1988-09-23

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, September 22, consideration of Bill C-136, an Act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunication, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and the motion of Mr. Waddell:
Motion No. 75A
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 70 by striking out line 4 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"7. Neither the Company, nor its parent, nor any".
And the motion of Mrs. Finestone;
Motion No. 75B
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 70 by striking out line 5 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"affiliate of the Company shall".
Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are on the twelfth grouping, Motion No. 75A. which is my amendment, and Motion No. 75B. which is the amendment of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). 1 do not think we have dealt with them yet, is that correct? We have simply debated them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have debated them, not voted on them. The motions are to be debated together but voted on separately. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 75A. standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. 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:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 75B standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. 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:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The last motion to be debated at report stage is Motion No. 79.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal) moved:: That Bill C-136 be amended by adding immediately after line 6 at page 57 the following:
"92.(1) Five years after the coming into force of this Act a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of Sections 7, 8, 19, 26 and 27 of this Act, including the effect of such provisions, shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose.
(2) Within six months after the completion of the review referred to in subsection (1), the committee so designated or established for that purpose shall submit a report on the review to Parliament including a statement of any changes to the committee would recommend."

September 23, 1988
Broadcasting Act
She said: I am pleased to rise to discuss Motion No. 79 which is a sunset clause. It is a clause that would provide for an automatic review in five years after the coming into force of this Act. It is an identical review clause that the Minister included in her employment equity Bill, Bill C-62, when she was Minister of Employment and Immigration. I would like to suggest to the Minister that we are setting no precedents here. We are being consistent in asking for consideration of the implications of this Bill which has been seen as quite flawed by many of the players in this particular broadcast area.
This review clause has some specific provisions which would provide for the comprehensive review of the operations of Clauses 7 and 8, which are the CRTC clauses. Under the CRTC we have an established panel. That panel system has had a series of different points of view. Some call it the "Meechifying" of Canada. Some have referred to it as a serious mechanism that can, in a sense, destroy the national broadcasting system in terms of providing the kind of broadcast policy that would be evenly applied across this country. If we do not have a built-in review system we will not know just how this is working. Will regional commissioners be captured by their regional responsibility and become advocates for their region instead of proponents of a policy for a national broadcasting system?
The second area of concern I have highlighted is with respect to Clause 19 which, as I said, provides the CRTC panels. Clauses 7 and 8 are the Governor in Council power of direction. The Minister feels she has removed the potential for arm's length incursions in this Bill. It is true she has removed a number of them but there is still, in my view, one that remains which could create some very serious interventions, not just arm's length interventions but shoulder to wrist intervention by the Minister. Clauses 26 and 27, with respect to the Governor in Council variance and review of the CRTC decisions, fall into the same bloc.
There were a lot of concerns and because the debate was split, I think with this motion we would be rendering the best of service. Although I have not clearly enunciated other provisions, I would suggest that we are going to have to look at this because the Minister has not accepted further definition or clarity as to what has happened at the CBC in light of the fact that there is no real boss defined. Has this Bill "Meechified" Canada's Broadcasting Act, as was suggested by Mr. William Johnson? Are we having the separate standing committees that are in the CBC now as a mandate rather than as a decision of the board, which would be the normal structure? How is that going to affect the radio and television sense of delivery of service to Anglophone minorities in Quebec in areas like Chicoutimi, Gaspe, the Outaouais, and Sherbrooke, the small towns across this country, not to mention the large cities such as Montreal? What is going to happen to the Francophones in Saskatoon, Regina, Manitoba and Winnipeg? Will the services be delivered in an equitable way if we have divided this board of directors the way the Minister directs in this Bill?
What will be the impact of the lack of clarity of the definition of broadcasting, the fact that the deregulation of the programming services into non-programming services which will not fall under the CRTC telecom side rather than the broadcast side? What will happen with respect to fair and due process and the fact that we have given the CRTC a mandate that allows it to develop the rules, examine them, apply them and fine people when these rules are not being applied, in other words, be judge and jury in its own case? It is really a very unfair principle in law and we are concerned about that.
What about the bottom line, the free trade agreement? Has it really affected our radio song content? Has it allowed for the Americanization of our network because we have not decided we would control the number of American stations that can come in? We have not decided to license. We have not accepted the grandfathering of the 22 American stations that come in on our TV sets. It is of ongoing concern that this supposed Canadian broadcasting policy will enable the Canadian people to have the option of good Canadian programming when they select their Canadian channels.
As we well know, we have a situation where we have a hybrid cable system which we are allowing to expand, and we do not know the impact of it, we have an American system mixed with ours, and our own system carries those American networks, and we are now demanding more and more from our broadcasting in terms of input of money and production of good quality programs. These are all valued goals, but will they be met under this Broadcasting Act? There is a big question mark at this time.
I have requested serious consideration by the Minister of a sunset clause which will be consistent with other clauses that have been undertaken by Governments. I would just add one other point. We have been very concerned about the CBC and five-year funding. Whereas we demand a five-year operational plan, which is good business sense, we are not prepared to give CBC the dollars to put it into effect.
All in all, I would like to recommend strongly the acceptance of Motion No. 79 which would add a new Clause 92.1 at the end of the broadcasting Bill, Bill C-136, to ensure that the experience and examples which I have just outlined have been properly effective in order to have a strong Canadian broadcasting system from coast to coast for English and French constituents, whether their mother tongue is English or French or whether they are watching because they wish to appreciate another culture, learn another language or just see themselves expressed in that particular perspective.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, this group we are debating now is our final group of amendments. It only includes Motion No. 79 from the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). It is a sunset clause for all the provisions which change the Government's power vis-a-vis the CRTC, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which is the over-all regulator of broadcasting in Canada, and the change in the decisionmaking practices of the CRTC itself. It states that after five years a committee of Parliament shall review the effects of those changes, and so on.
September 23, 1988

As I mentioned earlier this week, on the specific matter of the CRTC, the Minister and I, with a few exceptions, are more or less on the same wave length. This was not always the case. I think we in the legislative committee can take some credit for having improved this aspect of the Bill in the short and rushed time in which we dealt with the Bill in committee.
The Minister's original plans for the CRTC were objected to by almost all the witnesses who appeared before the committee. There were significant concerns expressed about whether the decentralization of the CRTC would have a profound affect on the consistency of the commission and whether the powers taken by the Governor in Council, the Cabinet, if you like, Mr. Speaker, would lead to excessive political interference in the affairs of the commission.
Fortunately, at the legislative committee, and to the credit of the Minister, we were able to pass five important amendments which improved this part of the Bill. I am pleased to say we were able to propose many of these amendments. The first amendment was to Clause 7 of the Bill. This ensured that if the Government used its power of policy direction, the directions themselves would be broad and of general application, not specific. These amendments brought substantially greater clarity to the Act and I think reflected in effect the original intent of the Minister, in any event.
The second amendment was to Clause 19 and ensures that the new panels that will be established to make CRTC decisions-the principle is that she or he who hears decides- shall consist of at least two full-time members in order to ensure consistency. I believe Ray Peters of BCTV, among other people, made this suggestion. I moved the amendment and it was incorporated in Clause 19.
The third amendment also applies to Clause 19 and suggests that members of the panel shall consult with other members of the commission in making their decisions.
The fourth amendment was the deletion of Clause 26 in the original Bill which was the Government's power of exemption. This was deemed by just about everyone to be an excessive and potentially dangerous power.
The final amendment extended the term of part-time commissioners from three to five years. As was mentioned by someone in the committee, three years on the CRTC apparently barely gives commissioners time to find the washroom.
The amendment proposed in Clause 79 by my hon. friend from Mount Royal is a positive one 1 think. Our legislative committee sat for a short time and yet we made some fundamental corrections to clauses in this Bill. I think most Canadians would agree with the statement that Members of Parliament, no more or less than the Minister of Communications, are not infallible.
These clauses represent an important change to the structure of regulatory affairs in this country. 1 think that after five years we should have a pretty good sense of how they are
Broadcasting Act
working in practice. 1 therefore support the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member in order to ensure that a review is conducted to see how we are doing after that period.
That is the end of my remarks on that particular amendment. I am pleased that the ministry accepted some amendments. 1 think that is the way we should do things in Parliament. I hope that before the Bill is finally voted on the Minister will have a look at some of the other amendments that were rejected, perhaps in the heat of the debate here in the House. Perhaps with altered wording or some adjustments the Minister might accept them. I think of Clause 39 and Clause 35 and others in that area which dealt with Canadiani-zation of the air waves which tried to reflect, we thought, the recommendations of the all-Party committee on broadcasting.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in support of Motion No. 79 moved by the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), I would like to put on record the concerns expressed by the Canadian Bar Association whose brief, it is my understanding, was not studied in committee. That is regrettable because the brief by the Canadian Bar Association contains a number of very interesting and significant observations which ought to be taken into account.
I will give you three examples. One, the Canadian Bar Association expresses the desirability and concern that this Bill ought to be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Without going into details, obviously the Canadian Bar Association would not express such a preoccupation if it had not concluded that this Bill needs to be brought in line and made consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is, of course, very important legislation and the Bar Association says that very little time was given to interested groups to review the draft language of Bill C-136. It is in this context that the submission and input from the Canadian Bar Association is to be seen. For the life of me I cannot understand why a Bill of this significance was moved through the committee with such speed.
Second, the Canadian Bar Association expresses the view that the Act should be sensitive to questions of fairness and due process in the administrative law context. One need not elaborate on that. That is an observation of substance which says it all.
The Canadian Bar Association makes the most important point in its submission when it addresses another aspect of Bill C-136. It urges that the language should be clear, unambiguous, and readily understandable. We all know that it often happens that legislation is drafted in an obscure manner. This observation applies to Bill C-136 as well as to other pieces of legislation that we tend to look upon in a rather technical manner and not from the review point of the layperson who wants to understand the substance and the message in that particular legislation.

September 23, 1988
Broadcasting Act
It is also important to put on record the views expressed by some observers in the fourth estate. I was rather struck by an article by William Johnson in The Gazette. He made the observation that this Bill "threatens the unity of Canada as a community of communications. It contains within it the seeds of fragmentation." That is part of the Meech Lake virus that is now permeating and penetrating a number of executive measures as well as legislation such as this in particular.
It is interesting to note how The Gazette, through Mr. Johnson, goes on in analysing this Bill. It says:
The bill attempts to decentralize the decision-making of the one body in this country which ensures the integrity, the consistency, the adequacy, the national purpose of our far-flung system of radio and television: the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).
It abolishes the executive committee of the CRTC, which till now made most of the day-to-day decisions.
The new regional commissioners, resident in their region, backed by a regionally hired staff, will be considered as spokesmen and champions of that region. They will lose touch with the coherent, country-wide vision of broadcasting which now animates the collegial decision-making of the CRTC members who sit together in the capital.
As the media and communications loss actions of the Canadian Bar Association argued in their submission to the parliamentary committee, the "he who hears decides" principle is chiefly important where facts, not policies, are the relevent consideration of the hearings. That is a very important basic consideration.
The article continues:
To meet some of the criticisms, the government made changes to the bill requiring that at least two, and not just one, of the members of a panel must be full-time CRTC members, and further requiring that the panel members, before a decision, "shall consult other members of the commission or any officer of the commission for the purpose of ensuring a consistency of interpretation of the broadcasting policy.
But fragmentation remains likely when just two members of the CRTC can make fundamental decisions for the whole CRTC.
You can see that this analysis is very distressing because it shows that we are dismantling national unity. We are decentralizing, evidently. Therefore, we are heading for a system of broadcasting which will probably make the network system an assembly of original systems at the expense of a national system as we have known it so far.
I wonder whether the Minister is not distressed, knowing her stand in previous decades about what Canada is all about, by the trend she is now allowing to be set in motion through this Bill. I wonder whether she is comfortable with this notion of regionalizing the Canadian radio and television system the way this Bill is now attempting to do.
It is important that this amendment by the Member for Mount Royal not only be aired and put on record, because it would provide a sunset clause for an automatic review five years after the coming into force of the legislation, but that it give an opportunity for interested Members to express their views and support it in the hope that at least we will have this experiment of regionalism limited to five years rather than become a permanent feature in our radio and television system.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment very briefly on Motion No. 79 in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), a motion I believe will ensure that Canadians can expect a review of the performance of the CRTC every five years. [English]
Motion No. 79 is very good. It is what is called in legislative language a sunset clause motion. In other words, it includes in the Bill a review process automatically after five years of the coming into force of the Act. The provisions of this clause allow for a comprehensive review of Clauses 7 and 9 that provide for the Governor in Council to give direction to the CRTC. I want to address this subject because it touches on a very difficult and sometimes very sensitive point.
[ Translation]
Recently, Mr. Speaker, I read a CRTC press release, which contains some interesting statements. According to the CRTC, we have one of the best systems in the world, and I would like to quote verbatim from the press release dated September 14, 1988. This was fairly recent, when they published their annual report. I quote:
We know how highly regarded Canada's broadcasting system is, by the number of delegations from abroad who visit the CRTC to examine our system. These outside observers are awestruck by our achievements and continuing progress. .. They want to know how we have handled the overwhelming American presence over the years. Until now, Europeans, Australians, and others have been isolated from the impact of American broadcasting. But the reality of satellite communications has forced them to face this problem, and they look to the Canadian experience for guidance.
Mr. Speaker, that is what I mean when I ask the Government to give Canadians access to programming and to ensure that cable TV distributors transmit the TV5 signal. That is the point I am trying to make. I want French-speaking Canadians living outside Quebec, and I am one of them, to have access to TV5, and I want the CRTC, supported by the Government, to ensure the signal is available. All week people have been saying: Gauthier, don't be so impatient! This week the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said to the media: It is an excellent system. I agree. But we don't have it, and even when we do, it is incomplete.
For instance in Ottawa, the capital of this country only half the city gets TV5 and Canal Famille, and only those two, instead of the five signals they get in Quebec. We pay six dollars. East of the Rideau Canal, we pay six dollars more to have access to this program, while in Quebec it only costs $1.63 for all five signals. I think that is unfair. I think the Government should do something. I want to ask the Government and the CRTC to take the necessary action so that we can honestly say: Yes, we do have Canadian programming and we have taken steps to ensure this programming is diversified and meets the needs of our various communities. That is all 1 ask. I am not impatient. I just wonder why Ottawa Cablevision west of Bronson, in Ottawa, the capital of this country, says; No, we don't provide the TV5 signal. We are an English station, an English company. That is the answer we got this week. I don't understand that.
September 23, 1988

There are Francophones living in the western part of Ottawa, and there are Francophones living across this country, but cable TV does not give them acess to adequate programming. And as the CRTC's annual report says, we have managed to counter American influence and Amrican programming, and God knows it can be invasive, but good grief, Mr. Speaker, we should be able to do something! We usually have acess to only one French channel: Radio-Canada. And we had to fight for years to get that far. We succeeded when the federal Cabinet agreed to a policy of accelerated coverage in 1972-73. Since that time, we have had to fight every inch of the way to be able to continue to live and work in our own language.
Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for as much as, but not less than what the others are getting.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 79 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). 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.
Motion No. 79 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House deferred the putting of the question on Motion No. 74. The Chair will now put the question on Motion No. 74. Mrs. Finestone moved:
Motion No. 74
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 44 by striking out line 14 at page 28 and substituting the following therefore:
"contemplated by sub-clause 3(1) and in particular paragraphs 3(1 )(j) and 3(l)(k)".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


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.
Motion No. 74 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of Bill C-136. However, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 13(5), the recorded divisions will stand deferred until six o'clock, Monday, September 26, 1988.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1971 MEASURE TO AMEND
Hon. Flora MacDonald (for the Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: that Bill C-158, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin debate on Bill C-158 on behalf of the Minister who could not be here today but who has a great deal of interest in this legislation.
This Bill is an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act to extend the variable entrance requirement, what we now call the VER. According to the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the person applying for unemployment insurance benefits must have a minimum of 14 weeks to qualify. Since the late 1970s, the VER has been used to make this requirement more flexible and responsive to the needs of unemployed Canadians, especially those who have been unable to accumulate more than 10 to 13 weeks of insurable employment to their credit.
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 protect the jobs of people employed by those communities.

September 23, 1988
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
According to the VER, the number of weeks that an unemployment insurance claimant needs to qualify depends on the rate of unemployment in the region where he or she lives. Therefore, in regions of high unemployment claimants can qualify for unemployment insurance benefits with as few as 10 weeks of insurable employment.
As Hon. Members know, the present VER legislation is in effect only until January 3, 1989. We propose to renew it again in order to enable thousands of Canadians living in regions where the economy is not as strong as in other areas of the country to qualify for UI benefits. Despite the continuing decline in the unemployment rate since our coming to office we think that it would be beneficial at this time to maintain the protection provided by the VER.
Statistics show that the over-all Canadian economy is doing extremely well. 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.
One of the priorities of our Government is its desire to help those regions that are experiencing economic difficulty. The VER recognizes that it is more difficult to find and keep a job in a region of high unemployment. This is, in fact, one of the most important aspects of the UI program, since it takes into account the labour market conditions in each region of the country.
As the Minister announced on August 16, 1988, Employment and Immigration Canada is conducting a full review of the economic regions used to determine the minimum number of insurable weeks needed to qualify for benefits. We want to ensure that our system of economic regions is still responsive and sensitive to the changes that occurred as much in the distribution of people as in the employment opportunities in Canada.
If the VER is not renewed all claimants will, as of January 4, 1989, need at least 14 weeks of insurable employment to be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. This means that more than 80,000 unemployed Canadians would be unable to meet the entrance requirements to receive UI benefits.
Thousands of Canadians would thus find themselves in difficulty, and most would have to turn to other sources to support themselves and their families. This would inevitably have an impact on provincial welfare programs. The Government wishes to continue to provide financial support to Canadians in designated regions, that is, those who need it the most.
It is important that Bill C-158, to renew the VER for a 12-month period, be passed as quickly as possible. In this way unemployment insurance claimants will know where they stand with regard to their entitlement.
As I mentioned earlier, the VER enables us to recognize economic disparity between regions when deciding the entitlement of UI claimants. It is in this connection that the
VER was created, and it is for this reason that we want to continue it for the next year.
I am asking for the support of all Members in passing this amendment for the renewal of the VER for a 12-month period until July 6, 1990.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us, Bill C-158, proposes to extend the period for variable entrance requirements, known as the VER, to January 6, 1990.
We will indeed support this legislation. The Government, of course, in its explanation was rather short and sweet. It is a simple Bill, I agree. It is not very complex. It proposes to extend the variable entrance requirement of the Unemployment Insurance Act and freeze the level of contributions for one year.
We all know that the variable entrance requirement provides that to qualify for unemployment insurance employees must work for 10 to 14 weeks and make contributions. They can qualify with 10 weeks of work if they live in a region where unemployment is over 9 per cent. The requirement increases from 10 weeks to 14 weeks when the rate of unemployment declines below 9 per cent. This provision is in recognition of the fact that in some parts of Canada it is very difficult to find work, which is why we provide in this legislation more unemployment insurance benefits in those regions.
I just looked up the figures a few minutes ago for the Ottawa-Hull area, and I want to put them on the record.
[ Translation]
The qualifying period for unemployment insurance in the Ottawa-Hull region is now 20 weeks for the first application. For the second application, it is from 14 to 20 weeks, depending on the number of weeks of benefits received as a result of the previous application. In the Ottawa-Hull area, the unemployment rate was 6.1 per cent in August 1988, compared to 7 per cent in August 1987. The number of people in the labour force in August 1988 was 443,000, compared to
419,000	last year. The number of unemployed was 29,000 in August 1988, compared to 32,000 in August 1987; nationally, the unemployment rate was 7.5 per cent in August 1988 and in Ontario, the rate for the whole province was 4.8 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, although we support this Bill, we regret that the Government has gotten into the habit of waiting nearly until the end of the session. Last time, it was just before Christmas. The day before the Christmas adjournment, or almost, the Government came to us in a mad rush with a Bill that it said had to be passed quickly. Today again, it is coming to us in a mad rush, and I am sorry that it is so, and telling us that this Bill must be passed. We agree. The Government could have called the Bill before to give Members and critics a chance to give the matter really serious consideration and to make suggestions to strengthen the provision whereby those who are out of work in Canada receive unemployment insurance.
September 23, 1988

We know that the unemployment rate has increased by about 0.1 per cent in Canada since last month. The main reason for the increased rate of unemployment was that 15,000 more people were looking for work in Canada; it was not due to an administrative change or a significant change in the level of employment or unemployment. The number of unemployed Canadians increased by 12,000 to 1,069,000, while the number of jobs throughout Canada increased by 3,000 to 12,367,000. This is despite some four years of economic growth. Indeed, 1 would say that the economic recovery began in 1983. This recovery is due to the growth in the world economy. The Government can claim that it is entirely responsible for this recovery, but I must say that it began before the Government took power in 1984. Furthermore, it is not confined to Canada; there is economic recovery throughout the world, in the United States, in Japan, in Europe. So that is not the reason.
The reason we have an economic recovery since 1984 is not the election of a Conservative Government. They were not there in 1983 or 1984. They took power in the fall of 1984, and God knows that since then, they have had a lot of luck and a lot of help from the world economic recovery.
And despite this sustained growth, the policies of the Mulroney Government have not reduced the unemployment rate below what it was before the 1982 recession. Even after six years of economic growth, we have not returned to the unemployment rate of before the 1982 recession. The average annual rate for 1980-81 was 7.5 per cent, which is not a seasonally adjusted figure. Job gains this month were recorded in Quebec with 13,000 and British Columbia with 4,000. The participation rate remained unchanged at 66.8 per cent. In addition, the proportion of the population with jobs also remained unchanged at 61.5 per cent. Compared to September 1984, the unemployment rate went down from 11.7 to 8 per cent, a drop of 3.7 points. The participation rate increased by 1.6 points, from 65.2 per cent in September 1984.
Mr. Speaker, the number of full-time jobs declined by
49,000	to 10,441,000, while the number of part-time jobs increased by 43,000 to 1,893,000.
As I said before, the situation in some regions of the country is disastrous! There are areas where the youth unemployment rate is 15 per cent. We must be concerned and aware of the difficulties these people face. And that is why there is a Bill before Parliament to amend or extend the Bill passed in 1976, if 1 am not mistaken, so that the period when the number of weeks that an insured person, other than a new entrant or reentrant to the labour force, shall have in order to qualify for benefits (based on the regional rate of unemployment) is extended until January 6, 1990.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong the debate. I think that it is simple enough, but 1 would have preferred that the Government give us more notice and be more aware of the situation. But I think that many Members from the outlying regions hard-hit by unemployment would like to talk about
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
this Bill. So I will conclude my remarks with one final point. Mr. Speaker, the Government must not forget that it is important to review all of these social programs. Free trade must not be allowed to threaten our social programs and 1 say sincerely that free trade must not influence the way the unemployed are treated, nor be seen by Canadians as influencing it.
I would just like to assure the House that we Liberals are concerned about this and after the coming elections, we will make the necessary changes so that unemployed Canadians are treated fairly and justly.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have an opportunity today to speak on behalf of my Party on Bill C-158. My colleague, the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), had planned to speak on this when he anticipated that it was being brought forward on Tuesday of next week. As usual, the Government has not been able to follow through on its legislative agenda and, therefore, I get to fill in.
I am quite pleased, because 1 have been really upset about the Unemployment Insurance Act for quite some time. I should point out that we will be supporting this particular Bill because we recognize that, whatever else is wrong, at least in some areas it helps people in need.
The purpose of this Bill is to extend the variable entrance requirement, which has already been stated, and ensures in some areas of this country where there is higher unemployment than the national average, that people need only 10 weeks at the most to requalify.
It has a down side, too. Let me deal with the region that I come from, the region as defined by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Act. It is all of northwestern Ontario. The main community in that region is the City of Thunder Bay, which crosses two federal ridings, and then a lot of smaller communities, isolated hamlets of First Nations, spread throughout a very large area, an area that is larger than all of southern Ontario by many, many times. That is one region, for the purposes of this Act.
If you have a booming economy in Thunder Bay, the smaller communities, the outlying communities, need more and more weeks to requalify.
Let me use the example of the community of Atikokan. This is a community that now has a population of about 4,200 to 4,300. It used to employ 1,100 men mining iron ore. In 1979 and 1980, those mines shut down. The companies went in search of higher profits at other locations. But 1,100 jobs were wiped off the map. That community has been struggling since 1979 and 1980 to rebuild itself.

September 23, 1988
Through Canada Employment and Immigration and the local advisory committee for Atikokan, we did a study of that community. Because the community is so much smaller, we were able to go to every citizen to get a sense of their employment situation. What we discovered was that in 1987, one out of every two adults who were available for work were out of work for some point of time during that year. They did not get any benefit from Thunder Bay's booming economy. They were forced to adhere to the variable entrance requirements. As the economy in Thunder Bay improved, they needed more and more weeks to requalify. The same goes for Fort Frances, Kenora, Dryden and Ear Falls. Ear Falls is another community that saw a mine closing.
I was pleased to hear the speaker for the Government indicate that they are looking at those regions. If we are going to continue the variable entrance requirement-and I want to say something about that a little later-we should take a look at dealing with cities, not regions. We all know that there is almost full employment in Metropolitan Toronto. What does that say for other parts of Ontario that are part of that region? It means that those people are being punished because their neighbours are doing very well. That is also the underlying philosophy of the variable entrance requirement. The Government assumes-not just this Government, because this program was brought in by the previous one-that just because somebody else has been able to get a job, the person who is laid off will get one, too.
I see that you are indicating, Mr. Speaker, that my time at this point has run out. I want to give you notice that I will continue after we resume debate on this after Orders of the Day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, we will now proceed to Statements by Members.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 21
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) proclaimed: "The challenge we face is not to choose or trade off between economic development and environmental protection".
Is this statement credible? If the Prime Minister means what he says, then why did the Environment and Forestry Committee establish the fact that the environmental implications of the trade deal were not studied?
[DOT] (GOO)
Why were there no follow-up studies to the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council report of January, 1986? It strongly recommended that "it will be necessary to examine the environmental implications just as systematically as the economic ones". Why was it not done?
The warning by Canadian environmental groups is the most recent one, and it amplifies concerns repeatedly raised about water export, the harmonization of pesticide regulations in Schedule 7 of the agreement, and the possible weakening of Canadian standards.
For the Government to be credible, it must match rhetoric with action. The link between the trade agreement and the environment has been ignored by the Government until now. What a sham, Mr. Prime Minister.
* *
*


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) once again showed Canadians why they find him so hard to trust. A few days ago he said that the Conservatives "are the only Party who cares a whit for fiscal responsibility".
A "whit" in the dictionary means "the least possible amount". The Prime Minister has in fact abandoned any semblance of fiscal responsibility, and by the latest count he and his Party have committed to $22 billion in election promises for the coming election, and that is before the writ is even issued.
Where will the money come from? Again, the evidence is clear. The Prime Minister is a man who listens to well-to-do Canadians such as Robert Campeau, rather than to the average Canadian family. This week Mr. Campeau, who has converted to the Conservatives, and to whom the Prime Minister referred approvingly, said that the Conservatives will have to pay for their promises, if they keep them, by cutting social spending like Medicare.
There you have the Tory agenda, Mr. Speaker. Get the Conservatives re-elected at any cost on election promises, and when the bills come due, pay those bills by slashing services for average Canadians and their families.

September 23, 1988


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) apologized to Japanese Canadians whom the Government of Canada mistreated during and after the Second World War. He also promised to pay $21,000 by way of redress to every living Japanese Canadian whom the Government relocated, interned and/or deported, expropriated, or otherwise deprived of the full enjoyment of his or her fundamental rights and freedoms simply because of his or her ancestry.
The Government will also clear the names of eligible Japanese Canadians who were convicted under the War Measures Act. It will also give $12 million to the Japanese Canadian community for educational, social, and cultural activities, and contribute $24 million toward the creation of a Canada Race Relations Foundation.
This morning I was pleased to note that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship (Mr. Weiner) said that he will also be happy to discuss the concerns of other multicultural groups.
The Japanese Canadians whom I met with yesterday in Nepean-Carleton were shedding invisible tears of joy and pride. I, too, was proud, not only because of the outcome, but also because it was this Government that had the care and understanding to resolve a long-standing blemish on our history. Yesterday was a great day for Canada.


BILINGUALISM
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the Liberal Party of Canada is a Party of principles; and if you don't like them, it, of course, has others.
However, one principle we thought all Liberals respected was that of official bilingualism. The Liberal candidate in Leeds-Grenville has yet to make up his mind whether or not he does stand with his Party on this issue. When he was a provincial candidate for the Party one year ago, he clearly stood against his Leader, and he has stated that he has not changed.
That is not all, Mr. Speaker. The previous two-time federal Liberal candidate in Leeds-Grenville has recently declared that literally millions and millions of dollars have been dumped into Quebec to buy votes.
Is this how all Liberals now view co-operative federalism? Is this how they see the policy of building a stronger Canada for all Canadians, or is this perhaps just another example of
Liberals trying to conquer by dividing Canadians against one another? Is it one more indication of the continuing inability of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) to state clearly once and for all what he and his Party do indeed stand for?
The people of Leeds-Grenville, and the people of Canada, have a right to know.


HOUSING
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have some news for the Government, and that is that there is a housing crisis in Toronto, particularly in the area of affordable housing.
I say that I have news for the Government, because we have been asking questions on this subject for the life of this Parliament, and the answers that we have been receiving from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) are to the effect: "Housing crisis? What housing crisis?" The Prime Minister cites and puts on the record statistics about housing starts.
There may be no housing crisis in some parts of Canada. I know that in some parts of Canada house prices are falling. However, that is no solution or comfort for the people of Toronto.
I would again urge the Government to look at the problem that we have which has been made worse by the Government's policies over the last four years, for example, the cut-backs at CMHC, particularly in the area of co-ops, and the refusal to support the infrastructure program. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) announced yesterday that we would be prepared to support that program, as he did in 1986.
I urge the Government to reinstate the Home Ownership Savings Plan which was established by a Liberal Government, and cancelled by this Government. It permitted young people to save money on a tax-free basis to buy their first home. I urge the Government to get serious about the under-used land in the Toronto area, not as it has done, wait for an election to be called, and put on the table a half-baked promise about land in the Downsview area.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the contradictions and double-talk about what has gone on, and what is going on at the Defence Research Establishment, Suffield, are shocking.

September 23, 1988
The Minister of Defence (Mr. Beatty) has now admitted that lethal nerve gas tests took place at Suffield using both military personnel and civilians as guinea pigs. At a briefing this week the Assistant Deputy Minister stated that there were 10 or 12 such tests conducted over seven or eight years. It now appears that there were far more, and considerable numbers of military and non-military participants.
The Minister states that there are no records of lasting ill-effects, but admits that there are no records of participants. He offers medical tests and compensation without knowing how much or to whom.
In June, base spokesman, Brian Laidlaw, stated that there were atmospheric tests of tabun, saran and soman during 1987. This week the Minister contradicted that and stated that there were only soman and tabun tested, and that these tests were carried out in 1986.
On June 27 the Minister stated that there is no agreement on chemical and biological weapons between Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. On June 28, Lieutenant Colonel Bill Johnston, director of Nuclear Biological Chemical Co-ordination for Canada, confirmed that there is, in direct contradiction of the Minister.
In June, Dr. Hollingsworth, a chemistry professor at the University of Alberta, stated that the lethal nerve gas releases at Suffield pose a real and immediate public health threat to communities and the public near the base, and the Minister says that everything is fine. A public inquiry is clearly in order.


PIPELINES
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday at Whistler, British Columbia, an agreement was signed with the province via the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) to conclude an agreement for the Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline. I applaud both Governments for coming to a conclusion of this agreement, which will enable the residents of communities in British Columbia to have natural gas available for their energy sources.
It is difficult to believe that, in this day and age, there would be 400,000 people who are not already served by natural gas, yet they live within less than 200 miles of the third largest city in Canada.
There will be 65,000 households, 12,000 commercial and industrial customers, and seven pulp mills that will have access to this pipeline. It will take some 18 months to build the pipeline, after all the various agreements have been put in place and the environmental concerns have been addressed.
Some of the communities that will be served are Powell River, Comox, Port Alberni, Nanaimo, Ladysmith, Duncan, and Victoria.
It seems strange that Members who represent communities such as Comox, Powell River, Duncan, and Ladysmith are silent on this. However, I can well imagine the smile on the face of the Hon. Member for Port Alberni, Nanaimo-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.


TELEVISION
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the many constituents in Ottawa West who have contacted my office, 1 would like to call publicly on Ottawa Cablevision Limited, which serves the west end of the city of Ottawa, to reconsider its decision to move the parliamentary channel up the spectrum.
This decision has deprived hundreds of cable viewers in my riding of the ability to view the House in action. Many of those cable viewers and subscribers are senior citizens who cannot easily afford the additional costs involved in purchasing new equipment required to receive the parliamentary channel.
These subscribers entered into a contract with Ottawa Cablevision to receive the parliamentary channel. Therefore, in my view, they are entitled to access to that channel. Accordingly, I urge Ottawa Cablevision to return the House of Commons channel to Cable 33 in the city of Ottawa, or alternatively to provide its senior citizens subscribers, at no cost, with the required equipment to receive the broadcast.

[DOT] (mo)


THE ENVIRONMENT
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it took another ecoligical disaster, the one at Saint-Basile-le-Grand, to make the present Government take steps to deal with this threat to our environment.
Last week, the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers agreed to ban the use of PCBs by 1993. This agreement does not go far enough, since it does not cover the 300 million tons of hazardous products we still have in this country.
September 23, 1988

There is cause for alarm when we realize that in Ottawa alone there are fourteen locations where PCBs may be found. And how many more locations contain waste that is just as toxic if not more so?
In the national interest, the Conservative Government has a duty to act immediately to prevent further accidents. We need a national policy for eliminating toxic waste, and we need the political will to do so.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Government that will be elected very shortly will make sure there is a comprehensive policy to deal with hazardous waste.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay

Atikokan): Mr. Speaker, over the past four years members of the New Democratic Party have had a lot to say about the Mulroney Government's habit of promising one thing and doing just the opposite. Liberal Members have tried to get in on this but their history of the same bad habit has made their words ring hollow and insincere. We now have another classic example of that.
Yesterday the Liberal Leader (Mr. Turner) made a big election promise of funding for municipal infrastructure rebuilding. Lie said we only have to look at what has happened in many American cities to see what could happen here if we do not provide the funds to rebuild our sewers, water systems, roads and bridges. He is right, but he does not have to look south of the border for examples. They are right here in Canada.
Why is the infrastructure of so many Canadian towns and cities in such bad shape? Because in 1980 the federal Government stopped providing assistance to municipalities to do this kind of work. They have been increasingly starved for funds ever since. Who was it that cut off the funding? The Liberals. Some days it is even harder than others to believe the Leader of the Opposition means what he says.
The Liberals let Canada's municipalities down and so have the Conservatives. There is only Party, the NDP, which has consistently pressed for a fair deal for Canada's towns and cities. There is only one Party they can count on to hold the same views after the next election.

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a very tender subject, the
tendering process used by the Government when awarding contracts. One of these very tender issues was the awarding of a Canada Post contract to do cleaning in the Toronto area.
It seems Canada Post has learned from the former Minister of Public Works, the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle), how to award contracts. What it decided to do in this case was to ask the second lowest bidder to lower its bid by 10 per cent to make it less than the low bidder. Why? Quite simply because it would not have the presence of union people in the Post Office.
That really tells us something about the philosophy of the Government. The Tories are anti-union and now Canada Post is as well.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform Members that there has been rain on the Prairies recently but that it is simply not enough. It is an encouraging sign, but Members need to understand that in the area of southern Alberta where I come from, indeed in most of Alberta, we are into the thirteenth year of a drought. That means ground water supplies are down and we need more dams.
There is a proposal on the books for a Milk River dam which is receiving good federal and provincial response. I hope Members will support us when it comes forward. There is also a project for irrigation on the Blood Indian Reserve and I hope Members will support us when that comes before Parliament. It is very important for southern Alberta that every drop of water is maintained and managed in a productive way. I know Members will support us when those projects come before this House for financing.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the recent takeover of British Columbia Forest Products by Fletcher Challenge of New Zealand does not serve the interests of the workers of British Columbia, nor does it serve the economy of Canada. Rather, it serves the corporate interests of the transnationals. This was shown last week by the announcement of the lay-off of another 40 workers from the sawmill at Youbou, British Columbia. Right now in British Columbia we have talk of a takeover of Domans Industries by Louisiana Pacific.

September 23, 1988
Oral Questions
Is it not time that we had a Government in both British Columbia and Ottawa that would ensure that the resources of this country are used for the interests of the people of this country and the workers of this country, instead of being hived off by multinational corporations with headquarters in New Zealand, the United States, Europe, or any place other than Canada? Let us use the resources of Canada for the people of Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday, the Minister gave the following answer to my question about the Moisie case:
The RCMP looked at the package which was left with them and found no basis for further investigation.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that yesterday, the Minister of National Defence lied to Parliament, to the press and to the Canadian people. I just spoke to Inspector Pierre Lange of the RCMP at the commercial crime section in Montreal, and Inspector Lange confirmed that a criminal investigation was being conducted into the whole question of the sale of the Moisie base near Sept-iles in the Prime Minister's riding.
1 therefore want to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he intends to explain or tender his resignation.


An Hon. Member:: Right on!


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, may I invite you to review Hansard and the "blues" to look at the allegation made by the Hon. Member?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That will be done. The Minister may answer.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Then let me respond. Since yesterday's Question Period, material was delivered to the RCMP in Montreal. They are currently looking at that material. As long as that study is under way it would be appropriate to allow them to do their job without in any way interfering here on the floor of the House of Commons.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the Minister answered my question, I told him that the tape was handed over to the RCMP Wednesday afternoon, not
yesterday, around 2.30 or 3.00 p.m., and that the RCMP in Sept-iles obtained the tape. The Minister told me the investigation was closed, but we all knew that was impossible.
Considering the involvement of two assistants of the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Gosselin and Mr. Lefebvre, of a Tory go-between, Mr. Jean-Guy Cote, and a personal friend of the Prime Minister, Mr. Rodrigue Tremblay, will the Minister and the Government agree to refer this whole mess to the appropriate committee so that it can examine the Government's procedure for awarding contracts and doing cover-ups?


An Hon. Member:: The Moisie mess!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am informed again by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that the subsequent material was received by them yesterday afternoon in Montreal following Question Period. In addition, I would like to be able to report to the House some additional information.
As I said to the House yesterday, no representations with respect to this sale were made by any official in the Prime Minister's Office. After Question Period yesterday I was advised that a junior officer in the PMO did inquire of the Department of Public Works, prior to a planned visit to the riding by the Prime Minister, as to when a decision was likely to be made. This was entirely a routine inquiry. Beyond that the RCMP are now conducting a review of this matter and it would inappropriate for me to make further comments, or for the Hon. Member to make further comments, which might prejudice that review.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I don't need the advice of a Minister who yesterday misled this House and also misled the Canadian people!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question in such a way as to refrain from saying that yesterday, the Minister said things that were not true. However, I believe the Hon. Member for Shefford knows the Standing Orders as well as the Chair.
The Hon. Member for Shefford.


HASTE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank you for reminding me of the Standing Orders, but the
facts are self-explanatory.
September 23, 1988

Yesterday, the Minister informed the House that no investigation was under way. He went even further. He said:
The RCMP looked at the package which was left with them and found no
basis for further investigation.
Mr. Speaker, the documents ... the tape had not even been examined at the time the Minister rose in the House, but the RCMP had received the tape Wednesday afternoon.
I want to ask the Minister . . . We know there are various elements involved in this case. There have been meetings since April 22 and 28 and the beginning of May. The Minister of Public Works received a personal letter at his home, advising him of all these aspects. Why do we have to raise the matter in the House to get an investigation going? Why didn't the Minister of Public Works or the Prime Minister, who read about the case in his local paper on July 12 this year, why didn't they immediately order an investigation instead of trying to cover up the whole thing?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, again let me correct what the Hon. Member is saying. Following Question Period yesterday, the RCMP in Montreal received the material in question. They are currently studying that material. As long as that study is under way, it would be inappropriate for any of us on either side of the House to take any action that could prejudice the results of that investigation.


STATUS OF RCMP INVESTIGATION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has changed his tune today. Today it is inappropriate to comment. Yesterday he said that there is no indication whatsoever of any criminal impropriety-the RCMP has found that.
What conversations did the Minister have with the RCMP that led him to rise in the House of Commons yesterday to report to the House of Commons that (a), there had been an investigation, that (b), there was no evidence of any criminal impropriety, and that (c), the RCMP had come to an official conclusion that he kindly passed along to the House of Commons?
The fact is that this matter was referred to the Minister of Public Works in a private letter sent to his home by Mr. Hylandss, a senior Government of Canada official who was subsequently removed from the file. Mr. Hylandss asked for an investigation but no investigation was forthcoming. Why is the Government engaged in a coverup in this radar site sale in the Prime Minister's riding?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, this is a precise example of the sort of thing that I am concerned about, and that is the abuse by opposition Members
Oral Questions
of Parliament of their position in Parliament by making allegations that they cannot substantiate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Go back to your tricycle, for God's sake. Don't give us that nonsense.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, here again Hon. Members rise to their feet and insist on getting answers, and when we attempt to answer them, they attempt to shout us down. If the Hon. Member wants an answer, I would like to give it to him.
First, there were two sets of material in question. Yesterday the RCMP had completed some investigation of the first set and found nothing to suggest any criminal impropriety. Subsequent to Question Period yesterday, the RCMP in Montreal received further material which they are currently studying. It is entirely appropriate that the RCMP should be given the opportunity to study that without Members of Parliament on either side of the House in any way prejudicing their study.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is entirely appropriate, when the Director of Property Management for Public Works in Montreal writes a personal letter delivered to a Minister's home address detailing what the Director believes to be gross political interference in the administration of the awarding of a contract or a tender and asking that Minister to investigate, that the Minister ought to do his job expeditiously. It is ridiculous that the matter has to come up weeks later in the House of Commons.
The detailed, sordid story of political interference carried in today's Montreal Gazette involves aides to the Minister of Public Works. The Minister of Public Works has failed to act.
We now know that an official from the Prime Minister's office was at least indirectly involved because the Minister of National Defence has indicated that. Conservative Party organizers, including a chief organizer for the Prime Minister in the last election, were involved. As well, it resulted in the dismissal from this file of Mr. Hylandss, a senior public servant with no Party affiliation. Why is the Government of Canada refusing to refer this matter immediately to an appropriate all-Party committee of the House of Commons for a quick and immediate examination of all the facts?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, now that the Hon. Member has unburdened himself of that little bit of theatre, let me return to the facts. It was Hon. Members opposite who were stressing the fact that the RCMP-


Brian Vincent Tobin: The facts are like the nuclear submarines; they are buried from sight. They disappear.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Here we go again. Perhaps the Hon. Member could contain his hysteria for a minute.

September 23, 1988
Oral Questions
What are the facts? As Hon. Members on the other side had indicated, the RCMP have received material which they are currently studying. It is precisely to avoid this sort of trial by headline, guilt by association and innuendo, in which the Hon. Member is engaging at the present time, that the practice in the House has been that when the RCMP is making an inquiry, we do not interfere. I would ask Hon. Members on the other side to respect that principle.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT- ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of State for International Trade. I would also like to congratulate him on his appointment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: The Government has been seeking, through all sorts of mechanisms, to show its commitment to the environment. Yesterday some 90 environmental groups from right across Canada concluded that the Government's trade deal with the United States would have profound and disastrous implications for the Canadian environment.
Would the Minister and the Government be prepared to meet with representatives of those 90 environmental groups to review these key clauses they indicate are so dangerous, and be prepared to make changes to put some real teeth behind the commitment the Government has stated to environmental protection but which seems to be contradicted by this trade deal?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (International Trade) and Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, I read with some interest the report of the Environmental Law Association and I can tell the Hon. Member that environmental concerns are valid concerns which are shared by the Government. We have a great, solid track record on environmental issues, and I will cite it chapter and verse if the Hon. Member wants me to do so.
However, this report does a disservice to the cause of the environment. It indulges in what I consider to be a campaign of total distortion. This report has given complete distortions and misinterpretations of the free trade agreement, along with doomsday scenarios in which every conceivable environmental ill has been laid at the feet of the Free Trade Agreement. It is totally, totally wrong.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is quite possible that, despite the Minister's elevation to the Cabinet, he does not have quite as much environmental expertise as these 90 groups from across Canada. I suggest that he take some time to talk with these groups and to review very carefully the charges they have made.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Specifically, on the question of acid rain, these environmental groups stated that the risk would increase as a result of the trade deal with the U.S. They mentioned the very real possibility that we might not be able to support investments by industry to eliminate hazardous emissions. What is the Government going to do about this?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member is getting specific, let me get specific as well. Let us talk about Chapter 6 of the agreement, technical standards. In Article 602 there is the affirmation of the GATT Agreement. "The parties affirm their respective rights and obligations under the GATT Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade". Article 603 deals with "no disguised barriers to trade" and says that "the demonstrable purpose of such measure or procedure is to achieve a legitimate domestic objective".
Let me tell the Hon. Member what the definition of a legitimate domestic objective is. It means "an objective whose purpose is to protect health, safety, essential security, the environment, or consumer interests". I refer the Hon. Member to page 73 of the Free Trade Agreement.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Hawkes:: Have you read it?


Steven W. Langdon: Oh, yes, long before the Minister, let me tell you.


REFORESTATION GRANTS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the full-scale Minister told my Leader yesterday that there would not be grants challenged by the United States that would help control detrimental environmental problems. Why is it the fact that within the Free Trade Agreement, perpetuated forever, the softwood lumber agreement stops us from being able to make reforestation grants which are directly and completely a contribution to the environment of this country?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Free Trade Agreement does not prevent the provinces in any way shape or form from reforesting their provinces. They are responsible for their resources and again I will refer the Hon. Member to the Free Trade Agreement, if he wants to take a look under Article 601: "The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to any measure of a provincial or state government". Accordingly, the parties need not ensure the observance of these provisions by state or provincial Governments. The Hon. Member knows full well that the provinces have the right to reforest the forests. The provinces have that right and there is nothing in this agreement that prevents that.
September 23, 1988

The other day the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party said that the Free Trade Agreement prevented provinces from doing that. There is nothing in this agreement that says that. He is totally wrong.


PUBLIC WORKS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to return to the Minister of National Defence and to the Moisie affair. What we are dealing with here is a parcel of land owned by the Government which was appraised at $4.5 million and sold for $187,000 to friends of the Prime Minister after the bidding process was interfered with and altered. This is on the record and not denied. I want to ask about the letter which was delivered to the home of the Minister of Public Works by the Department Section Head responsible for supervising this tendering process.
The simple question 1 want to ask the Minister is this. When the Minister of Public Works received that letter at his home toward the end of May or in early June, what happened? What did he do with that letter? I ask that question specifically aware that it has nothing directly to do with the RCMP investigation under way but has everything to do with the standards of this Government.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member prefaced his question with a string of allegations and innuendo. As always, unfortunately, that is what he does.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It's right on the record.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The hon. gentleman is a former Solicitor General of Canada, as 1 am. He should know that one of the obligations that every Member of Parliament has is to cooperate fully and do nothing that can in any way impede work being done by the RCMP.


Jean-C. Lapierre: What did you do yesterday?


Henry Perrin Beatty: If what the Hon. Members are implying were correct, that there was any impropriety here, it is entirely appropriate that the RCMP should take a look at that. All appropriate officials and all information in the hands of the Government of Canada would be made available to the RCMP, as would always be the case. If the hon. gentleman opposite has any information whatsoever in any way relevant, let him turn it over to the RCMP.


FATE OF LETTER
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of National Defence again whether that letter,
Oral Questions
when received by the Minister of Public Works, was turned over to the Government, to the Prime Minister? Was it give to the RCMP? Was it burned? What happened to that letter when the Minister of Public Works received it?


Don Boudria: Where is it?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, again what we get is a series of attempts by innuendo to raise questions when the hon. gentleman knows full well that the police are currently looking into this matter.


Don Boudria: Is this today's police or yesterday's police?


Henry Perrin Beatty: As long as their inquiries are under way, it is appropriate for them to be given that opportunity.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Where is the letter?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Where is the letter?


Henry Perrin Beatty: If the Hon. Member opposite has any information whatsoever which is in any way relevant, let him turn it over to the RCMP.


SELLING PRICE-IDENTITY OF BUYERS-INTERESTS OF CANADIANS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was no investigation by the RCMP and today one has been ordered to get rid of the issue and give the Government a chance to cover its tracks until after the election. My question is this: Does the Minister of National Defence believe it was prudent of the Government to sell a property with 90 houses and several other buildings, as well as land with good recreational value on the Moisie River, for only 4 per cent of its value, estimated at $4 million by the Department of National Defence? Why did the Government go ahead with this sale to friends of the Prime Minister instead of withdrawing the offer and seeking a better return for the people of this country?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I thought there was a rule in this House about imputing motives. The way in which the Hon. Member prefaced his question was to impute motives to the Government in terms of its actions, motives which are simply false.
The Hon. Member should know the fact again that an inquiry is under way, a study is under way by the RCMP. If that can be concluded quickly, and I hope it can, and I hope the results of it indicate there was no criminal impropriety whatsoever, the Minister of Public Works will then be in the House and will be available to respond to any questions whatsoever, including unfounded allegations and innuendo by the other side.

September 23, 1988
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY BY PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a matter of judgment by the Government. We are talking about questions of patronage which may or may not have criminal effect but which are also questions of judgment by this Government which constantly gets into these problems of dealing in a favourable way with people who are close to the Conservative Party. We are talking about prudence, about a Government which sells a $4.5 million site for $187,000, which sells houses for $3,000 or $4,000 a piece, when people across this country cannot buy houses for more than $100,0000 because they cannot afford them.
Will the Government agree to an inquiry by a Commons Committee, by the Public Accounts Committee, into all aspects of this affair, apart from the criminal aspects which are before the RCMP?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member in his question itself suggested there may be a criminal matter involved here. Surely the Hon. Member owes it to the Canadian people and to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to ensure that nothing is done in this House which in any way impedes the ability of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to study that information. I hope-


Michael Morris Cassidy: To fix it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, if I could complete my answer. I hope that the results of the inquiries being made by the RCMP will be available soon. If they are, any and all questions the Hon. Member wants to ask, including ones based on false imputation of motives and innuendo, can be answered.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: You are a disgrace to your constituency.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: How often have you had to withdraw charges?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister for National Defence. The Member for Skeena made serious allegations yesterday that a former member of the Canadian Forces is suffering medical problems associated with nerve gas tests in which he participated at Suffield in 1965. Can the Minister advise this House whether in fact these allegations are true?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Following Question Period yesterday I made inquiries. I can report to the House that the Member for Skeena overlooked informing the House of Commons that the individual in question contacted him, not to complain about any problems but to suggest that volunteers might be traced through their pay records, that he was not sure he was ever exposed to nerve gas, and that he believed his symptoms were the result of natural causes.
We also did a full study of what in fact the individual in question participated in. The individual in question was never exposed to nerve gas. He participated in tests of mustard so dilute that there were no effects whatsoever at the time and it would be impossible for the symptoms in questions to have been caused by these tests.
Unfortunately, as in the case of these propaganda wars by the NDP, the truth is the first victim.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC WORKS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Defence. It relates to the Moisie bid-rigging case. In May of 1988 the Minister's colleague, the Minister of Public Works, received a letter, a very serious letter, from an official of his Department, Mr. Hylands concerning the case at Moisie. Did the Minister's colleague receive that letter? Did he get it? What did he do with it? And where is the letter now? Did he give it to the Prime Minister? If so, when? Did he give it to the RCMP, and when? Can he give us that information, at least?


Mr. Mayer:: Louder! We couldn't hear you.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Here we go, more shouting from his seat.


Don Boudria: You didn't hear it the last time.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, once again the Hon. Member prefaces his question with an allegation, an allegation of criminal impropriety, bid-rigging. Bid-rigging is an offence under the Criminal Code.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Where is the letter?


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is precisely for that reason that the procedure
in this House traditionally has been that we do not interfere in
matters which are before the police.
September 23, 1988


Michael Morris Cassidy: Answer the question. Where is the letter?


Henry Perrin Beatty: As soon as the RCMP have had the ability to complete their study, any and all questions posed by any Hon. Members in this House, no matter how unfounded they are, can be answered.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1 won't talk about the unfounded answers of the Minister yesterday which he had to retract today.


LETTER SENT BY MEMBER'S OFFICE
Don Boudria: I want to direct another question to the Minister of National Defence who is answering on behalf of the Minister of Public Works.
A request from my office was sent on July 7, 1988, with particular regard to the Moisie base, asking to have all the files concerning the sale of that base and the other bases. Is it just a coincidence that that letter was never answered, just a happy coincidence, or is it because the Government knew very well the trouble it was in?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I did not retract any answers. I informed the House, at the earliest possible opportunity, of new information that has been made available to me since Question Period yesterday.


Don Boudria: Not true.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The question asked by the hon. gentleman indicates how thin his allegations are if he has to demand answers with regard to the timing of responses to letters he sends and make imputations of impropriety on the part of the Minister.


Don Boudria: You're withholding information.


Henry Perrin Beatty: He now alleges that information is being withheld.
The practices are well established. I say again, as a former Solicitor General of Canada, that our obligation as Members of Parliament on all sides of this House is to do nothing that will interfere with the work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Those are not standards that are too high to be accepted by Members of Parliament. They have been accepted in the past. I think every Member of Parliament has the obligation to meet that standard.


HOUSING
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for housing. It has now
Oral Questions
been a week since the Minister announced that the Toronto Downsview Airport lands would be released for the construction of some 5,000 housing units. Today we know as much about the development of these lands as we knew last Friday, which is zip-all.
Would the Minister of Housing share with the people of Toronto and the rest of us his plans for the development of that site? If he has those plans would he table them in the House today?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows the planning procedures that go on in a municipality. These lands were generously turned over from the Department of National Defence. My colleague, the Minister of National Defence, announced that those lands would be given up to CMHC for development in Toronto.
The plans are that a minimum of 25 per cent of the product placed on those lands is going to be affordable housing. At this moment meetings are going on between CMHC and the planning department at North York. The Mayor and his Council are being briefed, and once we have completed our negotiations with North York on the plans for the site they will be made public.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF DEVELOPMENT
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, we have been kind of nice to the Minister for the past week because he is a new Minister and the new guy on the block, but today we want to know some details about how that land is going to be disposed of, how it is going to be developed, and what the timetable is for developing that land. I think the people of Toronto are entitled to know that information now before an election is called. Now that we have the potatoes, where's the beef?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, that question was read from the editorial in The Toronto Star yesterday, word for word. If the Member read my remarks delivered last Friday he would see that they give a timetable of when we expect to be able to put a plan on there. They indicate where the homes are going to be located and our idea of how we are going to develop the land.
We are also providing new housing for married staff of the Department of National Defence, which is a very positive side-effect of this development. We hope to start building those in the spring because there has to be some transfer of lands.
I am good, but I can't build homes in a week, and he knows that.

September 23, 1988
Oral Questions


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the Moisie affair and ask the Minister two questions about public servants who, in this case, are being bullied by the Government and sometimes forced to retract under pressure.
In this morning's Gazette, Mr. Hylands is quoted as saying: [English]
It was too hot. They had to pull me off the file because I wouldn't go along with the deal to give it to (Raymond) Lefebvre (et fils).
I admit that there are two questions here. One is criminal and the RCMP will look after that. The other one is public accountability and the Government's accountability to the House of Commons.
Will the Minister give us the assurance in this House today that indeed the Government will refer this whole question, either to Public Accounts for examination, or to Government Operations, for a thorough examination by Members of this House?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will be aware of the fact that his colleague, who raised questions earlier, referred to this as a bid rigging case, an allegation of criminal impropriety. The hon. gentleman behind him repeats that and says that that is what it is.
If indeed that was what took place, clearly anything that involved pulling departmental officials off the case would be relevant to the RCMP investigation.
You cannot have it both ways. Either the RCMP should be permitted to look into any aspect of this that they want to whatsoever, without interference from us, or the Hon. Member and his colleagues should be allowed in engage in innuendo and making allegations on the floor of the House of Commons. We all have the obligation to allow the RCMP to do their job without interference.
[ Translation]


INVOLVEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister informed the House this morning that a member of the Prime Minister's staff was involved.
In order to avoid making scapegoats of public servants or at least to avoid forcing them to do things they are not supposed to do, is the Minister prepared to provide the name of the person to whom he referred and the position that person now holds in the Prime Minister's office, since the Minister himself told us there was someone from the Prime Minister's office?
We would like to have the information at least the name and the position.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the reason I mentioned this fact to the House of Commons this morning was that I felt I had an obligation to the House of Commons, when new information was given to me following Question Period yesterday, to report at the earliest possible moment. I do not have the name of the individual with me. I can report that-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Here again we get shouting from the other side of the House in the middle of an answer.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Are you so stupid?


Henry Perrin Beatty: I can indicate to the House that it was staff in the Prime Minister's constituency office. The sole purpose of the inquiry was to find out the timing and process that was followed here. No representation whatsoever was involved. This was simply in preparation for a visit to the constituency by the Prime Minister.
Again, the name of the individual, any information involved, anything related to this case, would be made available to the RCMP if they wish it.


AGRICULTURE
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State responsible for grains. It is my understanding that sometime in the next two weeks the Government will be announcing some form of drought relief measures for the farm community. This is a matter that his Ministry and others have been looking at.
Will they, at the same time, announce assistance for those who handle grain, whether they be railroaders, grain handlers, or seafarers, no matter where they are in the country, who have lost their jobs as a direct result of the drought? Is the Government going to include in its drought relief package assistance for these men and women?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the problem that has come about because of some very poor weather this past growing season which has resulted in a severe drop in production. It is going to cost us some of our exports, as the Hon. Member well knows. It is an over-all problem for the industry, not only in the area that he comes from, Thunder Bay, but right across the Prairies and in parts of Ontario where the crop yield is down.
September 23, 1988

The Hon. Member should know that the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board was in Thunder Bay on Tuesday to sit down with the people in the grain business to bring them up to date first hand on what is happening.
We have had an interdepartmental committee looking at how we can be of assistance to people using present programs, and we are going to do everything we can to see that people who are affected by this can be given as much assistance through present government programs as we can possibly give them.


SITUATION OF GRAIN HANDLERS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that a number of people have been falling through the cracks in existing programs. For example, more and more grain handlers, because of the downturn in the grain economy, have been unable to requalify for unemployment insurance, so they will not be helped by existing programs.
The Minister also should be aware that this is not a shortterm problem. The situation is probably going to be even worse next year for these people throughout the system.
The Minister did not really answer the first question. Will the drought relief package that will be announced in the next couple of weeks include specific measures for those who handle the products that were affected by the drought?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the problem. 1 think the Hon. Member will know that so far traffic has not been down nearly as much as we would have anticipated. As a matter of fact, general traffic is up. I believe that last year at this time there were some two million tonnes of general traffic through the Seaway and this year it is up to 2.3 million tonnes.
The Seaway has also had some additional traffic as a result of the problems experienced on the Mississippi. Some of these factors are going in favour of the Seaway.
The present situation is not nearly as bad as we thought. For the Hon. Member to get up now and talk about all the things that will happen next year is, I think, in some ways crying "wolf'.
We will do everything we can to see that people are not nearly as affected by the weather problems, given that there are many programs in place now and that we really do not know what will happen next year. The Hon. Member says that it is likely to be worse next year. He does not know that. We hope that there will be much better prospects for a crop next year. If that is the case, as we look toward next year, things may not be as bad.
___________________________________19571
Oral Questions TELEFILM CANADA


FEATURE FILM FUNDING
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, one year ago the President of Telefilm, Jean Sirois, in news conferences across Canada said that Telefilm was broke. The Minister of Communications allowed this misinformation to stand, yet we had indicated that it was false from the very start. It was really a cover-up for the Prime Minister's friend Sirois while scapegoating Peter Pearson, the Executive Director of Telefilm.
Now it is reported that Telefilm is broke again. Is Telefilm feature film fund all spent or is it just committed? Would the Minister advise the industry and the House as to the state of the Telefilm funds?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has made it her practice in the House to try to undermine Telefilm. I want to report to the House that Telefilm is one of the basic institutions that support our Canadian film industry. If she does not believe that, she should ask people in the film industry.
This year, compared to last year, Telefilm has already funded 26 feature films in five months. In all of last year it funded 23 feature films.
Last year, it put $20 million into that. This year already it has put $30 million into it and it has not utilized the new funding that has been allocated to Telefilm for feature films.
I could go on and give the details in the broadcast series and how much better it is this year in five months than in the whole of last year when the utilization of funds at that time was $76 million. So far this year in the broadcast series $47 million has been allocated and there is still an additional amount of funding up to $20 million that has to be allocated.


Sheila Finestone: I am not the one who appointed or supported the appointment of Jean Sirois. The Minister did that.


PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING-CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCE
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, this Party did not cut the capital cost allowance which cost the film industry $150 million in private sector funds. When will the Minister see to the reinstallation of the 100 per cent capital cost allowance so that the private sector can be funded by private sector, not strictly public sector subsidies?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, now I find that the real motive is that she does not want public funding going into the film industry. We believe that we should be helping our film industry to fund Canadian cultural films.
Last night I was at the Ottawa premiere of the great Canadian film Les Portes Tournantes. I recommend all Members in the House to see it.

September 23, 1988
Oral Questions
The person to whom 1 listened very carefully there was Rene Marleau, one of our great producers from Quebec. He is a great Canadian. He underlined personally and publicly how important it is that the funding allocated to Telefilm by the Canadian Government be continued. He thanked Parliament for what it has done in this respect. 1 hope that people would listen to people like Rene Marleau, a great producer.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. It is interesting that Suffield's records are now suddenly, today, so accurate and complete. I must say that I am sure Mr. Wheeler is thankful after waiting 23 years to find out today that it was mustard gas that was tested on him.
Perhaps the Minister today could tell the Canadian public what nerve gases were tested on what individuals at Suffield? Can the Minister tell Canadians accurately what nerve gases were tested on what individuals at Suffield during the 1960s? Can you or can you not?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I would have imagined that after his rather tawdry performance both inside the House and outside the House, where false allegations were made that this individual in question had been exposed to nerve gas, and the Hon. Member repeated it in a piece of paper he handed out outside the House, that the Hon. Member would have at least had the decency to apologize for this misinformation.
I have indicated to the Hon. Member that we are currently trying to find any and all individuals who participated in any way in these tests in the past. These inquiries are under way at the present time.
I suggest to the Hon. Member and his colleague from New Westminster-Coquitlam that the function of the Member of Parliament is to serve the people of Canada, not to use them.


DEPARTMENTAL RECORDS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the Minister continues to beat around the bush. There are military and civilian personnel who participated in nerve gas tests. International experts have told me that the symptoms suffered by Mr. Wheeler are those associated with those who had come into contact with nerve gas. The Minister has not advised those military or civilian participants what nerve gases were tested on them. Will the Minister rise in the House and tell the people of Canada if he does or does not have accurate records of who participated in how many tests and with what nerve gas? Yes or no?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is trying to make a rather unsuccessful recovery from his performance yesterday. What he said flatly to the House of Commons and what he repeated in this little sheet he passed around was that Mr. Wheeler had been exposed to nerve gas. The hon. gentleman knows now that what he said was false-read my lips-false.
Instead of engaging in a campaign of fear, the hon. gentleman should be co-operating and trying to give the reassurance to Canadians that the investigation by Mr. William Barton that is under way at the present time will be full and complete. The results will be made public, and the Department of National Defence is looking for any and all people who participated at any time in these tests. It will assist them in having medical checks, even though there has been no evidence whatsoever to date of any long term effects. Stop trying simply to scare people for partisan reasons.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT- CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. Earlier in Question Period he described as a campaign of distortion the views expressed and the warnings expressed by Canadian environmental groups on the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal.
In January, 1986, the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council reported to the Minister of the Environment that: "It will be necessary to examine the environmental implications just as systematically as the economic ones". They were referring to the trade proposal.
Would the Minister describe the submission and the report of the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council as a campaign of distortion?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, 1 noticed that the Member was referring to a request back in 1986, I believe, two years before the Free Trade Agreement was signed. It was a caution from the advisory committee to ensure that environmental matters did not come under the Free Trade Agreement and would not in fact be harmed by the Free Trade Agreement.
Those cautions were heard and the environment is fully protected under the Free Trade Agreement. That is why these concerns that are being raised today are really misleading and tell half truths. For example, Article 1201 in the Agreement, which the Hon. Member can read, is a commitment to the GATT obligations of the partners to this agreement. According to that particular section, XX(b), the environment is obviously protected by the GATT Agreement.
September 23, 1988

|
Environmental issues are fully protected. This Government can, has, and will take any action that we feel necessary to protect the environment and Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The last question of Question Period will be asked by the Hon. Member for Davenport.


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, environmental regulations are not protected. Pesticide regulations are not protected. Water exports are not at all protected.
Where has the Minister been all these months? How does he reconcile the fact that the environment was the only major sector that was not studied by the Government, yet his own Prime Minister a few days ago made the great declaration that we must not choose between economic development and environmental protection?. How does he reconcile that contradiction?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member was here earlier in Question Period he would have heard me read the technical standards section of the Free Trade Agreement. I will read it to him again.
Under Article 602: Affirmation of GATT Agreement states:
The Parties affirm their respective rights and obligations under the GATT
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.
A legitimate domestic objective is protected. The definition of a legitimate domestic objective is as follows: "-an objective whose purpose is to protect health, safety, essential security, the environment, or consumer interests;"
The Hon. Member has asked where I have been for the last two years. 1 know where I have been. 1 have been working on this agreement. I ask him where he has been. Obviously he has not read the agreement or he would not ask such silly questions.
[Translation}


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) on a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
Jean-C. Lapierre: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. You seldom occupy the chair during the Oral Question Period and I would not want to offend you.
Privilege
I realize that early in the Oral Question Period I got carried away and used the word "lie". To abide by the Standing Orders and your instructions, I withdraw these remarks although the facts speak for themselves.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


PRIVILEGE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I believe the privileges of all Members of the House have been affected today by the type of answer that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) has been giving us.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will go further. He has also impugned the reputation of public servants, and I want to make that clear.
In his first answer to us he said this was a junior member of the Prime Minister's office. Then he said further, to impart more information, that it was a representative of the Prime Minister's constituency office. There cannot be thousands of people working for the Prime Minister in his constituency office.
I ask the Minister to give me the name of that individual. What position does he occupy? Will the Minister come forward with all the information?


An Hon. Member:: That is not a question of privilege.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: This is a question of privilege. I have been misled by that Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Dick:: You are a sleazebag.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would suggest that the question raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, important though it may be, does not constitute a question of privilege. It is a matter which might be raised during a future Question Period.

September 23, 1988
Tabling of Documents



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr, Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Orders 67(2) and 99(2) I wish to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare entitled Survivor Benefits under the Canada Pension Plan.


PETITIONS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 106(8), 1 have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to three petitions, Nos. 332-5359, 3325365 and 332-5368.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) tabled a document entitled The Transportation of Dangerous Goods. The Hon. Minister would wish this item to be referred specifically to the Standing Committee on Transport. We have had discussions among the Parties. I think Your Honour would find that there is unanimous consent to make that a strict specific referral to the Transport Committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there agreement with respect to the proposal made by the Hon. Minister of State?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



RAILWAY ACT


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-159, an Act to amend the Railway Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by dozens of my constituents who are members of Beth Emeth Synagogue in my riding who call on the Canadian Government to make strong representations to the Soviet Government to grant exit visas to the family of Leonid Shabashov who has been seeking to emigrate from the Soviet Union with his family for 14 years and who has been constantly refused without evidence of a justifiable reason.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, pursuant to Standing Order 106, petitions that are certified correct as to form and content signed by a number of Canadians who are concerned that the Conservative Government has no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement from the United States.
Since the proposed trade agreement not only denies Canadians the secure access to the U.S. market that was the key objective of negotiations but threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to hold a national general election prior to any consideration of moving forward with the trade agreement.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?
September 23, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have today given notice to the Speaker of my intention to rise under the provisions of Standing Order 29 to seek leave to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent and pressing concern.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) has in the last several days acknowledged that an undetermined number of Canadians were subjected to nerve gas tests at the defence research establishment at Suffield, Alberta, particularly during but not limited to the 1960s.
Since the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and I raised this issue several days ago we have received numerous calls from across the country from individuals who were subjected to such tests. In many instances these individuals are now suffering from medical disorders which may be directly related to these nerve gas tests.
The impact of such tests on the long-term health of the subjects has been well documented in other countries. I believe that it is absolutely vital that the federal Government conduct an open and public inquiry into this matter so that those subjects who were in fact exposed may be medically checked for any long-term effects.
An emergency debate in the House of Commons would serve that purpose in that it would further expose this issue in the public domain and thus assist those individuals who were or who may have been tested to come forward for immediate medical testing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair thanks the Hon. Member for notice given to the Speaker, and the Chair recognizes that it is a most serious and important matter. However, I regret to tell the Hon. Member that her request does not meet the requirements of Standing Order 29, and therefore I must respectfully deny the request.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-158, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, my comments on this Bill will be brief, since its purpose is simply to reconfirm certain rules that were established to allow Canadians in a number of peripheral regions who are experiencing hardship to have access to unemployment insurance. However, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that we still have no reply to our requests for applying the 10-week employment rule for unemployment insurance to our regions as well.
A number of Members, including myself, have asked to have certain parts of our ridings included among the regions that are eligible for unemployment insurance after only ten weeks. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) said earlier that once again, the Government has waited until the very last minute to introduce this Bill. The Hon. Member knows perfectly well that Bill C-158 is one of those Bills that are introduced regularly on an annual basis and which do not contain any new elements. However, the request to allow certain areas in our ridings access to unemployment insurance after ten weeks of employment is new, and we are very anxious to see this done.
For instance, in the northern part of my riding, the communities of Notre-Dame-du-Laus, Poltimore and part of Val-des-Monts have a lot of unemployment, partly because of the sawmill that closed in the winter of 1984. To earn a living, these people have to leave home at five o'clock in the morning to get to work in Thurso. Mr. Speaker, you can imagine what this does to family life and the quality of life of these people?
I would also like to mention that in the 1987 report on the economy of Quebec published by Regional Industrial Expansion Canada, there is a very good description on page 93 of improvements in the economy of the Outaouais region. However, although there was a definite improvement in employment compared to 1986-an increase of 7.2 per cent- in 1986 this region was the only one where the number of persons holding a job decreased. When I say region, I am referring to the northern part of my riding and part of the riding next door, Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, where the unemployment rate is above the national average.
Mr. Speaker, with these few words 1 just want to point out to the Minister that we absolutely must have a quick decision. For two years we have been waiting for a decision to include these areas among the regions where unemployment insurance is allowed after ten weeks. Of course, the answer would be to create jobs in these regions. In fact, we hope that as a result of the free trade agreement, the pulp and paper and forestry sectors, for instance, will expand very significantly, and we will thus be able to create jobs, which means that these people would no longer need unemployment insurance.

September 23, 1988
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Elon. Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan on a point of order.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the House. I was on my feet at eleven o'clock, when Question Period started, and had every intention to resume my contribution to this debate. Regretfully, I was out of the House and things moved a little faster than I anticipated. I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to allow me to make a few additional remarks.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to speak?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If the Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) is going to be so miserable, he will force me to move that that Member now be heard, and he would be very embarrassed if I did that. I would suggest that we come to an agreement, that we be gentlemen, and that we be very careful about what we do here, and that the request made to you, Mr. Speaker, be acknowledged.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Government has no difficulty in allowing this. These things do happen from time to time.
I think the House would be well served by allowing him to conclude his remarks.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you very much.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair does understand that there is unanimous consent and recognizes the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank my colleagues, both in the Opposition and in the Government, for their intervention. I appreciate the spirit of most of the people in this House.
When we broke at eleven o'clock, I was talking about the community of Atikokan and the difficulties that they have because of their location within the UI region of northwestern Ontario. I was pointing out that in 1987 one out of every two-in other words, 50 per cent of the employables in that community-were out of work for some period of time. Yet, because Thunder Bay's economy at that time was doing very well, they were forced to meet the same requirements as Thunder Bay in terms of the variable entrance requirements. Right now, that unemployment level is not much better in Atikokan. It is roughly between 8 and 9 per cent in Thunder Bay and the region, where they are required to have 17 weeks in order to requalify. That is a community that does not have the jobs to go around.
While we are hoping for a major announcement shortly due to some initiatives of the community, with the assistance of the federal and provincial Government, right now they are not benefiting in any way from Thunder Bay's prosperity, if I can put it that way, and they are being penalized for their location.
The other area that I am concerned about in terms of variable entrance requirements is based on two things. It is based on Statistics Canada's random sampling of the region, which again tends to be just Thunder Bay and which tends to be in the magnitude of 200 to 300 phone calls per month, which gives one a sense of the unemployment rates. Because of that sample size that we have seen in Thunder Bay, it is like a yo-yo. One month it is 12 per cent, the next month it is 8 per cent. It has been crazy.
They have fine tuned it by increasing the sample size a bit, but it still has a margin of error of 3.9. In other words, right now, when the unemployment rate is somewhere between 8 and 9 per cent, it could be 4 per cent or it could be 12 per cent. Yet, that is the statistic that determines the number of weeks that an individual is required to work in order to requalify.
The second part of that is that it is on a sliding average of over three months. As we saw this spring, fall and summer, because of the impact of the drought, in terms of the crops that were available to come through, plus some other distortions within the Western Grain Transportation Act, more and more railway workers, seafarers and grain handlers, as well as some government inspectors and weighers, were laid off. But that did not affect the unemployment rate fast enough to ensure that those who were laid off, who had been in a laid-off position previously and got called back to work, did not have enough weeks. They did not even have the 18 weeks that were then required. We have a situation where the system is not able to respond quickly enough.
I want to serve notice that when we get to report stage next week I want to move a couple of amendments to this Bill. One would in effect remove the variable entrance requirements and peg everybody at 10 weeks. I do not care whether you are a worker in Newfoundland, Yellowknife, Atikokan or Victoria, it does not mean that, just because your neighbour has been able to go out and get a job, you are automatically going to get one.
I am supporting this Bill because we do not want to see everybody get 14 weeks, because that will penalize those who obviously need the shorter qualifying period of 10 weeks that is provided for. Let us treat everybody equally with a ten-week qualifying period.
September 23, 1988

The other amendment 1 wish to give notice on will depend on what the Government does with my first amendment. If the Government does not accept the first amendment, I want to change it from a regional rate to a local rate, so that it is the unemployment rate in Thunder Bay, Corner Brook, or Saskatoon that decides the variable entrance requirements for that community, and not some larger piece of the pie where there may not be any relationship between employment and unemployment from community to community.
While I am speaking on the Bill, I would also like to make some general comments on unemployment insurance. During Question Period today I asked the Minister responsible for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) if there was going to be assistance for the handlers of grain in any disaster program for the farmers. 1 pointed out to the Minister that some people are falling between the cracks. There are a number of grain handlers who have gone through three or four bad years of employment who cannot get 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18 weeks of work. We are finding that a number of them are being ruled ineligible to receive unemployment insurance on the basis of number of weeks. We are also finding that the rules of the game are making it even more difficult.
Currently, because of a mix up between Revenue Canada and the Unemployment Insurance Commission, vacation is treated differently. When an employee is off on scheduled vacation and is receiving payment from his or her employer, unemployment insurance continues to deduct the dues. However, Revenue Canada has ruled that vacation weeks cannot be counted, even though they are in the middle of the work period, and not at one end where they are used to perhaps circumvent the rules as they are today. Those employees are denied unemployment insurance benefits because they have been on paid holidays, which is part of their work, and part of a necessary component to ensure the mental and physical health of that employee. The system is not working on behalf of the people for whom it was designed. I would encourage the Government to make changes to it.
1 also wish to point out that an all-Party standing committee of the House unanimously recommended a ten-week qualifying period. That has also been recommended in some platform material and positions put forward by my Party.
My comments today are based on information from people who come into my constituency office in Thunder Bay or Atikokan. The bulk of our work is assisting people through the red tape of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. What happens to a laid off worker when he or she becomes sick is a real insult, particularly with respect to older workers. We have had cases where an individual on unemployment insurance, perhaps out of work for the first time in his or her life, has a heart attack. Many of these people who are in their early or late fifties obviously have extra stress when they are out of work. They are okay if they become sick in the first half of the claim period, but they do not dare get sick in the second half because they are cut off. That type of treatment of the unemployed has to stop.
Finally, we talk about the need to get people off unemployment insurance. I strongly believe that the vast majority of
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
men and women want to work. In some cases industries are shutting down. I mentioned the situation in Atikokan where the iron ore mines closed in 1979-1980. When people are laid off and are in an industry which has a declining workforce, either in their area or nationally, they know that they have to learn a new trade or develop a new skill. However, it cannot be done on unemployment insurance unless it involves one of that small group of programs under the Canadian Job Strategy that are specifically a seat purchase at a community college. There is no provision to allow someone to go to university to get his or her B.A. degree and move on to another skill area. If we really want to encourage people to get off unemployment insurance and into a full-time job, let us give them access to the educational system and allow them to claim unemployment insurance while they are going to school, for example, single parents, or mother-led families with the added burden of child care, who want to go to school to get an education.
One week ago I talked to a young woman who was attending Lakehead University. She told me that the Province of Ontario has cut her off in terms of her informal child care arrangement, because the budget was used up for the year. This woman is in her fourth year of university. One can imagine a single parent on welfare going to university because she knows that she needs the tools that education will provide her to get off welfare and be an employee in the community.
A number of things in the system need to be changed. I am pleased that I had an opportunity to contribute to the debate today. 1 hope that when the Bill is returned for report stage I will be present. These days one does not know when Bills will be returned, and even during the course of the day we are not sure. I hope to be here to move my amendments. If not, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), will move them on my behalf.
I appreciate your patience, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Members in the House who allowed me to come back in, as it were. I regret that one Hon. Member saw fit to try to make life a little more miserable in this place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gander- Twillingate.


Mr. Baker:: On a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are no questions or comments. However, 1 am sure the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate will do a good job on debate.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to add to what the hon. gentleman has just said about the discrimination in vocational schools, in universities, and in all institutions of higher learning where there are some people who are collecting unemployment insurance and other people who are not collecting unemployment insurance. That is determined if one is in receipt of what one calls a "manpower seat". The Unemployment Insurance Commission, through the local employment office, determines that when a person is laid off it would be of benefit to that person to continue his or her education or go into a new field, therefore he or she is permitted to draw unemployment insurance.

September 23, 1988
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
In every province in Canada, starting in September in the vocational schools, when one goes into a typical classroom, one will find that one out of three or half the number of people are drawing unemployment insurance, and the other two-thirds or one-half are not. That is determined by whether or not you are acquainted with the system well enough to be able to, prior to your lay-off, go into the unemployment insurance office and get what is commonly referred to as a manpower seat.
Therefore, I agree with what the hon. gentlemen put on the record a few moments ago about the absolute and total discrimination of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Imagine the outrage people feel that Members of Parliament from the three political Parties sit in this Chamber and deal with the Act and have dealt with it over the years, yet we and the Senate do not agree on changing the system to make everyone equal. In fact, to put it on the record, perhaps most Members of Parliament and most Senators do not even know it is going on anyway.
Also for the record, this Bill before us today will continue what is commonly referred to as the variable entrance requirement. If the Bill does not pass what would it mean? The Bill affects only repeaters. It does not affect new entrants, or re-entrants as some Members have said. It does not affect how much unemployment insurance you get or who gets it. Not at all. What it affects is how many insurable weeks you need if you are a repeater.
You know what a repeater is. A repeater is a person who draws unemployment insurance consistently over 52 weeks. He re-enters the workforce and then applies for unemployment insurance. The variable entrance requirement comes into play depending on where you are in Canada, if you are a repeater and only if you are a repeater, not if you are what is referred to in the outrageous Act passed by this Parliament in 1978 and the outrageous Act that was passed by this Parliament in 1977 as a new entrant or a re-entrant. That has nothing to do with this Act. You can throw it in the garbage. It has to do with repeaters.
The Hon. Member stood up a few moments ago and said, my goodness, I am from the Outaouais, I believe it was, and she said, "We are longing for this Bill". If your unemployment insurance rate is fairly low and you are shouting for people to get unemployment insurance, then you had better vote against this Bill. You see, if the Bill is not passed, no matter where you were in Canada you would require 14 weeks of insurable employment to collect unemployment insurance, not 20 weeks as it is in a great many areas in Canada, nor 18 weeks, or 17 weeks, or 16 weeks, or 15 weeks. You would require 14 weeks right from Cape Spear, Newfoundland over to British Columbia. If you threw the Bill in the garbage, certain areas
of Canada would benefit, if you were supporting people to get unemployment insurance with fewer weeks required. Everybody would be the same. However, for the areas where presently you need only 10 weeks, up to 14 weeks, they would be required to get 14 weeks to collect unemployment insurance. That is what the Bill does. It does not do anything else.
Back in 1977 and 1978, as the present occupant of the chair will recall, this Chamber changed the law. Prior to 1977, as you will recall, you needed only eight weeks to collect unemployment insurance right across Canada. A Bill came in that changed that. That was followed by another Bill in 1978, and that Bill brought in the most discriminatory legislation that I have ever seen in this Chamber. We have lived with it ever since. I say today that what exists in the law today is outright and total discrimination. That is, a re-entrant to the workforce requires by law twice as many insurable weeks as a repeater.
In other words, what you find is this. In seasonal industries in northern Quebec, northern Ontario, northern British Columbia, the northern part of every province in Canada, in rural Canada, at a fish plant, for example, you will find on the working lines that a lady works maybe for three months, four months or five months of the year off and on during the summer. She gets maybe 1 5 weeks of insurable employment. When she is laid off, when she is no longer called back, she can collect unemployment insurance because she collected unemployment insurance the year before. However, next to her on the assembly line is another lady who, last year or the year before or the year previous to that, made the mistake of having a child. Then that lady is doomed forever never to qualify for unemployment insurance. Now, isn't that an outrageous thing to have in legislation?


Claudy Mailly: Yes.


George Baker: It is there. I do not understand how Governments can come and go in this country and not correct that outright discrimination in the Unemployment Insurance Act. That lady who took a year out is now regarded by the law of Canada under the Act as a re-entrant into the workforce. Therefore, what does she require in Newfoundland? Twenty insurable weeks of employment within one year. You cannot space it out over two years.
The repeater with whom this Bill deals does not require 20 weeks by law passed by this Parliament. I suppose you could say that the same discrimination lies in our young people in Canada. They are not affected by this Bill either because they are what you call new entrants. New entrants are classified the same way as that lady who took one year out to have a child. They also require five months of insurable employment in order to be a new entrant as defined under the Act.
September 23, 1988

The real things that are wrong with the Act that revolve around this legislation called the variable entrance requirement are the things that should change. In fact, I just wonder which political party will try to set the record straight in the election and have as part of its platform the removal of that discrimination under the Act. I do not know of any political party as yet that has adopted that policy. What political party is going to turn around and correct a grave injustice in this country?
If we use the example of the fish plant worker in Canada drawing unemployment insurance, this woman with 15 weeks can draw it but another woman cannot because she took a year out. As you know, it has been a bad fishery in eastern Canada. Why is it that the fishermen of Canada cannot collect unemployment insurance? If a fisherman has 10 weeks, 20 weeks, 30 weeks, 40 weeks, 50 weeks, 60 weeks or even 1,000 weeks, he cannot draw unemployment insurance today. It is not allowed.
This Parliament, in its infinite wisdom, passed a law that said that a fisherman could only draw unemployment insurance commencing November 15, the time when he could file, and he would get his first cheque on December 12, and his last cheque would, by law, be limited to May 10. That is obviously discrimination. One fish plant worker is collecting unemployment insurance because he has 12 weeks or 15 weeks. Another fish plant worker, a lady who had a child two years ago, cannot collect it because she had a child two years ago and had to take the year off. In order to re-enter, she now requires 20 weeks. The fisherman who brings in the fish cannot collect unemployment insurance at all until the middle of November. He then has to file for it and wait for two weeks.
In fact, most fishermen wait more than two weeks. A fisherman filing in Grand Falls, Newfoundland, which is not as yet in my riding, would have to wait eight weeks. The eight-week rule is that if he quits, he cannot get the benefits for eight weeks, six weeks of penalty and two weeks of waiting time. They are so overworked and understaffed in some of those unemployment insurance offices that the fisherman files but all he gets are forms in the mail.
What political party will have the wisdom, the common sense and the sense of fair play to tell Canadians that it will right all the wrongs in the Act? What Government will do what the courts of Canada have started to do? There have been some decisions lately by the Federal Court of Appeal including a recent one dealing with the spouses' aspect of the Unemployment Insurance Act. There have been two cases overruling that section of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
People are asking why parliamentarians cannot right the wrongs in the Act. They are asking why they have to go through these appeal procedures and end up not winning when they know that there is discrimination in the Unemployment Insurance Act.
1 intended to say only a few words about the trade school students to whom the Hon. Member referred a few moments
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
ago. Again, there is discrimination in the Unemployment Insurance Act. Half a trade school class in carpentry is allowed to collect unemployment insurance and the other half cannot. Half a secretarial class at a trade school is allowed to collect unemployment insurance but the other half is not. One person is collecting unemployment insurance but the person sitting next to him in class who did the same job and has the same history is not allowed to draw unemployment insurance. That is discrimination, is it not? Any court would say that that is outright discrimination under any charter of rights.
Maybe this is not the fault of the politicians. Maybe a lot of the politicians do not know what is really happening in some cases. Maybe that is the problem. Cabinet Ministers have their dinners at the Parliamentary Restaurant and operate in a different sphere from someone who is unable to receive unemployment insurance, cannot buy school books for his or her children while his or her children cannot get student loans.
That is another thing. Why does a student have to be 21 years of age in order to get a student loan without the income tax information of his parents? There are all kinds of things that are discriminatory. Why is it that when a student is past the age of 21, he can get a loan, but when he is 19 or 20, he can't?


Mrs. Sparrow:: Yes, he can.


George Baker: No, he can't. Let me explain this for those who do not understand it. Obviously the Hon. Member agrees with what I have said.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: No, there are loans.


John Horton McDermid: That's the first time I've seen you stopped in your tracks.


George Baker: A student requires a statement from his parents-


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Well, why don't you say that?


George Baker: Look, I thought you would understand that. People are all hoping that their sons or daughters will last in university until they are 21 years of age so that they can at last get a student loan without having to produce the income tax records of their parents. That is federal legislation, operated by the provinces, and there are different programs in different provinces, but that is the law in eastern Canada.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: What about western Canada?


George Baker: Western Canada is the same thing. In fact, western Canada-no, Mr. Speaker, I will not get into that.
I am not saying whether or not I agree with this. The other day, the Federal Court came down with a ruling that said that a person can hire his or her spouse and the spouse can collect unemployment insurance if there is a contract of service. The lady who was successful in the appeal is from a different province, Digby, Nova Scotia, in fact. The case is commonly referred to as the Druken case because the lady's last name is Druken. She carried it through to the Federal Court of Appeal and won the case.

September 23, 1988
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
The Federal Court of Appeal has agreed with a district judge who said that the entire section of the Unemployment Insurance Act that deals with the elimination of a spouse being able to draw unemployment insurance is completely illegal because it violates the Charter of Rights. The Charter provides that we cannot discriminate against someone because of this, this, and this and because of family considerations.
I know what the natural consequence of that decision will be if the federal Government does not appeal it, and I happen to know personally enough people in the Justice Department to know that the Minister is considering appealing this to the Supreme Court of Canada, and probably will after the election is called when no one is paying attention to it.
1 see that you are indicating that I only have a couple of seconds left. I have not even got to the point 1 want to make.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: The point I want to make is this: the court has made that ruling, and we know about the problems in the high unemployment areas of Canada. There are rules that state, for example, that no one is permitted to be hired on a works program or summer student employment program if the person who signed the contract with the federal Government is a relative of that person. The town clerks in these small communities have to sign the contracts. It is difficult to find someone who is not related to someone else in these small communities.


Claudy Mailly: Especially in Newfoundland.


George Baker: Especially in Newfoundland. That student cannot go to work because his mother or father is the town clerk, the mayor or someone else who signed the contract.
The Federal Court of Appeal is saying that what the Unemployment Insurance Act has done is illegal because it is in violation of the Charter of Rights. Not only that, but the same is true with all the works programs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ellis):: Order.


George Baker: I know you are going to tell me that my time is up, so I will sit down, but I just want to say, for goodness sakes, let us deal with the real issues. Whichever political party supports the removal of this 20-weeks requirement for new entrants and re-entrants and says that fishermen should be able to draw unemployment insurance is a Party that I will support.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ellis):: Hon. Members will know that it is very enjoyable to listen to the Hon. Member, but my wife has a saying: "Don't listen to what I'm saying, listen to what I'm thinking," and that is what we have to do when the Hon. Member speaks.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure that the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) would want to know that something was lost in the translation when I spoke. He has given exactly the opposite interpretation to what I said in French. I said I was not waiting for this Bill because it was merely a routine matter that comes up. What I want to see is the redistribution of these regions so that in the regions in the northern part of my riding-which is not Ottawa-Hull, by the way, it is very rural, very poor, with a lot of unemployment-people can work for 10 weeks and then have access to unemployment insurance benefits. That is totally opposite to the interpretation the Hon. Member put on my speech.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has heard a rumour but is not clear exactly as to where the Bill will be going. I will ask for the guidance of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: 1 think, Mr. Speaker, you will find a general predisposition in the House to approve the second reading motion and then, by unanimous consent, to move to Committee of the Whole. There has been a signal from opposition Members that they would like to move some amendments. We can deal with those in Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair thanks the Parliamentary Secretary.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the Chair.
Mr.   Chairman@: Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-Qualifying weeks


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, I distributed to the Government, to the Liberal Opposition and to the Table Officers a proposed amendment which I would like to move. I move:
That lines II through 15 on page 1 of Bill C-158 be deleted and the
following substituted therefore:
"Person shall have in order to qualify for benefits shall be 10".
The purpose of this amendment is to provide for a fixed period of time for qualification for all citizens of Canada of 10 weeks as opposed to the flexible requirement at this time that provides for anywhere from 10 weeks to 18 weeks in order to qualify for unemployment insurance.


September 23, 1988

The Hon. Member who raised her point of order just a couple of moments ago talked about her riding where there are regional distortions and there is a need to have community standards. This amendment would ensure that all Canadians, no matter where they live, no matter what their employment prospects, would only be required to have 10 weeks of unemployment insurance credits. That is all 1 wish to say. I think the matter is self-explanatory and I would hope the Government would move quickly and positively to accept this amendment.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan did provide the Official Opposition with a copy of the amendment to Bill C-158. I wish to indicate that the Official Opposition supports the amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party. The Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, which examined the whole question of unemployment insurance entitlements, recommended unanimously, that is, members from all three Parties, Conservative, Liberal and the third Party in the House, the New Democratic Party, that such an amendment be made to the Act and that the qualification criteria for benefits be applied equally across the country. But what we do not see today in this Bill, unfortunately, is a requirement to get rid of the 20-week rule for re-entrance.
I represent a riding where unemployment is among the highest in the country. For example, in the Port au Port Peninsula the unemployment rate is between 50 per cent and 60 per cent, even during the height of the fishing season. It is ridiculous that someone who managed to get a job last year and is going back to the same seasonal job this year, needs 10 weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance purposes, but someone who was so unfortunate as not to get a job last year, one of the ones who are not employable, not for lack of trying but merely because of lack of opportunity, needs 20 weeks.
What could be more insane than asking the workforce who lives in that part of Canada where their way of life depends upon seasonal economies, be it the fishery, the forestry or certain agricultural sectors, to wait 20 weeks? What could be more ludicrous than saying that those who seasonally find employment to give to themselves and their families the dignity of a pay cheque, can qualify after 10 weeks of employments, but those who fall between the cracks, those who are required to go out and scrape, to almost beg or steal, to find enough income to make it through the summer months and into the fall, must wait 20 weeks? Because they had a bad year, they did not qualify in one year, so the next time, in order to qualify, they are required to have 20 weeks of employment.
1 would have hoped the Government, paying attention in a reformed Parliament to the progressive and enlightened views of Members from all three Parties on the standing committee operating in a non-partisan manner and seeking to make better laws for all Canadians, would have come in with a Bill to get rid of the variable entrance requirement and make it ten weeks across the country.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
The reality is that anybody who can work beyond ten weeks will work. I do not know anyone who does not want to work. There may be a rare case, but one cannot build a law for the country based on a rare case. People whom I know want the dignity of a day's work, the pride that comes with bringing home a paycheque. This nonsense that we need a variable entrance requirement because the country, en masse, is going to lay down its tools and go home now that they have qualified is nonsense.
There is a work ethic that ought to be reflected in faith in the working people of this country by the Government of Canada bringing in an universal 10-week requirement and getting rid of the terrible discriminatory 20-week re-entrance requirement. Unfortunately we do not see that in this Bill today.


Marcel Danis: The Chair finds the amendment of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan in order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have been in this position in Committee of the Whole. I have been on the other side for a few hours in this Chamber over the years.
Close to 20 years ago I became involved in doing research work across this country related to employment concerns from coast to coast, Newfoundland included. I would like to confirm my hon. friend's observation that Canadians want to work. They want to work productively; they are hard-working people. We have no reason to be afraid of a free trade deal because our people will make it work and the opportunities will enable them to have the jobs.
We do have arguments about the best way to provide jobs. I remember the arguments in 1984. We brought in our first Budget and opposition Members, who came to that budget process like they had come to four years of governing, said that it would be a catastrophe, that our unemployment insurance fund would be bankrupted because there would be so many unemployed people. Four years later there are 1.25 million more Canadians who pay money into the unemployment insurance fund, and there are a whole lot less people who take money out.
Voters will have a chance to decide which Party's view is the most appropriate one. We offer four years of experience of creating jobs and reducing the costs of unemployment insurance versus the preceding four years when jobs disappeared and unemployment insurance payments went up. We believe that Canadians who want jobs will vote for us, and we believe that that is the overwhelming majority of Canadians.
On the amendment, the research data shows that beginning at about 12 weeks and going up to 20 weeks and beyond is probably the best statistical definition of the Canadian labour force. If people do not, by and large, have that kind of attachment-not in every single year, but through the passage of time-it is hard, in a statistical sense, to say that they are part of the labour force. It is important to have other social programs that look after their economic needs when they are not part of the labour force, and we do have such programs.

September 23, 1988
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
However, the Unemployment Insurance Act compels people to put money. Every employee in the country on a wage must put money in. It is a tax, kind of a hidden tax in a way, but people do not have an option. They must put money in and the money that comes in is topped up by government, but it has to match the money that is paid out.
If we try to meet all our social needs, all our income needs for things like the welfare system under the Canada Assistance Plan, through unemployment insurance, then we would have to tell the employees of the country that they have to put more money in, that we are going to tax them higher. We would have to tell the businesses of the country that we are going to have to tax them higher to pay for that.
Any tax on labour should be entered into very carefully because it is a carrot to business to discontinue with a job, to replace a job with a machine. That is what a tax on labour does, and if we are really concerned about those Canadians who want jobs then we really have to be careful. The Opposition has put forward, and both Parties seem in agreement on this, an increase in taxation for those who have jobs.
The Member opposite raises the standing committee report. At the point at which that report was brought to Parliament, I was the chairman of the committee so I think I indeed know an awful lot about that report. It bothers me that some days in the House of Commons the report is distorted.
Members worked very hard with the resources we had. The hours, the days, and the weeks went by and we proposed a major restructuring of the unemployment insurance principle. We did not have the resources to do all the research, but we believed that it would produce better benefits at lower taxation.
When we pull a single recommendation out of the over 50 recommendations we are not treating the Act as a whole, as a total arrangement. This amendment is simply proposing an increase in taxation for people. That is really what is being proposed, whereas the Bill that the Government has brought in is saying that in areas where jobs are not available, where it is very difficult to get more than ten weeks of work, one shall qualify. However, if one lives in an area like downtown Toronto or southwestern Ontario where there is almost a labour shortage today, where jobs are readily available, one has to work longer, because jobs are there, to get one's pay.
It is the Government's view that those who really need the help because they come from an area where jobs are hard to get shall benefit under unemployment insurance, but we do not want those same people to pay the costs of people who come from downtown Toronto where jobs are readily available.
That is the reason for variable entrance. We do not want to tax the poor to pay the rich. This amendment would force us to tax the people from high unemployment areas higher to pay benefits in downtown Toronto. We think it should work the other way, that those coming from areas where jobs are readily
available should pay more to help Canadians in other parts of the country where jobs are very difficult to get.
I would urge government Members to vote against this amendment for those reasons.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that what the Hon. Member from Calgary is doing is defending the program which the Liberals put in place when they were in power and which the Liberals are apparently now prepared to recant.
I would just recall to him the argument made by my friend from Thunder Bay-Atikokan pointing out that people in a high unemployment area of his constituency are still forced to have 16 or 17 weeks of contribution in order to get benefits because of the fact that the unemployment rate is relatively low in other parts of the region on which that calculation is based.
I know northern Ontario. It is a substantial drive between Atikokan and Thunder Bay. In winter it is a very substantial and dangerous drive because the roads are icy. It is just simply not feasible for a person living in Atikokan to take a job in Thunder Bay. Therefore, we do not have one labour market, we have several. The effect of the present rules is to create real inequities because of the way they are applied.
The Hon. Member has also tried to suggest that this is a tax on working people, et cetera. I would have thought that this kind of amendment would be acceptable to a Government which was committed to having full employment, not only in southern Ontario but through the rest of the country as well. In other words, if we had a Government which was committed to bringing down unemployment to the level that prevails, for example, in Sweden, down to a 3 per cent or 4 per cent level in Canadian terms, we would not be talking about major expenditures.
We are talking about potentially major expenditures now because the unemployment rate in Canada is an average of 8 per cent. In many regions of the country it still runs as high as 12 per cent or 13 per cent.


Brian Vincent Tobin: 17 per cent.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It is 17 per cent in parts of Newfoundland as my friend, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe remarks. It is scandalous that the Government should be talking about the fine job it has done in economic management when many parts of the country have unemployment rates comparable to many of those that prevailed at the time of the recession in 1982.
The Parliamentary Secretary is trying to suggest that what is needed for the problems is a stick so that in areas of labour demand workers would not sit on their backsides, as he might, say, but would get a job because they would not be able to get unemployment insurance.
September 23, 1988

1 would point out to him, among other things, that to generalize like that may not in fact make sense. I have walked along Bloor Street in Toronto where there are signs offering jobs. 1 have walked in areas of my constituency where there are signs in retail stores offering jobs.
It is a fact, as Peter Cook pointed out in The Globe and Mail this morning, that the rate of unemployment among older workers in Canada today is very substantially higher than it is in many other countries. Older workers aged 55 or over cannot easily get jobs waiting on tables in restaurants, standing behind counters at McDonald's, or selling trendy designer sportswear in a sporting goods shop. They may ask for a job but the manager will hum and haw, look rather embarrassed, and say that he does not think it would be appropriate for that person to take that job.
It has been suggested that in time 69-year-olds will be serving hamburgers at McDonald's because the flow of young people into the labour market is diminishing and the demand for their services will increase. While that may come in time, right now a 17-week requirement of attachment to the workforce may be very cruel to older workers who have difficulty getting sustained employment even if they live near an area of relatively low unemployment.
I suggest the Government has a stereotype of how workers just want to lie in the sun and therefore must be forced to work. My experience is that people want to work. People find a great deal of their identity and part of their contribution to society in working. Certainly people with children at home do not want to go home to say they spent the day on the beach because they did not care to look for a job. Kids expect their parents to have jobs. Parents feel inadequate if they do not have a job. Therefore, the suggestion that people under the 10-week requirement would then more or less rip off the Canadian taxpayers does not do credit to the Government.
There should be a program in Canada that is dedicated to ensuring full employment and that jobs are available in every part of the country to all Canadians, young and older workers alike. I believe that kind of program can be accompanied with a program that is relatively flexible and accommodates the fact that people at certain ages, perhaps with certain skills, unfortunately may find themselves unemployed with less than 16 or 17 weeks attachment to the labour force. That could be accommodated by the kind of amendment proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, 1 want to take a moment to speak to this amendment offered to Clause 1 by the Member from the New Democratic Party. The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe made a very eloquent speech a few moments ago in support of the amendment. I am sure Members on all sides of the House took note of the very excellent speech. Not only did he support the initiative, which is a good one, he added a very important component of which 1 hope Members opposite will take note. It is the fact that the 10-week variable entrance requirement that exists now in certain regions of Canada only applies to a person who is
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
unemployed and had worked a sufficient number of weeks in order to qualify.
What about a new worker who is not only a young person coming out of school. Let us take the case of a woman who is re-entering the workforce after a number of years. Interestingly enough, the Government has a job re-entry program specifically designed to help women who have not worked for 10 years, 15 years, or not at all get into the workforce. The Government takes credit for inventing this program to assist them to get back into the workforce, yet when this woman gets back into the workforce in an area where this 10-week rule applies, she must have 20 weeks attachment to the workforce even though she is in that 10-week VER region. She has put all that time on this course to enable her to join the workforce. It is a double standard. The Government cannot claim credit for this re-entry program on the one hand while at the same time creating a situation that allows this to happen.
[Translation)
Mr. Speaker, in the riding that I represent, which you know very well-I am sure that most Members know it a little because I talk about it from time to time in the House of Commons-the Hawkesbury area, for example, has a very high rate of unemployment. But it is a small group in the whole population of Canada; it is not a region in itself, it is not even a mini-region, so to speak, for census purposes. It is not big enough for that. So the region that I represent, the Hawkesbury region, might have an unemployment rate of 12, 13, 14 or 15 per cent, but it is still within a larger region which has a much lower unemployment rate.
So when the unemployment rate is calculated for this region, it is taken for Prescott-Russell as a whole for statistical purposes; Glengarry is something else. The unemployment rate for all of Prescott-Russell is something like 7 or 8 per cent. But we know very well that for Prescott County, the unemployment rate would be about 11 per cent, and for the immediate area of Hawkesbury, maybe 13 or 14 per cent. Nevertheless, those people are not eligible for the 10-week qualifying period because they live in a region that supposedly has a lower rate of unemployment. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), told us that the 10-week rule should apply everywhere. And he is right, because if someone is out of work, be it in Hawkesbury, in Ottawa, in Toronto, where there are many jobs, or in Newfoundland, the effects are the same. The person involved has no salary.
It does not give one much comfort to know that when one is unemployed one is part of a smaller group as opposed to part of a larger group. In other words, if one is unemployed in an area of lower unemployment or an area of higher unemployment, the effect is the same-one does not have a job. Therefore I think the 10-week rule should apply everywhere.

September 23, 1988
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
As people have indicated this has been suggested by various groups to committees in the past. To end on that point 1 want to say that the unemployment insurance rules are hard enough. I know that they are abused sometimes. Whenever they are, of course, people are quick to remind us, as they should, that it is unfair that they are working for low wages sometimes while another person is taking advantage of the rules and so on and is collecting unemployment insurance when they should not be. I appreciate that position and sometimes it is accurate.
However, we cannot generalize and say that those people who are unemployed are so by their own design. I say that because in just about 100 per cent of the cases people who are unemployed are on unemployment because they cannot find employment.
I had a case this week in which my office went to defend a person before an arbitration panel. It was a case of an unemployed worker in my constituency who wanted to get back into the workforce. What this worker did is he went out on his own to follow a training course which would then guarantee him a position. Interestingly enough, the training course is with a Crown corporation. Once this training course of 15 weeks or so is over, then he will have a full-time position. This training course that he is taking is for four hours per day. He has now been disqualified from UIC because he is unavailable for work, but he is unavailable for work because he is training so that he can get a job.
Does that make sense? It does not make any sense at all to me. That is why we went to defend the case. I am quite sure that in this particular case we will win because the decision that was originally given, as far as I am concerned, is ludicrous.
Those are the kinds of things that workers face sometimes. My same constituent could very well have been taking a course sponsored by UIC, being paid by UIC to take it, as well as receiving a little money on the side to pay for transportation to and from the course, but he did not ask for anything. He went out on his own, to get this training course in order to get a fulltime position, which he is going to get in a few weeks from now. If he had done nothing at all, if he had just sat around, he could have collected benefits for a long number of weeks. My constituent did not want that; he wanted to go back to work, but the system in this case has penalized him.
I bring this to the attention of Hon. Members to give an example of how difficult it is for people who are on unemployment, and how rules that are obviously designed to make things better sometimes do the exact opposite of what there were intended to do.
1 say to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Government that if the Government had this 10-week rule in place 100 per cent of the time the system would still not be perfect. However in my opinion it would be at least a small step toward making
it more fair for Canadians. Therefore I ask my colleagues to accept this amendment.


George Baker: Mr. Chairman, just for the official record I want to point out that in order to collect unemployment insurance one has to prove that one is available for work. One has to prove that. One has to prove it sometimes over and over when a call is received from Unemployment Insurance Commission investigators who have been hired by the Government. One has to prove that one is available for work.
In other words, availability means that one has to be available at one's place of residence. One must be available to travel. One must be available to go wherever the job is. If one is offered a job or finds a job, then one's unemployment is cut off. Not only that, but everything one received has to be paid back because automatically the charge is then made by the commission that one was not available for work last week if one was not available for work this week, or if one is not available when one started to draw. One has to prove one's availability. If one is offered a job one has to accept it or one's unemployment is cut off and one is asked to pay back everything.
One cannot quit one's job just to collect unemployment insurance because as you know, Mr. Chairman, one is then penalized six weeks, plus two weeks waiting. That is two months. I do not know of anybody who can live on fresh air or water if one has any water-and some communities do not have any water to drink.
Someone might say that that person could go to welfare. If one goes to welfare one might end up in jail. What does one do if one qualifies for unemployment insurance and one goes to to welfare? The first thing one has to do is one must sign a form. One says in that form that when one receives one's unemployment insurance the welfare department will be paid back what has been received. It does not only apply to unemployment insurance. It applies to Canada pension, Canada pension disability, old age pension-it applies to anything one gets from the Government. Then one signs another form that states that in accepting the money from welfare-I call it welfare, it is social assistance in some places, I suppose, but welfare is the term that we know on the coastline of Newfoundland-one may now be guilty of neglect if one has a family or people to support because one has quit one's job.
That normally results in a jail sentence. There are thousands of cases every year of people who end up in jail because they quit their job. They have to wait the eight weeks for unemployment insurance that they cannot prove to the Unemployment Insurance Commission because they were working in the woods. They cannot prove there was no roof over their heads. We have had cases like this. He is not fed any food so the guy decides to quit and go home. In signing the form for welfare he ends up in jail. It is pretty difficult when one is in jail because then one cannot collect unemployment insurance at all.
September 23, 1988


Don Boudria: Because you are not available for work.


George Baker: One is certainly not available for work, as the hon. gentleman has pointed out. From doing constituency cases it seems to be the norm now that people in rural areas, poor people, have become used to going to jail for non-payment of this or for owing the Unemployment Insurance Commission money.
That is the second thing. If one goes to welfare one runs the risk of being put in jail and being charged with non-support. Somebody might say that if we open up the system more somebody might want to stay on unemployment insurance. They could just work the 10 weeks and then go on unemployment insurance. How much does one make on unemployment insurance?
Have you ever asked yourself the question, Mr. Chairman, how much you would make if you were to go on unemployment insurance tomorrow? How much would you get in your cheque? I will tell you how much you would get. Your insurable employment is up to a maximum of S560 a week. That is a maximum, but you do not get that. You could be making $10,000 a week, but the maximum of insurable earnings is $560.
Once upon a time, one used to be able to get unemployment insurance, but prior to 1974 one would get 66 and two-thirds per cent of that unemployment insurance. No longer. The maximum any man or woman could make on unemployment insurance in Canada is 60 per cent of $560, which is what- $340 or $342?


An Hon. Member:: 


George Baker: The hon. gentleman says "$336". That is the maximum that one can get.
For those people who draw the maximum unemployment insurance, they run the risk in December of having to pay it back. Why? Somebody said to me one day: "You know what is wrong with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. A fellow goes out and makes $70,000 a year and then goes on unemployment insurance. He makes that during the winter and goes on unemployment insurance for the rest of the summer". That is not right. As you know, there is a law that says that there is a maximum one can make from one's total income for the year plus one's unemployment insurance. If one makes any more, one has to pay back the unemployment insurance. It is on one's income tax form.
Somebody who fills out income tax and claims unemployment insurance benefits knows what I am talking about. Some people who do not collect unemployment insurance, like Members of Parliament, do not know what I am talking about. But one fills it out. That maximum level is monitored by Revenue Canada.
How many cases do we have in Canada of school teachers who lose their jobs, are supposedly qualified for unemployment insurance, but at the end of the year, December 31, when they
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
do their income tax for that year they find that they have gone over $40,000 in total income, that is, from their work plus unemployment insurance. National Revenue governs this. What happens? They have to pay back their unemployment insurance to the Department of National Revenue.
We have these checks and balances within the Unemployment Insurance Act if one tries to collect the maximum on unemployment insurance which, as we proved a moment ago, is about $340 a week. Boy, what a fortune that is, that is, if one claims the maximum. One runs the risk of having to pay it back to the Department of National Revenue at the end of the year because one was in a high paying job prior to that.
What is the average? What do people make on average in unemployment insurance throughout Canada? What is the average cheque that we would find in the area of the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe with the inshore fishermen? An additional 10 per cent is knocked off the 60 per cent if he owns a boat. Anyway, that is another story. We will find that it averages to about $150 a week. One may say: "Well, $150 a week, boy, he might quit his job and go on unemployment insurance".
The average man collecting unemployment insurance in the riding of the Hon. Member to my left would receive about the same as he would receive from welfare if he quit his job and went on unemployment insurance. That is the truth of the matter.
Since the Government of Canada took office four years ago, it cut out the mobility grants. It cut them out,
You just cannot get a job where you are after you get laid off.


Brian Vincent Tobin: If you are broke, you cannot move.


George Baker: If you are broke, you cannot move, as the hon. gentleman says. There is one group of people whom I noticed the other day who get mobility grants.
Last Tuesday, the Government of Canada sent out letters to all those air traffic controllers who were fired in the United States in 1981, offering them jobs in Canada. Mobility is totally paid for. On the job training allowance for eight months is over $ 1,000 a week.


An Hon. Member:: What?


George Baker: Yes. It is the select group. Perhaps we should raise it in Question Period at the beginning of the week and ask the Government of Canada, through the Minister of Employment and Immigration who sponsors this Bill, why on the one hand it signed a piece of paper overruling the Immigration Department's guidelines on the employment of federal public servants and on the other hand approved mobility money for the movement of U.S. air traffic controllers who were fired in 1981 to fill jobs across Canada. There are 45 of them going to Pearson International Airport. That is the double standard we get.

September 23, 1988
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
What a change there has been for a person who draws unemployment insurance being able to land a job like they have now offered to the Americans, all those air traffic controllers, so that they can come in and fill the best jobs we have in Transport Canada, the best jobs from the point of view of money, because they are very high pressure jobs.
A lot of Canadians just wanted to write the exams for entrance to air traffic control. They are going to be surprised to learn that the Americans are being offered those jobs automatically and getting over $1,000 a week for on the job training.
What I was trying to say is that when one is looking for a job and is on unemployment insurance, one has a more distressing problem today than one had over four years ago, because the Department of manpower or the employment Department sponsoring this Bill no longer keeps records of people in manpower offices. The records are no longer kept. There is no longer a computer.
One used to be able to go in, prior to the entrance of the present Government, and register. A fellow would keep one on file and if something came up, one got a phone call. There is no more registration of a general worker who gets laid off. They do not keep all those files because the Government of Canada said that there were no jobs around. Perhaps we should not keep the files.
When we once talked about going down to register at the manpower office, that used to be the call. "Let's go down and register at the manpower office". Well, there is no such thing any more. One cannot do it. In fact, it used to be interesting, because one was either actively looking for work, where one came in every three months, or one was on the less than active file. There are no more files.
Even for the federal employment programs that hire people drawing unemployment insurance the call is: "Do you want a job? Listen to the radio. If you are not listening to the radio when the jobs are advertised, then you cannot get a job because for the 10 workers that were advertised at two minutes after one o'clock on radio station CKGA, we have already had 10 phone calls or 100. We take the first 10". Consequently, if there is a job for a captain of a ship on an ice-breaker up North, a fellow might be sitting at home who was not listening to the radio. He might have been a captain for 22 years and had the best record on the Atlantic Ocean. However, he was not listening to the radio. There may be another guy who perhaps did not have enough experience but was able to hop in and get the job because he was listening to the radio.
The entire system has changed and because of that system we now need a total revision of the Unemployment Insurance Act. It cannot be picked at or dealt with by bringing in a Bill such as the one we are dealing with today. I do not disagree with the Bill. However, it only deals with repeaters. It does not
deal with new entrants or re-entrants. It does not deal with anything but repeaters. It deals with the status quo.
In the interim the mobility grants have been removed so that someone cannot go from point A to point B. Perhaps someone tells an unemployed fellow down in Bay St. George in Newfoundland that there are lots of jobs in Toronto and in southern Ontario doing drywall. Do you know what drywall is, Mr. Chairman? It is gyprocking. Then the fellow says: How am I going to get up there? I can't get mobility any more".
The Government so restricted mobility that under the new rules a person has to prove that he or she has a job that is guaranteed for over one year. The employer must also advertise locally for six months, and the employer has to guarantee a job for one year before the Government will pay up. How is a person supposed to get money to go to Toronto if he or she is poor, does not have any money, and his or her family does not have any money? I suppose he or she could hitch-hike, but that is kind of difficult.
When the person reaches Toronto there is an additional problem. If the person wants to stay anywhere, he or she has to put down a downpayment on accommodation. Just imagine someone making $120 week on unemployment insurance trying to keep the family going, hitch-hiking all the way up there, and then being told that a month or two month's rent in advance is needed.
The Department of Employment and Immigration no longer keeps any records to refer a person to the job that she or she is best suited for. That was changed when the present Government took over. There are no longer mobility grants available to go for a job search. That has all been changed. When the system is changed so completely, it has to be counterbalanced and some attempt made at taking care of the people who are being hurt by the system. That is why I would support any of those measures mentioned by the hon. gentleman.


Marcel Danis: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Angus) negatived.


Marcel Danis: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, I have a further amendment to move.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Chairman, I am in the hands of the Chair. It has always been my want in this place to see the House make progress in an intelligent, systematic, and responsible manner. If it makes more sense for the Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan to move his second amendment now, I am willing to yield the floor.
September 23, 1988


Marcel Danis: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: 1 wish to thank my colleague, the Hon, Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, for not speaking at this moment in order to give me the opportunity to move this amendment. I move:
That line 14 on page 1 of Bill C-158 be deleted and the following substituted
therefor:
"on the local rate of unemployment that".
The purpose of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, as 1 indicated during my contribution at second reading debate, is to change the trigger mechanism that decides on the variable entrance requirement for an individual.
Under the amendment that we are dealing with as a whole today, the variable entrance requirement is based on the regional rate of unemployment. My amendment changes that to the local rate. That would mean that Statistics Canada would have to examine unemployment city by city and community by community. Using the word "local" provides flexibility so that rural areas could be grouped together with a like kind of situation.
At the present time the Atikokans of the world are forced to have the same number of weeks' requirement as Thunder Bay because it is in the same region. However, Atikokan's unemployment rate during 1987 was 50 per cent, and its current unemployment rate is up into the 20 per cent range, as compared to Thunder Bay which is in the 8 per cent to 9 per cent bracket.
It is an important change, and it is consistent with the review that the Government itself is doing in looking at the regions. I am short-circuiting that review by placing an amendment that would ensure that entrance requirements reflect the local situation and not, as in the case of northwestern Ontario, an area that is 400 or 500 miles away.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise on a point of order. The Government is in accord with the intent of the motion, however you must rule whether or not the motion is in order.
The word "region" appears throughout the Act, and it gives the Minister the legal authority to undertake, on the basis of regions, the type of activity that the Minister cares about. On August 16, the Minister announced a special study of those 48 regions in an attempt to be more sensitive, and the urban rural split is being looked at. If the wording is changed to "local area" in this particular clause, without consequent amendments to other parts of the Bill, we may create a legal difficulty which might work against the type of thing that is important to Parliament, that we have sensitivity throughout.
I do not know if you will find the amendment in order, Mr. Chairman, or perhaps the Member would like to reconsider and seek unanimous consent to withdraw it on that basis.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the government spokesperson for his comments. I do not want to prejudge what you, Sir, may decide in terms of the appropriateness of the amendment, but I am looking at the clock and 1 am guessing that we will not reach third reading stage today and there would be some time, assuming that you, Mr. Chairman, rule it in order-


Mr.   Chairman@: If the Member will give me a second, 1 will make a ruling right now.
The Chair finds the amendment to be in order. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan has the floor.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that ruling. I recognize the comments made by the government spokesperson. 1 would rather leave it to the House to decide today. If there is an opportunity for the Government to examine the amendment when we come to third reading, and assuming the House does not accept it, but perhaps it will, perhaps there will be a chance to put it forward after the Government has done some research.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I think the proposition put by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan is the appropriate one, given that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council has said that the Government is in accord, at least with the spirit or the intent of the amendment that the entrance rate be determined by circumstances in the local region.
If such an amendment were accepted, it would necessitate other changes in the Bill in order that the language was consistent throughout the Bill. Between now and third reading I believe there is every opportunity for the Government to have its draftsmen look at the Bill to reflect not only in spirit and intent what it desires, but also to reflect what the Member has properly proposed by way of amendment. It is more than a good wish, a goodwill, or a desire, but it is spelled out in the Act as now drafted.
There is another area which the Government, between now and third reading if it chooses, could address to remove a major piece of discrimination in this Bill. There is only one group of people in Canada who have a special set of requirements that apply to them based on the definition of their work. Every other worker in Canada qualifies or is disqualified for unemployment insurance based on a variable entrance requirement, and the rules that apply throughout the Act apply to every working person in Canada. However, there is one group of workers who have a set of rules designed only for them. That group of workers is fishermen. Only fishermen have a clause in the Unemployment Insurance Act tailor-made for them.

September 23, 1988
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
Canadians watching could be saying to themselves: "What a fortunate group of people these fishermen are, a special clause just for them. My gosh, they are well represented in the Elouse of Commons in that they were able to cause such a tremendous feat to occur that they have special rules just for fishermen".
What is this special rule? It is a rule which says that a fishermen cannot qualify, cannot receive, cannot be paid, cannot cash an unemployment insurance cheque between May 15 and November 15. No fisherman in Canada for that period of time, six months, between May 15 and November 15, can receive an unemployment insurance cheque. Why? It is because fishermen are supposed to be fishing between that time.
It is a perfectly logical, rational rule brought in by a previous Liberal Government and maintained by the current Conservative Government. It was well intentioned but it no longer works in some areas. I represent the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is their problem.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is a problem for the Government, of that there is no doubt. Members can laugh, but on the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland we will find some of the hardest working, heartiest, dedicated people with the biggest amount of pride and dignity in their belly. They manage to scrape out a living, and a decent one, in difficult circumstances, clinging on by their fingernails to the rocks at the edge of the salt water, harvesting the resource of the sea. Proud people, proud to go out and work when they can, while they can, in every kind of circumstance, overcoming every kind of difficulty.
Yet there is one thing they cannot overcome with this rule that says they cannot collect unemployment insurance from May to November. They cannot overcome the fact that some 14 feet of ice does not melt on the great northern peninsula until July. Yes, throughout the winter, right straight through until the middle of July some years, can find ice rafted up in the harbours, barring the boats, and on the land right into July. Yet the rule says that by May 15 they should be fishing. Therefore, on May 15 there is no more unemployment insurance. From May 15 through June 15 to July 15, two months, there is no income. Why? It is because some lad in Ottawa sitting in his ivory tower, with his coffee cup and his pack of butts, perhaps with his feet on his desk and his central air-conditioning on, contemplating lunch with his buddy down the hallway in the subsidized cafeteria, said that Genge or Anchor Point is supposed to be out fishing so, damn it, let them fish.
They cannot fish. It is physically impossible. There is ice as high as the gilded roof of this glorious chamber on their front doorsteps, their boats are barred in, but some bureaucrat has said they have got to be fishing. It is impossible, so every year from May until July these fishermen, year in and year out, are penalized. They are discriminated against because they cannot go fishing. In the interim they cannot receive an income.
That is only half the story. There is another problem. This time of the year, September 23, you can do down to Dow's Lake on a Saturday with your sweater on, if you have a good day you can do down in your bikini, and watch the pretty boats sail around. It is a wonderful day. However, on September 23, if you are in Port au Choix, in St. Anthony, Quirpon, or if you are in Anchor Point, Flower's Cove, Savage Cove, Sandy Cove, or Bear Cove, you are not going down to the water to watch the pretty sailboats in your sweater or maybe your bikini. No, we have another problem, invented by God. It is called weather, fall weather.
We have the fact of no fish because the fish migrate. God invented that as well. He set up a migratory pattern and the fish move in and the fish move out and at a certain time of the year they move off again. Also at a certain time of the year, the fall and winter weather begins. Anyone who does not live there does not know what happens on the North Atlantic. They have no concept of what it is like to be in a small boat at sea at that time of the year. From September until November 14 these Fishermen cannot fish either. There is a six-month period in which they cannot qualify because they are supposed to be fishing. For three of the six months they cannot fish. It is not because they do not want to fish, nor because they are not prepared to fish, nor because they do not have every desire to be out so they can have the dignity of a paycheque. It is because it is physically impossible.
What does the Parliament of Canada say as it brings in Bill C-158 to those fishermen from the great northern peninsula or the other Atlantic provinces in similar circumstances? There are some regions where the fishery is a winter fishery and not much is done at all during the summer season. Do we say "let us invent an Act that has a variable zone recognition like we have a variable entrance requirement recognizing this fact of life, this creation of God, this planet earth where not all things are consistent"? No, that does not happen. What we have every year is the status quo. Every year the fishermen are told that we will take a look at it next year. Every year the civil servant, whoever he is, who advises that faceless, nameless Minister, puts his feet back on his desk, once again sucks back deep on his coffee cup, thinks once again about his meal over at Hy's restaurant, his expense paid lunch, and says: "We will get around to it next year".
Let this be the last year that this Parliament, in the splendid comforts of these felt covered chairs, these great stained glass windows, these hunks of marble, sits here in comfort and forgets the plight of hardworking fishermen on the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland who want nothing more than a fair shake. They want, for once, these people who draft their Bills on the edge of the Rideau to think about those people who live on the edge of the Strait of Belle Isle, who work hard for a living, and want nothing but a fair shake from the Parliament of Canada.


Marcel Danis: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: No.
September 23, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Angus) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
John Horton McDermid: that the Bill be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   SOCIAL SERVICES OVERPAYMENTS TO BENEFICIARIES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of prohibiting any federal department or agency which has in error made an overpayment to an individual under a social program from claiming repayment or withholding the overpayment from future payments to the individual, unless the individual is responsible directly or indirectly for the error.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to deal with what many Canadians will think is a small injustice, but it is an injustice nonetheless. What attracts me to it is that it is an injustice from which poor people in Canadian society suffer more than others.
The matter came to my attention through the coincidence of three constituents coming to me with exactly the same type of problem. They were living on the benefits of one government program or another. In the case of all three, they were veterans living on veterans' pensions. Because of a computer error made in Prince Edward Island, 1 suppose, because that is where the administration of the veterans' pensions is, they received overpayments for, in one case, a year and a half.
During that period of time these people received more money than they were entitled to under a government program, but not a lot more. They were not in a position to confirm the exact amount of money they should have been getting. They simply received cheques, took them to the bank, and lived on the amount of money they were getting. In one of the three cases there was no other source of income for the family. It was the entire income of an elderly couple.
Social Services
It turned out in these three cases, and as my investigations have shown in hundreds and hundreds of other cases across Canada, that a computer error had occurred. The computer was not wrong; it was human error, but it is an understandable error that can occur in a government department.
After the mistakes were discovered, the Government got in touch with these people and told them that they had received overpayments and that their subsequent payments would be reduced while the Government paid itself back for the excess amount it had paid out. It creates a very great hardship for people who find themselves in that situation. It is not that they were entitled to the overpayment. They were not entitled to it, but they were unaware of it.
When the time came for their payments to be reduced, it was extremely difficult for these people to adjust. They wrote to me as their Member of Parliament and I got in touch in one case with the Ministry of Veterans Affairs and in another case with the Ministry of Employment and Immigration. The Ministries feel that their hands are tied and that they have no recourse but to recuperate the overpayment. That is why I am inviting my colleagues on all sides of the House to pass a resolution to give some guidance to the Government in cases like this.
Unfair is perhaps not the exact word for this kind of circumstance, but it is very unfortunate and it is also a circumstance which is in no way the fault of the people involved. They were the beneficiaries of an overpayment, but as Hon. Members will see from the language that I have used in my resolution, an important factor in not reclaiming payment is that the recipients not be at fault.
In other words, I am not addressing the situation of the recipients of overpayments giving wrong information to the Government or, as happens in a lot of other cases that are very regrettable, failing to reveal that they have jobs and are collecting unemployment insurance at the same time, and then down the road, someone learning about it and the unemployment insurance payments have to be paid back along with interest and in some cases penalties. I am addressing in this resolution only situations in which it is wholly the Government's fault that people received overpayments in the first place. In cases like that, they ought to be allowed to keep these usually very modest overpayments.
I will not speak a long time on this motion. It is a simple idea and I do not think it takes an a lot of explanation, but I would like to indicate that when I raised this matter before the parliamentary committee that considers these matters, committee members asked a very good question.

They asked me how such a situation would be handled, say where someone receives a payment that is a million dollars more than what was sought. I admit that can happen!

September 23, 1988
Social Services
We often read in the newspapers of people who got something like $10 million instead of $10 from some government department, 1 am ready to admit that this must be considered.
If the Government is prepared to accept the motion, and if the Members of the House accept it, setting limits of say 15 or 20 per cent in excess, I would be very grateful for such a policy.
1 do not want... I am not suggesting that if a public servant gives a citizen one million dollars too much, that person should keep it. We can imagine conspiracies, situations where a government official wanting to help someone could have the computer make a mistake and give the individual in question a million-dollar overpayment. One can ask whether it would be fair to keep that money. This is not what I am talking about.
1 ask Members who will speak to consider the situations they no doubt know of in their ridings, like cases where people have received overpayments that the Government wants back.
By setting reasonable limits, we can control extreme cases. [English]
I do not want to write a blueprint for getting super windfalls when the decimal point is five or six digits out of line. I am only referring to the very real and increasingly frequent situation of a modest overpayment over a prolonged period of time, resulting in a really tough time for elderly poor people who rely on government payments, did not know the amount was excessive, and are suddenly forced to live with an important amount of money less than they were getting before. I think that is the kind of situation that my resolution is meant to address. I hope that Hon. Members will support it, that it will pass, and that the Government will adopt it as a policy within the range of a certain margin of error.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, in response to Motion No. 167, let me begin by thanking the Hon. Member for raising the matter of overpayment to an individual under a government program and for providing an opportunity for the House to debate the issue.
The Government is of course very aware of the importance of its social programs and the concerns expressed by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) about the recovery of overpayments. It has been and continues to be the practice of this Government to deal with such matters with compassion and understanding. To this end, the Government, in 1986, included specific statutory provisions authorizing the remission of overpayments resulting from administrative error in program legislation such as the Canada Pension Plan, the Old Age Security Act, the Family Allowances Act, and the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Section 65(3) of the Canada Pension Plan, which is typical of such provisions, provides that the Minister may remit all or any portion of an overpayment on any one of four grounds, and I quote:
The amount... cannot be collected within the reasonable foreseeable future.
The administrative costs of collecting the amount or excess of the allowance are likely to equal or exceed the amount to be collected.
Repayment of the amount or excess of the allowance would cause undue
hardship to the person or institution, or
The amount or excess of the allowance is the result of erroneous advice or
administrative error on the part of an official of the Department.
During the last fiscal year over 11,000 overpayments were written off under these provisions. Furthermore, in the event that an unforeseen situation arises for which no specific provision has been enacted, the Minister concerned can turn to the regulations made pursuant to Section 18 of the Financial Administration Act which provides for the writing off of debts as uncollectable on grounds of hardship.
From what I have just outlined, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the necessary legislative authorities are in place for a compassionate implementation of the recovery of overpayments. The Government will, of course, continue to monitor the situation as part of its ongoing regular review of program delivery and will make any statutory adjustments that may be required as the needs arise.
I would like to point out that what may appear to be an administrative error may in fact be a deliberate strategy aimed at ensuring continuity of payment. The Government is acutely aware of the need for Canadians on fixed incomes to be assured that they will receive their payments regularly and without interruption. Cheques are, therefore, often prepared in advance, on the basis of expected entitlements and adjusted later, if necessary. This practice does not normally present major financial difficulties when the adjustment is made immediately, that is, on the subsequent payment.
However, as 1 am sure you can understand, Mr. Speaker, the alternative of verifying entitlement before each and every payment is just not practical for all programs. First, it would cause delays while the Department concerned waited for the benefit recipient to file the necessary information. Second, it would create an additional administrative burden for both the recipient and the Department and would result in a waste of resources which could better be used to process new applications and improve service to the program recipients.
In some cases, entitlements may be scheduled to be adjusted quarterly, semi-annually, or even only annually. Because of changes in a recipient's status in the intervening period, entitlement and hence the payment may be reduced on the next scheduled adjustment date. However, the higher amount received during the previous period should not be classified as an overpayment, but the amount to which the individual was entitled during that period. Nor is the subsequent reduction a recovery, but merely a reflection of the revised entitlement.
This House should also bear in mind that in the case of general programs like the Canada Pension Plan and family allowances, not all recipients are living on a limited income. To remit automatically all overpayments, even where recovery would not cause hardship, would be unfair not only to all taxpayers in general, but more important, to the other program recipients who would not receive the same "windfall".
I maintain that the current system which allows Ministers to remit overpayments on a case by case or class basis provides a reasonable balance between equity and compassion.
September 23, 1988

Finally, the Government is continuing to take action to improve the accuracy and response time of the complex and automated systems used to deliver benefits. For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs has just completed the implementation phase of a major overhaul of its benefit delivery systems. The Department of National Health and Welfare has embarked on a similar exercise. Such improvements, of course, must be done in such a manner as to respect the dignity of the individual as well as the provisions of the Privacy Act. Otherwise, 1 am sure that the Hon. Member for York Centre would be among the first to complain about government intrusion and data matching.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in the debate today on the motion put forward in the name of the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). 1 want to compliment and thank him for bringing the motion forward. It is an important issue.
When I called my constituency office in Thunder Bay to update my memory in terms of work we have done in this area, my constituency assistant, Rosemary Cox, was quite excited about the motion because it is an area with which she has to deal quite frequently. She gave me examples of three areas where we have had problems, but they are only a reflection of many problems because, as Hon. Members know, the constituency offices which are provided to us by Parliament are there to help our citizens work through some of their problems with government bureaucracy. We are really the one focal point they have to find out how they can appeal what has been done to them.
I have found that all the problems centre around people who have very small incomes. Whether it is unemployment insurance, veteran's allowance, Canada Pension Plan, or old age security with the income supplement, by and large we are talking about men and women who do not have that much money.
Therefore, we are talking about people who, when asked to make a repayment for whatever reason, have great difficulty in doing so. They can and they do make those repayments, but it means their meagre income for that repayment period is reduced. Even if it is only $10 a month that is agreed to for a repayment plan, it has an impact on a senior who only has the old age pension with the income supplement. It is important that we highlight this problem. Hopefully, the House will send a direction to the Government, as suggested by the Hon. Member for York Centre in terms of the motion. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of prohibiting any federal department or agency which has in error made an overpayment to an individual under a social program from claiming repayment or withholding the overpayment from future payments to the individual, unless the individual is responsible directly or indirectly for the error.
We have had a number of such cases with the Canada Pension Plan where through no fault of their own but through some bureaucratic mix-up seniors have received more money than they were entitled to. There was no fraud or attempt to
Social Services
beat the system. Someone along the line pushed the wrong button in the computer or misread the regulations and the pensioner received an overpayment. The Government then came, as is its responsibility, and said "I am sorry, you were overpaid. We have to get that money back".
In some cases they are able to negotiate with the individuals to find a repayment scheme that is acceptable to them, that is within their financial means to handle. Other times, and again through the same kind of bureaucratic snafu, all of a sudden the cheques stop coming and that creates a panic because they rely on them.
Under old age security with the income supplement, because it is based on your over-all income, in some cases there is retroactivity. You find when you fill out your income tax form that you goofed on your projection, that you actually made a couple hundred dollars more than you told the Government you were going to when you applied for your income supplement. The Government sees this and matches it with its other records, decides it overpaid you, and wants the money back. These are, again, people with meagre incomes.
We had one case where the Unemployment Insurance Commission ruled that an individual was eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. That individual received them for one full year and, lo and behold, Revenue Canada decided that unemployment insurance had made a mistake, that this individual was not eligible. It demanded full repayment of a full year's worth of unemployment insurance benefits.
The final example I want to use is a program called Futures developed by the Province of Ontario. It was designed as a youth employment training program to provide a combination of classroom studies, life skills, how to do resumes, and how to dress for an interview, plus some on the job work experience.
At the start of the program the students involved applied for unemployment insurance and were told that this program was eligible, that they would be able to count every week in this program because they were getting paid by the Province of Ontario to be trained to get a job. They were told that every week they were in this program would be counted as a UI week.
Later, after the program was over, the rules changed. I do not know whether it was somebody higher up in UI, but they decided that only the time spent at the on the job training was eligible for UI. These young people were making minimum wage and would not have received all that much in any case because, as we know, the level of unemployment insurance benefits is based on earnings. In effect they would be getting less than minimum wage in UI benefits. They were told that they had to repay almost half of what they received from unemployment insurance. That is not exactly a good way to introduce them to the working world, is it?

September 23, 1988
Social Services
There are hundreds of examples out there. If Members just talk to their constituency assistants I am sure they can all provide examples. This motion does not say how to do it, and I recognize that there is some ministerial discretion. That is tied up, too, in the bureaucracy, and getting to that level takes time. These people do not have time.
Our seniors, the people who built this country, really get upset when somebody in authority comes knocking at the door saying that they owe the Government money. It makes them feel as if they they did something wrong, that instead of being the victims they were the perpetrators. I think it is important that we give them the benefit of the doubt. The former Minister of Veterans Affairs turned his Department around when he took over that portfolio. He made massive changes based on the premise of giving the veteran the benefit of the doubt.
That is what the motion of the Hon. Member for York Centre does. It gives the benefit of the doubt to those individuals who, through no fault of their own, through no attempt to beat the system, find themselves in an overpayment situation and unable to deal properly with it. I hope the Government is listening.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly an important motion introduced into the House by the Hon. Member. It is important because today there are thousands of Canadians who have third party attachments on their wages. The province you are in determines how much money you get out of your cheque. If you are the only person working in a family of four, in most of the provinces you can be assured that all you will get from your cheque is less than $200 a week because of a third party attachment placed there by the Government of Canada for an overpayment you received.
When you look at the Auditor General's report you always see-and this is what makes the news-that under such and such a program millions and millions of dollars were paid out to people who were not eligible to receive those payments. We were talking about unemployment insurance a minute ago. All those payments are called overpayments.
I listened very carefully to what the hon. gentleman who introduced the motion said and then to what the government spokesperson said following his address. What she said sounded very fair. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, that you owe the Government of Canada money as hundreds of thousands of Canadians presently do through no fault of their own. They are receiving a benefit from unemployment insurance or any of our social security programs. Of course, the rules vary from the Department of Verteran Affairs to National Revenue or the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
Thousands of people go before judges. I always recall the words of one of the foremost authorities on overpayments in Canada today. His name is Justice Dubinsky. He is a Federal Appeals Court Judge. He always says that the forgiveness of the overpayment is in the hands of the Minister or, in the case of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, in the hands of the Commission. He knows they cannot afford to pay it back but he cannot do anything about that. The court, in Canada, is not authorized to forgive an overpayment. That is in the hands of the Minister or the Commission.
The Hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Government sounded very eloquent when she said "in cases of undue hardship", or did she say "in the case of extreme hardship"? I am not sure which she used because the wording differs in various regulations. "Undue hardship" is the most common expression.
In the case of undue hardship the Minister may-not shall-forgive the overpayment, or if it costs more money to collect it than the Government will get back, it does not collect it. She mentioned another one which does not apply to all social legislation, that is, if the error is made by an official of the Department it shall be deemed not to be paid back by the person who received the money.
The fact is that there are thousands of people in Canada today who are getting $120 a week to feed their families because there is a third party attachment on their wages by the Government. These are not rich people. These are people who had overpayments on a social security benefit, not from the stock market.
Members of Parliament go before a judge on behalf of constituents to say that a constituent should not have to repay a that particular overpayment. It was not his fault. He did not do anything wrong.
An Hon. Member mentioned a few moments ago cases he had where the Unemployment Insurance Commission made a mistake. The funny part about it is that it did not make a mistake because an overpayment and the determination of eligibility do not rest with the Department of Employment and Immigration. They rest with National Revenue.
When one applies for benefits, the official fills out the form, sends it in, and the cheque is sent. The error takes places after because the determination of eligibility in the case of the largest social security program in this country, unemployment insurance, is made by National Revenue. It has nothing to do with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The Unemployment Insurance Commission has no more to do with determining eligibility of a person drawing unemployment insurance than I do with going to the moon.
September 23, 1988

Who has made the mistake? No one has made the mistake. The official down in National Revenue perhaps made a correct judgment. Let me give an example. An accountant working for a company by the name of Beothic in eastern Canada, which deals with fish products, was wrong and therefore made incorrect receipts for people who sold to that company. Therefore, 293 people now have to pay back to the Government amounts varying from $2,000 to $30,000. That occurred within the last two years.
I could list other cases where many people have been trapped by this. Somebody will say that they received a letter from the Government of Canada saying that they owe a certain amount of money. They want to know why. Is it because an accountant made a mistake in a company? The person, according to the law of Canada, under all these programs, is responsible for paying it back if a mistake is made even by the government Department concerned. That is in the Unemployment Insurance Act that the hon. gentleman was quoting a few moments ago.
The problem is that the Minister will not use the ministerial authority granted under the Act to forgive those payments. That is the problem.
There is only one other way to overcome the problem. It is to drag it out long enough in the courts to go beyond the three years which is normally the period after which one cannot be held accountable for money owed to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Stretch it out as long as you can, ask for an adjournment or a postponement until you get to the point where they cannot collect it anyway. That is the only choice.
However, if people do not work the system that way or cannot afford the lawyers, in some cases they are left with having third party attachments on all their wages and end up getting anywhere from $120 to $190 a week regardless of the size of their family until the money is paid back. That is wrong.


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I too would like to speak to Motion M-167 introduced by the Hon. Member for York Center (Mr. Kaplan). He proposes that the Government consider the advisability of prohibiting any federal department or agency which has in error made an overpayment to an individual under a social program from claiming repayment or withholding the overpayment from future payments to the individual, unless the individual is responsible directly or indirectly for the error.
On April 26, 1988, the Hon. Member also suggested to the House that the Government should not demand repayment for excess amounts when the recipient is not responsible for the error.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all share the basic sentiments expressed in the Hon. Member's motion. The federal Government would rather not make life any harder than it is for
Social Services
people drawing such social benefits as those paid under old age security, the Canada Pension Plan, or family allowances. We are aware that the recipients generally have a low income and cannot readily cope with reduced benefits.
1 would point out to Hon. Members that the federal Government thinks it is important for Canadian men and women who are in a difficult financial situation to know that the amount of their benefits will not be reduced overnight. As an example, Mr. Speaker, I would say that under the income security programs which I just mentionned and which are administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare the procedure followed to recoup overpayments is very flexible indeed. In difficult circumstances, overpayments may be repaid in very low instalments, in fact as little as $1 a month in the case of people with limited income.
In additoin, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Old Age Security Act, the Familly Allowances Act and the Canada Pension Plan the Minister may waive such repayments in extraordinary circumstances, including unforseen difficulties, erroneous advice or administrative mistakes on the part of the Government.
The federal Government can appreciate the situation of low income and underprivileged Canadians, but still it has to answer to the taxpayers.
Overpayments under social benefit programs are debts against the Crown and if they are not recouped they must be offset through higher tax levies on all Canadians. After all, it boils down to financial responsibility, and I would suggest that this federal Government has done very well in that respect.
In the discharge of our mandate we have maintained a policy to recoup excess benefits by using procedures which respect both the people who are overpaid and the taxpayers of the country, but every year such overpayments still account for millions of dollars in government outlays.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, no system is perfect. Further, simple solutions to the problem might lead to new problems in other areas. The Hon. Member's motion in my view is a good example. If implemented, his proposal would require a new, complex, and costly bureaucratic process to determine whether the claimant is directly or indirectly responsible for the error that led to the overpayment.
This process could be long and arduous, and generate various delays. Participation from public servants, judges and lawyers could be needed, as well as a relevant appeal mechanism. In addition to imposing a new burden on public servants and taxpayers, such a system no doubt would be frustrating and confusing for claimants, especially where their own testimony could be the only available evidence to determine whether an error had been made or not. No doubt, in a great many cases, a clear and satisfactory decision might be impossible. Therefore, such a system could lead both to a miscarriage of justice where the evidence was limited, unsupported or unverifiable.

September 23, 1988
Social Services
Some people might suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is another solution than the existing systems or the one put forward by the Hon. Member's motion, namely that the Government should delay initial payments on social programs until an absolutely accurate computation of benefits can be made. Or, alternatively, it could be suggested that the Government should make smaller payments while waiting for further information concerning the computation of benefits.
Such a procedure, Mr. Speaker, could however do significant harm to a number of claimants. For instance, one could wait up to two years after the initial benefit payment in order for the current Canada Pension Plan benefits to be adjusted based on an updating of the claimant's gains by Revenue Canada.
Similarly, benefits based on income under federal programs such as Guaranteed Income Supplement and Spouse Allocation normally are calculated on the claimant's income during the previous year for income tax purposes; under certain circumstances, they can be based on an estimation of the claimant's current income, subject to possible review.
Overpayments made in either of those cases would not necessarily be the claimant's fault. It is my view that serious attention should be paid to the matter before introducing a system, the underlying principle of which would be that an error can always be blamed beyond the shadow of a doubt to someone. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, when considering the practicality of the Hon. Member's motion and any relevant proposal, legislators should evaluate whether those very real negative impacts would be warranted.
As I explained, the ways used by the Canadian Government to recover overpayments made under social programs are both sensitive and flexible to Canadians who receive those overpayments, and they are indicative of this Government's responsible attitude toward Canadian taxpayers.


David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to join in the debate this afternoon on the issue raised by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). I am sure we all have sympathy for people who, through no fault of their own, are suddenly asked to make a substantial repayment of an overpayment to them. The bewilderment, the panic, even the anger involved must be considerable.
We have heard already this afternoon that there are a number of safeguards in place to protect Canadians who have been overpaid unwittingly by federal Departments. I would suggest that the worthy objectives in the motion before us have already been met or can be met provided those safeguards are compassionately administered.
In effect, this motion calls for the House to make a blanket amnesty for anyone who was overpaid. In other words: "Keep the extra money. Good luck to you on the windfall". The only people who would be asked to repay money to the Crown under the motion are those who are responsible directly or indirectly for the error. I think of the recent case three or four months ago involving a women, who I think lives here in Ontario, who received a cheque from the Department of National Revenue, 1 believe, for several hundred thousand dollars, thanks to a computer gone wild. On the plain reading of the motion before us today there would be no discretion whatsoever in the Minister or the Crown. They would be obligated to allow this person to keep that type of windfall. 1 think that where the public's money is involved we have to do better than that. I believe we need more checks and balances than that.
I believe that in order to judge whether any new legislation is needed we should first see how the present regulations are working.
I wish to take a few minutes to look at one Department in particular. Reference has already been made to it by the Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party who spoke earlier. I refer to the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is a Department which sends out over 200,000 cheques every month. Disability pensions, which are not subject to a means test, account for 144,000 of those monthly cheques.
With such a volume it is not surprising that overpayments are made from time to time. For instance, a veteran may die and his widow may forget to inform Veterans Affairs of his death for a period of time.
Naturally, every possible effort is made to recover these overpayments. It is worth noting that the recovery rate is in the 90 per cent to 95 per cent range. What that tells us is that Canadians are honest. They do not want to receive a benefit to which they are not entitled. They are very understanding when they realize that they have received money and are not entitled to it. Generally, they are quite willing to pay it back.
For the other 10 per cent or so this is where the safeguards come in. When it is plain that recovery in whole or in part could result in undue hardship to a veteran or his family, a recommendation for recovery of a partial settlement or for a total write-off is made under Section 18 of the Financial Administration Act.
It is important to know that recommendations for write-offs are also considered seriously when it is clearly evident that an overpayment was due to an administrative error.
I want to outline how Veterans Affairs handles the question of overpayments involving war veterans and civilian war allowances. These benefits are only paid to needy veterans. In other words, they are subject to a means test.
September 23, 1988

There are over 64,000 veterans or their families receiving allowances. Given the average age of this clientele overpayments do occur. The whole nature of the allowance program means that at age 65 the male veteran becomes eligible for Health and Welfare support programs and so is less dependent on Veterans Affairs.
Because of this transition the War Veterans Allowance Program administration was overhauled in 1986 in order to cut down on overpayments. It is now closely aligned to the Guaranteed Income Supplement and spouses' allowance programs of Health and Welfare. This alignment I am advised has greatly reduced the chance and the number of overpayments.
One key improvement was the annual reporting by war veterans allowance recipients of changes in their financial status and the subsequent adjustment of Veterans Affairs in the annual rate of payment. But overpayments still do occur, and doubtless always will.
I think it is instructive to see how Veterans Affairs deals with these overpayments. The then Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees), told his Department in 1984 when we formed the Government that he wanted all veterans and their dependants to be treated with the utmost generosity. That instruction has been followed to the letter when it comes to overpayments. The remission of an overpayment is usually the most favoured position.
I think this is illustrated by the operational guidelines given to to those involved with the allowance program. 1 would like to quote the opening paragraphs in full because I think they render this motion unnecessary. They state:
The very nature of the services provided under the Acts and Regulations administered under the direction of the Minister of Veterans Affairs dictates that the general policy and overriding principle to be considered in the handling of overpayments must be one that is based on justice, equity, compassion and human dignity.
Translated into practice, this means that all cases, remission of an overpayment must be considered before any further action is taken. If it has been determined that the overpayments are not eligible for remission, the subsequent recovery or deletion action should never, in any case, deprive the veterans or his dependants of any moneys required to live in dignity.
1 suggest that those instructions to bureaucrats on the front line are more compassionate and effective than any new legislation we could pass today.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to motion No. 167 which was moved by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) and which states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of prohibiting-
Already the wording of the motion seems to indicate that there is something tortuous about this.
As 1 was listening to his remarks a while ago, I could not help wondering how it is that as a former Solicitor General and Cabinet Minister, he could move such a motion.
Social Services
How can he ask the Government to consider the advisability of not seeking repayment when an overpayment has occurred? Does he not realize that such a situation could be interpreted as a way for the Government to encourage incompetence and for the individual to justify keeping the money by arguing: I may not be entitled to this money, but why should I advise them of this overpayment, since they are not going to ask me to pay it back? I suggest that we are here to develop and emphasize the competence of our employees and also promote integrity.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that such a motion will look very nice in Hansard or in householder mailings. Yet, this Hon. Member who sat on Government benches for 15 years would have been taken much more seriously if he had moved this motion at that time, instead of waiting until he sits in the Opposition. But since we live in a democratic system, I will deal with this proposal. If I may, I should like to develop the two major ideas I put across a while ago by providing concrete examples associated with the unemployment insurance scheme. A great many people have visited my office-you know how in a hurry people are when they visit their elected representatives-to ask me to rush a decision concerning an employment insurance application. It is not dishonest but quite normal. When a man or woman working in the Beauharnois- Salaberry riding-or any city or town for that matter-does not get his or her unemployment insurance benefits they pay us a visit and accuse federal employees of procrastinating, for they have bills to pay.
Our employees, on the other hand, must be very careful with our taxpayers' money, they have to go by the book, and 1 am full of admiration for all those working in unemployment insurance offices who always hear bad news and never good news. As their former Parliamentary Secretary, 1 saw the long line-ups in the morning and I am full of admiration. It is a job that has to be done, but let me tell you that you forget about the 3, 200 others who got their cheques in time when every morning you get complaints from 40 or 50 people who blame the delays on your incompetence.
What's happening, for example, at the Unemployment Insurance Commission? What would happen in a Commission or Government where the staff are not responsible or where they are . . . But how far can responsibility take us? If a civil servant makes an error resulting in an overpayment, can the Government claim repayment? I think that government officials would be the first to be unhappy with such a law because it would minimize their role and bring discredit upon the civil service. People could ask John Doe: "Why don't you make a mistake and give me just a little more; it doesn't matter since they can't touch you." I am sure that most if not all our civil servants are honest people and would not entertain such a suggestion. That is primarily why they try to respect the laws and regulations. On the other hand, as I said a few moments ago, I don't know if most citizens would be happy with such a law that, in fact, encourages a certain flexibility in its enforcement.

September 23, 1988
Social Services
If I were to get $2,000 more than I usually draw in family allowances it seems to me I would notice. The fact that I get an extra $2,000 in benefits does not automatically mean that it is due to me, it is something that does not belong to me!
What is to be done for example in a case like the unemployment insurance incident 1 referred to earlier? People imagine that if the UIC paid $2,000 too much it was not aware of it. Imagine a citizen saying he did not know! "If you got an overpayment of $2,000 you have to pay it back!" Generally speaking, I must say that people were aware of it.
Again recently, unemployment insurance recipients came to see me at my office. Yet we know very well that full-time students are not entitled to unemployment benefits. He was overpaid by mistake because the inquiry had not been completed and a false statement was made.
In such cases, Mr. Speaker, the Unemployment Insurance Commission takes the situation into account. In the case I just mentioned there are two important elements: first an administrative error and, second, a false statement. This is altogether different from a case where there has been a clerical error, for example, and the individual receives a cheque for $182 when in fact the benefits should not be more than $172. I can understand an average man not realizing he is getting $10 more a week. But I am sure he can tell the difference when he aplies for unemployment benefits to which he is not entitled.
Mr. Speaker, the UIC takes into account specific cases and the situation of the person who has been overpaid. Where for instance repaying the overpayment leads to undue hardship, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, and I am convinced that the appropriate afficials should, where there has been no dishonesty, schedule repayments so that the claimant can refund within the prescribed period, while abiding by the existing Act and regulations.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple concept because it takes responsibility into account. We, as managers of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, are using our money, not only government money. One third of the money comes from the Government. As we know there are three partners in this. . .
employers and taxpayers also are involved. We have absolutely no right to be free-handed in the management of assets that come from the Government. But we have no right either, and still much less, to be free handed with moneys that are entrusted to us by taxpayers, moneys entrusted to us by companies and moneys contributed by the employees.
Because of the very nature of payments and the source of those funds, we must make absolutely sure that we are dealing fairly with all Canadians. It would be unfair, for instance, to those who had contributed, if an overpayment caused by an administrative error, is automatically written off. Some might suggest that the matter already was dealt with in another Private Member's Bill, right at the beginning, I remember it was in 1984 or 1985; it said that any debt to Revenue Canada should be written off. Well, simply preparing my income tax return and stating that I owe a debt and I will have it written-off.. . Nothing is as simple nor as nice!
Administrative errors of this kind reflect badly on our competence.
In closing, I repeat that federal employees must be guided by legislation which bars them from making negative value judgments. They also need such legislation for their own personal satisfaction. An honest citizens also want the money they provide for the poor to be spent wisely because, all too often, people jump to conclusions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is taken off the Order Paper.
It being 3 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, September 26, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers