1988-03-23

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, Canada's extensive forests are the home of a rich and varied wildlife. Unfortunately, all too often harvesting the forests destroys the habitat upon which wildlife depends.
This does not have to be. An effort must be made to integrate wildlife and forestry management policies and practices. Therefore we urge the Government to incorporate wildlife conservation goals in federal and provincial forestry agreements when they are renegotiated this fall.
On April 14 a full day on Parliament Hill will be devoted to wildlife. On that day parliamentarians will have an opportunity to hear organizations and groups speak about wildlife, this priceless Canadian heritage which we too often take for granted and which needs political support very badly.


HISTORIC EVENTS
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to recognize Pakistan's National Day. This young nation was proclaimed a republic on this day in 1956. This special day marks the beginning of its nationhood which allowed Pakistan to help to determine the destiny of its people. Pakistan is striving to achieve a better democratic system and an improved standard of living for its people.
Canada is well recognized for the contributions it has made to this country through various CIDA development efforts over
the years in areas such as agriculture, immunization, and transmission of hydroelectricity.
Canada has been made richer by having among its cultural mosaic Canadian citizens of Pakistan origin. I for one would vouch that they have made a tremendous contribution to our country and to Canadian society as a whole.
I am proud to have citizens of all cultural origins in my riding of Etobicoke North. I am pleased to be able today to pay tribute to those of Pakistan origin.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House saw the Minister of Transport's (Mr. Crosbie) cavalier attitude and joking response to an occurrence which could have seen a tanker break in half and result in the worst oil spill in Newfoundland's history. It is clear that this Government is waiting for a disaster to happen. We hope that it will not involve danger to life, because we fear that the search and rescue facilities of the Coast Guard would not be able to respond.
Last Wednesday a crewman aboard the trawler Osprey lost his leg in an accident at sea. Search and rescue at Gander could not help because the only helicopters they have are not equipped with any de-icing capability and could not take off. The trawler took almost eight hours to reach St. John's with the injured crewman and no medical help. This is unacceptable.
On any given day as many as 60 trawlers can be operating off the coast of Newfoundland alone with more than 1,000 crewmen aboard. If the weather is bad they are on their own in case of serious accidents or other marine emergencies.
When will the Government realize that helicopters that cannot fly in bad weather are useless in an emergency?
I call upon the Government, especially the Minister of Transport, to update the search and rescue helicopter fleet and establish a station in St. John's, or at sea on a Coast Guard vessel. Our fishermen, marine workers, and oil workers need more protection than they are getting from the Government.

March 23, 1988


HISTORIC EVENTS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, March 25 marks the one hundred and sixty-seventh anniversary of the independence of modern Greece. It is only fitting that this day be given due recognition because of the importance of Greece and its history and the impact that this has had on western civilization for almost 2,500 years. Much of western culture and western civilization, and the democratic form of government, can trace their roots to Greece, the cradle of democracy.
In spite of the fact that Greece was occupied by numerous successive invaders for some 1,800 years prior to 1821, the Greek culture and Greek traditions, together with the Greek language and religion, were never subdued or diminished, but continued to flourish even under the most difficult, oppressive, and tyrannical overlords that occupied the country.
I would like us as Members of this House and all Canadians to join with my fellow Canadians of Greek descent in celebrating March 25, not only as the National Day of Greece, but as a shining beacon emblematic of all things that have helped to shape a large part of our Canadian way of life.


FILM INDUSTRY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, last night we witnessed first hand at the Ninth Annual Genie Awards that Canada does have a film industry that can compete with the best in the world. Last year the world was talking about Decline of the American Empire, and this year it is Un Zoo La Nuit which won in all nominated categories. All Canadians will be biting their nails at the Academy Awards with its nomination for an Oscar.
More Canadian films and television programs than ever before were presented at festivals in Canada and around the world, and more were winners, not only in attracting audiences at the box office but also on television screens in every major world market.
Last night was not all celebration. Quebec film maker, Rock Demers, eloquently expressed concerns about the Government's lack of commitment to the arts. He stated that the Government should place more money into the arts, less into nuclear subs, ban its censorship Bill C-54, and forget about free trade.
It took a decade of painstaking public and private action to create the structural impetus for Canadians films and television to flower. Now the Government wants to reverse itself and kick the supports and platform from under this industry. I would strongly suggest that the Government heed this advice from an industry that knows what it is all about.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibl):: Mr. Speaker, next Sunday we celebrate the victory of Mirabel farmers who, twenty years ago, heard on the radio they had just been expropriated to build an airport.
It took these farmers nearly twenty years to have this gross error set right. Unwilling to admit publicly it had made a mistake, the Trudeau Government preferred to harass its victims instead of giving them a fair deal.
When the Conservatives came in with Brian Mulroney, and thanks to the support and sympathy of the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and the Hon. Member for Argen-teuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault), the situation was finally normalized.
Thanks to the C.I.A.C., the most tenacious citizens' group Quebec has ever known, its members were able to survive, and also thanks to the determination of its first chairman, Mr. Goyer.
Mr. Speaker, Quebecers and Canadians should pay tribute to Mr. Jean-Paul Raymond of Mirabel who continued this struggle for freedom with leadership and perseverance.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec claims to be very concerned about the environment. A non-profit foundation supported by the Premier (Mr. Mulroney) and the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), is planning a fund-raising campaign for the environment. Should we rejoice? Will Quebec's environment be in good hands?
Unfortunately, the same Ministers are taking action that puts the environment at risk. The free trade agreement will have a disastrous impact on the environment by encouraging the export of non-renewable resources and the use of energy resources that cause pollution. Furthermore, the Government of Quebec is planning more energy mega-projects, despite the fact that these projects are harmful to the environment.
The Ministers supported the Brundtland Report, whose fundamental principle is sustained development. However, decisions taken subsequently by the governments have failed to respect the recommendation that environmental considerations be incorporated in economic decisions. Talking about the environment is useless if our actions do not reflect what we say.
March 23, 1988


AIR BALLOONS
[Stage Direction]
1991 WORLD BALLOONING CHAMPIONSHIP EVENT
Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning, Canada was appointed host country for the Tenth World Ballooning Championship Event in 1991. The Festival des montgolfieres du Haut-Richelieu was chosen by the National Aeroclub of Canada as official host of this world famous event, where 450 balloons from at least 25 countries will lift off and which will attract at least one million visitors to Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu in the summer of 1991.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the exceptional work done by the organizing committee of the festival, and to the involvement of the local community, the riding of Saint-Jean, Tourism Quebec and the Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Valcourt).
The Canadian tourism industry, which supports 600,000 jobs directly and has an annual revenue of $20 billion, must constantly innovate and provide a broad range of attractions.
Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank my colleague, the Hon. Bernard Valcourt, for his support.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons and, more to the point, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) must take immediate action to restore integrity to the security system at Canada's major airports.
The system is in a shambles and, indeed, the notion of security at Canada's airports is a farce perpetrated upon the people of Canada by the Minister of Transport and by his predecessor, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski).
Last night Canadians were shocked to witness on the CBC program The Journal the spectacle of airport security employees testifying that even after three years of employment they still did not have the necessary training to identify bombs or hidden weapons on Canada's X-ray machines.
More shocking, Mr. Speaker, in the light of commitment since the Air-India disaster-we ought to have learned from that disaster which took many innocent lives-we saw a student being hired after watching a 2.5 hour video and being
made responsible for weapons and bombs screening. That same student, after only three hours on the job, was assigned the task of training yet another new recruit.
The Government of Canada-and these are strong words- is playing with the lives of Canadians and has a responsibility to restore integrity to Canada's security system-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, formerly the cost of providing telephone service was dependent on the distance between the points served. Modern communications technology is obliterating this dependence. As a result, in relative terms, the cost of long distance service should decline and that of local service should increase.
I am therefore dismayed by the NDP position outlined by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) last Friday who boasted of his Party's obstruction to rate rebalancing. This blatant disregard of the interests of northern and rural Canadians, whom the Hon. Member would have to subsidize urban dwellers such as his own constituents, will not go unnoticed at the next election.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the war between Iran and Iraq is in its eighth year now. All the world has watched helplessly and with horror as these two countries have wasted and slaughtered their youth, as they have polluted their common marine heritage in the Gulf, and now as they have added a new dimension, not only the war of the cities but the use of chemical weapons.
I would hope that all Members of the House would join with me in saying to both countries that they have no right to pollute the planet in the way they are doing in the Gulf, they have no right to use chemical weapons, they have no right to carry on this madness, and, in the name of all that is holy, they should stop that war now.

March 23, 1988
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I knew the Prime Minister would not be in Toronto last night to present one of the Genies, because his platform got lost at the Juno awards! Nor was I surprised when the Minister of Communications did not show up on the platform, since Roch Demers, our world-class film maker who received an award for his exceptional work in the Canadian film industry, condemned the Prime Minister's free trade agreement with the United States, saying: Hello free trade, Goodbye Canadian culture!
What does the Minister of Communications have to answer to that?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I cannot be everywhere that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition thinks I can be. I have to tell him that I was working in cabinet committee on a very important dossier which I hope he will approve when I bring it forward.
May I just say to the Right Hon. Member that I agree wholeheartedly that both the private and the public sectors should be putting more funding into the cultural community. That is why we have increased the budget to the cultural agencies this year by some $ 113 million, bringing it to a total of $2.2 billion. That is why we have put $165 million into a feature film fund, something that was not there before. That is why we have put $25 million into a sound recording fund, something that was not there before. That is why we have introduced a program for public lending rights, payments to authors for books from public libraries, something that was not there before. That-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: One further point-


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as clear as "Un zoo la nuit".
The Minister did not answer the question: What is she going to say to performers, filmmakers and directors in this country like Jean-Claude Lauzon, who claims that the free trade agreement with the United States will destroy, will deal a fatal blow to Canadian culture.


REQUEST FOR PROTECTION OF TEXTILE INDUSTRY
John Napier Turner: shall, if I may, direct my question on the free trade agreement with the United States to another Minister.
The Minister of Finance knows perfectly well that the free trade agreement with the United States will put the jobs of
100,000	workers, 100,000 Canadian men and women working in the apparel industry, at risk. The program he announced yesterday will cost Canadian taxpayers $60 million. His announcement has angered the unions that represent workers in the apparel industry and also upset garment manufacturers and the entire textile industry.
When will the Minister of Finance start supporting the textile industry and speak out against the Prime Minister's free trade agreement with the United States?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I can see that the Right Hon. Member got totally cowed by my colleague and had to switch his line of questioning.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an example of the Liberals flip-flopping on both sides of the same issue. On the one hand they are saying that we should not be doing these things, and on the other hand yesterday they said that we should be doing a lot more of them.
We have tried to find a balance in the program on duty remission and tariff reduction to help the clothing industry. I can tell the Right Hon. Member that this is a program that the clothing industry has been trying to get Governments to agree to for the last 10 years, and we have, starting about two years ago, commenced on this track. The announcements yesterday move us further down the track of providing the clothing industry with lower cost business inputs. Manufacturers can then provide clothing to Canadian consumers at lower prices with greater variety. That will put them in a more competitive position with clothing manufacturers in other countries.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that the Minister's answers may not be satisfactory from time to time, at least he tries to address the questions. That is why I abandoned the Minister of Communications.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Coward.


POSITION OF APPAREL ADVISORY BOARD CHAIRMAN
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder who the Minister is trying to kid, given that the Chairman of the Apparel Advisory Board advising the Prime Minister, Mr. Peter Nygard, said last night on national television: "We really question whether it is wise any longer to
March 23, 1988

keep our industry in free trade. It would be better not to surrender to the U.S. and let them have their way. Take us out."
What does the Minister of Finance say to the Chairman of the Prime Minister's Apparel Trade Advisory Board who wants nothing more to do with the trade agreement with the U.S. and wants out?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the Canadian Apparel Manufacturers Institute press release. It says: "CAMI welcomes Finance Minister Wilson's March 22nd announcement as an important first step in the essential objectives of reducing costs and enhancing the competitiveness of the Canadian apparel industry."


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: "The major benefit to the majority of apparel manufacturers will be tangible across-the-board tariff reductions on fabric and yarn to a level comparable to U.S. tariffs."
That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to provide the apparel manufacturers in Canada with a competitive system that will allow them to take advantage, in a major way, of the opportunities now available to them through the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. I want to ask him about the comments made by the Chairman of the Government's own advisory group SAGIT, which advised the Government on the trade deal and the clothing industry.
Mr. Nygard, chairman of that group, says his own operation will have to be substantially scaled back because federal attempts to shelter the industry from the trade deal have failed. He goes on to say: "It is hard to say right now how we will be able to structure our business to be able to hold on to jobs in Winnipeg. The new package will not prevent U.S. companies from taking over the Canadian market. The free trade deal no longer has any benefits to the Canadian clothing industry."
Does the Minister not find it embarrassing that our industry says to him: "You have sold out"? Does he not find it embarrassing that he has had to succumb to the pressures of a U.S. lobby group and put our industry in jeopardy? Is it not shameful for a Canadian Minister to be engaged in that kind of a sellout?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I saw this morning with my own eyes on national television this same man, Mr. Nygard, saying: "We support Michael Wilson". That is me, Mr. Speaker. I am Michael Wilson.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister would answer the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I forget the Hon. Member's words, but he said we caved in to the United States, or something like that.


Lloyd Axworthy: You did.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If he had watched the same program this morning he would have seen the real balance we had to achieve in providing this program. On the one hand we had the apparel sector saying they wanted a lot more. On the other hand we had the textile sector saying: "If we had our druthers, we would prefer you did not do anything".
We have come up with a classical compromise to try to help the apparel sector achieve a degree of competitiveness which it did not already have. We have done that in a way which will not undermine the profitability and, therefore, the job creating capacity of the textile industry. That is the balance which 1 believe we have achieved in this program.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, that may be what the Minister thinks but it is not what the head of the textile industry in Canada thinks. Mr. Barry has said that the deal which was announced yesterday is going to put the Canadian textile industry in jeopardy because of the trade deal and the pressures they will face. I do not know what the Minister is reading or what he is looking at, but he obviously does not understand what he has done.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question.


REQUEST THAT CANADA-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT BE SCRAPPED
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we now know that the Government has caved in on this issue. Other industries such as the food processing industry, the printing industry, and the auto parts industry have said that they will need an exemption from the trade deal in order to survive.
Is the Government going to provide exemptions for these industries? Should it not just scrap the deal, because it is clear that it will put these Canadian industries in a deep, dark hole?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me address some comments to the Hon. Member's preamble. On the one hand he says that we did not do enough, that we should have done an awful lot more for the clothing industry. On the other hand he says that we have done far too much because it is going to hurt the textile industry.


Lloyd Axworthy: You blew it both ways.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Which side is the Hon. Member on?

March 23, 1988
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: You blew it. That is your problem. That's the way you do things. You stand on your head and spit nickels.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I am glad that he knows who he is today. That is a good first step.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Who are you? Shirley?


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask a question about the Principal Trust fiasco. The Minister will recall that almost a year ago thousands of Canadians across the country lost their life savings in the Principal Trust fiasco. Most of these people were concentrated on the Prairies and many of them are pensioners who lost their life savings through no fault of their own.
Yesterday in the House the Minister of National Revenue seemed to confirm that, incredible as it may seem, the Department of National Revenue is now going to impute income to these people that they will never get, and force them to pay taxes.
Is this the case? Is the Government now going to compel these people to pay taxes on income they will never get, adding insult to a great deal of injury which they have already experienced?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue. I share the Hon. Member's concern for the situation faced by those particular customers of the Principal Group. It is true that under accrual accounting the formal result is as the Hon. Member suggests. However, the whole case is being looked at in order to identify whether a policy change can be put in place.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to say that the case is being looked at and quite another to make up your mind quickly that there should be a change so that these people will get some justice at last.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF NON-PAYMENT OF TAXES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we now have established policy which will give companies complete tax remissions under certain circumstances which will result in over $30 billion of tax deferrals for the business sector.
Therefore, will the Minister guarantee that, either through cabinet decision or, if required, a special measure in the
House-and we have acted very quickly before-the Government will assure the House that these Canadians who have already been unjustly dealt with will not have to pay taxes on income they will never get, under any circumstances? Will he guarantee that?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is taking an absolutely untenable position from an accounting point of view. He knows that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Hockin: To insist upon the kind of treatment the Hon. Member is suggesting is to change the whole Income Tax Act of Canada. We are going to look at this specific case carefully with these people in mind, but we are not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


REQUEST FOR TAX EXEMPTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there have been special exemptions for corporations in the past. In fact, the Government brought in a Bill that we passed in 24 hours for the banks of Canada. Why can he not act just as promptly for the pensioners of Canada? That is the issue.
No one has asked the Minister for a widescale exemption, just one for these people in the Principal case. Will he guarantee that they will not have to pay taxes on income they will not get? That is the issue.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the House knows that the Government has acted with resolution and alacrity on behalf of depositors in previous cases in the last few years. It is absolutely incorrect to say that it has not acted that way in the past. We will continue to be very alert to the justice of depositors and other clients with regard to the Principal Group.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ORDER TAX REMITTANCE
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for financial institutions. It also concerns the collapse of the Principal Group of companies.
The Minister's approach to this whole issue has been to blame it on provincial jurisdictions. When he has a clear opportunity to act on behalf of 67,000 Canadians who may have lost their life savings, he says that he will study the problem. I suggest that that is not sufficient.
Will the Minister exercise the authority he has under the Financial Administration Act, in view of the public interest that exists, and today order a remittance in this particular
case?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, as usual with questions like these, the Hon. Member is jumping on side with other Members from both sides when
March 23, 1988

they ask questions of this sort. His question adds nothing to that which was just asked by the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party.
Yesterday the Minister of National Revenue said that the taxability of interest payments depends on whether a tax filer has chosen to report interest on the cash or accrual method. Under the cash method, interest is reported for tax purposes in the year it is received, whether as cash or as a credit to a person's account. Under the accrual method, interest is recorded as it accrues.
He said:
"I want to make it clear that people on the cash method who neither received interest payments in cash nor had such payments credited to their account prior to the account being frozen will not be taxed on those amounts. However, if they did receive interest in cash or as a credit to their account the amount is required to be included in income".
That is what we are examining.


David Charles Dingwall: The Minister fails to understand that there is absolutely nothing in the accounts of these investors. He can cut it any way he wants, there is no money in the accounts.


REQUEST FOR QUICK GOVERNMENT ACTION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, surely on the basis of fairness, since these 67,000 Canadians have lost much of their savings, the Minister would want to act on their behalf not next week, tomorrow, or next year, but today, and give them the break they rightly deserve?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I can only respond similarly to what the Minister said yesterday. While the Income Tax Act already provides a measure of relief, as the Hon. Member knows, the Government is concerned about those individuals suffering hardship. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, and 1 hope to be able to make a further announcement concerning the taxability of interest payments when we have completed examination of the facts. That is what any Canadian would want the Canadian Government to do, and that is what we are doing.


ACCOUNTING SYSTEM-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT FLEXIBILITY
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to pursue this topic further. Is it correct that the Minister of State responded to an earlier question that the Government is not prepared to change the accounting system to ensure that there is some fairness and justice for these investors who have lost so much? Surely the Government is prepared to be as flexible as it has been in so many other circumstances, to ensure that the regulations are changed and these investors do not end up paying taxes on dividends and interest that they will never see?
Oral Questions


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, as I responded to the previous question, the taxability of these payments will be examined by the Minister of National Revenue, together with the Minister of Finance. An interdepartmental committee is considering it.
I object to the Hon. Leader of the NDP standing up and insisting in all cases, when he does not like the sound of something, that formal accounting be thrown out the window, when poor Canadians as well as other Canadians can be hurt by such action. We must act deliberately and carefully.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I do not think my Leader ever suggested that sound accounting practices be thrown out the window. He did suggest that surely a remission order can be issued, as has been done in so many other cases, to ensure that some justice is done.


FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS-SITUATION OF INVESTORS
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, these Canadians have received their T-5 slips and are filling out their income tax forms right now. What advice can the Minister give them in the next week or two? Should they simply not file and wait for further instruction, and, if so, how long should they wait?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague just said, we are reviewing this matter on a very urgent basis. We understand the predicament in which the depositors have been placed. We are concerned about the impact of this and hope to have an answer very soon about how to deal with it.
This matter has come up on short notice and until we have a chance to look at it-


John Edward Broadbent: Short notice? You have known about it since last June.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It only came up in the House yesterday-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe.


AIR SAFETY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister knows that security at Canada's major airports is a disgrace. Indeed, the very concept of security at Canada's

March 23, 1988
Oral Questions
airports is a farce being perpetrated on the innocent travelling public-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to use the preamble necessary to ask the question and not just get into assertions which may very well be arguable.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am holding a copy of a letter written by Mr. Gordon Sinclair, President of the Air Transport Association of Canada, to the Minister of Transport on February 23, 1988. It is a three-page litany of complaints that Canada's new security systems are not working.
Mr. Sinclair said: "The system is causing delays and major expenses". He went on to say: "We have no control on the system. It is not performing as promised".
In light of Mr. Sinclair's three-page litany of examples why the system is not working, and in light of the shocking spectacle on The Journal last night of employees saying they are not properly trained, is the Minister prepared to accept the unanimous recommendation of the Standing Committee on Transport last October that airport security be taken out of the hands of the airline industry itself, which is in a conflict of interest, and put into the hands of Transport Canada so that adequate standards can be maintained?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the silly adjectives that the Hon. Member used in his question. Of course, he cannot have it both ways and claim that the aviation representatives are complaining about delays, and then say we have an inadequate security system. It must be working if the aviation industry is complaining about delays.
When I have gone through the system, perhaps I look suspicious, but I have always been thoroughly checked. I empty all my pockets and I still buzz. I still have to be searched. Perhaps it is personal magnetism.
Since the Air-India incident of several years ago, we have spent an additional $60 million on improving security systems at our airports. We know that that is not perfect. We know that the system can occasionally be gotten around.
On April 14, 1986, a task force was appointed by my predecessor on this matter. It reported on May 15. The report was approved at the end of May. We have given contracts since for new training programs. We have trained 115 supervisors and trainees at Cornwall with a five-day course.
We now have ready audio-visual material and written manuals. They were ready in English in January and in French in March. We are now ready to ensure that proper training is implemented for all who work in the system.


PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the Minister's wit as much as the next person
in the House. However, I can tell him that a security system that was supposed to be improved in the aftermath of the Air-India disaster that cost some 300 plus innocent Canadian lives is no laughing matter today in the House of Commons.
I say to the Minister that the record is clear. In the letter from the Air Transport Association it is stated that the system is not working. We have heard from security employees who have gone to work after two and a half hours' training and one with three years' training, that they do not know their jobs. It is not a laughing matter.
I ask the Minister again if he is prepared now in the name of finally doing the proper thing to accept the all-Party unanimous recommendation of the Standing Committee on Transport that security at Canada's airports not be done on the cheap, that it be taken out of the hands of airlines and taken over by Transport Canada, the Government of Canada, to ensure that members of the travelling public can believe the Government when it tells them that the system is secure. Today, they cannot.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, responsibility for the airport security system is delegated to the airlines themselves. They have the responsibility for operating the security system. If their representatives are not satisfied with the way it is functioning, then they had better pull up their socks. To ensure that they do pull up their collective socks, I sent a letter to the presidents of our major airlines before this matter was on The Journal last night. Without the The Journal or the newspapers the hon. gentleman would not have a word in his mouth or a question to ask.
I have asked the presidents to come in. I am convening a meeting. I expect them to discuss and to review with me the situation with respect to wages, contract duration of the security companies, performance pay, turn-over rates, and other matters. We will see how the system works after they pull up their socks, as they should.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER AIRPORT SECURITY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been aware for something close to three years now that many Members of the House, including the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan and myself, have raised repeatedly the issues of airport security and safety. The Minister knows that. We did not have to wait for The Journal. But I suppose a brick wall has to fall on the Minister, and I wish one would.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member would put his question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, instead of getting the Minister's jocular codswallop will he answer the question as to whether or not the Government will implement the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Transport which
March 23, 1988

recommended that the Government of Canada take over airport security, and operate it by the RCMP or other police forces, so that the airlines cannot save bucks, so that the security companies cannot make bucks, and so that the Minister cannot pass bucks?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is going to need more than brick walls to get into power.


John Edward Broadbent: That is pretty funny.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Hon. Member is trying to be jocular, with not much success, I must say.
The position is that there was a report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport which is under consideration-


Simon Leendert de Jong: Now you are being funny.


John Carnell Crosbie: The system which is in effect has been in effect for many years, including when the main opposition Party was in power during the previous 20 years. There have been many improvements made to that system.
I have called in the presidents of the airlines to discuss how they could better operate the present system and to see whether it is necessary for the Government to expand its tentacles to take over this service or not. There are many countries in the world which operate just as we do.
I can give Hon. Members the nine steps that we have taken since the Air-India-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Riis:: Spare us!


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has still run around the question. I do not understand the mental block about doing something that the committee found-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member could put his question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You are right, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do so.
The committee found airport security in London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, and Paris being handled by the Governments of those countries and the airport authorities, and not by airlines. That is why we recommended unanimously that airport security be taken over and operated by the Minister of Transport and the RCMP. Will the Government implement that recommendation of the Transport Committee?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, since coming into office three and a half years ago
Oral Questions
the Government has taken many steps to improve security at airports. Most of those steps have been resisted with vim and vigour by the New Democratic Party, particularly-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -steps that we have taken for security checks that connect with access to restricted areas. It has been fought every inch of the way by the Hon. Member's Party and by the unions that it represents.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF M. CORNELIO SOMMARUGA, PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am pleased to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Cornelio Sommaruga, President of the Red Cross International Committee.


CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. The Minister will know that the Pepino inquiry report identified serious violations of security and supervision procedures in breach of contractual obligations at privately operated halfway houses in Toronto. The Minister will also know that serious allegations, including illicit drug use, have been made against Exodus Link Crisis Centre by a former inmate and concerned residents of Parkdale-High Park.
In view of these serious allegations, will the Minister instruct his officials to terminate all negotiations for contract renewal with Exodus Link and can he tell the House what action he has taken to address the breaches in contractual obligation of other halfway house operations in Toronto?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member is very interested and concerned about these houses. I can advise him and the House that we did not renew the contracts of either Montgomery House or Exodus Link. I have instructed and ordered that no further inmates be placed in those houses, and that an audit be done by Correctional Services of Canada. That has already started. When those audits are completed I will then make a decision as to what to do with those homes.

March 23, 1988
Oral Questions
I can assure the Hon. Member that if they do not meet federal standards then they will not be allowed to reopen.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Minister of Transport that the weakness of Canada's air safety system is due to the fact that the Government got rid of its responsibilities by shifting them over to the airlines. The Minister simply has no excuse for having refused for the past six months to implement the committee's recommendation. Mr. Speaker, here is my question to the Minister: When will he at long last face up to his responsibilities with respect to passenger safety and stop getting rid of them by throwing the ball in the airlines court which in turn send it to security agencies which finally pass the buck to badly trained employees? When will the Minister take his job seriously?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should think a bit before he asks such a question. It was the Liberal Government of which he formed a part that instituted the present system. No one is getting rid of their responsibility.
The Department of Transport and the Government have delegated responsibility in this matter to the various airline companies at the airports across the country. We set the standards. We have a training institution at Cornwall which, as I stated a few moments ago, has trained 115 supervisors and trainers. We now have the training material, in audio-visual and in written form, to be used by those supervisors and trainers across the country.
We have spent an additional $60 million since the Air-India incident. We are doing everything possible, without entering into a complete police state, to improve security at our airports.
The system now in effect was initiated by the hon. gentleman's Party, and he now says that somehow we are getting rid of our responsibilities. What did the Government of the Hon. Member do, if that is the case?


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ASSUME DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY FOR SECURITY
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is right when he says that the existing inspection system was set up under a Liberal administration, but this was before the Air India incident which took place when the
Conservative Government was in office. It was before the current world-wide increase in terrorist activities, and it was at a time when the country was administered by a responsible Government.
I simply want to ask the Minister when will he stop playing Russian roulette with the lives of passengers, assume his responsibilities, and carry out the inspections himself instead of relying on others to do it for him?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the following are some of the steps taken in the last two years to improve the inadequate procedures that were left behind by the derelicts who preceded us.
On airport policing and security services we spent an additional $7.5 million in 1986-87; $20.4 million on physical security; an additional $2.1 million on training; $2.9 million on security organization. The following year we spent an additional $8.4 million on security guards, physical security, emergency response, training, and so on, and altogether an additional 115 person years.
In addition to all the other steps that I have mentioned, I can now give the list of nine other steps: more stringent security controls on passengers, carry-on baggage, checking baggage and cargo-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister could speak with the Hon. Member.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will send over the list to the Member.


FILM INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. I am sure that the Minister will join with me in congratulating last night's Genie nominees and winners, including Jean-Claude Lauzon and the cast and crew of Un Zoo la Nuit which, Mr. Speaker, is a film and not the Cabinet meeting of last night.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Does the Minister agree with Monsieur Lauzon's statement, "Glory means nothing if people in Canada don't see our films"?
I wish to ask the Minister, why can Canadians not see their own feature films?
March 23, 1988


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the most sensible questions that we have had today, and I wish to thank the Hon. Member.
I wish to join him in congratulating those films and the producers who were winners last night. I may say to the Hon. Member, regardless of what the Liberal Party does to knock Telefilm, it was the funding of Telefilm for Un Zoo la Nuit. Telefilm and the National Film Board put $1.2 million into a film that cost $1.8 million. Telefilm put $163,000 into I've Heard the Mermaids Singing a film which cost $350,000 in total.
In other words, we are making the films and they are good ones. Now we must address the distribution system. That is what the legislation that I will be bringing in will do. I can say that Liberal cabinet Minister after Liberal cabinet Minister backed down from doing this. But I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, we will be creating a separate market for distribution rights for films in this country.


INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION-TIME QUERY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I checked with Cineplex Odeon in Kingston last night. They are showing movies all week like Aloha Summer, and Three Men and a Baby, which is the American version of a French film. At Famous Players they are showing Good Morning Vietnam. I checked in Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, and Edmonton. The only place I could find Un Zoo la Nuit was in an arts theatre in Vancouver.
The Minister knows that only 3 per cent of screen time is taken up by Canadian feature films in Canada, which is a disgrace. When will she bring this policy in? How long do we have to wait? Every time I ask the question, she states that we have to wait. When? Give us a time.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. I have said that we will be bringing this legislation in, and we will.


Some Hon. Members:: When?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I will look for the Hon. Member's support. I ask him, seriously, to consider the need for this type of legislation, and to give us the support that we need. I had superb support from the members of the New Democratic Party in putting copyright legislation through the House. I wish to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that at this moment in the Senate the Liberals are holding up copyright legislation which is so critical-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York West.
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


TURKISH CLAIMANTS FOR REFUGEE STATUS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Immigration and it concerns the Government's action last night in relation to the Turkish claimants. Last night the Minister decided to suspend deportation against Turks living in the Province of Quebec, and is hoping that the provincial Government will show the moral leadership that this Government abandoned through applying the special measures in the immigration agreement between the Province of Quebec and the Government of Canada.
Given that some individuals within the group of 2,000 individuals in Canada live outside the Province of Quebec and that no other province enjoys the immigration agreement as Quebec does, can the Minister explain what action will be taken against those Turkish claimants who live outside Quebec? Can he give the House the assurance that one standard, consistent application will be fairly applied to those individuals?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend I am sure is aware of the fact that first of all, the immigration process does not operate on a community basis but on an individual case basis. Also, in 1977, his Government signed with Quebec the so-called Cullen-Couture Agreement...


An Hon. Member:: Liberal!


Benoît Bouchard: Listen, please! Eleven years ago the Liberal Party signed with the Quebec Government an agreement dealing with Immigration and Quebec's right to select its own immigrants. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Government advised us of its intention to ask for the review or assessment of a number of cases in Quebec. We have accepted to delay the execution of the deportation order while the Quebec Government is adivsing us of its decisions; until then, I feel it would be advisable to wait and see.


APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I accept the Minister's answer. Neither this Member nor this Party is criticizing the agreement that exists between the Province of Quebec and the federal Government.
My question was very straightforward, and the Minister did not answer that question. If the Minister was prepared to relax the regulations, that is, the deportation, because of legitimate concerns facing this group of 2,000 Turks, and given that within this group many individuals find themselves outside the Province of Quebec, will the Minister inform Canadians if we are going to have a consistent application of the regulations?
Will he specifically inform the House what action those Turkish individuals living outside Quebec can expect from the

March 23, 1988
Tabling of Documents
federal Government which must assume the federal responsibility because there is no provincial agreement to show the leadership that this Minister is willing to abandon?
[ Translation]


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, when I hear a Liberal Member talk about honesty and suggest that we should expedite matters, I feel compelled to ask him when will he help us overcome situations such as these by convincing his colleagues to adopt Bill C-55.


Some Hon. Members:: Bravo!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote part of the statement which the Quebec Minister of Immigration made yesterday in the National Assembly: "Canada is one of the countries of the world where border controls are the least stringent". Now that the Senate has been blocking this Bill for the past eighteen months, some 10,000 people have entered this country and one year from now, the opposition will probably be asking us to grant them amnesties on the grounds that these people were not properly assessed under the law.


Mr. Speaker:: A single question. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


LABOUR RELATIONS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. It has to do with the way in which the CPR is using the provisions of Bill C-85 to intimidate rail workers who are refusing to cross the picket lines set up by their fellow workers in another bargaining unit. The Minister knows, as we all know, that that legislation was put in place to enforce the back to work legislation, not to provide a club for the CPR to intimidate workers forever and ever in these kinds of situations which are not the same as the back to work legislation.
Will the Minister rise in the House today and indicate to the workers and to all Canadians the injustices of this action on the part of the CPR, and that that is not the intent of Bill C-85, and that CPR should cease and desist from using the Bill in that way?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-85 was not intended to intimidate anybody.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the 1986-87 Annual Report concerning the Cultural Property Export and Import Act.
Pursuant to Standing Order 67(4), the Report will be referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-74, an Act respecting the Protection of the Environment and of Human Life and Health.
If I may just add a few extra words, Mr. Speaker, the workings of this committee were somewhat unique in that during clause by clause analysis we passed 261 amendments which came from the Liberals, the New Democrats and government Members. It was a superb non-partisan exercise, an example of how the parliamentary process should function. I wish to congratulate all Members, our staff and all of our witnesses for a job well done.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motions to be made and passed immediately. First:
That the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the necessary supporting staff be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C. from
March 23, 1988

March 28 to 30, 1988, inclusive to study how the United States Government
deals with deceptive or misleading advertising.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The caucus of the Liberal Party approves of that trip but I want to give notice to the Government that after Easter that kind of authorization to travel might be a little more difficult to obtain. We would like to think that we have 12 weeks of continuous work in this Elouse. I invite the committees and anybody else to think seriously about travel.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Minister of State have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the second motion is on consent also. It is really a change of committee reference for Bill C-117.
I move:
That the order for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of
Bill C-117, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act standing
on the Order Paper, be changed to read second reading and reference to the
Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Minister of State have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the third motion is on
Petitions
consent. It is a change of committee reference for Bill C-118.1 move:
That the order for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-l 18, an Act to amend the Customs Tariffs Act standing on the Order Paper, be changed to read second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Minister of State have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and my honour on behalf of a number of constituents from the Windsor and district area to present two petitions, both duly certified, which ask of this Parliament to maintain full indexation of federal Public Service, Armed Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension benefits by rejecting Bill C-33.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition that started with the name of one dedicated woman, Mrs. Diane Ducharme of Notre-Dame-du-Rosaire parish, and calls urgently upon Minister Bouchard to be so kind as to take the necessary measures.
This petition is remarkable in that one woman started it, followed by her husband who wanted to join her as did everybody, at the corner store. That woman went to Notre-Dame-du-Rosaire parish where everybody wanted to sign the petition.
I want to thank publicly that woman of great Christian principles who spontaneously undertook to have this petition signed. And it is a great honour for me to table that petition, Mr. Speaker.
I also have the honour to table a second petition, and to make things easier-

I may help you in putting them all together according to the rules so I will not have to come back tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

March 23, 1988
Petitions
This petition is highly interesting. It so happens that the person who asked me to table this petition had it signed by a multitude of people.
First I would like to recognize the Samuelson Company which now employs 250 to 300 people, with 10 per cent, or 21 persons being Les Turcs. The lady asked me if I would present this petition which was presented by her to all the employees in the park extension and surrounding area. It is a great honour for me to thank that person for her great devotion to that cause.
The reason I am saying more is that Canadians have to understand that already these people known as les Turcs are at work in the manufacturing industry in that district and are showing that they are so devoted that I am sure they will make excellent Canadians. I am very honoured to table this petition on behalf of Madam Samuelson.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege today to present a petition signed by a number of people from the federal constituency of Moncton, and particularly from the St. Bernard's Catholic Church parish.
The petitioners express their concern over the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding abortions, and they humbly pray that the Government of Canada take whatever legislative action necessary to protect the rights of the unborn child.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility and the privilege of entering a petition signed by residents of Chatham, Wallaceburg, Merlin, Dresden, Tilbury-


Mr. Fulton:: Quite a bundle of them, John.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, quite a few-Kemptville all in Ontario. These petitioners point out that the Conservative Government had no mandate whatsoever from the Canadian people to enter into any trade agreement with the United States-


James Ross Fulton: You're right, too.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. Second, whereas the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised whatsoever, and whereas the proposed trade agreement is denying Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermines the ability of Canada to build a society which is distinct from that of the United States of America, the petitioners call upon Parliament to dissolve and to allow the people of Canada the opportunity
to accept or reject this so-called free trade agreement with the United States.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I was most pleased to see on television last night and again this morning that the situation of the Turks in Montreal seems to be on the way to being resolved, although there is still no firm commitment or full understanding of the situation, and I can certainly appreciate the destabilization of these families.
I think the open and warm-hearted approach of Quebecers to these new Canadians-to-be is a wonderful demonstration of the multicultural reality that is the Canada of today. I would hope that the Minister, in looking at this issue, would find answers not only for the Quebec Turks but for those across the land.
I was pleased that my colleague mentioned Mrs. Samuelson, and I bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that these petitions, one of which has 25 signatures and one of which has over 43 signatures, come from my riding, from people who live on streets like Plamondon, Desrosiers and Barclay.
I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and I thank everyone for having thought about these people's rights in this society.
REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM SUSPENDED SALE OF ATVs


Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition signed by 761 residents of the federal riding of Nunatsiaq in the eastern Arctic.
The people who signed this petition are extremely concerned that the federal and provincial Governments have suspended the sale of the cheaper, more versatile and lighter three-wheel all-terrain vehicle. As most people know, we do not have any roads up in the Arctic except just around houses, and these vehicles have been used for hunting and for work. Even little old ladies use them to haul their drinking water in the spring and summertime.
The petitioners are asking that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and this House review the decision to end the sale of the three-wheel versions with the hope that the eastern Arctic could be exempted from this suspension in Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents who indicate that the trade deal negotiated with the United States would have a fundamental impact on Canada's economic, cultural and political independence.
They believe that the negotiated trade deal will certainly result in a loss of jobs in many sectors and regions of Canada. They are requesting that the Parliament of Canada obtain a clear mandate from the people of Canada through a national
March 23, 1988

debate on the alternatives available to the country, and that this debate result in a national General Election prior to the signing of the agreement; that means prior to its taking effect on January 1, 1989.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 205 and 265 could be made Orders for Returns, the returns would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 205 and 265 be deemed to have been made Orders for Returns?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	For the period May to August, 1986, as compared to the same period in 1985, has there been a rise in the number of deaths (a) of babies (b) of people with AIDS (c) of people with other infectious diseases and (d) of people aged 25 to 34 and, if so, in what provinces and territories?
2.	Can increases in death rates in these categories be attributed to radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident in May 1986 and, if not, what could explain such increases?
3.	What data have been collected in Canada to monitor the effects of the Chernobyl accident?
Return tabled.


Mr. Henderson: In (a) 1984 (6) 1985 (c) 1986 (d) 1987 did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans spend money under the Small Craft Harbours Program and, if so, in what amounts for each (a) province (b) constituency?
Return tabled.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Speaker, I would ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crombie that Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House rose yesterday, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) had the floor. Since he is not in the House, I now recognize the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano).


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this very important debate on Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has welcomed people from all over the world who come here to find freedom, social peace and economic prosperity. From the first immigrants, whether they were French, Irish or Scottish, down to the recent waves of nationals from Asian countries and including the great migration that took place after the war, when so many immigrants came over from Europe, they have all found in Canada a country that was growing and especially, Mr. Speaker, a country where dreams could become a reality.
Like thousands of people from all parts of the world who became Canadian citizens, my family and I are very grateful to Canada and Canadians for welcoming us as brothers and for giving us a chance to participate fully in the life of our community, our city and our new country.

I feel that the most concrete way in which we can express our gratitude is to pursue an active role in the country we have chosen. We want to continue to progress toward greater harmony and prosperity. Our objective is to create a Canada which reflects the ideals and ambitions of its citizens.

As members of Canada's various cultural communities, each one of us brings with him his own cultural baggage. Each one

March 23, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
of us, Mr. Speaker, brings his traditions and knowledge which have helped to give Canada its unique character and a uniquely dynamic social and economic thrust.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the more our cultural communities are strong, alive and dynamic, the more Quebec and Canada will be strong and productive. This is why a great majority of Canadians support a generous, open and, most important, nondiscriminatory immigration policy.
The family reunification program has always been the favourite of Canadians, we should re-establish this program and make it a cornerstone of our immigration policy. We must improve our system to make it more effective and reduce the frustrations of those who want to sponsor new immigrants. Many people in my riding of Saint-Leonard-Anjou come to see me every week and say that they are willing to provide any guarantee that might be asked of them to have relatives, such as brothers and sisters, come to Canada. Unfortunately, existing legislation and current policies do not allow them to do so.
Mr. Speaker, we have to implement a policy which will allow people to sponsor their relatives and which will promote family reunification to ensure that our country will always remain properous and tolerant. We must also develop a fair and effective system to identify refugees and provide them with adequate facilities on their arrival. Finally, we must eliminate from the system influential but unscrupulous lawyers and advisors who throughout the world mislead thousands of candidates anxious to emigrate to Canada. Those people, who are more motivated by greed than by compassion, cause untold damage to the immigration candidates and to the reputation of Canada.
We must re-establish family class and family unification categories as the unquestionable corner-stone of Canada's immigration policy. We must introduce a more effective and expeditious processing to resolve the lengthy delays and frustration which Canadians encounter in sponsoring immigrants. We must establish and implement a refugee determination system that will provide an efficient and fair processing system. We must address the problem of immigrants who are a part of visible minorities, and especially women who face tremendous and unique challenges. We have to move swiftly and vigorously to eliminate those unscrupulous lawyers and advisors around the world who viciously misinform candidates about our immigration system.

We in Canada already have an advantage in being able to dialogue and deal with the rest of the world in two official languages. When we add to that the linguistic contribution of our cultural communities, we gain access to the richest markets in the world, such as the European Community, Japan, China, and so on. This dialogue between the various
components of our society must be based on mutual knowledge combined with the recognition of our diversity and even sometimes our differences.
Mr. Speaker, pious wishes are all very well, but we have to be realistic and practice what we preach.
As the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) so aptly put it, there are no longer any majorities in this country. One way or another, all Canadians belong to a minority and we are all equal.
Mr. Speaker, here is what former Quebec Minister Paul-Gerin Lajoie had to say about a new immigrant:
If we expect him to like our culture and feel at home in Canada we must not give him the impression that he has to shed his own identity and forget all about his own cultural background. He went on to say unequivocally: "The only way he can make a useful contribution to Canada is to remain faithful to his past. His integration will be all the more real that he be allowed to lead a full life in Canada. It will be worthwhile only to the extent that his fellow citizens benefit from his presence and find enrichment is such diversity."
In fact, the true purpose of multiculturalism is not only to give people a chance to become part of Canadian life, but also to live in Canada and continue to develop their own culture. As Canada and its cultural communities develop their cultural strengths, we will have a strong Canada, a prosperous Canada, a Canada that will be able to compete with the rest of the world.
Once we have perceived and acknowledged this fact, it is much easier to create a cultural dialogue and to acknowledge that we are all genuine parties to this dialogue. To fight racism, to harmonize diversity, to develop a consensus among diverging attitudes, and to make equal opportunity apply to all is no mean challenge, Mr. Speaker, for a country or for a people! A very recent study in the United States found that despite the heroic struggles of black leaders like Martin Luther King, the general perception was that racism continues to exist at a level almost as dramatic as it was during the sixties. The forms it takes may not be as visible as they were when segregation was still legal, but its impact remains practically unchanged, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, Canada is not impervious to such attitudes or to their impact.
By the year 2000, three out of five people in Montreal will be of ethnic origin. Today, it is already fifty per cent. This means that Canadians of all origins, especially those who live in big cities, will have to make a quick mental and behavioural adjustment to this situation, and especially to the phenomenon of visible minorities. This takes time and energy, Mr. Speaker, and above all, it requires tolerance.
We need moral and political leadership. Token appointments to second class positions and administrative bandaid solutions are a thing of the past. We must now define new directions, generate innovative ideas and identify today's pressing problems. We have indeed come a long way under previous Liberal governments. Today, however, we must take a hard look at new challenges. We must respond to the new aspirations of our children, of members of our cultural
March 23, 1988

communities who represent a second or third generation. Their attitudes, needs and objectives are not necessarily those of their parents or yours, or mine Mr. Speaker.

The present Government has clearly not understood Canada's multicultural reality of the 1980s, and understands even less the coming reality of the 1990s. Despite the election promises of 1984, the situation has not improved. The lack of government direction has produced nothing but stagnation, confusion and, in my opinion, a deterioration which will, sooner or later, heighten social agitation.

It was just a matter of polishing his campaign image for our cultural communities. Last December, the Government tabled a Bill on multiculturalism, referred to everywhere as being without scope or substance. Instead of giving multiculturalism the kind of support bilingualism is given through the Official Languages Act, the Conservative Government's Bill merely provides a legislative framework for the existing program and extends the principles of multiculturalism to various branches of the Government. In three and a half years, Mr. Speaker, we have had three Ministers of State (Multiculturalism). That is how important this vital issue is to the Government!
Although the operation to launch this Bill was packaged in a glossy brochure, everyone realized the Government was merely making a symbolic gesture that could not hide the lack of substance. Mr. Speaker, throughout the Bill we read constantly: "The Minister may... ", but never a sentence that says: "The Minister shall..." Will our cultural communities always be at the mercy of a change in government or a change of ministers?

The same half-hearted approach was taken by the Government in the area of appointments.
With seemingly impressive numbers, the Government claims to have treated the cultural communities well in this regard. However, looking closely at the appointments, they have been at low levels in Crown corporations, the bureaucracy, and often in strictly advisory organizations.
Canada's cultural communities deserve better. To everyone's benefit, we should be able to find Canadians of ethnic backgrounds involved in all sectors, in decision-making roles at the highest levels of bureaucracy right up to the presidency of any Crown corporation.

So we are still at square one. The Conservative Government cannot be relied on to forge ahead, it has just tabled Bill C-93 last December, and that is as far as it will go. The Bill is a positive proof that it simply cannot see the sociological evolution and respond with fairness and compassion to the needs of Canadians, regardless of their origins.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, multiculturalism has always been part of the Liberal vision of Canada. Proud of its tradition and many achievements in promoting Canadian multiculturalism, the Liberal Party purposely envisages what Canada might be in the 1990s. Architect of the first and now the second stage of multiculturalism, our Party still maintains a broader long-range perspective whose strength is its very foundation and which is at one with the new generation of Canadians and Quebecers. This leadership reflects our conviction that a policy can never be an end in itself but an ever-fresh challenge which calls for unrelenting efforts and unconditional selflessness.
More than anyone else our Leader of the Opposition is aware of the tangible contribution and vital role of cultural communities in today's and tomorrow's society. What we want is to find dynamic avenues, still more worthwhile programs to be implemented with logic and coherence so as to maximize the scope and impact of all our initiatives in immigration and multiculturalism.

Most of the people came to a new land with an undying promise of hope and purpose. Therefore, we in this House must recognize one inescapable reality, namely, that history has placed you and me, Mr. Speaker, within a common border and under a common law. All of us, from the wealthiest and most powerful of men to the weakest and poorest of children share one precious possession-the name "Canadian".

And so, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleagues in this House that I am proud to be a Canadian. I am proud to belong to a cultural community. I am proud as well to contribute to a political Party which has always been conscious of the multicultural reality and which has never skimped in terms of measures designed to enable our communities to fulfil their aspirations within the great Canadian mosaic.
Mr. Speaker, I feel confident that we can achieve the dialogue of cultures, that we can shape the Canada of the 1990s to reflect its wide variety of citizens. Mr. Speaker, let us give ourselves the tools to build a Canada where we can stand united, and let us give ourselves the tools to build a Canada to our own image.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
[Stage Direction]
March 23, 1988
Western Arctic (Jnuvialuit Settlement Act)

Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill C-102, an Act to amend the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I wish to commend this legislation to the House. I want in advance to express my thanks to all Members of the House who have allowed this to come forward and to be concluded at this time. I look forward to the debate and discussions which will follow.


Mr. Penner:: Mr. Penner, I rise on a point of order. I noticed in the reading of the Orders of the Day that this Bill was to be given second reading and then referred to a legislative committee. If my information is correct, there is a willingness on the part of my colleague, the Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), and myself, with the concurrence of the Minister, to proceed through all stages of the Bill this afternoon. It is not in any way a controversial Bill. It is, in the main, a housekeeping Bill. Although I want to reserve the right to make a few comments about this important agreement, I wonder if we could determine at this time that in fact there is agreement that we proceed through all stages.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding as well that we could, with the co-operation of the Minister and the Government side, proceed through all stages and ship this Bill off to the Senate today.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I had some conversations with the House Leader of the New Democratic Party. The Government is certainly predisposed to move to report stage and third reading stage on this Bill.
However, we would like to have clarity in the House as to whether it is the intention of the Opposition and the Government to work together to pass Bill C-116 through all stages this afternoon as well. If there is not that predisposition, then I think we should move on to Bill C-116 and perhaps have time to return to this Bill later.
I seek some guidance from the House as to its willingness to commit itself to the passage of Bill C-116 through all stages this afternoon if we go through all three stages of Bill C-102.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that this Party is committed to passing through all stages today of Bill C-116 which amends the Unemployment Insurance Act. It provides paternity benefits and corrects the problem with premature births. I want to make that clear, to ensure that the Bill is passed through all stages today. We have committed ourselves to doing that and want to stick to that commitment.


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


B. Keith Penner: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: In that case, Mr. Speaker, 1 think we should finish this Bill first and then move on to Bill C-116.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will therefore recognize the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior for debate on Bill C-102.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak for an undue length of time, but I believe that even a non-controversial Bill on which there is allParty agreement deserves some expanded explanation in order that Members of the House will know what we are doing and those who are observing today's proceedings will understand what Bill C-102 is about. It certainly cannot in any way be described as a major Bill, but it is nonetheless important. It is certainly important to the 2,500 Inuvialuits in the Western Arctic and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation which represents this group of aboriginal people who live north of 60.
The Bill contains only one clause. That single clause amends the definition of agreement in a previous statute passed by Parliament in June, 1984. That previous statute to which I refer was the Bill that ratified the Inuvialuit final agreement which came out of a very protracted period of negotiations arising out of a claim in the Western Arctic put forward by the Committee on Original Peoples Entitlement, known as COPE. In the past we often spoke about the COPE agreement, the COPE negotiations and so on.
During one part of my parliamentary career it was my privilege-one that I consider to be a very special privilege-to assist in that negotiation process. That assistance in only a small way led to an agreement in principle which was reached prior to the election of 1979. That agreement was reached under the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Hon. Hugh Faulkner, who was the Member for Parliament for Peterborough.
When the Clark government took office, this agreement in principle was put on hold in order to pursue and consider certain changes which the Government thought to be necessary. I will not dwell on that unduly, but there were some difficulties to which the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) will probably want to refer if he is speaking on the Bill today.
However, when a new Liberal government took office in 1980 those difficulties were recognized and efforts were renewed to try to achieve a new agreement in principle and a final agreement. That did not happen quickly. While it took some time to achieve this, finally, on March 28, 1984, it was announced by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Hon. John Munro, that a COPE final agreement had been approved by Cabinet.
March 23, 1988

On June 4 it was signed by that Minister and the representatives of COPE. On June 26, the Western Arctic Inuvialuit Claims Settlement Act, Bill C-49, was passed by the House of Commons.
That agreement to which I referred was very large and complicated. Like any agreement that is drawn up in some haste, it had a number of minor difficulties, such as punctuation mistakes, spelling and typing errors and, in one case, an incorrectly drawn map. Like some of the first drafts of essays many of us have written in the past, it needed a lot of work. However, there was so much anxiety to get this agreed to and ratified by Parliament, many of those details were overlooked.
Last year, all of these necessary corrections were quite properly made by Order in Council in what we would call housekeeping changes. A few years prior to that Order in Council, another Order in Council permitted the Petroleum Incentives Program to be applicable to Inuvialuit lands. One can see immediately that that is a dead issue, for all intents and purposes, because since December 3, 1987-the last day to incur any eligible expenses under PIP-and April this year, all eligible claims must be in. To the best of my knowledge, this has no applicability to the Inuvialuit people.
However, I am sure that these two Orders in Council were of some concern to the Government because Orders in Council are always under the watchful eye of the statutory instruments committee. The statutory instruments committee is not at all pleased about changes being made which in fact ought to be properly ratified by Parliament.
Finally, Bill C-102 makes it clear for the future that when non-substantive amendments are agreed to, "consent by Canada" means precisely and exactly consent by Governor in Council. That is how the Statutory Instruments Committee prefers it. It wants parliamentary approval and parliamentary authority for Orders in Council, even if they are routine and housekeeping in nature. If an amendment in the future is nonsubstantive, it will be done by Order in Council.
Of course, if amendments in the future have anything to do with the terms in the agreement that actually affect benefits or any specific aspect of the agreement, then it must come before Parliament for ratification and approval.
Let me describe some of the principles and benefits contained in this agreement. The agreement involves 2,500 Inuvialuit people living in six Arctic settlements: Sachs Harbour, Holman Island, Paulatuk, Tuktoyaktuk, Inuvik, and Aklavik.
There were at least three main objectives that were recognized throughout the negotiating process as essential ingredients of a just and fair settlement. The first was the preservation of Inuvialuit culture and values within a changing northern society. The second was the preparation of the Inuvialuit to be equal and effective participants in the northern and national economies and in society in general.
Western Arctic (Inuvialuit Settlement Act)
The third being the promotion and the preservation of the Arctic's wildlife, biological productivity and natural environment. There are no groups of people in Canada, even the most ardent environmentalists, who have a better philosophical and ancient tradition in respect of preservation of the natural environment than do the Inuvialuit.
What about benefits? The agreement we are talking about intended to protect the rights of the Inuvialuit as Canadian citizens and as aboriginal people under the Constitution Act. It is very important to emphasize over and over again that negotiating these agreements which confer special rights, which I will mention in a moment, in no way cuts off or excludes these people from the normal rights of Canadian citizens. That is why I am such a strong advocate of the recognition of aboriginal rights and the settlement of aboriginal title. Even where it leads to a very high degree of self determination, in no way can it ever be described as some kind of pseudo or semi apartheid. It is because the larger society, the dominant society of which we are a part, in no way excludes access to any of its institutions or to any of its rights. It says that because aboriginal people had established themselves many thousands of years ago-in fact, a recent archaeological estimate is that the origin of these people in North America can be dated back 100,000 years. I am not about to become involved in archaeological disputes about time. I simply accept that aboriginal people were here since time immemorial. We can put whatever figure we want on it.
Aside from conferring or recognizing that they have the rights that all of us enjoy, what are these special rights that go into this agreement because of aboriginal title? Very briefly, they are wildlife harvesting rights, land ownership and management, surface and sub-surface rights and environmental protection; that is, screening and review bodies. Economic and social development is encouraged.
Then, there is the issue of compensation, which includes $152 million through annual payments over 13 years. That calculation, that agreement, is based on dollars at the time. Those dollars are calculated in 1977 terms. That takes into account inflation. The annual payments are to continue until 1997. There is an economic enhancement fund of $10 million, and $7.5 million for social development. Inuvialuit ownership of 91,000 square kilometres of land is recognized. There are surface and sub-surface rights to which I referred earlier of
11,000	square kilometres. There are also certain exclusive and preferential hunting and fishing rights, structures for wildlife management, a conservation regime for the Yukon, northern slope, including a national park west of the Babbage River and a territorial park on Herschel Island.
Those are just some of the items contained in this agreement that was ratified in June of 1984.
In return for the provision of a range of rights, benefits and compensation, what did the Inuvialuit do in exchange for that?

March 23, 1988
Western Arctic (Inuvialuit Settlement Act)
What they did was surrender their interest in and to certain lands in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon and adjacent off-shore islands and waters. In other words, the Government of Canada recognized the existence in this part of Canada of aboriginal title. I refer to the Mackenzie Delta in the western Arctic. The right of Canada, or as we sometimes say the right of the Crown, has been affirmed by way of agreement which flowed from the negotiations and the settlement of a claim.
I cannot end my remarks without repeating once again, and I know I do it perhaps too often but I do so because I feel strongly about it, that it is my view that the Government of Canada still has it all wrong in its understanding of what constitutes aboriginal title. I repeat again categorically and outright that aboriginal title is not merely an awkward, embarrassing and difficult lien, a shadow or an encumbrance on the Crown right. That is what the experts in the Department of Justice would like us to believe. I cannot accept that.
They would argue that despite recognizing aboriginal title in those terms and agreeing to negotiate a settlement, the Crown right is and the Crown right remains at all times and in every instance pre-eminent. I say, not so. I disagree. Aboriginal title precedes the Crown right and where surrender has not occurred then that aboriginal title in my view takes precedence over the Crown right.
How I ask, historically, could suddenly the Crown right take pre-eminence over aboriginal title? How did that happen? It could only have happened on one kind of historical basis that I am able to understand; that is, if one asserts the divine right of monarchs and one says that the God that was believed in by those who came from Europe was a more powerful God. Therefore the power that the Crown had from that God, that right, remains pre-eminent.
All of that theological nonsense has long been thrown in the ash can of history. That is why we have democracies, Sir. Here in Canada we have one vestige of this divine right concept. It is what we use to hammer the aboriginal people over the head with to say, "Well, whatever you do in your negotiations with us do not think you are talking to an equal here. This is not an equal process at the negotiating table. We will give you something. We will toss you some bucks. We will give you some land and we may even let you fool around a little bit with running some of your own affairs. But do not for a moment get up on your high horse and think that your claim is in any way equal to our claim. Our claim, the Crown right, is always and forever pre-eminent".
To that I say nonsense. That point of view is being chipped away at little by little by little. We have on our side a number of important court decisions that have chipped away at it. Eventually, that ridiculous outdated structure of the preeminent Crown right based on the divine right of monarchs will come tumbling down. We in Canada will have to negotiate these outstanding aboriginal claims based on aboriginal title. We are going to have to sit down in a serious way to negotiate as equals.
More about that on another day, because that is a full debate. I wish to end now simply by saying that I have been in contact regarding Bill C-102 with the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation which advised me:
This will confirm for you the substance of our phone call of Friday, December 4, 1987, indicating that the proposed legislation amending the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act has been discussed with us by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and meets with our approval. Your support for this Bill and efforts to achieve unanimous consent permitting expeditious passage in the House are greatly appreciated.
It is signed by Mr. Roger T. Gruben, Chief Regional Councillor for the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to participate in today's debate on an Act to amend the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act. As my friend from Cochrane-Superior has pointed out, the process with which we are dealing today is second reading and third reading debate on Bill C-102. It is timely in that several of the amendments have already passed into history. However, the amendment proposal is important for future business to be consensually and mutually negotiated and agreed upon between the Government of Canada and the Inuvialuit.
I am pleased to also understand that agreements have been reached between the Government of Canada, for example, the Government of the Yukon so that when future proceedings are taking place they are also involved in and informed of the process that is taking place.
My friend has covered some of the points. I think it is important for the record to have a bit more of the history of the original settlement Act, what it means, who was involved and how it came to be.
The Committee for Original People's Entitlement, COPE, as it was widely known in the media and here in the House of Commons and in committees, was the key structure that dealt with the negotiations process in the original agreement that was signed by the then Prime Minister Trudeau and Mr. Munro as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Simon Reisman was the chief negotiator for Canada, Dennis Patterson was for the Government of the Northwest Territories. He is now the leader of that Government. Chris Pearson represented the Government of the Yukon. He has now gone from politics. For the Committee for Original Peoples' Entitlement at that time it was Peter Green, who was President. He signed together with Charles Haogak, Sam Raddi, Billy Day, Eddie Gruben, Bertha Ruben, Annie Gordon, Elsie Klengenberg, Nellie Cournoyea, Andy Carpenter, Robert Kuptana, Nelson Green, Mark Noksana, Renie Arey, Agnes Semmler, and Bob DeLury, the Chief Negotiator for COPE. At that time it was witnessed by Richard Nerysoo, Maurice Lafontaine, Michael Flavell, and Randal Pokiak.
It was an important moment in time. The Chief Negotiator, Bob DeLury who was living in the area of Burns Lake, was a
March 23, 1988


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I will keep to the Bill a little more than perhaps did the previous speaker. I want to point out that this Bill does three things. It incorporates into law three agreements that have already been made between the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation and the Governor in Council of Canada.
The first one of these deals would be retroactive application of PIP grants on certain Inuvialuit lands. Inuvialuit lands are private lands. They are not public lands anymore. Title to them has been conveyed to the Inuvialuit organizations. We no longer have PIP grants. They went the same way as the rest of the National Energy Program, fortunately, but apparently there must have been applications made for PIP grants for work done on Inuvialuit lands.
When we get to Committee of the Whole perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to explain how this comes about, how much money is involved, how many dollars worth of PIP grants are to be given, if they have not been given already, and to which corporations.
The second thing we do in this Bill is to correct 14 pages in all of errors that appeared in the Inuvialuit final agreement. There are reams and reams of errors that came to light and now have to be corrected. Most of them are of a typographical nature. Quite a few deal with land descriptions, wrong latitudes and longitudes. This came about as a result of the
March 23, 1988

undue haste toward the summer of 1984 by the then Minister, the Hon. John Munro. He knew in the election to be held later that year that he and his Government would stand very little chance of re-election and he wanted to get a feather in his hat. He pushed this matter before he had dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's.
It is also interesting to note that at that time the great Liberal negotiator was none other than our good friend Simon Reisman. In occurs to me that if these 14 pages of errors are a sample of that hon. gentleman's handiwork, I hope he has done a little better with the free trade agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Dave Nickerson: I know when we discussed the Inuvialuit Bill way back on June 26, 1984 some of those errors were already apparent, especially those dealing with land descriptions. I pointed them out at that time and I remember questioning the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee of the Whole. He said, "Don't nit-pick. Don't bother with those little errors. They are not important. You should have faith in the negotiators. They have done a good job. It is not for you or I to read through the fine print. We can leave that up to the negotiators and the people in the government departments. What is the difference between 68 degrees and 69 degrees? It doesn't make any difference."
I stand here today and feel somewhat vindicated. I have the pleasure of being able to say, "I told you so". It doesn't do me much good, because it is all water under the bridge now, but it gives you a nice feeling.
The third thing today is to amend the amending formula. Under the old Article 3(13) you need an agreement by Canada and the IRC. Presumably that meant an active Parliament to make any change at all. Now Canada is represented by the Governor in Council and the IRC can be done by the Order in Council route. When you have these very complex lengthy agreements you need some form of flexibility. At the same time, I share some of the concerns mentioned by the previous two speakers.
In the Canadian Constitution, if you look at Sections 25 and 35, Mr. Speaker, you will see that we have constitutionally enshrined, not treaties and land claims settlements but the rights that flow from there. If you want to make a change there, you have to go by the whole amending formula-seven out of ten provinces and 50 per cent of the population. This requirement will shortly need to be changed to unanimity. Then at the other end of scale we are making it extremely easy. All you need is a little Order in Council to make changes. I do not know if we have the balance right. It all depends, I guess, on what you can change by the Order in Council route. Perhaps when the Minister speaks in committee he can explain to us what types of changes will be made under the new Subsection 3(13) and what types of changes cannot be made by that simple route.
Western Arctic (Inuvialuit Settlement Act)
Perhaps you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, for looking back just a little over what has happened in the last three and one half years or so since the land claims agreement came into effect. I do not want to take up too much of the House's time doing this, nor do I not want to address every issue that I addressed in the lengthy speech I gave on June 26, 1984. At that time I pointed out the bureaucratic nature of the agreement.
It is unfortunate that native organizations negotiating these land-claim agreement so often become the mirror images of the government bureaucracies with which they have to deal. We end up with an extremely complex and bureaucratic settlement which needs continuous administration. I made that point at the time, and that has come to light over the years.
There was a myriad of boards and committees to be established to administer the settlement. Now the Inuvialuit regional corporations and the others that were set up are in the process of trying to amalgamate to become more workable. At that time, one of my main points was the collective rather than the individual nature of the settlement and what that would likely lead to. I think I deserve at least seven out of 10 on my predictions on that score.
What has happened now is that those people who are part of the system, members of the bureaucracy, or those who hold elected positions within the Inuvialuit organizations, seem to be doing okay, but it is debatable whether or not the people who are not part of that system, the ordinary guys on the street, so to speak, are getting a lot of advantage from the settlement. When I talk to people, I find that there are always questions in their minds about where the money goes. We know that there is approximately $170 million involved in this and I get asked questions like why some of that money is down in Bermuda instead of in Inuvik. People question consultant fees and those kinds of things.
Perhaps there is some room for improvement. Perhaps we should learn from the mistakes we are bound to make as we negotiate these settlements. We have the James Bay and the Inuvialuit settlements, and with the ones that come, perhaps we could learn from the mistakes that have been made and try to get a settlement from which everyone can benefit, not just a new class of people that grows up for administrative purposes.
Now I want to make a few points about one of the things that was not addressed four years ago, but which ought to have been addressed, and this is the question of Mr. William Nasogaluak, proprietor of Canadian Reindeer Limited. Perhaps I should explain what went on in the past.
In the 1920s, I believe, the Government of Canada brought reindeer in from Alaska, drove them overland to the area around Tuktoyaktuk and operated the herd as a government herd for quite a few years. Eventually, it was privatized. It was sold to private individuals and with the reindeer went property in the form of grazing rights. Mr. Nasogaluak acquired the

March 23, 1988
Western Arctic (Inuvialuit Settlement Act)
herd and the grazing rights. However, under the Act and under the Inuvialuit final agreement, his property rights, those grazing rights, were expropriated, taken away from him, without any compensation whatsoever. I cannot recall any other instance of a citizen of Canada being treated so badly by his or her Government.
Were the Canadian Bill of Rights to have paramountcy, as the Hon. John Diefenbaker originally had wanted, and were property rights to be included, as they ought to be in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms under the Canadian Constitution, what happened to Mr. Nasogaluak could not have happened or there would have been an automatic recourse at law.
I feel that the Government of Canada has a moral obligation to make sure that Mr. Nasogaluak is treated properly. We recall that Simon Reisman is quoted to have said, when this was brought to his attention, "What's 15,000 reindeer to the Government of Canada?" It is quite a bit to me, and the property rights of one individual Canadian are important to me.
Can you imagine, Sir, what would have happened if the person whose land had been expropriated had not been a reindeer herder from Tuktoyaktuk but a rancher from Alberta, a farmer from Saskatchewan or someone whose apartment house in downtown Toronto had been expropriated without any compensation?
When we were discussing this matter four years ago in Committee of the Whole, I asked Mr. Gingras, the Parliamentary Secretary who was then representing the Government, the following:
May we have the assurance of the Government that it will deal honestly and
faithfully with the owners of the reindeer herd so that those owners do not find
themselves at a loss as a result of the passage of this Bill?
The answer was:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
That undertaking given by the Liberal Government of the day was a promise broken. Nothing was done.
The current Minister has tried to get Canadian Reindeer Limited and the Inuvialuit together to negotiate an agreement whereby the Inuvialuit would take over the reindeer herd at a reasonable price. There is an agreement by one who acted on behalf of the Government of Canada, Mr. Gunther Abraham-son, as to what the value of that herd was, but the Inuvialuit would never offer anywhere near the figure that was agreed to.
I would like to have seen the Government step in to provide that extra little bit to make it up. We have $170 million being paid out pursuant to the agreement, so what is another couple of million dollars to provide proper compensation? However, that was not happening.
I understand some of the difficulties the Minister has faced. Although there is an undoubted moral obligation on the part of the Government of today, regardless of the fact that the Party in office has changed, I understand that the advice of the
Department of Justice is that outside of a judicial finding which might arrive in the future, there is no legal obligation on the part of the Government to make that compensation at the present time.
What we have done is to force Mr. Nasogaluak to go to the courts to get recompense or fair treatment. Then, of course, if someone were to ask a Minister of the Crown about the matter, he could say that it is before the courts, we cannot do anything. This is something about which I feel extremely strong. I think justice must be done, and I look forward to the opportunity we will have to question the Minister on this issue when, very shortly, we get to the Committee of the Whole proceedings so that he can tell us what he is now doing and what he will continue to do to make sure that justice will be done.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-102, an Act to amend the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act.
Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-Agreement


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank my hon. friend from Western Arctic. He has posed the three questions that need to be answered.
The first aspect is that with PIP gone, as of April, in terms of any claims, what is the history with respect to the Inuvialuit?
The second question deals with what type of changes will go through Order in Council and what type will require legislation. Is there a distinction there?
Finally, there is the matter of the Canadian Reindeer herd. My hon. friend from the Western Arctic said the Liberal promise had been broken. I found that curious because when the Parliamentary Secretary said "Yes", it was June 26, 1984, and a few weeks later there was an election. It is very difficult for a Liberal Government to fulfil a promise when it is not returned to power by the electorate. However, I accept the argument that a commitment is a commitment and I take the view that a commitment is passed on from one administration to the other. It is a moral commitment and I hope the Minister will tell us that he will not fall back on the legalistic point of view, and that the Government will do what is right.
Those are the questions that were on my mind and I thank my hon. friend from the Western Arctic for articulating them so precisely.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, on the Hon. Member's first question, basically the legislation put forward did not allow for
March 23, 1988

PIPs which were obtainable from Crown land to be obtainable from what was now Inuvialuit land. The proposal, and both Members asked about this, retroactively made it legal to have the PIPs which would have applied to Crown land now apply to Inuvialuit land even though PIPs expired as of April. I am attempting to obtain the dollar figures. I have asked my officials to get this information for Members before we adjourn. If I am not able to do that, I will communicate it in writing to Members who have expressed an interest.
On the second question, all amendments would be by Order in Council. However, as the Hon. Member knows, we would not entertain basic changes that would fundamentally alter the agreement signed between Canada and the Inuvialuit.
On the third question, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic, and I have had discussions on this in the past. The history of the Canadian Reindeer herd has been reviewed by this House. Members who are familiar with it understand that in the Inuvialuit settlement agreement about half the grazing area available to Canadian Reindeer had been transferred to Inuvialuit land. Both my predecessor, the Hon. Member for Rosedale, and I have tried to initiate discussions between two private parties to resolve the concern. I met with both the owner of Canadian Reindeer and the Inuvialuit leadership. We put forward the possibility of arbitration. We hoped both parties would agree to accept binding arbitration even though it was not incumbent upon them to do so. As long as the agreement was there, we would bring into play the experts who could assess the value of the herd at the time. That was acceptable to Canadian Reindeer but not to the Inuvialuit.
In the discussions we have had since, I have attempted to fulfil Canada's obligations in other ways. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that I found it a bit difficult. The owner of Canadian Reindeer had, as I understand it, an opportunity to make sales. The Government of the Northwest Territories made those sales very difficult by looking at the export permit which the owner had. At the same time, while Canada was not objecting to the sale, Canada did reserve the right to repurchase 3,000 of the herd. I think that was prudent.
Right now, as my colleague from Western Arctic indicated, there are court actions under way. Starting in May, 1987, the Inuvialuit initiated legal proceedings against Canadian Reindeer Limited in the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. Canadian Reindeer in turn launched an action against Canada on September 2, 1987. It also filed a third party notice, I gather, in the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. That does make enunciation of ways to resolve this dispute a little more difficult, as Hon. Members will understand. I can say only that we have attempted to arbitrate and would be prepared to continue to do so. I believe there is a business opportunity in the Northwest Territories involving Canadian Reindeer Herd Limited and I hope we are able to maintain that business opportunity.
Western Arctic (Inuvialuit Settlement Act)
I am sorry to be taking so long but I find it difficult to explain the discussions between two private parties as they came to pass through the signing of the final agreement.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I listened with care to what the Hon. Minister had to say concerning amendments associated with, I take it, basically the 18 essential elements. If it is related to the elements, then by mutual consent new amendments can be dealt with through Bill C-102. What I am wondering about, though, concerns additional matters. Let us take self-government as an example. Is the Minister suggesting that if there is going to be a major add-on such as selfgovernment or something else in relation to the Inuvialuit-or, for that matter, other groups, but let us deal with the Inuvialuit for the moment-then that would require either a constitutional process or a new Bill coming through the House? Is that what the Minister is saying with respect to major new add-ons?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, the self-government
provisions which the Hon. Member finds in the final agreement will stay. However, any other form that would change the structure of the self-government would have to be either through processes that recognize other types of self-government and be done in the same form, or else it would have to be done through legislation. I would consider that to be a major deviation from what was negotiated in the final settlement.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, different figures have been sort of bobbled around. I wonder if the Minister could clarify them for the record. How much has been actually paid out under the agreement and how much more is yet to be paid out? Hopefully we could have those figures in 1982 dollars, 1977 dollars, or whatever.
Are the basic elements in the Inuvialuit agreement the essential elements which the Minister sees as being in the other comprehensive claim negotiations which are going on at this time, or are there others? Will it will require new legislative action for the Inuvialuit to make major new add-ons? We are talking about only certain things related to the elements that are there that can be dealt with through the Order in Council route by Bill C-102. Are those other comprehensive negotiations that are going on in the Yukon, B.C., and elsewhere, restricted by that?
Is the Minister suggesting that the Government policy is that if one is to look at the collective land title and rights box of the Inuvialuit agreement that is seen as being one contained route one could have it passed through the House as legislation? Or can those negotiations which are presently under way have additional elements such as some broader definitions of self-government? As the Minister well knows, that is what some of the negotiations are dealing with, as well as issues such as fishing rights, land rights and so on.

March 23, 1988
Western Arctic (Inuvialuit Settlement Act)


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, in response to the Hon. Member's first question, $74 million, current value, has been paid out which, 1 understand, leaves $76 million, current value.
With regard to the Hon. Member's other point, the most direct way to put it would be that self-government or definitions of self-government which cannot be obtained through other processes cannot be obtained through comprehensive claims. That would, I think, be fair to say. The comprehensive claims process is not in place to put into law that which cannot be obtained through other negotiations and by other aboriginal people.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I would like just a little more clarification. I am sort of coming back to the Inuvialuit agreement as a box containing, you could say, 20 elements and the annexes. However, are the 18 essential principles the essential principles, both legal in terms of absolute title fee simple and in terms of fishing rights, wildlife rights, compensation and so on, that are being considered by government policy to be the basic components of the other six comprehensive claims negotiations which are presently under way?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, the Inuvialuit settlement was reached before the claims policy which was announced in December of 1986. There is, I believe, more opportunity for an expanded box-but I would suggest it is still a box-for discussions and recognition of land which is important to communities plus recognition of land which has been used historically for hunting and trapping.
With regard to the defining of land into different zones, there is a limitation to quantum depending on the number of zones and the type of selection made.
The ownership of subsurface on all lands is not available. However, certain lands can be selected for ownership of subsurface. That is an additional flexibility which I would see in the other comprehensive claims agreement which are not and were not available in the Inuvialuit agreement.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, returning to the reindeer question, am I to understand that at the present time the Government of Canada is doing nothing to try to resolve this issue?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the attempt to have a binding arbitration between the two private parties, the owners of Canadian Reindeer and the Inuvialuit, I made an offer after meeting with both the owner and the Inuvialuit that we would enter into binding arbitration and assist them in that. That offer was accepted by Canadian Reindeer and not found to be acceptable to the Inuvialuit. After that time, in May of 1987, if I am correct, action was initiated in court.
At this time I am prepared to assist in any form of mediation, but I would not become involved in supporting a case or discussions with either party which would involve the actions taken in court until that action is either concluded or withdrawn.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, one of the problems is that the value of the herd is likely to be in decline. There is undoubtedly a lot of poaching going on. The owners of the herd are unable to have a proper harvest because they are scared that as soon as they move the abattoir up there and get it hooked up and ready to go and bring in the slaughterhouse workers, an injunction will be slapped on them. There is a big investment involved in starting up and they would lose many tens of thousands of dollars.
Proper management techniques cannot be applied to the herd and revenue cannot be generated from it by way of meat sales and there is therefore no money to reinvest into the herd. Canada is the loser.
This was a great, successful experiment. We ought to have a reindeer industry in Canada. There are other places in the North where it could be applied. Prices are excellent as a result of the unfortunate circumstances in Europe with the Chernobyl disaster. We should be able to capitalize on that but that is not taking place.
I am afraid that if the legal proceedings run their full course by the time a settlement is made by the court there will be nothing left for anyone.
I know that if the Government of Canada really wants to take it upon itself to do something, whether to change the Canadian Constitution or to enter into a free trade agreement with the United States, it can do it. If the will is there the Government of Canada can do virtually anything. Is it not possible to try to open up negotiations again or to have another go around, another shot at it?
So far the tack taken by the Government appears to have been to get the Inuvialuit and Canadian Reindeer together to negotiate some kind of deal between them. However, I do not think there is any moral obligation on the Inuvialuit to do that if they do not want to. It would be nice if they would, but the moral obligation is on the Government of Canada, not on the Inuvialuit. If the Inuvialuit say, "We do not want to play ball", surely the obligation rests on the Government of Canada to address the issue in another way.
Can we not have another go around at this? Can he not appoint someone to look at it again and meet with the people involved to find out what is happening and see whether there is another avenue of approach? Perhaps he can meet again with some of the principals involved.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, let me answer the last question first. I find it very difficult to enter into negotiations.
I sincerely believe that there must be a willing buyer and willing seller in order to conclude the agreement.
As the Hon. Member knows, an offer was made of $1.2 million. The independent assessment was that the herd was worth over $5 million. I believe my hon. friend is saying that the Government of Canada should enter into it and make up
March 23, 1988

the difference. I understand and appreciate the way in which he expresses his concern.
Since that offer took place I discussed it with both the Inuvialuit and the owner of Canadian Reindeer. That is when I put forward a proposal in a letter to both parties in which I suggested that I would like to see a contract outlining the conditions for the sale and purchase of the Reindeer herd which is mutually acceptable. I went on to say: "This contract could contain certainly a clause whereby the purchase price would be established through a binding arbitration procedure".
When there are two private individuals, one selling and one buying, it is very difficult for the Government of Canada to come into the middle without some recognition that an arbitrator would be required to make a binding decision. It has been further complicated since that time by the court actions taken by both parties.
I can assure my colleague that I have not washed my hands of this, but I do find it very difficult to be involved in it at this time.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I want to return to a point I was raising with the Minister a moment ago. It concerns changes that can be made. As I understand the amending agreement now, it can only be done with mutual consent. Therefore, if the Inuvialuit or the Government has an idea, they must find a mutually agreeable way to word any change. It then gets the imprimatur of Order in Council and becomes added to the agreement.
Clause 3(2) of the agreement states that: "For greater certainty it is the intention of the parties that this agreement be a land claims agreement within the meaning of Section 35(3) of the Constitution Act, 1982".
Does this mean that the only way the Government can change the agreement is through legislation before the House, with the exception of some subsections? For example, for the expropriation of land there are certain powers provided to allow the Government to take certain steps.
In relation to the legal and constitutional nuance, however, is this a treaty or is it an agreement? As I read it, it is not protected by the Constitution of Canada.
If one looks at the wording, it is the intention that it be considered as such, but I would like some clarification from the Minister. Is it protected by the Constitution? What is the difference between the Inuvialuit agreement and a treaty like Treaty 8?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, as the Hon. Member knows, the agreement states that it is considered to be under the protection of the Constitution of Canada. That is the way it reads and that is the consideration of the Government of Canada. It is considered to be under the protection of the Constitution of Canada.
Western Arctic (Inuvialuit Settlement Act)
It is a piece of legislation under that clause of the Constitution which was considered by the House to have protection in the Constitution.
I do not want to put words in my colleague's mouth, but I think he was asking if it is recognized as a treaty. It is recognized as having protection under the Constitution of Canada.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Chairman, I have one further question regarding the kind of changes that can use the new amending formula. In the agreement between the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation and the Government of Canada, as signed by the Minister and Mr. Roger Gruben, there is reference to the fact that where an amendment to this agreement requires consequential legislation to achieve its effect, Canada agrees to take all reasonable steps to put in place suitable legislation forthwith.
Could the Minister explain clearly what is envisaged within the ambit of that phrase "consequential legislation"?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, the only example I can give my colleague at this time is the Parks Act, which may need to be changed to bring into effect the changes that are contemplated or could be made. That is the only one I can identify.
The Government of Canada will make those consequential amendments to other Acts. I do not believe it would be substantially changing the agreement, just keeping it current.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take one more try at finding out from the Minister the difference between the Inuvialuit agreement, which is considered to be protected by the Constitution of Canada, and a treaty like Treaty 8. What are the legal and constitutional differences?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, I can only inform my colleague that this is considered to have the protection of the Constitution of Canada. Treaties are identified in the Constitution of Canada. I suggest that that is the difference.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to learn a little bit more from the Minister. If the Minister were an Inuvialuit, would he prefer to be protected by an agreement such as the Inuvialuit agreement with this amending formula, or by a treaty?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, the point is that this is a land claims agreement which is considered to have the constitutional protection. The other is a treaty which is identified as having constitutional protection.
Not being an Inuvialuit, I would have a great deal of difficulty making that decision. However, when I view the land claims settlement which is considered to have constitutional protection or a treaty which is identified, I think they are equal.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 1 carry?

March 23, 1988
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.

Benoît Bouchard: that Bill C-116, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 be read the second time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and, by unanimous consent the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-116, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.
Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-"Disentitled"


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I have a few words to say about the Bill. First, I wish to congratulate the Minister for moving so expeditiously on a particular issue that caught the attention of the nation. I think it is fair to say that when Mr. Mclnnis visited Ottawa and his picture was flashed around the country with his baby I realized that underneath the Minister's tough exterior beats a heart that any socialist might be proud to have.
There are those of us who might be so unkind as to suggest that in spite of all the complaints and the recommendations of the Boyer Commission report, equality for all, the standing committee report and the forget commission report, the Government ought to move in the direction of establishing parental care within the Unemployment Insurance Act. For all these last four years nothing could move the Government or the previous Minister, who is now the Minister of Communications, to move in this direction. The Government did not see fit to move.
What adults and politicians were not able to achieve by logic or by consensus a small baby was able to achieve. I think that is appropriate. I wish to congratulate the Minister for having responded in such a human fashion and in such a sensitive fashion to correct this need.
It happened fortuitously that the other aspect of change which is included in the Bill came about at the same time when two women, one in Halifax and one in Vancouver, gave birth prematurely. The babies had to stay in hospital while the
mothers went home. They, of course, went back to work and when the babies came home from the hospital they went down to the UI office to file for their maternity benefits. However, they discovered to their amazement that they could not collect because they were outside the initial benefit period, which is the first 25 weeks of every claim. Thus the Minister was able to tackle two problems at one time.
In Bill C-116 there are two aspects. First, there is the ability of fathers, when the mothers have died or have become disabled to a point where they are incapable of caring for the child, to collect unemployment insurance benefits, provided they have a major attachment to the workforce, that is, they have contributed 20 weeks of insurable earnings.
The second aspect is with regard to the premature child. The mother will now be able to collect benefits provided it is within a 52 week period.
These are both very laudable moves. This Bill will correct those inequities. Unfortunately, it is our view in the New Democratic Party that this Bill does not go far enough. This Party has said to the Government that it ought to establish maternity benefits for which only the mother is eligible. Those maternity benefits ought to amount to 17 weeks. They ought to be only for the mother. They are not to be shared between the mother and the father.
This is very unlike the position taken by the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party. In fact, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East announced that she was entering a Private Member's Bill that would in fact share maternity benefits between the mother and the father. That is totally unacceptable to the New Democratic Party. I am glad to see that the Government accepted that position and refused to have those 17 weeks shared.
We also said that the Government ought to go beyond that and include parental benefits, an additional 26 weeks. All the enlightened countries of Europe have recognized the need for parental benefits within their unemployment insurance programs. We have urged the Government to do this. Not only have we urged it, but so has the Boyer Commission in its report and the parliamentary committee on day care. We are still pushing for it.
We have to accept and take what is being offered because it corrects an injustice. However, we fully recognize that the Minister has established a principle which it will take a New Democratic Party Government to complete. I wish to say to all parents who are watching this debate that that is the only guarantee they have that we will move toward treating parents and children with some justice under the unemployment insurance program.
I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that we will support this. My leader and gave our commitment in the House that we will expedite this Bill and move it through.
March 23, 1988

I also said to the Minister the other day that the Elon. Member for Vancouver East wished to say a few words on this particular Bill. I think that this is only fair and just since she participated in the parliamentary day care committee which filed its report in 1987. It had a lot to do with child care and parental care in the unemployment insurance program.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I will have to recognize the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie, and then I will return to the Hon. Member for Vancouver East.


Mr. Malepart:: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and deal with Bill C-116, a major peace of legislation the purpose of which is to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
As my NPD friend just did, I want to congratulate the Minister for having responded. Unfortunately, I have also cause for complaints. In this particular matter as in many others, this Tory Government had to wait for a disaster before taking action.
The Minister certainly remember the Forget Commission which cost Canadian taxpayers $6 million. There was also a Committee of the House where all Members were unanimously asking, on the paternity leave issue, a certain equality as far as unemployment insurance benefits are concerned. The House will remember that the Minister tore up this document and threw it into the waste basket, thereby squandering a lot of taxpayers' money. The Government had to wait for a mother to die to take action.
If, at the time, in view of the unanimous recommendations of the House Committee-my friend the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) was quite active on this committee-on the changes to be made to the unemployment insurance legislation to improve the effectiveness of the administration and do justice to people .. .
And while the debate continues with respect to sharing, or the allowances for maternity or paternity leave, to carry forward the weeks eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, we also remember that today still in other instances there is discrimination against older workers.
The Minister has reacted and we commend him for that, but I would be remiss if I failed to congratulate my colleague from Hamilton who put a lot of pressure on the Minister. Otherwise we might not have this Bill. Pressure came from the public, from my colleague from Hamilton, from my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, and at long last the Minister came up with Bill C-116 to correct his mistakes, particularly his failure to give serious consideration to the unanimous parliamentary report urging him to change some of the unemployment insurance rules.
Mr. Speaker, indeed we can be positive, but unfortunately I would like the Minister to tell us why every time this Government ... We remember the de-indexation of old age pensions. There again people had to demonstrate, elderly Canadians had to walk on Parliament Hill, Mrs. Denis had to throw insults or
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
show the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) the truth before he would even admit he was wrong. It was the same for the tax on pharmaceutical products, Mr. Chairman. Once more, the Government waited until there had been pressures and a demonstration before deciding to withdraw its proposal. The same happened in the case of unemployment insurance. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) went through a similar experience recently. No one in this Government, in the party opposite, seems able to realize that certain members of our society have needs which differ from those of the majority, of those who are able to make arrangements and pay their own way.
I must congratulate the Minister for having introduced this Bill, but as I said earlier, it is thanks to my colleague for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), my colleague for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), and the entire Liberal caucus, and to the pressures exerted by the population that this Government acted quickly in this instance.
On the other hand, we have to wonder why, since the Minister is making two changes in this Bill, he did not take this opportunity to make other changes as concerns unemployment insurance benefits for older workers who lose their jobs. As he was correcting one injustice and trying to improve the situation, why should we have to wait until there have been more pressures and more representations to have another Bill which will bring about a complete reform of the Unemployment Insurance Plan to provide better equity and more justice for our young poeple? The public, the unions, as well as the employers all requested a complete reform of the Unemployment Insurance Plan, but the Government is making piecemeal changes. This means that all that we are doing now is to correct past mistakes. Such has been the case for the refunds to the 46,000 senior citizens, and thanks again to the early retirees who pressured the Government, they got a grandfa-therly refund.
We have another example now with paternity leave. But speaking of paternity leave, we should ensure that what the minister will be offering tomorrow is not something else than the choice for the family. When the parent at home, either the mother or father, has to look after a child, he or she will be eligible for UI benefits. Under the Bill now before us, only in case of death would the father have automatic eligibility to UI benefits. It is not an opening to sex equality in the sense of choosing, or allowing those people the right of choice.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we in the Liberal Party are proud that this legislation was tabled. We will co-operate as my colleagues did to its speedy adoption. But there are still questions, interrogation marks. It is my hope the Minister will tell us in the first place why he waited for so long. Why did he not anticipate? I would think that governing is not simply correcting, but anticipating the future, rather than simply putting out fires, because on that matter the Minister has been acting like a fireman who puts out fire. Firemen we have no

March 23, 1988
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
need of. We have them in our cities to put out fires. A Government is there to anticipate. Elopefully the Minister will indicate and explain why, in the wake of the recommendations made not only by the Forget Commission but the recommendations indeed of the Standing Committee on which three Conservative Members were very active ... The Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) worked on that issue, and I know he is a close friend of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maison-neuve (Mr. Desrosiers). The support for a greater extension of paternity and maternity leave is unanimous.
Mr. Chairman, it seems there are friendships I was not aware of. But I remember, and I am sure my colleague from the New Democratic Party can testify to that, that the Hon. Member for La Prairie played an active role. He even put his head on the block defending those interests. But why was not the minister attentive, sensitive and understanding? Why did he not listen? The important thing is to listen to the people. One must not only reason but also listen to one's heart and remember there are people with needs. Those are three changes people requested. One must listen, reflect, follow one's heart and then act. If the Minister had done all that immediately, following the recommendations made in the Committee's report, he would have made changes and introduced amendments, and then this particular case would not have become a public issue, the Minister having made provision for such an eventuality at the time.
Incidentally, I wish the Minister would tell us why he waited so long to do something about this case. I also wish the Minister would tell us why ... well, I imagine there are a lot of older workers, all the people from Vickers and Coleco, all those people across Canada, people from the Quebec City area and Sorel who are going to be laid off because of the Conservative Government's decision, and who when they turn 55 go to the Unemployment Insurance office. So one of them says: Look, the Tories put me out of a job because they gave the frigate contracts to my pals in New Brunswick, and so there was nothing left for Quebec. So he says: I came to get my unemployment insurance cheque. So then the UIC man says: Sure, you paid your contributions, you made sacrifices for so many years, and you and your employer both paid into your pension, because the Government said to be prepared. But unfortunately, we have this Bouchard Bill and now you aren't entitled to full unemployment insurance benefits. Even if you did lose your job. Sure, but I didn't want to lose my job. And the man says: Sure, I realize that, but I'm afraid the Conservative Members and the Minister didn't understand. So I wish the Minister would tell me . . .
I know there are some Conservative Members, maybe not the Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), since he may have trouble talking to the Minister, but maybe another Member told the Minister that older workers who are losing their jobs wished the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie had something to congratulate the Minister about in this Bill. I wish I could have said thank you to the Minister
today. I wish I could have said congratulations, you were generous! You removed the injustice about paternity leave and extensions and made maternity leave more flexible. But what the Minister should do as well is remove the discrimination against benefits for older workers.
My second question, Mr. chairman-and I would like the Minister to give us a clear and specific answer so I will repeat the question: Why did he waste all that money on inquiries and studies? Why didn't he think of it beforehand? Why didn't he plan ahead so as to bring forward a Bill in time instead of going uphill all the way and always having to react to events and put off fires? Why didn't he take this opportunity to bring forward amendments relating to the pre-retirement of older workers who lose their jobs? He could also have proposed changes to improve eligibility requirements for maternity leave and accessibility criteria for part-time workers.
There were several aspects to the matter. The Minister could have taken that opportunity to correct these mistakes. Of course, the Minister would prefer congratulations. Unfortunately, we cannot congratulate him as much as he would have wanted because had he listened not only to Opposition members but to Government members, he would not have had to flip-flop and be embarrassed the way he is.
Today, the Minister may feel well. But once more I have to ask him to listen to his own heart. Mr. Minister, you sure feel all right. I feel all right too. I had a pension plan in my previous job. With a pension and a Minister's or an M.P.'s salary, you've got to feel all right. But there are thousands of working men and women out there who do not feel that good.
At the end of the month they have to pay for groceries and rent, so when there is no unemployment cheque and they can see the neighbour who used to be a school principal, who had a lot of money to invest in an RRSP, who now gets his money back and enjoys the good life... So it is not a question of whether we parliamentarians feel fine, but whether we have done our job to make sure that the people we represent are feeling fine. I must tell the Minister that I am familiar with his beautiful riding, the beautiful region of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean-I am their spokesman in the Liberal Party-where I met people who are not at all satisfied with the Minister, even in the riding of Roberval. Older workers in that region are not pleased with the Minister because he does not listen to them, he does not understand them. I also visited the Eastern Townships, and the situation is the same. Older workers, both men and women-and even those of Trois-Rivieres-are reorganizing in Quebec City, and even in Abitibi people are disappointed because they have the impression that their Members of Parliament fail to represent them properly.
Perhaps Hon. Members are saying something because the Hon. Member for La Prairie, I know, had warned him, but my impression is that the Minister should listen a little more and respond with his heart, just as he did yesterday on the immigration issue.
March 23, 1988

There are three question marks, Mr. Speaker. I still have some time left and I see that the Minister is interested in what I am saying. He is starting to listen. We can feel his heart is opening. Perhaps he is going to tell us, and it is a pity that the Hon. Member for La Prairie is not here ... The Minister may let his heart speak out. Do not listen to the civil servant over there: He is well paid and he will do what he is told. We have been elected to tell him what to do and he will do what we tell him to do. The Minister's problem may be that he listens too much to the civil servant who is saying: "Benoit, this is what you have to do". We have been elected to tell...
Personally, if I had wanted to be a civil servant, I would have remained an employee of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and I would have operated the way the other guy said. But you are all here as elected Members of this House, and this is something that affects each and every one of your ridings. We are here to tell civil servants what to do. You operate the way the people who elected us want you to operate.
I am sure that if each ... If there were no TV cameras, I am sure that the Tory Members would tell the Minister that Canadians want him to remove all discrimination against older people. I am convinced that within the Tory caucus, there is not a single Member-except perhaps one or two, because you will find all sorts in that party-who would stand up and suggest that the Government should fall hard on older people.
I should not be extremely surprised if one or two did, though. I am convinced that the Minister will tell us-Please, tell your official to keep his papers and tell us what you really think personally. You are going to see that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie and the other Members who sat on the House Committee which dealt with the unemployment insurance situation were right to warn us about paternity and maternity leaves.
I suggest that if you allow your heart to speak out, you will say that I was right, but that because of the situation, corrections had to be made. On another aspect, you are going to say that it is true, that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is right, that Canadians are right to demand changes for older workers who were denied unemployment insurance benefits. You are going to say that it is true, because if you do not say so, it will appear to the public that your colleagues never talk about that. This would go down badly in their ridings, even in Western Canada. As I look at the member opposite who used to be a policeman, I am reminded of the fact that policemen pay unemployment insurance and have compulsory retirement, just like the military. I do not think that policemen are very happy with the president of the national caucus, who is himself a former policeman. I am convinced that he spoke to the Minister. However, the Minister listens, opens his heart, and then starts talking.
I trust... Mr. Chairman, I wonder how much time I have left because I have the feeling that the Minister is beginning to respond, that we are slowly getting him away from the influence of his officials, that he is now taking over and that he will agree with the amendments moved either by ourselves or
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
by the NDP, because whatever our party, we all want what is best for Canadians. I now see that my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I shall come back to this when we deal with the other clause if we find that there is still something missing, because I want to ensure that we shall have a compassionate piece of legislation which will meet the needs of the public and that the officials will operate how we want them to operate in serving the public. However, in closing, I must say that our public servants basically do a good job. Some of them in their sixth floor offices in Ottawa might be a bit out of touch with reality, but the officials in my own riding, that of the Minister and that of the NDP Member also find the system discriminatory, and they are the ones who must deal with the complaints of the older workers who are being penalized. They are the ones who have to deal with the problem when the head of a family tells them: Why am I not entitled to the benefits? They are the ones who get called names.
It is not the Deputy Minister in his ivory tower with his well-paid job. We are here to urge these people to move, and I have the feeling that the Minister will let his heart speak for him. I expect a favourable answer.


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Chairman, let me say as quickly as I can that I am very pleased to speak in favour of this Bill. I want to congratulate the Minister. However, I wish I were also able to-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: -congratulate him on having included more comprehensive coverage under the Unemployment Insurance Act for maternity and parental leave. I must say that I am very sorry that the federal Government's strategy for child care neglects this very important aspect of child development which is that working parents, either fathers or mothers, must have the opportunity to be at home with their children during the first year of their children's lives.
I think it is very interesting that this case was started by a father. I think it is very natural that the men in this House, some of whom have spoken today, immediately identified with that father who did indeed face a serious situation in being widowed and left with the care of a new infant without the benefit of unemployment insurance.
I would like to remind the men who did identify very strongly with Mr. Mclnnis, however, that there are thousands and thousands of single-women parents who are on welfare and are not eligible for unemployment insurance. We all felt very strongly for Mr. Mclnnis, but let us not forget those thousands of women who are trying to bring up children and new babies and have no choice but to live on very low rates of welfare.

March 23, 1988
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
I would like to congratulate both Mr. Mclnnis and the women who were the guinea pigs whose cases resulted in changes to the Act. I am referring particularly to the case of Cathy MacLean from Nova Scotia, a case I raised in the House when I asked the Minister to use his discretionary powers to assist her. I am glad he did not have to use those powers. Instead, he amended the Act. This also means that Melanie Williams of Vancouver, whose case was raised several times by the Hon. Member for Capilano along with many other women who have had premature babies, will benefit.
Now the mothers of premature babies, babies who have to be left in hospital for a much longer period than normal and need their mothers' care when they come out of hospital, will benefit from the flexibility in the Act that will allow unemployment insurance benefits to be delayed until they are needed. That is a very good move.
These two amendments have significant implications suggesting that the Government is finally accepting the need to incorporate child care provisions in the Unemployment Insurance Act. We are pleased about that. We are also very pleased that these provisions are incorporated under the adoption section of the Act rather than the maternity benefits section of the Act. Maternity benefits that are intended for mothers during the period of time after birth will be protected.
I would join with my colleague in saying that I am very surprised and disappointed that the Liberals, and particularly the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, have not seen the point. They have not been sensitive to the needs of mothers who have given birth and need the protection of maternity leave for their own recovery as well as for the care of their newborns. These mothers must have that right protected under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Incidentally, they should not have to wait for two weeks to apply for unemployment insurance, it should be a 17-week provision. That was the recommendation of the special committee majority report as well.
I will try to cut my remarks short, but I did want to comment on the need for extended and enriched maternity and parental benefits. The Minister knows full well that the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the parliamentary committee on equality rights, the Forget Commission, the New Democratic Party report on child care, as well as many groups across Canada have advocated the doing away with the two-week waiting period and the use of a two-tiered system of maternity and parental leave. Maternity benefits should go to the biological mother and parental benefits to either mothers or fathers. We hope more fathers will take advantage of this. This provision should apply after the first 17 weeks and it should be available for natural as well as adoptive parents.
With so many parents working, it is extremely important that we recognize, as most western European countries have, that parental and maternity leave are absolutely essential. We will make children as well as families suffer if there is no
option for the mother and later the father to be at home during that important first year of a child's life. That should be part of the government child care program as well as part of the programs under the Minister's responsibility.
Let us take a quick look at the provisions in a couple of European countries. France offers 16 weeks for mothers at full pay and six months at up to 100 per cent of maximum earnings for the third or subsequent child. As well, France offers unpaid parental leave of up to two years for both mothers and fathers. Sweden provides 40 weeks for mothers or fathers at full pay and an additional unpaid leave is available when the child reaches the age of 18 months.
Canada ranks 22 out of 23 in all the world's industrialized countries when it comes to the level of benefits paid to women workers who take leave on the birth of children and to fathers. We recommend that there be maternity leave for the first 17 weeks, followed by parental leave, which would allow either parent to have UI coverage. We would like to see this phased in gradually and eventually reach a total of 43 weeks. That is not out of line considering what has been done for many years in European countries.
We also recommend that benefits should be gradually enriched so that low-income parents have a choice. Otherwise, they will be forced to go back to work because they will simply not be able to survive on the low payments.
We were disappointed that the government strategy on child care did nothing to improve maternity and parental leave. It was not even included, and that was a great omission. We believe that this is a very important part of a parental leave program. Therefore, as a New Democrat, I must express disappointment that the Bill did not move beyond establishing the principle of a two-tier benefit system as it should have done by providing comprehensive maternity and parental leave.
We support the Bill for the specific inequities it addresses, but we desperately need a more comprehensive parental and maternity leave program.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, we are just about ready to vote on the Bill, and I would like to express pleasure on behalf of the seven Conservative members of the standing Committee who worked so hard on unemployment insurance. I would also like to speak on behalf of the Hon. Member for Capilano who is busy with other responsibilities but who did bring forward a Private Member's Bill on this same subject. I would like the record to show that we are deeply appreciative of the Minister's efforts and of the speed and thoroughness with which he has moved to reduce these inequities.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On Clause 3-Paternity
March 23, 1988
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I would like to get this very clear. A father would be able to collect paternity benefits if the mother of the child died. Does the father necessarily have to be the biological father? What is the answer?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Chairman, it is the biological father or the one who is considered by the community as the father.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, if, for example, the mother was on unemployment insurance, she had collected only three weeks benefits and then she died, how much would the father be able to collect?


Benoît Bouchard: He would be able to collect the full 15 weeks.


John R. Rodriguez: What if the mother had collected 12 weeks and then died? How much would the father be able to collect?


Benoît Bouchard: Always the full 15 weeks.


John R. Rodriguez: Always?


Benoît Bouchard: If they collected 12 weeks, they are always able to collect the full 15 weeks.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I want to get this crystal clear. Irrespective of how many weeks the mother had collected, the father is entitled to the full 15?


Benoît Bouchard: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


John R. Rodriguez: With respect to the disability section, if the mother was entitled to collect benefits and delivered the baby, collected a couple of weeks and then became disabled to the point she was incapable of caring for the child, would the father be able to collect any benefits?


Benoît Bouchard: The only occasion when the father is entitled to get the benefits is when the mother is not entitled to get benefits.


John R. Rodriguez: Am I to understand that what the Minister is saying is that the mother who is disabled and is collecting, continues to collect her benefits and no father can grab those benefits?


Benoît Bouchard: That is correct.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, about the same clause, where it refers to what happens in case of death, I imagine that once they have a certificate, employees should have no trouble administering this legislation. But when we talk about disability, about a mother being unable to look after her child, who is going to decide and on the basis of what criteria that there is a disability? The Workmen's Compensation Board already has trouble determining what the procedure should be in such cases. Should there be a letter from the mother's attending physician to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, saying that this patient, for such and such a reason, will be unable to take care of her child? Will the Unemployment Insurance Commission, having received such a letter,
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
automatically transfer the benefits to the father or will the Commission want a second opinion? I would like to know who is going to decide, in the case of the disability of the mother.


Benoît Bouchard: If the disability is specified in a doctor's certificate, the Commission will accept it.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate further clarification, because in the legislation on workmens compensation, a medical certificate is required. However, I would like to know who is supposed to issue this certificate. Sometimes we have two or more certificates that don't say the same thing. So which one is supposed to be valid? Are we to assume that if a certificate signed by the mother's or the patient's attending physician is submitted, the Unemployment Insurance Commission will automatically assume the certificate is valid and will not question its authenticity, or might the Commission require, as is done in other areas, both a certificate from the attending physician and certificates signed by physicians chosen by the Commission? In this particular case, will the Unemployment Insurance Commission have a group of physicians on call to check the statement on the certificate?
What I am getting at is that I realize we are talking about a medical certificate. But are we talking about a certificate issued by the person's attending physician?


Benoît Bouchard: That Clause 3 of Bill C-l 16 be amended
(a)	by striking out line 18 on page 2 and substituting the following therefor: "the week in which the mother";
(b)	by striking out line 26 on page 3 and substituting the following therefor: "became disabled, the primary".

Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
On Clause 6-Retroactive Effect


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, this clause provides for retroactivity for one year from the date this Act is proclaimed. I have two questions.
First, I represented Mrs. Sharon Taylor in 1987 before the Umpire, the Hon. Bud Cullen. She is the mother of a premature child. She was not eligible. Mr. Cullen told me the date of his decision was March 30, 1987.
If this Bill carries and is receives Royal Assent before March 30, 1987, will Mrs. Sharon Taylor be able to get her benefits?


Benoît Bouchard: It depends on when the baby came home from the hospital. However, if my colleague sends the case to the commission, we could take a look and see if it is possible to give her the benefits.


John R. Rodriguez: I sensed in that answer the possibility that Mrs. Taylor could qualify.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: He is smiling.

March 23, 1988
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


John R. Rodriguez: He is smiling but you never know with this Minister.
My second question is this. Going back retroactively for a year, there must be a considerable number of mothers who would have been affected by this. Is the department or the commission prepared to use its computers to retrieve the names of all those women who would have been eligible to collect?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Chairman, I think the very good news that we will have tonight will be publicized enough so that those mothers who are affected will refer their cases to the department. We will be very pleased, as usual, to assess every case proposed.


John R. Rodriguez: Not good enough, Mr. Chairman. While I know that we who are practitioners of politics wait anxiously every morning for our copy of Hansard and we watch TV assiduously-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Not everyone.


John R. Rodriguez: -not everyone reads The Globe and Mail or watches the House on television. I ask the Minister if he will use the same process as was used with respect to the pensioners who were sent letters by the commission after they had filed applications and were subsequently been turned down. Will he use the same method to notify women who were eligible and had been turned down because of the prematurity of their child?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Chairman, I may not be as familiar as is my friend with the methods we normally use to issue that kind of information. However, I am sure that my friend will understand that we cannot go much further than we normally do. I believe that all these women who were refused for any reason, good or bad, will be very eager to contact the department when the bill is passed.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I wanted a commitment. The Government made a change with respect to people who took an early retirement, got a pension, and then applied for UI. Their pensions were used as income. We subsequently made a change and if they had made an application prior to January 5, 1986, they could get benefits and collect their pension at the same time.
The commission used the system. All the people in that category who had applied were pulled off the computer and were sent a notice informing them that they may very well be entitled to benefits and should get in touch with the commission. I want the same process to be used for women in this situation.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Chairman, the cases to which the Hon. Member is referring were registered in the department. I think that all such cases will be advised. However, I do not want to
make the commitment that we will try to find people whom we could not find.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to make a more definite commitment in that respect. I think that we are all happy today to have taken a good step forward in a legislation and we must remember that it is those people's money. The money is not the government's, not the minister's, nor mine, but the taxpayers'.
Some people have been refused because the law did not allow it then. I think that across the government, all those cases are entered in a computer. I think it is important first that the minister make the formal commitment to see to it that a memo be sent to all offices so that these people take care of the promotion and the publication. It is not being generous to say today: See, now, we recognize ... It is kept secret so that nobody benefits from it.
So I would like to have the formal commitment that the Department will see to it that all the people on fde across Canada get a notice telling them that the Act has been amended and that they can apply, because their situation will be considered again and they could be entitled to the benefits provided for by the Act.
I remind the Minister that it had to be done for senior citizens, and I am sure there are still people who did not file an application because not everone reads the newspapers, every day and watches the news and our proceedings.
It seems that one of the Minister's tasks should be to see to it that all those entitled to benefits can take advantage of the legislation we pass. Because after all, the Unemployment Insurance money is paid by the employee and the employer. So it is their money, and those people should be entitled to it.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Employment and Immigration does not base its decisions on the fact that the money belongs to the people. The Department obviously reacts to claimants whose cases have been turned down. As long as the people involved have placed a request to the Commission, their files are already there.
Now, listen, I do not believe that ignorance of the Bill can serve as a pretext in the application of the legislation itself. The Unemployment Insurance Commission has no means whatsoever to find out about people who for some reason would fail to contact the Commission in the first place.
Therefore, it is obvious that people whose names have been filed will be traced down. But I would not go so far as to suggest that everybody entitled to the benefits will file a claim, even though they do not read newspapers and do not hear from the media at all. One must draw the line somewhere. The Commission will certainly take all the necessary measures to see that people who are entitled to the benefits take advantage of the legislation.
March 23, 1988


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is Clause 6 agreed to?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I told the Minister about Mrs. Sharon Taylor who, when she received her decision, appealed it to the board of referees, we then took the case to the Umpire and the Umpire's decision was:
This is an unfortunate case but there is simply nothing which can be done to assist the claimant. The legislation does not make allowance for this type of situation.
Here is an area where only Parliament can bring about the necessary changes...
It says that this is a true copy of the original and it is dated in Ottawa, Ontario, the 30th day of March, 1987.
I want the Minister to give me a positive answer to this. Clause 6 reads:
A regulation made pursuant to the said Act for the purpose of giving effect to sections 32.1 and 32.2 of the said Act, as enacted by this Act, or otherwise relating to those sections, shall-
Can the Minister give me the assurance that when the regulations are drawn up they will provide that where a mother with a premature baby did launch a series of appeals, that would be included, and not only when the baby came out of the womb?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Chairman, I have said before that it depends upon when the baby came out of the hospital. It is possible to have that information and we will make the decision on the basis of the time when the baby came home from the hospital.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, as a last comment, the Minister will have this immediately following the passage of this Bill. He is on the record and I am going to hold him to this.


Mr. Friesen:: When was the baby born?


John R. Rodriguez: It is not that, it is that the woman appealed the process because she felt it was unfair. It went all the way to the Umpire. It was not her fault if the Umpire took time to write his decision. Surely she was entitled to exhaust all the appeal processes. Having taken advantage of the appeal processes she should be treated in the same way as we treated the pensioners who took advantage of the appeal processes and thereby established their claim. It is a simple question of carrying out justice, and I am sure it is not going to break the bank.


Benno Friesen: You are being sneaky, John.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, the Parliamentary Secretary said I was being sneaky. I am not being sneaky. I represented Mrs. Taylor. I felt it was a justifiable case then and I believe it is justifiable now. She kept her claim alive.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Chairman, I believe that my friend can read the clause as well as I can. It says:
Where a child is hospitalized, the period during which initial benefit is
payable under section 30, 32, 32.1 or 32.2 shall be extended by the number of
weeks the child is hospitalized.
If the child is in the hospital for 10 weeks, it is extended for 10 weeks. It is clear in the legislation that the period during which initial benefit is payable is extended by the same period of time that the baby is in the hospital. I think it is clear in the legislation.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall I not see the clock?


John R. Rodriguez: Please do not see the clock.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Do not see the clock.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 6 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 7-Coming Into Force.
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I have one last question because this is the clause which says that this Bill is retroactive for one year. That is the point I am trying to get at, and perhaps I should have raised the point on Clause 7 rather than on Clause 6.
Mrs. Taylor received the decision from the Umpire on March 30, 1987.1 argue that she ought to be entitled to collect the benefits.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Chairman, the clauses are very clear. We say that the Bill is retroactive to the date of the proclamation. If the Bill is accepted tonight, it will be retroactive to March 23, 1987. It is in the legislation.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 7 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 7 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaking (Mr. Paproski): When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Benoît Bouchard: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for the opportunity to say a few words on the action being taken this afternoon.

March 23, 1988
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
I want to congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) on the action he has taken to extend unemployment insurance benefits to biological fathers in cases where, because of the death of the mother, the father leaves work to become the primary caregiver of the child, or in the case of a mother who becomes incapacitated to the extent that she cannot care for the child.
The Unemployment Insurance Act is also being amended to make the time limits more flexible where a premature newborn is hospitalized.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Forget Commission, the parliamentary committee on employment, and the Equality for All report all support the concept of extending this type of maternity benefit to fathers.
These changes, as they apply to fathers, were sparked by John Mclnnis, a constituent of mine from Kitchener, Ontario. The mother of this infant girl died from a brain tumour shortly after the birth. Mr. Mclnnis left his work to take care of the baby and when he discovered that maternity benefits were unavailable to him, he turned to living on welfare.
Mr. Mclnnis and I requested a meeting with the Minister to see if there could be some redress for his unique circumstances. Because of the Minister's compassion, we had this meeting, quick action was promised to remedy the situation, and thus we have before us today the present amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
In addition, another amendment that we will be approving today will allow the payment of maternity benefits during a period of up to 17 weeks from the time the baby comes home from the hospital, rather than from the expected or actual date of birth. That will benefit another of my constituents, Sharon Beaucage. This will allow mothers separated from their premature child due to the baby's hospitalization to take their maternity benefits when the baby comes home from the hospital.
I want to commend the Minister and the Government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), for acting in the spirit of the following words spoken by a former leader of the Conservative Party, the Hon. Robert Stanfield:
I pledge to you a government prepared to act, impatient with the notion that problems cannot be solved.
I pledge to you a government that will deal openly and honestly with the people and with Parliament, one whose word can be trusted, one of compassion, conscience, commitment and principle.
I commend the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He has proven that governments do indeed listen, can act with reasonable speed, can act with flexibility where required, and with the compassion spoken of by the Hon. Robert Stanfield.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to stress the fact that when the Government introduces a Bill filling the needs of the people, Opposition parties can cooperate. In this instance, we were able to deal with such a Bill in less than one hour and a half. And as I said a few moments ago, if tomorrow, the Minister wants to introduce a Bill to do justice to older workers, we are ready to pass it in one hour! I would invite Conservative Members of Parliament to press for changes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall this Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6.08 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.08 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, March 24, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers