendment and that he is going to do a full job rather than half the job.

September 29, 1988
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act


Mr. Weiner:: Mr. Speaker, I find the motion unnecessary.


Cyril Keeper: Insensitive.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: The preamble does not exclude native and aboriginal languages.


Cyril Keeper: It does not include them either.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Just to remind the Member, it reads:
4. The purpose of the institute is to facilitate throughout Canada the acquisition, retention and use of languages, other than the official languages of Canada,...
The only languages, therefore, that are excluded are the official languages.
Some Members may have missed the point, but clearly, it is within the parameter of this very important heritage languages institute to make sure that there is a sharing of the knowledge and the expertise and the experience, and all that would take place under this Canadian Heritage Languages Institute.


Cyril Keeper: Why are you afraid to mention aboriginal people?


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. The recorded division stands deferred.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 2, which will be debated and voted on separately.


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-152 be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 28 at page 2 the following:
"(i) to encourage participation in the federal Public Service of Canada, embassies and trade missions abroad, of those possessing knowledge of heritage languages, in order that Canada may benefit socially, politically, and economically from this knowledge."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I feel somewhat surprised by the Minister's previous response, and I think that he, in a very fundamental way, brings almost shame to what is a Bill that is supported by all sides. The House was only asking for an insignificant change in terms of three words that would have a very symbolic impact on aboriginal communities. Rather than simply talking about the problem, we in one small way could
have done something about solving that kind of perception that is out there and the attitudes that are fueled.
I move, with the same sense of hope and importance, Motion No. 2 to this Bill. It comes from a sense that I have that the Government is risking and is only satisfied in having one heritage language or one community speaking to another. That is to say, if the Greek Canadian community from Winnipeg, through this institute, can speak to the Greek Canadian community of Montreal, then that is beneficial, but the Government seems to be simply prepared to stop there.
I have a different view of heritage languages, one that goes beyond simply having one community speaking to another, that goes beyond simply having individual Canadians of various persuasion being fluent in more than simply our official languages as a benefit to them, not only culturally but as a benefit to them economically and socially. The dynamic view of our heritage languages lies not only in a heritage languages institute that promotes those languages, but in a government that is prepared to embrace heritage languages as a national vehicle and as a national tool.
That is why I proposed in Motion No. 2 to include in the purpose of the Bill, on page 2, to clearly delineate that as a Government and as a Parliament we are prepared to utilize heritage languages on behalf of Canada, not only in our federal civil service, so that we can communicate and link many communities that now feel somewhat alienated from the federal Government and from Ottawa, but that we also include those individuals who are competent, professional and knowledgeable in their areas of expertise, and also possess a second or third or sometimes fourth or fifth language. We should include those individuals on our trade missions and in our embassies abroad so that those Canadians, on behalf of Canada, can begin to open doors that thus far have remained locked because of cultural barriers or because of linguistic barriers.
I am not suggesting that if you happen to be unilingual English or French you should not be serving on our trade missions, or in our embassies abroad, and in our federal Government. I am not suggesting that at all, and I want to be very clear about that. At the same time, it seems to me that we are not embracing the richness that is part of our country, the richness in languages and cultures that is fairly unique compared to some other countries, that we are not embracing these resources, because that is what they are-they are linguistic resources-and put them to the use of Canada, not of one particular cultural community, but to the benefit of our country abroad, whether it is through trade missions or through its embassies abroad.
September 29, 1988

It would therefore seem to be logical that if we had a Canadian of Japanese ancestry who spoke and was fluent in Japanese, who obviously understood and was aware of the Japanese culture, then that person, given the competence, would be able to advance the cause of Canada in Japan probably more effectively.
Therefore, 1 ask the House, would not Canada be richer for that? Would not Canada be enhanced on the international stage? Would not Canada be able to go back to this richness like no other country can, or very few in fact can? Is that not an advantage in the international community, where the competition is fierce, where people are competing for the various ears of various foreign Governments, whether it is for trade for our Canadian firms, whether it is to get an advantage for our firms into that country, whether it is to link much better communication between one country and the next, to perhaps encourage those countries to invest their resources and their know-how in Canada?
It has to do, in large measure, with communicating. Go into the international community which has obviously become the global village that a famous Canadian spoke of. It is in communication, it is being able to communicate what Canada is, it is being able to communicate with those international partners abroad, to enhance whether it is trade or whether it is a certain policy or whether it is to enhance the investment in this country or the travel into this country.
That is why I am seeking the support of the Minister and of the Government to rise beyond simply having a number of heritage languages retained in Canada. As important as that option is, it is equally important, and certainly more in keeping with the dynamism that we have to come up with in the 1990s across the world, if we could harness that linguistic and cultural resource in Canada and put it to work for Canada, in our federal Government, in our federal trade missions, and in our federal embassies across the globe.
How many times have we run into individuals who have said: "I am surprised that you do not do that as much as you can and as much as you should"? How many times do we run into constituents, or even ambassadors at various functions who represent other countries in this capital, who tell us that we are missing a golden opportunity? We in fact are. The reasons are not to derail the purposes of this Bill, or to suggest that it is not important to have the retention of various cultural languages.
Languages open doors for everyone. A young person coming out of university possessing a second or third language, all things being equal in marks, will be further ahead than an individual who does not possess those languages. We have a tremendous hang-up with our language issue, not only official languages, but other languages. Sometimes when one runs into young children abroad who, in addition to studying the
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
literature of their own language, are studying English, French, and German, it gives one an indication that those youngsters will possess skills that will make their candidacy for a job or a placement much more advantageous than an individual who learns only one language. There is nothing wrong with that. However, think of the potential for encouraging our youngsters to learn and be as fluent as possible in one or more languages.
We have that resource and we are not putting it to good enough use for Canada on the international stage. That is why I proposed Motion No. 2, which would simply add another paragraph to the purposes outlined at page 2, line 28, which are many, but which would include one section that reads:
"(i) to encourage participation in the federal Public Service of Canada, embassies and trade missions abroad, of those possessing knowledge of heritage languages, in order that Canada may benefit socially, politically, and economically from this knowledge".
I believe that, and it is in keeping with the intent of the Bill. It is in keeping with the advantage that we can possess as a country. It would seem to me to be a logical course to follow to facilitate that communication and gain an advantage on a very competitive world stage for our country and for our people.
I look forward to receiving the support of my colleagues in the House, particularly those on the other side.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about this amendment, which I support. While there is a growing understanding among more Canadians that there is a tremendous value to the country, and not only to the people who are able to speak more than one language, it is still not accepted by many people, and unfortunately by many people who are in a position to make decisions and implement policies, if they are accepted.
Recently I spoke with some people in my constituency. The husband is German and the wife is Ukrainian. Their very young children are growing up speaking three languages; the two languages that are spoken at home, and the language which is spoken on the street and in their schools. Those children will have a tremendous advantage over other Canadians, and will be able to make a very important contribution, if we only permit it.
My colleague from Thunder Bay, who has spent a great deal of time on this Bill and on all questions relating to multicultur-alism, has pointed out to some of us that there are now 70 languages spoken in this country, not counting many of the dialects.
I am sure I am not alone in my experience that, when I am in my office on Saturday morning, it is usually the case that more than half of the people who come to me because they need some advice or assistance, come with immigration problems. They have relatives or friends in the country from which they came who they want to help and encourage to come to Canada.

September 29, 1988
Adjournment Motion
If that is the situation I face, I ask Members and the Minister to think about the situation and problems faced every day, and perhaps many times a day, by people who work in the Department of Employment and Immigration, to mention only one Department. Many of the people who come for help either cannot speak or certainly are not fluent or comfortable in speaking either official language of Canada.
Would it not be helpful to them, to the Department, and to the country if we could encourage, to a much larger extent than we already have, the employment of people in those Departments who are able to talk to, understand, and communicate with people who come in because they have a problem and need assistance?
Of course, in any Department we cannot have people who are able to converse in all of the 70 languages. I have talked about the situation of government Departments, agencies, and Crown corporations in Canada. My friend, the spokesperson for the Liberal Party, made the same point in reference to our embassies, consulate offices, and trade offices in other countries, particularly in countries where the language spoken is not either English or French.
Would it not be helpful for us, and facilitate achieving the goals held by that particular office, whether it is to increase the flow of immigrants, or to increase trade between that country and Canada, if, on the staff of those offices, there were people who could speak one or more of the other languages which people in this country speak?
It seems to me that this is a very sensible amendment. I support it, and I urge the Minister to give some serious, nonpartisan, non-political consideration to this proposal. If he does, I think he would agree that this amendment is one which could well become part of the Bill.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we find this motion unnecessary. The Minister is already authorized to do so in the Multiculturalism Act, Section 3(2)(e) and 4. To refresh the memories of Hon. Members who are rejoicing in the passage of this the first Multiculturalism Act of its kind in the world, it states:
3.(1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to
(2)(e) make use, as appropriate, of the language skills and cultural understanding of individuals of all origins;
Under the section entitled "Implementation of the Multiculturalism Policy of Canada", Section 4 states:
The Minister, in consultation with other Ministers of the Crown, shall encourage and promote a coordinated approach to the implementation of the multiculturalism policy of Canada and may provide advice and assistance in the development and implementation of programs and practices in support of the policy.
Therefore, we say no to this motion.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A recorded division on the motion will stand deferred.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 66, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-Municipal Affairs- Ontario's Lifeline Program-Request for federal financial assistance/Minister's position; the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi)-Immigration-Location of office in Minister's riding/Cost of relocating office; and the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine)-Financial institutions- Bill C-81-Mouvement Desjardins.


CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-152, an Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is Motion No. 3 which will be debated and voted on separately.


Sergio Marchi: September 29, 1988

September 29, 1988
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this amendment. Before dealing specifically with it, 1 want to say to the Minister and the Government that we in the New Democratic Party are appalled that despite all the protestations of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister and other Members of the Conservative Party, the report which recommended the establishment of this institute, submitted to the Government more than a year ago, has not been dealt with until now on the eve of an election.
Conservative Members of Parliament realized that they had to do something to try to counteract the mistrust that has developed from one end of Canada to the other among Canada's ethnic communities against the Conservative Party and Government. The Bill should have been brought forward much sooner. There was no reason for not bringing it forward.
When it was eventually sent to the legislative committee, we had another shameful set of experiences. Here the committee met in what was supposed to be the organizational meeting. Instead the Conservative majority on the committee rammed through decisions which meant that the organizational meeting became the meeting. The Conservative Members limited debate. They eliminated the possibility, desirability and the hope of a number of very important witnesses of appearing before the committee to make suggestions. There were experts from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, from the University of Laval and aboriginal groups who wanted to make suggestions.
I am certain, and 1 can only speak for my own city and province, that many of the ethnic groups and communities would have appreciated the opportunity of appearing before the committee either in Ottawa or in the city from which they operate. They did not get that opportunity, Mr, Speaker. Instead the Conservative Members imposed a deadline for amendments but required them to be in the hands of the clerk by six o'clock the same evening of the day that was supposed to be merely an organizational meeting of the committee. That is a shameful way to act in a parliament that is supposed to be democratic. It is shameful coming from a Government led by a Prime Minister who promised that it would be a Government willing and ready to listen to opinions.
With regard to Motion No. 3, we have no objection to Edmonton remaining the principal office of the institute. We accept that. It is a good choice. But we think-and the amendment tries to spell it out-there is no reason that the institute should not have the ability, and that ability, of course, would be limited by the funding which the institute will get from the Government, to develop and have offices in other centres in the future. We see no reason why the Government could not agree to that since this Government or any government in office can, in fact, control the number of offices which the institute can have because it is the Government that decides what the budget of the institute should be. There areand I do not have to tell the Minister-even in his City of Montreal large ethnic groups who are neither Anglo-Saxon or Francophone. That is more true in cities like Toronto and Vancouver and it is true in many cities such as Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary. I cannot understand why the Minister is being so obstinate in not agreeing to the most non-partisan amendments which have been brought forward.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I find the amendment unnecessary. If I refer the Member first to Clause 5(2), it reads:
The Institute may carry on its activities throughout Canada.
That seems very clear. It will, indeed, have a board of directors who will be chosen to represent the regional interests and needs of all Canadians from coast to coast.
In addition, if I am looking at the specific article that my hon. friend would like to amend, it states:
The principal office of the Institute shall be in the City of Edmonton.
This will be a separate corporation. It will have the ability to make all of the decisions it feels are appropriate in keeping with the needs of this great country. Nothing precludes the corporation from opening any other office which it may feel necessary. It is for that reason it states clearly:
The principal office of the Institute shall be in the City of Edmonton.
Certainly the amendment is unnecessary.
Let me quietly comment, if I may, and say that I did not think in view of the very exciting initiatives of the last six months, which some have described as being more fruitful than anything that has taken place in the previous 15 years, that I would be accused of any kind of foot-dragging. That is what the Hon. Member seemed to say. The Hon. David Crombie went west to Edmonton last summer from what I remember and made the first announcement dealing with an institute of heritage languages and the need to preserve heritage cultures and languages. It was then that the Drs. Kreisel and Batts were commissioned to carry on a very extensive and thorough consultation and provided us with a report back in the spring. Since then we have been privileged to put through a Multiculturalism Act, unanimously approved by the House. We have announced major new initiatives with new funding, one of which was for heritage cultures and languages. Now, today, we have a Bill. I do not see how anyone can say that is footdragging.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on Motion No. 3?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
September 29, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. The next motion to be debated is Motion No. 4.


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-152 be amended in Clause 24 by striking out line 35 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada and to governments of the provinces and territories".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is my fourth turn at bat, but 1 will not give up. I will keep going, even though my motions were not agreed to on three previous occasions. I feel that the fourth motion will be the lucky one. 1 have a sense that the Minister will be prepared to pass the fourth amendment. I have not won a vote yet, but I am very much looking forward to winning many, many votes after the next election campaign.
The intention of the fourth amendment is, in a very nonpartisan manner and in a way that will not detract from the Bill, to correct a piece of legislation that I think has omitted a very important facet of Canada; namely, our two Canadian territories. My fourth motion would amend Clause 24 by striking out line 35 at page 8 and simply substituting "Canada and to governments of the provinces and territories".
Clause 24 refers to the provinces in the disposition of the heritage languages institute but omits reference to our two territories. I think that is a very serious omission, just as 1 believe that the omission of aboriginal and native languages is a very serious omission. In my first amendment, I tried to have included in the purpose of the Bill aboriginal and native languages as heritage languages. As important as it was to include those languages in this Bill, I believe it is equally important to refer not only to provinces in the Bill but also to our two Canadian territories.
For the previous multiculturalism Bill that was adopted by the House, I made the same recommendation at committee. In a number of places, the multiculturalism Bill expressed itself as working with the provinces, but left out the territories. I met with a number of groups which came before the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism at various conferences at which I have had the opportunity and honour of representing our Party. 1 have shared with them the vision that we would bring to this dynamic policy. They have asked me, when we discuss multiculturalism programs in committee or in the
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
House, why it is that so often the territories get left out of the picture. We stop at federal-provincial discussions.
Of course, during the Meech Lake discussion, the territories were again very much an integral part of the debate. Certainly our Party stood for that in that debate. In fact, one of our amendments recognized the aspirations of the territories. We have to realize that there are real, live Canadians who happen to reside in the territories. Those Canadians also have aspirations as do we in other regions of the country. Our legislation, coming from a federal House, must reflect that national diversity, that national interest.
This is not a provincial House that speaks only to one regional interest. We are the national Chamber. Therefore, I think any legislation that stops at talking about federal-provincial discussions and relationships is not only inaccurate but is incomplete. It is time that our legislation be reflective of and sensitive to the aspirations of the two Canadian territories, particularly when it comes to talking about heritage languages, and particularly in the face of a Government that refused to pass my first amendment that would have ensured that heritage languages would also include our first native and aboriginal languages.
This amendment is parallel to the previous one. The Government did not want to include aboriginal languages as heritage languages. Since it refused that amendment, and I do not know why it did, 1 hope it will not refuse this amendment which is more in keeping with defining in a fuller context what we mean by the word "Canada". It is more of a correction to the legislation.
I am asking the Minister to look at this as an important housekeeping amendment, but one that nonetheless is very symbolic. It is very important to include rather than exclude the territories. It is important to have a fuller and broader definition of Canada rather than a more restrictive one. Therefore, the amendment only serves to note that we must include the territories in Bill C-152. I hope, having refused the first three motions because he deemed them to be unnecessary, the Minister would see the merit in adopting the fourth amendment that I have proposed to my colleagues in this Chamber.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I do accept the suggestion and I am prepared to accept the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on Motion No. 4?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

September 29, 1988
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Marchi) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions Nos. 5 and 6 deal with reports by the Minister. They will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-152 be amended in Clause 27 by striking out line 16 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"third anniversary of the coming into force".
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-l 52 be amended in Clause 27 by striking out line 24 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"before each House of Parliament and referred to such committee of the House, of the Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established for the purpose, within the".
He said: Mr. Speaker, coming off the victory of the fourth amendment, I will see if it is possible to extend that victory to Motions Nos. 5 and 6.
Motion No. 5 would have the effect of committing the Government to taking another look at the heritage languages legislation after three years instead of after four. The Bill proposes that at the end of the fourth year, the Minister and the Government would take a close look to see how the heritage languages institute is functioning, how the directives are coming forward and how the results are being received by Canadians. That review is very valuable so that we as a Parliament may ensure that the legislation is being guided in a way that is legitimate and in keeping with the views of Canadians.
I propose, and I discussed this very briefly at our first organizational meeting, that we might want to do that review, particularly since it will be of a new institute, sooner rather than later. I think it might serve a very useful purpose if a new piece of legislation were to be reviewed in some detail and depth using some care after three years as opposed to four.
1 think that a sooner review by the Minister, by committee and by Parliament would certainly be advantageous to the board of directors and the staff of the heritage languages institute. I am not sure how the Government devised the fourth year. Perhaps they envisaged four years in terms of the natural life span of a Government, or the four years was a compromise cut off between three years and five years. I am not sure whether there was any scientific equation to come up with year number four. However, having discussed this matter with a number of individuals since the Bill was introduced, I found it was their preference to go sooner rather than later in terms of a parliamentary review of the legislation. If in fact there were obstacles to overcome, barriers to be hurdled, we might be able to catch those kinds of problems earlier as opposed to allowing the institute to continue and then having to correct those mistakes later in the fourth year. That is in essence one of the amendments we are now debating in tandem, namely, amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 6 speaks to the accountability of Parliament. When the Bill was first introduced, the Minister and the
Government inserted a provision that the institute would have to make a yearly annual report directly to the Minister. While that reporting and accountability is useful, I believe the usefulness is short-lived if that reporting is only going to be done to the Minister.
If the report contains some non-productive results or perhaps some embarrassing information, it is very obvious that any Minister of any stripe will keep that information to himself or herself. Therefore, at the committee level I made the recommendation to the Minister that he do two things; first, make that report to Parliament so that the accountability serves not only the Minister but all Members of Parliament, and through them, all Canadians. The information in the yearly report will not then be for the sole information of one Minister and one Government, but will be shared.
The example I used at the committee hearing was the Official Languages Commission. It reports annually on the policy of bilingualism not to the Minister, not necessarily to the Government, but to this Chamber, to Parliament, and through Parliament to Canadians. Therefore, when the Commission speaks it speaks to the entire institution of Parliament. I believe that the heritage languages institute should borrow a page from the bilingualism book and report directly through Parliament to Canadians and to the country.
The Minister, I notice, has amended his earlier version of the Bill to endorse those thoughts that 1 made known to him some days ago. In addition, my original amendment suggests that we refer, as an automatic right, that report to the appropriate standing committee of either the House of Commons or the Senate, for its information. It is a slight nuance. Nonetheless, I recommended that it be reported to Parliament and, second, that it be referred to the various and appropriate committees of either the Senate or House of Commons. It is a good course of action because it ensures that the work done by the staff and board of directors is simply not going to be done in some kind of vacuum. Those results will in fact be meaningful and will be shared and built upon by members in this Chamber and members of the standing committee where the bulk of the legislative work and initiative gets done.
We have an institute that is working out there on behalf of our multiculturalism policy and the policy of a strong and vibrant program of heritage languages, and I think it is important that its work be rooted in this Chamber and perhaps, more importantly, through our committee system. I moved amendment No. 6 to ensure that those reports are made available to Parliament and to Members, and through Members to Canadians, rather than simply depositing the report with the Minister who will then decide whether to release it publicly or refer it to our standing committees. We in those committees should be aware of the work of that institute. Because of its findings we can invite those particular individuals to our committees, or perhaps institute some work that would augment, in partnership, the heritage languages Bill, and the spirit and work contained within this Bill.
September 29, 1988

That is essentially amendment No. 6. Again, amendment No. 5 is simply to have the threshold level for review to be the third year as opposed to the fourth year. I hope that in the spirit of the earlier amendments I proposed, perhaps in the spirit of the Minister's acceptance of Motion No. 4, he would acquiesce and accept that a review in the third year is much more valuable than a review in the fourth year. More important, perhaps, accountability should be done through Parliament and through our committee system as opposed to an individual Minister of the Government of the day. 1 look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on these two amendments.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Motions Nos. 5 and 6. I am very pleased to see the Government did agree to accept Motion No. 4. It is a very important point, one which was too much overlooked. I am pleased to see the Government will benefit from the advice of Opposition critics. I hope it will see the light on these two motions as well.
Motion No. 5 is not an earth shattering kind of motion. It is a very modest one. For that reason I think the Government ought to accept it. It is simply very reasonable. What it would do is alter the timeframe, shorten by one year, the report by the Minister on the institute's activities and organization to three years after coming into force instead of four years. I feel that three years is a reasonable period of time to see how the institute is going, and I feel it would be more useful. We have two opposition Parties supporting this motion and I hope the Government will go along with it.
Motion No. 6 is, I think, a more important motion because it is one that will really have more of an impact. The idea is to get more public discussion and input. This is clearly a matter in which there is a great deal of public interest. Let us benefit from that public interest by ensuring that organizations and individuals concerned with the issue of heritage languages and the work of the institute are able to have input at the appropriate time.
Motion No. 6 would seek to extend the reporting processes of the Minister to include review by committee, hence increasing the likelihood of broader public input into the evaluation of the work and the organization of the institute. We have strong voluntary organizations in this area. We have experts. We have citizens who are concerned. It seems to me it would be very sensible to get their input into the Minister's report, that it just not be a report to the Minister and not just be something kept within the bureaucracy. We should have the kind of public input that is really suitable for this kind of issue because people really do want to be involved.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting no on both Motions Nos. 5 and 6. With respect to Motion No. 5, the yearly report of the institute would provide the House with opportunities to assess the progress of the institute. With respect to Motion No. 6, I find it unnecessary because there
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
already is an automatic reference. Therefore, we will vote no on both motions.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the amendments we have been considering which were moved by my colleague, who has been doing a terrific job on this particular Bill, basically asks for a review after the third year as opposed to the fourth anniversary. The reason for this is that we are hoping, of course, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will be calling an election this weekend. We in the Liberal Party hope that he has the guts to call an election because we believe that we are in a position to take over, to form a Government, and hopefully one that will last for a period of four years. Since we would like to be in that position for four years, we would like to see this particular legislation reviewed within that mandated period. If we stick to the Government's legislation, which basically says that it will be reviewed after four years, a whole Parliament will lose the opportunity to review how well the Bill is working.
We think that by accelerating, not very dramatically, but simply by one year, the timetable for a review, that is, from four to three years, we will confer upon the next Parliament the opportunity of reviewing this legislation. We think that is a reasonable position. We frankly cannot understand why the Minister wants to wait four years because he is basically telling the next Parliament that it will have no opportunity at all of reviewing to see where it can make improvements to make this legislation work more effectively.
In fact, if the institute is going to be able to assume the powers that have been described here in the course of the discussion this afternoon, if it is going to be able to have the impact on heritage language, education, promotion and development which I believe all three Parties have clearly stated that they would endorse, then why not give the opportunity for review to the next Parliament? Why block out a whole Parliament? Why block 290-odd Members from the opportunity of reviewing this legislation? I believe that the amendment that has been moved by my colleague, the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), which is to cut down the period for review from four to three years, would in fact accomplish that purpose.
Motion No. 6 deals with the reporting mechanism. We believe that it is really important that the institute report, not only to the Minister, which is presumably the possibility under any piece of legislation, but in fact directly to Parliament. The reason we would like to see that direct reporting is that we have seen how effective the parliamentary committee can be in reviewing, for example, the Official Languages Act. The discussions that have taken place on all sides of the House with respect to the report by Mr. D'Iberville Fortier show that a parliamentary committee in fact sometimes has the opportunity to highlight an issue more effectively than by simply reporting to the Minister.

September 29, 1988
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
Certainly if you have a good Minister in place the Minister may in fact act upon reports from people and organizations representing the institute for heritage languages. This is a totally new concept, a totally new institute. By giving the institute the opportunity to report to a specific parliamentary committee and by mandating that in the legislation we will truly be turning power back into the hands of parliamentarians and not simply giving the power for review of the effectiveness and possible improvements for the Canadian heritage languages institute to a single Minister.
We think that the motion to report to Parliament through the committee democratizes the process. We think the decision to review the process after three years, as opposed to four years, is going to make a real opening for the next Parliament to examine the issue of heritage languages in greater detail. In fact we think that these are both extremely reasonable and supportable amendments. We know the Minister is reasonable and supportable in relation to this issue. I do not want to get too carried away, he might want to use that in his campaign brochure and I would not want to see that happen.
Nonetheless, we think these are reasonable and supportable amendments to which I am sure my colleague, the Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) would also like to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Cyril Keeper: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I know that I am maturing as I spend time in this place, but I am sure you would not confuse me with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). That reminds me of when I was in Winnipeg last week and was coming back to Ottawa. I stopped in at the airport and gave them my ticket. The clerk passed me my ticket and said, "Mr. Knowles", so I thanked him for the compliment. I hope that that is a good omen.
The legislation with which we are dealing to establish the Canadian heritage languages institute and the motions that are before us deserve the attention of this Parliament. It is too bad that more time was not spent at committee level in order to deal with this legislation. If that had been the case perhaps there would not have had to have been so many motions before us.
Motion No. 5, which in essence says that the Minister would report on the institute's activities after three years rather than after four years, makes a great deal of common sense. That certainly is not something that always characterizes this place or always characterizes amendments to legislation. This is a good amendment because, if we have the election, as I expect, called tomorrow morning . . .


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What time?


Cyril Keeper: I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will call his press conference for ten o'clock and will put us on the road to a new Parliament. If we have the election call tomorrow and the election on November 21 we do not want the Minister reporting on these activities-even if it is a Minister of the New Democratic Party, only four years hence. The same applies to a Liberal or Conservative Minister. We want the report to come within three years so that the next Parliament will have a chance to consider the report.


Ross Belsher: Keeper, you're smoking again.


Cyril Keeper: I've just been accused of something I am sure the Hon. Member does not mean. It is at least 12 years since I smoked a cigarette.


Lynn McDonald: Tobacco.


Cyril Keeper: I have my colleagues quickly giving me advice. They must think I am in quicksand here because they are telling me to make it clear that I meant Players and not some other brand.


Lynn McDonald: Much worse for your health.


Cyril Keeper: I have not smoked in 12 years, Mr. Speaker.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am very conscious of the clock. Earlier this day there seemed to be a general predisposition that it would be a wise move on behalf of the House to get this Bill to the Senate. We do have amendments that require standing votes. On Friday this is not possible. The Senate seems to be moving rather expeditiously on certain things.
If Members would like to get this to the Senate with the possibility of Royal Assent before the week is out, government Members at least would be willing not to see the clock at this point and perhaps proceed a little longer in order to see if we could dispose of this Bill today. We could perhaps do Private Member's a little later or, alternatively, move to Private Member's Hour and come back and sit a little longer this evening.
I do not know what the will of the House is at this point, but certainly the government side of the House would be willing to make those kinds of accommodations which would enable Members to make the points they want to make and still possibly get the legislation to the Senate for Royal Assent.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I gather that there is not unanimous consent.
September 29, 1988


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and I do so as Chairman of the Standing Joint Committee for Regulatory Scrutiny.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the ninth report of the joint committee which I tabled on May 5, 1988. That report calls for the Government to table a comprehensive response by October 2. Since October 2 is a Sunday the interpretation of the rules, as 1 understand them, are that the response be tabled tomorrow.
1 simply want to bring that to the attention of the Government and to say that the House, the country, and the Senate are looking forward to the Government's response tomorrow.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-15, an Act to amend the Patent Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   CANADA POST CORPORATION ADVISABILITY OF AMENDING ACT
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Canada Post Corporation Act so as to make Canada Post an essential public service which would render illegal any strikes affecting postal delivery.
He said: Mr. Speaker, again I would like to pay a compliment to the whole process of parliamentary reform. It is through that process that individual Members such as myself can speak on some urgent and serious matters. This particular motion was drawn and was subsequently declared a votable motion.
The sending and receiving of mail over the years has played an important, sometimes critical, role in the lives of most Canadians. Prompt, reliable, low-cost service is essential to individuals, especially seniors, and to small and large companies.
As recently as yesterday I visited the Glynnwood Retirement Residence in Thornhill, as well as Thomson Court Apartments in Markham, which is also a retirement home. It was interesting to see how keen the residents were to check their mailboxes. It is not only a matter of anxiety over the
Canada Post
timely receipt of pension cheques but also the receipt of much treasured letters from loved ones and friends.
Canada Post Corporation has the privilege of operating as a monopoly in providing mail service to all Canadians. With this privilege there is an obligation to meet the needs of its customers which comprise the entire population of Canada, including every business and institution in the country. As a result, every day the corporation faces the task of moving 30 million pieces of mail to more than 10 million addresses.
There is no room or time in an operation of this magnitude to cope with interruptions caused by strikes. It is the Canadian people who suffer, the people who must put up with inconveniences, higher costs, and even loss of business, the people who must also subsidize the corporation for its losses through their taxes.
We suffered through three postal strikes in the past year William Johnson stated in the August 25 edition of The Gazette of Montreal: "The third postal strike in 14 months should convince even the most timid: the right to strike is out".
The Canadian people are the ones who bear the heaviest burden and who are made most vulnerable. They must be protected. That is why I have proposed Motion No. 113 which states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the
advisability of amending the Canada Post Corporation Act so as to make
Canada Post an essential public service which would render illegal any strikes
affecting postal delivery.
Constant interruptions in mail service as we have witnessed over the past years can no longer be tolerated. The effects have been devastating. When I speak of devastation I am not simply referring to a case of a Christmas card arriving on the first day of spring, nor an invitation suddenly surfacing after the event in question has taken place. I am talking about the real hardship felt by many senior citizens dependent upon postal delivery for their pension cheques, cheques that provide money for their food, shelter-the necessities of life, not the frills. I am also talking about the ruin of many small businesses whose entire operations depend upon regular mail service. Businesses such as small insurance agencies, publishing houses, and companies engaged in direct marketing through the mails are particularly hard hit by strikes.
Just this afternoon I spoke with Barry Cosburn who is President of the Markham based insurance firm of Cosburn, Griffiths & Branham Insurance Brokers Limited. He said: "Being a business dependent on Canada Post, we view it to be in our best interest to have Canada Post declared an essential service and, as a matter of fact, I would go further and privatize it".
I spoke to another businessman today who shares my concern about Canada Post and who is totally supportive of the motion. Graydon Card is the owner of Card's Home Hardware and Appliances of Stouffville. His comments were as follows:

September 29, 1988
Canada Post
Since over 50 per cent of our daily business volume is done on a credit system, it is mandatory that our receivables come in on a regular and reliable basis.
Past strikes have been so detrimental and threatening to our business, that we had to resort to personally delivering our invoices to over 400 customers.
I talked to another very successful businessman in Markham. Mark Cullen is the General Manager and Vice-President of Weall and Cullen Nurseries Ltd. He expressed his frustrations with Canada Post with the following comments:
We spend about $250,000 in business with Canada Post. I wish I could say it is worth it.
The unions only have to threaten to strike and a lot of damage is done. If we had just mailed a direct response catalogue, the response rate drops drastically since customers are worried that our products, many of which are very seasonal, may not arrive in time.
If they go on strike and we just happen to have 30,000 mailers ready to go, we must throw them out.
The actual strike and threat of strikes can throw our budgets completely out of whack.
Unlike any other supplier, Canada Post's rules are quite rigid. It is cash up front and you must comply with certain packaging and labelling conditions. That would be fine if we had confidence in their ability to deliver our mailings on time.
In closing, Mr. Cullen said:
Canada Post for example had guaranteed a maximum five-day delivery on a mailing of 500,000 catalogues. When we found out that many were not delivered for two and three weeks, we gave the business to a private courier.
Mark Cullen is very supportive of my motion.
Canada Post Corporation has a responsibility to all users. Many businesses have been drawn into bankruptcy as a consequence of strikes. The country simply cannot tolerate the prolonged interruptions of what is in fact an essential service.
Some 80 per cent of the total mail volume handled by Canada Post is contributed by the business community. Is it fair to jeopardize the future of such good customers by disrupting service to them? Is this the way to treat and keep good customers?
Competition for Canada Post is increasing. Private couriers, telephone, telex, expanding communications technology, and facsimile transmissions are all seeking this business. It is more important than ever now that service is not disrupted for any reason.
Parcel mail decreased by 8 per cent in the past year. One must deduce that private couriers are, therefore, providing more reliable service.
The 1981 postal strike is estimated to have caused a loss of $3 billion to Canadian business. Can we allow these types of losses to continue to affect a sector that provides 92 per cent of the job creation in Canada?
Small business is particularly vulnerable to the effects of postal strikes. Many have not been able to survive them, but even for those who have managed to keep their heads above water there has been a high price paid with serious impacts upon their growth and potential future.
Disruption of collections has affected cash flows and delayed receivables have resulted in heavy interest payments. Additional costs to cover alternate services provided by private couriers have been incurred. Inevitable sales drops and staff reductions have frequently resulted in frustration and broken morale that has been difficult to rebuild. It is tough when one has to deal with the consequence of an action but cannot control the cause.
Canada Post was incorporated in the fall of 1981. Now 62,000 people are employed there. It was a series of strikes that denied postal service to Canadians which was a leading factor in Canada Post becoming a Crown corporation, but even this new status has not eliminated the problem of strikes.
Postal strikes provided an opportunity for competition to grow, taking over markets once dominated by Canada Post. Once again, who stands to lose the most? It is the taxpayer.
When Canada Post was incorporated, it faced a deficit of over $300 million and a monumental task to meet financial obligations, to gain operational control of the organization, and to establish a peaceful relationship with the labour force. Factors such as strikes that limit efficient use of the workforce have a significant impact on the cost of providing postal services.
The annual report of Canada Post for 1987-88 says:
Only in an environment where there is a balance between service, efficiency and postal rates can business grow, compete, reach and maintain profitability.
There is no room in this plan for strikes. Moves to improve reliability within Canada Post include the establishment of the Marchment committee in 1985. The first nine recommendations deal with the need for reliable service. The report reads, and I quote:
All Canadians require a postal service. In particular, they require a reliable first and second class mail system ... consistent, dependable, regular, movement of mail.
We know from experience that "consistent, dependable and regular movement of mail" cannot be achieved while an organization is coping with internal management-labour problems that consistently lead to strikes.
Once again, who is the big loser? It is the taxpayer, but it seems that the corporation's future is also being held up for ransom by troubling strikes.
To the credit of Canada Post, it has, indeed, implemented many of the recommendations of the Marchment report. However, it has been an uphill battle that unquestionably has been hindered by continuing labour-management problems, problems that in most instances resulted in strikes for which the Canadian public has had to pay too large a price.
Over the years Canada Post has suffered severe criticism for continually operating with a deficit. Gradually, this deficit is being reduced, from $129 million in 1986-87 to $30 million this year; a significant reduction.
September 29, 1988

However, I believe that most of this progress has been made through increases in postal rates, not improved efficiency.
During the four-year period from 1979 to 1983, the first-class postage rate was increased by the Liberal Government from 17 cents to 32 cents, an 83.7 per cent increase. In the five-year period from 1984 to January of 1989, the Progressive Conservative Government will have increased the rate from 32 cents to 38 cents, which amounts to a 17.9 per cent increase.
In the coming year, Canada Post Corporation is expected to break even for the first time in 20 years. As the plans are implemented there will not only be improved standards of moving mail, but these steps will help to reduce mail handling costs.
We, the customers, stand to benefit from these improvements. Let us not let a labour strike destroy the chance of attaining these goals, for such improvements are not without cost.
We invested $190 million in 1987-88 to support fundamental changes to improve the postal system. During the same period, Canada Post had to cope with three postal strikes and the negative impact that these must have had.
Canadians have been receiving and sending mail since 1705, when Pedro da Silva, Canada's first recorded mail carrier, was commissioned to provide service for both official and private mail between Montreal, Three Rivers, and Quebec City. He had a tough time of it, as the first road connecting these settlements was not opened until 1734, but the mail got through.
Can we allow this important service that has been such an essential part of our lives to be bogged down and rendered ineffective by a never-ending series of strikes?
Labour-management problems of Canada Post have a history of being resolved through strikes, at grievous expense to the Canadian public. The customer, you and I, are the real victims in labour-management feuds for we must pay ever escalating rates and endure poor service. This is a burden we can no longer expect Canadians as individuals or as members of the business community to bear.
It was in 1967 that the Pearson Government legislated employees of the Canada Post Corporation the right to strike. This move has obviously been a mistake.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations, chaired by the Hon. Member from Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann), completed an examination of Canada Post's operational plans last year. On September 22, 1987, it submitted its report and its first recommendation read as follows:
That the Government consider declaring Canada Post an essential service and invoking third party arbitration, if the approach to this year's labour-management negotiations does not reflect the Corporation's crucial importance.
May I stress that that was an all-Party committee that made that recommendation.
Canada Post
In closing, 1 must say that it is now time for this Government to react, I hope in a favourable way to my motion which in part reads as follows:
-consider the advisability of amending the Canada Post Corporation Act so as to make Canada Post an essential public service which would render illegal any strikes affecting postal delivery.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if you did a Canada-wide survey of Canadians, individuals, and businesses, you would find that a tremendously high rate of concerned Canadians would want to pass my motion if they were indeed here in the House of Commons.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I just have a couple of comments to make because I noticed that some Members want to put their feelings on the record about this particular motion. 1 suppose every word in the motion could be taken literally, such as the word "strike" and the words "any strikes affecting postal delivery". The biggest and most effective strikes affecting postal delivery were struck by the Government of Canada.
They were the ones who decided to close rural post offices. They were the ones who decided not to have weekend pick-ups at red mailboxes in the cities. They were the ones who decided to put in so-called supermailboxes and super-duper mailboxes from one end of Canada to the other, replacing the postmaster or the postmistress in those communities. They were the ones who decided that it was more important to make money in the Post Office than it was to have dependable delivery of mail services. They are the ones who, by their philosophy, would for the sake of breaking even or making money go back to the pony express. They would rather go back to the canoe on the St. Lawrence River. They would rather go back to the dog team up North. At least it would not then be a cost on the public purse.
The mail service is as important as medicare. It is as important as anything that one can think of. It is an essential service, but the Government of Canada does not believe it is an essential service.
The Government has brought in changes since it came into power that will radically change the postal service of Canada, so radically that we will no longer see a post office in a small community in Canada with a flag beside it. That is usually the one federal building in the community, and we are talking about 5,584 communities. There are 5,584 rural post offices, and those post offices are slated to close.


An Hon. Member:: What does that have to do with postal delivery?


George Baker: Every one of them is going to close. The Hon. Member over here is asking: "What does that have to do with postal delivery?" I thought that this motion was about postal delivery. He is asking: "What does that have to do with it when somebody can go to the next community, to some box out of doors and pick up their mail, when somebody can drive along the main street?" That is what the hon. gentleman says.

September 29, 1988
Canada Post
It is one thing for people to say: "Here I am in Ottawa, and this business of closing down the Post Office and going to the local drug store is a good idea. I get off work here in Ottawa at 4.30, 5, or 6 p.m., and I am sure of having the mailbox open. I can always go into the drug store and stand behind someone buying toothpaste or toilet tissue and be served by someone. 1 can get my mail then. This is as better service". That is what the people can say here in Ottawa.
Those post offices in rural areas serve the community. They are the place where residents do all their banking. They are the one federal establishment in those communities that has a federal presence and serves a purpose far beyond just picking up mail.
Another thing I do not like about the philosophy of the Government is that that service can be handed over to the local business person in the community. I have often thought about the closure of rural post offices. I know some Members of the House will not understand what 1 am talking about. I sometimes think that a lot of the time they do not understand what I am talking about.
However, someone goes into one of those new outfits arranged by the Government to be placed in rural areas and he is served by the local businessman. Perhaps he owes him money. Perhaps a person is picking up an unemployment insurance cheque, a Canada pension cheque, disability cheque, an old age pension cheque, or welfare cheque; sometimes he owes the businessman money. Some Members might say that there is nothing wrong with that because he is taking the cheque with the one hand and giving it back with the other.
However, I think there is something a little wrong with that; not only that, but if somebody in the community replaces that postmaster or postmistress, namely a local business person who perhaps may not be in that community but in another community. Granted, the mail box or the post office is a place of security, and people have trust in the person who is handling their cheques and their mail.
All I want to point out is that if in the interpretation of "strikes against postal delivery" Canada Post is an essential public service, it certainly is, and the first people who should recognize that are members of the Government of Canada. If they recognized that, they would not be putting in supermailboxes and establishments out of doors where someone who cannot get around very well has to go there in the middle of winter and pick through the snow to pick up his or her mail, compliments of politicians who believe that the Post Office should make money. Those politicians say that because they are drawing a comparison between the United States, Great Britain, and some other countries. This is not Great Britain. One could take Great Britain and put it in part of Canada and lose it. This is not any other country. This is Canada, spread out in large rural areas.


Ross Belsher: Do you support the motion?


George Baker: The Hon. Member asks if I support the motion. If the interpretation of "strikes against postal delivery" means the actions of the federal Government, I would agree with it.
[Translation\


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity given to me to make a few remarks on this subject. I think that the motion before us is very important and I would like to point out that motion M-113 submitted by Mr. Attewell, one of my colleagues, reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of amending the Canada Post Corporation Act so as to make
Canada Post an essential public service which would render illegal any strikes
affecting postal delivery.
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to point out that Canada Post is already an essential service, an essential service for many people. Some people can use other services like Fax, which is a new technology. Some people can use either the postal service provided by Canada Post or the service offered by Purolator or other companies; these people can afford to pay more for this service and thus have other options. But for the elderly, for young people, for people on low incomes, postal service is already essential. It is not necessary to have an Act of Parliament; we do not need legislation establishing that postal service is essential. It is obvious that Canada Post is an essential service for almost everyone. But some people already have alternatives.
The other aspect of this motion is that it would make any strikes illegal... it is the idea behind this motion, the idea of making any strikes illegal. Just imagine! I think that we live in Canada, where people have human rights. I am quite surprised, but I would have thought I was in Poland. Am I in another country now? A country like Poland where the Communist government has already taken away the right to strike and made it illegal? Has such a law, such an approach, worked? Can a government take away people's human rights? Is it possible to make laws? Obviously. But is it possible for dictators to take away people's human rights, to take away their right to work? Mr. Speaker, I am impressed by the Poles, because they have a government that has all the powers, a government that says it represents all the people and that there is no other institution that can represent the people's interests. No church, no labour union, only the Communist Party can represent the people properly.
That is the approach of the Communist Party in Poland and these people have rejected the NDP. There really is a difference because the NDP is a democratic Party. We entertain socialist notions, notions to promote the interests of ordinary people, but in a democratic way, whereas a Communist party is a Party seeking to impose its views on people. They are determined to outlaw strikes and they have legislation which states that there shall be no strikes and no unions. But in the end, when people represent their own interests, they realize that joining forces can be an advantage. When they find out that working together and presenting a united front give them more power they form a union, but a union which the Government does not recognize as such. Still it does not make any difference. Solidarity is a Polish union representing workers, and their Government simply has to admit the fact and negotiate with these people in a country where dictature prevails.
September 29, 1988

As 1 see it, Mr. Speaker, the emphasis in this motion should be on the words "the Government should consider the advisability of amending the . . . Act". The key word here is "consider". We are simply asking that the proposition be studied.
1 take this opportunity to deal with the motion by saying that some countries have tried to outlaw any attempt by people to be represented. It does not work out because people know that when a Government ignores their interests they have to get together and tell the Government that they expect their interests to be properly represented.
1 would also point out that unions are legal in North America and that strikes were legalized in the 1930s after a number of violent strikes. At the time the American Government thought it would be well advised to acknowledge the existence of union activities through legislation to settle the issue rather than pretend they did not exist and choose to let them take place in illegality.
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that the motion must be seriously considered. I would be quite surprised if the Government were to let it come to a vote. I imagine that Government Members will want to talk it out. It is because the concept here . . .


An Hon. Member:: . . . will you vote for the motion?


Cyril Keeper: The Hon. Member asks whether I intend to vote for this motion. Good question. Do you think 1 will have a chance to vote either way? 1 don't think so! I imagine there are government Members who have more sense than to let it come to a vote and who will say we should take the time to analyze the motion. It was a pleasure to be able to make my contribution to this debate.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the Hon. Member who just spoke on his efforts to make an excellent speech in French. He is to be commended.
It is time we had an election, Mr. Speaker, because I am starting to realize I don't agree with anyone. I don't agree with the motion as proposed because, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should take away a right of association or a democratic right or a right to strike. I don't agree with my Liberal friend who spoke earlier, trivializing postal services as they are today . . . It's not true that we always go and pick up our mail at a private post office and that we buy stamps next to the toilet paper display. They can go on all they like about the privatization of our postal services, but 1 suggest they look at the polls which clearly show that generally, people are very satisfied with the new system.
Of course, 1 do not agree with the Hon. Member across the way when he says that Canada Post is an essential service. To
Canada Post
a certain extent, it may be essential, and the usual example is that of the elderly who get their pension cheques in the mail and people who get their unemployment insurance cheques. As far as that goes, I agree. But it seems to me that the federal Government, and we have been here for four years, should concentrate on introducing a direct deposit system so that in many cases we could avoid a system that may be disrupted as a result of people exercising their democratic rights.
Mr. Speaker, the Government remains entirely faithful, and I fully subscribe, to the principle of free collective bargaining and the rights it confers, including the right to strike and the right to lock out, throughout the system. Part V of the Canada Labour Code provides a framework of rights and responsibilities designed to promote stable industrial relations between employers and unions in federally-regulated industries, which includes the Canada Post Corporation. Although the responsibility for collective bargaining lies first and foremost with the parties themselves, the Canada Labour Code provides for the assistance of experts in conciliation and mediation cases, where assistance is made available to employees and management when the parties are unable to reach an agreement.
Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that collective bargaining in federally-regulated industries is usually a very peaceful process, since about 90 per cent of labour disputes at the federal level are resolved without strikes or lock-outs. Of course, the cases we hear about are the more spectacular ones, and we have two Crown Corporations where that is the case at the present time. Granted, all is not sweetness and light, but 90 per cent of the disputes are settled without strikes or lock-outs.
The right to strike or to impose a lock-out is fundamental to the collective bargaining process in Canada. The possibility of a work stoppage is the final test, and should always be seen as such, for the bargaining mechanism and the economic resources of unions and employers. The same applies to lockouts and the right to lock out should also be considered in that light. Although in most cases, neither party resorts to these measures, without that possibility, serious negotiations would be impossible. In fact, there are labour relations experts who maintain that a work stoppage, in addition to settling a dispute in no uncertain terms, has the effect of clarifying the issues and re-establishing priorities. I must say 1 agree.
The motion before the House today, Mr. Speaker, is flawed in that it proposes to take away the right to strike from employees who lawfully acquired that right. It does not, however, provide any substitute procedures for resolving the dispute. Most of the time, proposals put forward in this House and elsewhere insist on permanent and general compulsory arbitration as the most efficient means to resolve conflicts arising from employment.

September 29, 1988
Canada Post
Mr. Speaker, arbitration plays indeed and important and legitimate role in the collective bargaining process in Canada. First of all, it is clearly mentioned in the Canada Labour Code in connection with the resolution of conflicts which occur during the life of a collective agreement concerning the approval and interpretation of the clauses of negotiated contracts. Moreover, under special circumstances, when every aspect of a situation requires it, Parliament will insist on compulsory arbitration to deal with unresolved issues. However, as a rule, compulsory arbitration has been turned down by the Canadian Government as a favoured model for dispute resolution.
The compulsory arbitration system has never been effective as a means to prevent strikes in countries which have implemented it. Australia is a case in point. In 1904, Mr. Speaker, this country adopted the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act which absolutely forbade strikes and lock-outs. That was in 1904. Those who had drafted it felt that compulsory arbitration would replace the more violent process of strikes and lock-outs. Nevertheless, the labour movement in Australia has never really accepted to be deprived of its right to strike.
In 1979, 75 years later, the Australian Minister responsible for Labour Relations made the following comments concerning working relations in Australia during the 1920's:
The experience of the decade would be useful even if showed only one thing, namely, that the Government cannot prevent strikes by legally banning them. In a democracy, people cannot be forced to work if they do not want to-until 1930, strikes were made absolutely illegal under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Well, there were more strikes during that period than at any other period in the history of Australia.
That is a glaring example. For that matter, I remember that in the 1960's, Premier Lesage of Quebec had said: "The Queen does not negotiate with her subjects". The funny thing is that not long after that, they all sat together at the same negotiating table. The world has changed, Mr. Speaker!
Under the same law, in the 1930s and subsequent years, Australia experienced over half a century of legislative amendments to recognize the fact that compulsory arbitration is no solution to a conflict on working conditions.
In 1930, barely 20 years later, the total ban on striking in the Australian civil service was cancelled. They then relied a lot more on the criminal provisions of the legislation, together with the required qualifications and enforcement conditions. In addition, strikes and lockouts likely to disrupt interstate trade could result in criminal proceedings. In the late 1960's, Mr. Speaker, since the unions refused to pay their fines, the penalty system collapsed. That led to a review of the procedures used in contempt of court cases. Now, whenever a contract clause is violated, the parties get a second chance. They can still resort to conciliation and arbitration procedures before the criminal provisions of the law are enforced.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that my time is very limited. But the Australian experience proves at least one thing: it is not by passing legislation forbidding strikes or lockouts or by imposing heavy penalties that we can solve the conflict. Since I was a personnel director for quite a while, I sat at a provincial negotiation table. I was totally against imposing penalties of $60,000 a day to a union leader. It just can't be done, it is not realistic, Mr. Speaker, and we must make changes to this Bill.
I congratulate my colleague for his courage in putting it forward but, Mr. Speaker, I think we can find another solution to the problem.


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today is of the utmost importance for the collective bargaining system. We must therefore ask ourselves which factors must be taken into account in relation to it.
Mr. Speaker, we have had several similar motions in the past. We have also had calls from various quarters for a complete overhaul of our collective bargaining system. We keep receiving recommendations from well-intentioned people asking us to change our industrial relations system and to eliminate strikes and lock-outs.
Mr. Speaker, I say these people are "well-intentioned" because they usually have in mind the impact work stoppages have on innocent people who can do nothing about labour conflicts which affect them. Although well-intentioned, these people generally ignore the complexity of labour conflicts and the importance of industrial relations practices, including to right to resort to economic sanctions which have been worked out through many decades of experience in Canada and in other large industrialized democracies.
We have, in Canada, one of the most refined systems which allows employers and unions to settle their differences, a system which is the envy of many countries in the world. Our collective bargaining system gives employers and unions complete freedom to settle their disputes through direct negotiations without government intervention. In some countries, the parties do not even have this fundamental freedom.
The conciliation and mediation provisions allow employers and unions subject to Part V of the Canada Labour Code to start direct negociations when a deadlock has been reached in the collective bargaining process. If the dispute is not settled by conciliation or mediation, the legislation allows the parties, under certain conditions, to go on strike or to declare a lockout in order to convince the other party that they will not back down from their position in the collective bargaining process. In most cases, Mr. Speaker, the threat of economic sanctions in the final stages of the process is enough to bring about the necessary concessions for a peaceful settlement.
September 29, 1988

The system set up under Part V of the Canada Labour Code ensures the implementation of collective agreements and provides for comprehensive measures to facilitate the collective bargaining process. When I look at the dispute settlement provisions in the Code, 1 am surprised to see how flexible they are and how they apply to a variety of circumstances related to collective bargaining.
One cannot expect a single policy or procedure to solve all social conflicts, but the flexibility of the Canada Labour Code leads me to think very highly of the dispute settlement method established over the years. I believe that the code is flexible enough to make a good dispute settlement mechanism work.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the right to strike or to lock-out can only be acquired seven days after the Minister has exercised an option in the area of conciliation under the Canada Labour Code. Also, pursuant to section 195 of the Labour Code, the Minister can at any time appoint a mediator to help the parties settle their differences. Under section 171 of the code, before the conciliation commissioner or the conciliation office present their reports, the parties can at any time agree in writing that the recommendations are binding. Thus, under these provisions, employers and unions can have access to all conciliation and mediation services which can help them reach a settlement and have the freedom to voluntarily settle the dispute by agreeing in advance to the recommendations made by the conciliation commissioner or conciliation office.
Mr. Speaker, I have explained in general terms the main elements of the collective bargaining process as described in the Canada Labour Code.
In the case of organizations under federal jurisdiction, I should like to make two comments. First of all, under the Labour Code, both management and unions are free to negotiate collective contracts which, in their opinion, are best suited to the conditions of the business, to the priorities and economic constraints facing the industry. When a third party intervenes as a conciliator or mediator, the parties involved determine the rules within the framework of collective bargaining, and conduct their own negotiations, the third party remaining impartial and helping them define the parameters of the matters in dispute, identify areas where compromises are possible and find ways of getting out of a deadlock.
Mr. Speaker, this approach is quite similar to that which the Government has adopted in many other areas of our social and economic life. Much more than in the past, the Government has encouraged the private sector to show leadership and rely a lot less on the Government to widen its economic outlook. Workers and businessmen therefore must assume greater responsibilities and seize every opportunity for growth.
From the labour relations point of you, Mr. Speaker, this means that management and unions will have more and more to solve their differences without Government's intervention. The conciliation and mediation processes provided for under
Canada Post
the Canada Labour Code are based on this approach by which the responsibility for negotiations and dispute settlements falls first and foremost on the interested parties. Part V of the Canada Labour Code defines the rights and responsibilities of both management and unions and clearly indicates that the parties involved in collective bargaining must find a way to settle their disputes.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize the fact that the parties must deal dutifully with the collective bargaining process and understand that any reluctance on their part to reach a negotiated settlement, undermines a system aimed at encouraging constructive collective bargaining. We have witnessed before situations where both management and unions had relinquished their responsibilities for the settlement of a dispute to a third party, including public authorities.
Mr. Speaker, we must curb Governments overwelming tendency to interfere with our lives. The Government's reluctance to adopt a legislation to force workers back to work, except in cases where conflicts could jeopardize Canada's interests, clearly demonstrate its intention to encourage both management and unions to solve their own conflicts by themselves. That is why I fail to see the need for such a motion.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to participate in this debate this afternoon in the final leg of of the Thirty-third Parliament. It may be very historic. My colleague from Don Valley East and I will be back here for the Thirty-fourth Parliament to look at some other legislation. It has been a long four years, and we look forward to the fall and the pending election.
My colleague from Winnipeg North Centre spent some time on the committee reviewing some of the postal concerns. I want to say at this time that I would like to thank all the participants who looked into what were at times some very trying times for the postal corporation. I think we have drawn very positive conclusions and made changes that have really worked quite well.
Despite some of the strikes that have occurred, to which my colleague from Don Valley East referred, in fact the Canada Post Corporation, for the first time in many, many years, is showing a ledger that is more acceptable to Canadians. This is despite the fact that there have been some very difficult strikes. I, like the Hon. Member, have considered naming Canada Post Corporation an essential service. 1 think Canadians as a whole believe that this may be a route the Government should look at. However, we have to be cautious before we automatically consider making such a major move. We should consider especially the immediate impact it would have on the relationship between the-

September 29, 1988
Adjournment Debate


Ross Belsher: Your committee recommended it.


Felix Holtmann: That's right, between the Crown corporation and the labour movement.
Let me mention something in defence of one of the unions, the rural postmasters' union. Its members have never been on strike and in fact, in most cases they have acted very congenially and have worked hard to find solutions, although we are now entering a phase of change in rural post offices.
The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) thought that change was a negative idea. I suspect that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) did as well. The facts are starting to bear us out. Even with this change, we have made tremendous progress, despite the Rural Dignity organization preaching gloom and doom and saying that Canadians are getting less service. Over the countless months and days we have debated the postal changes, in fact they have have worked amazingly well with very little disruption in postal service.
In my own community, for example, a change that took place was reported by a local paper. A retail post office won unanimous consent. I along with the entire community looked at the change and the community in fact totally agreed to put the post office into a franchise store. In fact, today, the mail is available nine to ten hours a day, six days a week, and that is what the community wanted and agreed upon. The argument that change would affect us in such a negative way more than likely is proving to be false all over Canada.
I mentioned the fact that the Post Office is now in a very positive way in terms of balancing its budget. In fact, it is returning to Canadian users some of this funding by no longer charging for post boxes, something which was done on an ad hoc basis.
I think that my colleague for Winnipeg North Centre will agree that should the Post Office become a little more efficient, some of the lower costs to the Canadian taxpayers will in fact be turned back to the users. That is what I think is good management by the Post Office.
Should the time come that postal strikes become as violent and disruptive as they seem to tend to want to become, for no reason at all, we did make a recommendation. Just recently, we had the threat of a postal strike. There was a short strike. They were asking for payment for their lunch leave while most of these people are paid an average of $25 a hour. I think it was demonstrated that the Crown corporation would not tolerate that, and in fact there was a resolution to the strike.
1 notice that my time is almost up. When the strikes were going on, the Post Office somehow managed to get most of the mail through. I think that is completely different from having a postal strike that totally disrupts services, as has happened in certain instances.
At this time I would also like to thank my colleague from Nanaimo-Alberni who yielded his position this evening to someone who knew better how to speak on this matter. As a result, I would like to commend him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



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

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE/MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the topic tonight is again the environment and the question of whether or not Canadians are entitled to know about the quality of water they have to look forward to for this and future generations. Canadians would like to believe a Prime Minister no matter who that person happens to be because the environment is too important to be left to rhetoric. However, the gap between rhetoric and fact is so wide it now requires an explanation. There must be an explanation about an issue that has been raised in this House many, many times, most recently on September 16 of this year.
Canadians are entitled to have an explanation from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). They are entitled to know whether the Prime Minister's sudden interest in the environment is driven by polls or by a genuine interest and desire to change the alarming trends we are witnessing, particularly in relation to surface and ground water. Therefore, the issue is very simply whether or not Canadians will have clean water. It is a question of recreation and of general ecological well-being. It is an issue in which this federal Government has a role to play.
The history is very simple. It is important that we remind the Government that in the 1960s and 1970s some $2 billion was spent by Ottawa under the National Housing Act by way of loans and grants to some 1,500 municipalities to build, repair, and improve sewers or to build sewage treatment plants and the like. A further $400 million was spent in the early 1980s but not by this Government. We notice, particularly in the last few months running up to the election, that this Government has made major commitments to the tune of over $12 billion, without counting the nuclear submarines. It is a commitment which probably keeps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) awake at night wondering how he will ever pay for all these promises. Out of that $12 billion, not one penny is being committed in response to a request made frequently by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities which calls for a $15 billion joint program by all three levels of government to rebuild our sewers and protect water quality.
September 29, 1988

The Liberal Party, as you know, Mr. Speaker, in 1986 and again last year, committed itself to providing the federal share of almost $5 billion for this type of participation. We want to get some information from the Tories. Do they really believe in water quality and health and recreation along our rivers and lakes? We want to know what the Conservative's environmental vision is all about. Is the Tory environmental vision driven by their reading of public opinion polls? Is it driven by conviction? Is it driven by the inevitable realization that we have to change our ways, our trends, and even our values if we are to survive as a species on this planet? Or, is it because the backroom boys are saying it is good public relations because the polls seem to say there is a big environment vote out there that must be grabbed while it lasts in order to win the election?
Despite all this we want to take the Prime Minister seriously. This is why we in the Official Opposition are pressing him here again tonight, perhaps the last night before an election is called. We are pressing him to live up to his statement on the environment to show Canadians that he means what he says; that water will be protected, that rivers and lakes will be clean again; that beaches will be open to the public. That is what we expect the Parliamentary Secretary to confirm in the name of his Prime Minister if the Prime Minister of Canada wants to retain his credibility.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has questioned the priority which the federal Government assigns to water quality and whether we will be participating in the Government of Ontario's Lifelines Program.
Let me deal with this latter aspect first. We have had the opportunity to review the details of the Lifelines Program which is to assist Ontario municipalities in the refurbishment of their water and sewage systems.
Municipal infrastructure is clearly an area of provincial and municipal responsibility. The federal Government cannot assist in programs such as these for reasons which have previously been made clear to this House. 1 am pleased that the Government of Ontario has designed a provincial program responsive to that province's needs and has taken this initiative without federal assistance.
This is not to say that the federal Government is not concerned about water quality or is not active in the area of water policy. In November, 1987, the Government announced its federal water policy. The over-all objective of the policy is to encourage the use of fresh water in an efficient and equitable manner consistent with the social, economic, and environmental needs of present and future generations.
The policy maps out five basic courses of action; fair and realistic water pricing based on consumption, federal leadership in water science, an integrated approach to water resource planning involving all sectors of society, a broad review of
Adjournment Debate
water legislation, and a public awareness program on water issues.
We already devote more than $300 million annually to encourage and improve the quality of water in Canada. In areas which are clearly a federal responsibility, such as the research, development, and transfer of new waste water technologies, the co-ordination of action among provinces, and dealing with international boundary issues, we have accepted our responsibilities and delivered on our commitments.
For example, we are already participating with Ontario to improve the quality of water in the Great Lakes. In 1987, we signed a protocol to the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement committing both countries to clean up areas of environmental concern. In June, 1988, the Government announced its $110 million action plan to protect, conserve, and restore the St. Lawrence River.
In short, the federal Government clearly recognizes its responsibility in the area of water policy and continues to assign the highest priority to the protection of this most valuable of natural resources, water.
IMMIGRATION-LOCATION OF OFFICE IN MINISTER'S RIDING/COST OF RELOCATING OFFICE


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of raising in this Chamber at this time a question that I posed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) on September 21 of this year, concerning an issue that I thought was very embarrassing to the Minister personally and very embarrassing to the Government. I thought the Minister lacked any credibility whatsoever in terms of her response to my question.
Essentially the issue was the relocation of a new immigration office in the heart of her riding in St. Paul's, Toronto. By way of background, the Minister closed the immigration office at 230 Bloor Street in Toronto and relocated that office in the heart of her own community for obvious political gains. All through that the Minister said, "Well, I didn't know", which says one of two things: first, the Minister does not know about the operation of her own Department in relocating an office in her own backyard, or she was not exactly forthcoming with Members in this Chamber.
Because there were the long line-ups that we witness in centres right across Metropolitan Toronto and other centres as a result of the mismanagement of the Government vis-a-vis immigration and refugee policy, at the first sight of a problem what did the Minister do? She simply airlifted the office, removed the staff and materials again, and went to 4900 Yonge Street. All this cost the taxpayers of Canada $30,000 for moving from Bloor Street to her own office on Eglinton Avenue in her riding. Another $30,000 was spent moving from that office to the one at 4900 Yonge Street. More important, the lease for the office in her own riding was for $600,000 for five years which comes to a total cost of $3 million, plus the $60,000.

September 29, 1988
Adjournment Debate
In order to save face the Minister created a need in order to keep that office running, not for immigration purposes but for training programs. I was somewhat offended, as were most other Canadians who are involved with this issue, because the office was moved for obvious politically appetizing reasons. Those reasons quickly went sour. At the first sight of them going sour the Minister did not delay and moved her offices yet again.
This is a colossal abuse of one's national responsibilities for a Department of Government and was carried out for purely personal, political, partisan gains that the Minister would make in her own riding. The Minister suggested in the House that the reason she moved the office-after saying she did not know it was going into her riding-was that the facilities were wrong, that they were located in the wrong building, that there were not enough waiting rooms, washrooms, and other facilities to handle that type of caseload. She happens to be the Minister of a Department. If in fact she says that it was the wrong place because there were not the proper facilities, then why as the Minister did she allow her Department to go through with the various relocations? It is very obvious that she wanted to display the ability to be able to move an office in her riding, went through with it despite the fact that the facilities were not right, only to have the community complain about it. She then reacted and moved it to 4900 Yonge Street.
I have been speaking to officers at 4900 Yonge Street. Not only do they not have the facilities there to handle the type of caseload that they expect, but the employment officers have been informed by their superiors that they will now have to relocate and move out of the location in order to satisfy the need that they anticipate for the immigration work.
Outside providing business and work for those in the moving industry, what is being accomplished by this Minister of Immigration? If she thought that it was not the proper place, then she could have stopped the move. If she thought that it was the wrong place but wanted to move for political reasons, then she should admit it. If she wants to solve the problems of line-ups, I suggest that she should look beyond her own riding and her own backyard. Not only should she try to solve the line-ups there, but she should try to solve them at the Bloor and Islington office where my constituents have to line up beginning at four and five in the morning.
If she were courageous and forthright enough to deal with the refugee backlog, then maybe those line-ups would be getting smaller. If we had on the job management those lineups would not be there. Instead of dealing with immigrants by allowing them to line up at four and five in the morning like cattle, they should be given appropriate meeting times for scheduling appointments, as is done in every other office. I do not see why the immigration office operation should be an exception.
These are the questions which remain unanswered. Why did the Minister move the office into her riding in the first place if she knew that the facilities were wrong? Why does she
continue to waste taxpayers' dollars for her own political benefit? Instead of only looking after her own political backyard, as Minister responsible for a national Department why does she not show some concern for the other line-ups that we see right across the country, not only across Metropolitan Toronto? If she has an answer to the refugee backlog and provides it before the election, as any courageous Minister of the Crown would do, then those line-ups might get smaller.
I look forward to the Parliamentary Secretary providing some of the answers that obviously the Minister, unfortunately, did not provide back on September 21.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate and respond to the question. In a way it shows that I agree with my colleague opposite. One has to be on one's toes concerning the administrative decisions made at various government levels. I can tell you that it is not necessarily a soft job to be given a Department these days because, when you get a Department you become more visible, but to the detriment of your family, your friends, your riding. It would almost be better if nothing ever happened any more in your riding, no family problems, no arguments with your friends. A moment ago my colleague took us to task about the refugee backlog. We have nothing to learn from them. For months on end, in cahoots with the Liberal Senators in the other place, they did everything they could to thwart our attempts to find a fair and equitable solution to a problem which had lasted for much too long already.
Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to set the record straight and describe the series of events. We began to review the situation in early 1988. The Minister did not hold the employment and immigration portfolio at the time. We examined the situation and when we checked the location of the famous... on Yonge Street, it was inadequate. So we asked ourselves where was our clientele for this immigration service and we came to the conclusion that it was in two very specific regions of Toronto, namely Scarborough and North York. There it is, we said. So they made an offer to Treasury Board to go in the region of Scarborough and in the region of North York. So they commented on that and decided to locate in a commercial zone in those two areas. And accordingly the Treasury Board said yes, etc. So, away they go from Yonge Street and along their way. Except that, and this caused the problem, there was indeed an administrative error, not an error in . .. Instead of choosing North York, they went to North Toronto. Something quite different! They went to North Toronto, indeed in the constituency of the Minister who later became the Minister of Employment and Immigration, which she was not then, a residential area. It was quite out of place. There was no way they could remain there.
September 29, 1988

And they did not... they started all over again and will locate elsewhere-in fact one is in Scarborough, and the other will be in North Toronto. Now, my colleague opposite says there was an unneeded expenditure on relocation costs and the lease that will be needed in the North Toronto. No. Because that is a residential area that is entitled to some services, that centre becomes the training centre for all employees. So, it will be used. We will honour our lease and it will be more in line with the area's zoning. The one in Scarborough already is in a commercial area, the one in North York will also be in a commercial area.
And, Mr. Speaker, until the North York office opens, because there are waiting lists, indeed, because the refugee problem was not solved in time, the Hon. Minister gave
Adjournment debate
instructions for the office to remain open 24 hours a day to give better service and eliminate the backlog. From 4 a.m. people wait at the door in order to be heard.
So, Mr. Speaker, there you have the answers to the question, and I am pleased I will probably be the last speaker to rise before elections are called, if only this can be done before 10 a.m. tomorrow!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


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

Friday, September 30, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers