1988-09-21

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians suffer health problems because of a distinct sensitivity to food additives, chemicals, and other synthetic substances. Only recently has this been recognized as a physical illness. For example, last year the Ontario Medical Association called on Governments to increase research on causes, effects and treatment of environmental sensitivity, also called the 20th century disease.
Individuals, organizations, and even the Human Rights Commissioner have asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to take action on this serious health problem. Instead of action he has only sympathy. We urge him to recognize the existence of this illness, to instruct his Department to become competent in the field, to launch a campaign to educate health professionals, and to consult with those who suffer from environmental sensitivity. In short, we urge him to stop sympathizing and start acting.
* *
*


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, September 22, 1988, will be a day of significance in Edmonton. At noon we will witness the official opening of Canada Place in Edmonton. The building is a blend of award winning architectural design, leadership by Trizec Corporation, construction by Ellis-Don, and dedication and work by 1,500 Edmontonians.
This structure will house 29 federal government Departments, the most important being the head office of the Western Diversification Office, as well as 3,200 employees. Canada Place also has shops, a conference room, a National Film Board theatre, fountains, restaurants, and day care facilities. The downtown core will be revitalized with the addition of 1,000 parking stalls which are desperately needed by the Convention Centre.
This building represents a new start; a new era of reliance on the private sector to do what it does best; a new era of cooperation between government and industry; a new method of building financing at a time when government dollars were tight and construction jobs were desperately needed. The presence of the federal Government in Edmonton will now be fully recognized with the magnificent $150 million Canada Place. It is a beautiful building for a beautiful city which I am proud to represent.
* *
*


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, women have long fought for recognition of their right to a life of dignity, respect, and justice. Unfortunately this struggle is still to be fought in the court system of this country.
Violence is an unacceptable social behaviour in our society, yet when it is committed against women and their children, new standards seem to apply. A woman's behaviour is examined as if her words or actions could justify being beaten, pushed, kicked or verbally abused. Light sentences, if any, are handed out to men considered to be respected members of the community. Importance is given to keeping a family together even though the violence usually escalates.
The Kirby Inwood trial was unfortunately an example of the treatment of women by our justice system. For brutally beating his son and wife this man was given 30 days and three years probation. The pain and fear he inflicted on his family will certainly be with them for many years. Their suffering must start to take priority in our justice system.

September 21, 1988



Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, recently in London the Vice Squad arrested 42 homosexual men for committing indecent acts in public washrooms in two parks and a shopping plaza. 1 commend the press and the police for withholding the names of these individuals until they have had their day in court. However, I believe it is absolutely imperative that, upon conviction, for the protection of society, these names be released.
In many instances we have repeat offenders who get off with either a suspended sentence or a small fine. I think it is very important that society be protected and these names be publicized.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the evidence is out and it is conclusive: Tory Bill C-22 is causing increases in the cost of prescription drugs.


Some Hon. Members:: Nonsense!


David Charles Dingwall: The evidence was adduced by the Senate Committee reviewing Bill C-22, and more particularly Bill S-15. The committee report said:
Most of the evidence indicates that in the past year drug prices have increased at rates in excess of the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index.
Representatives of Green Shield Prepaid Services Inc. (Green Shield), a large Ontario-based prescription drug plan, told the Committee that for the period from January 1, 1987 to January 1, 1988 the average ingredient cost of the prescriptions filled under its plans increased by 12.6 per cent.
It is clear that the Tory promise to maintain increases in the price of drugs below the CPI was wrong. Drug prices are going up. The Tories have breached their commitment to the Canadian people and I tell them that this ought to be rescinded and a new Act put in place in order to protect senior citizens and other consumers all across the country.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, time is definitely not on the side of our Hong Kong veterans. Many did not make it through the brutal incarceration inflicted upon them by the enemy. Many more who managed to survive have lived diminished lives as a result. Today there are fewer than
700 survivors, yet a major crime against those veterans has not been redressed.
The issue of compensation has been raised on the floor of the British House of Commons, the U.S. Senate, and the UN. The time is right for our Government to take forceful action. Japan owes our Hong Kong vets equitable compensation for the slave labour, starvation, beatings, and unsanitary living conditions it forced on our boys.
This Government must do everything in its power to ensure fair compensation is paid by the Japanese Government without further delay. In this case time really is of the essence.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the community of Bell Island was rejected by this Conservative Government as a site for a federal penitentiary, despite meeting the criteria and having special economic needs. Hot on the heels of this decision a company called Canadian Ecology Ltd. offered to use the community as a dump for industrial waste. "The abandoned mines would be perfect to store industrial waste", they said. "We would offer 100 jobs", they said. "It would be perfectly safe", they said.
They thought that the people of Bell Island were desperate and had no choice. Well, the people of Bell Island said no, and 2,401 of about 2,800 adults signed a petition opposing this use and they organized meetings against it. Together they said no to being a dumping ground for the waste of an industrial society that will not let them participate in a meaningful way.
I congratulate and support their opposition to this project and congratulate them on their victory in having it stopped. I will continue to work with and fight for the people of Bell Island in their effort to achieve real economic development. Working together, the people of Bell Island have stopped this project. Working together, we will fight to ensure Bell Islanders are given real alternatives to unemployment and lack of opportunity.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the value of a nation's currency in the international market place is very much a measure of the world's confidence in the ability of that country to govern itself effectively and pursue sensible economic and social policy.
September 21, 1988

This is reflected in the recent behaviour of the Canadian dollar. When the polls were showing the possibility of a Turner-Broadbent win in the next election and the consequent ripping up of the free trade agreement, our dollar plunged to 80.63 cents U.S.
Now the polls indicate a clear-cut victory for the Conservatives, confidence has been restored, and our dollar stands at over 82 cents.
* *
*


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, the post office in Sydney is one of the most profitable in the country. Labour costs as a percentage of total revenues are 12.5 per cent of every dollar earned. If you exclude income from postage meters, priority post, and postal boxes, labour costs are still a very reasonable 45.8 per cent of every dollar earned.
Revenue projections for the current year are up by over $109,000 to $2,312,322. The people of Sydney have demonstrated their support for the Canada Post outlet by their utilization of this Canada Post outlet in the downtown area.
Yet despite all this good economic news, the Government through the Corporation is closing the downtown outlet and moving it to a low traffic area. The Government, with no regard for the workers, has plans to sell the Sydney post office to one of its corporate friends who will then reap the benefits of this very profitable operation.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House to an agreement between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the office of Atomic Energy for Peace in Thailand. This has to do with technology transfer, particularly the transfer of food irradiation technology.
Two things about the agreement concern me, Mr. Speaker. The first is that part of the contract refers to the obtaining of Canadian governmental regulatory approval for the sale of three irradiated Thai foods in Canada, apparently papaya, mangos, and shrimp. The second aspect of the agreement, Article 6, provides that AECL will be compelled to take back any of the spent Cobalt 60.
Many times in this House I have said the Government's eagerness to approve food irradiation in this country and AECL's eagerness to prove that it has solved the nuclear waste problem have been related more to global marketing strategy vis-a-vis food irradiation than to anything else. I think we see here in this agreement between Canada and Thailand the proof of that claim.
I would ask the Government to explain why it is setting Canada up to being a nuclear waste depository for the entire world.
* *
*



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, more and more, Canadians choose the team that will have to govern in the coming years, which will be a time of change. The Constitutional Agreement, co-operation among the provinces, the quality of social programs, our control over the economy, our action on the deficit and our job creation are acknowledged and Canadians are getting ready to say yes to the team made up of people like Wilson, de Cotret, Crosbie and Mulroney. Canadians want to have nothing to do with the bounty hunters and the rats. Nor will Canadians want to have anything to do with the eccentric and marginal world of Broadbent-they never have!



BANFF AND LAKE LOUISE-RENTS CHARGED RCMP AND PUBLIC SERVANTS

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Ministers of this Government want all Canadians to be treated fairly. The rent charged RCMP and public servants who are living in government-owned houses in Banff and Lake Louise is excessive and out of line with rents charged in all other national parks and in all towns in Alberta of similar size.
Section 128 of the Treasury Board manual states:
The base shelter shall be reduced by 25 per cent where there is imposed occupancy.
The occupancy of these houses is imposed. There is no other available accommodation. They either live in these houses or they don't work. And the bureaucrats by placing a rigid meaning on the word "imposed" have been chiselling these dedicated police and workers. If we want to appear to be fair these excessive rents should be reduced immediately by 25 per cent.

September 21, 1988
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE



CANOLA INDUSTRY-EFFECT OF UNITED STATES EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, canola is a triumph of Canadian agricultural research and technological development. However, today the Canadian canola industry is being destroyed by the United States Export Enhancement Program. Sales are down by 15 per cent in just the first six months of this year. This represents a loss of income of $150 million to Canadian agriculture producers, stolen away by the U.S. export subsidy programs. This is a direct violation of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) trade deal with the United States.
The United States undertook in that agreement to take into account Canada's interests in the use of the Export Enhancement Program. This the Americans are not doing. Likewise they are violating the "standstill provision" of the agreement.
The viability of the Canadian Canola industry is at stake in this matter. 1 call on the Government to make the United States Government live up to the terms of the agreement.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Toronto the Prime Minister accused others of "grubby little scenarios". I want to tell him that he is the master architect of grubby little scenarios.
The Prime Minister spent four years gutting the Department of the Environment. Now he pretends to have a new national vision for the environment.
He said he wouldn't raise taxes by one cent and during the past four years he has imposed the heaviest tax burden in history on Canadians to the amount of $26 billion.
He talked about a commitment to fiscal responsibility-


Mr. Speaker:: I do hesitate to interrupt the right hon. gentleman but 1 think the preamble may be going on a bit too long. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to put his question.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am leading up to a question for the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: And to give him time to prepare, I am setting out his grubby little scenario.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: He said he was going to have fiscal responsibility, paraded his Minister of Finance around, and dished out millions of dollars as a pre-election slush fund for the Conservative Party. Leading to the question, Mr. Speaker, he said he was against-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the right hon. gentleman to put his question.


John Napier Turner: 1 know you understand the sequence of this question, Mr. Speaker. He said he was against a free trade deal with the United States and yet he signed a deal selling out our country.
Why did he negotiate a comprehensive trade deal with the United States after he told Canadians he was against any such deal? Will the Prime Minister explain to the country that grubby little scenario?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend began with some complaints about the Government's environmental record. The environmental record involved the St. Lawrence River clean-up of $110 million; the Halifax Harbour clean-up; the Acid Rain Program of $150 million for smelter modernization; federal-provincial Accords on sulphur dioxide emissions with a $350 million federal contribution; the Canadian Environmental Protection Act-the first environmental Act of any substance that was passed by this Chamber in a good number of years; the Niagara River pollution cleanup; the Environmental Conference in June-


Mr. Allmand:: Window dressing.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend from N.D.G. says window dressing, and a lot of rhetoric.


William Warren Allmand: A lot of baloney.


Martin Brian Mulroney: How would he have qualified-


An Hon. Member:: Smoke and mirrors.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am trying to answer my hon. friend, Mr. Speaker. Is he opposed to South Moresby, to the cleanup of the St. Lawrence River, the Halifax Harbour, or Hamilton Harbour? He may be opposed to these in the House of Commons but he should not go across the country saying that he is opposed to these very, very appropriate environmental plans for the people of Canada.
September 21, 1988


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the country deserves to know the truth about the last-minute deathbed conversion of the Prime Minister on the environment. I will concede one thing to him. He was right yesterday when he said in Toronto that Canadians will judge him on his record of free trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, 1 just hope that the flapping of the fins of the trained seals will not be taken off my time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Canadians will judge whether this Prime Minister can be trusted. Does the Prime Minister deny that he said: "Free trade with the United States is like sleeping with an elephant"? Does he deny that he said: "Canadian plants would not be able to compete"? Does the Prime Minister deny that he said: "Canadians rejected free trade in 1911, they would do so again"? Does the Prime Minister deny that he said: "Free trade? It affects our sovereignty and I will have none of it"? How does the Prime Minister square what he said with what he has done to Canada in selling us out?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, does the Leader of the Opposition deny that he said that he would reduce the federal deficit by 50 per cent in his first term of office, and that he has spent four years as the Leader of the Opposition spending money that he and the Canadian people do not have?
This is going to be good. The Leader of the Opposition is getting coached by the Member from Winnipeg. This is going to be something to behold.
Our commitment was to the creation of jobs, new wealth and new prosperity for Canada. We said we would create new jobs. Canadians have created 1.3 million new jobs, bringing about a new degree of prosperity.
We said we would bring about new unity for Canada and we have unified Canada as never before. That is the commitment of a great national Party, and we have delivered on both of those fundamentals.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman mentioned the Member for Winnipeg-Fort
Oral Questions
Garry who has calculated that the grand total of all spending announcements, for the period May 30 to September 13 of this year, from the Conservative slush fund is $12,248 billion. That is what this Government has spent in the last three months, $12 billion dollars.


An Hon. Member:: Table it.


John Napier Turner: I will be glad to table it. [Translation]


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENTS CONCERNING FREE TRADE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer the question, namely, which of his statements can be relied on and which cannot be believed. Does the Prime Minister deny having said that he was not in favour of a "comprehensive" trade agreement with the United States, but that he was for negotiating sector-based agreements instead? Does he deny having said that free trade would affect our sovereignty and that he would have none of it? Does he deny having said that U.S. laws providing for trade sanctions could not apply to Canada, and that's all there was to it? Why did the Prime Minister deceive Canadians on such a vital matter for the future of our country? Why should his statements be trusted in the next election campaign?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is now apparently being guided in regard to his calculations by the Member from Winnipeg. We should then find out what the objections are.
Is the objection to spending for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency? Is the objection to spending for western diversification? Is the objection to spending for Hibernia, the development in offshore Newfoundland and Labrador? Is the objection to the deficiency payment for Canadian farmers, the largest deficiency payment? Where do the Liberals object? You can't have it both ways. You can't be in favour of farmers and against deficiency payments.


John Napier Turner: Is it fiscal responsibility to portion out $12 billion in the last four months?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend is talking about fiscal responsibility. We will find out what he is against.

He asks me about Quebec and free trade. Premier Bourassa clearly said that Quebec's best interests are served by a free trade treaty. Jacques Parizeau is in favour of free trade. And more recently, a great French Canadian, Robert Campeau, came out in favour of free trade.

September 21, 1988
Oral Questions


TRANSPORT
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Government sold what is now Route Canada to three private businessmen for $29 million when the real property alone is worth well over $80 million. This allowed the businessmen, of course, to cream off millions of dollars to buy another private trucking company in the United States. It allowed the private businessmen to cream away $50 million from the Canadian taxpayers. It then allowed the private businessmen, once they had the American company, to close Route Canada, the Canadian company, throwing 2,500 men out of work, including 300 truckers who are owed by that company an average of $13,000 and cannot pay for their rigs. Now that the Government has created this mess, what will it do for the workers?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, 1 said yesterday exactly what I will say today. We know that there was a choice to be made in 1986. It is obvious that the Liberal Party would have preferred to close the shop in 1986. That is what we hear today and what we heard yesterday.
What we proposed was to continue the operation of the company by selling the company to the private sector. Today my friend is describing some scenario without any legal consideration. We are waiting, as I said yesterday and I repeat today, to see the legal picture of Route Canada and what will be proposed by the company. I challenge my hon. friend to say that the company will not, for example, reorganize and do something other than what he described to the House of Commons.
I repeat what I said yesterday and what I told the contractors yesterday afternoon. There is a legal consideration here and we cannot stand aside from the legal consideration. I hope that my friend does not propose that I intervene for the contractors without any legal consideration involved at the present time.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Government has only ever been interested in one thing. Once it decided that Transport Route Canada was to close, the only thing it was interested in was laundering the bad news through the private sector so it would not have to give it out itself. For that the Government paid over $50 million in valued land belonging to the people of Canada.
What is the Government going to do? Why is it ruining people's lives just to try to clean up its own sordid political messes? Does the Minister want to get into the trucking business? Here are the keys, because one of the truckers told me he can't make the payments on his rig because of what this Government has done.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, obviously, anyone could fall into the trap set by the Hon. Member.
Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that in 1986, the Liberal Party would have closed the company, which is hardly consistent with what Liberal policy has been in the transport sector, since for the past four years, it has been asking the Government to support all companies that are losing money, and today, after the Government sold the company to the private sector and 2,700 jobs were maintained for two years-I repeat, it is very likely that various scenarios will be suggested, since they are already prepared to table requests for millions of dollars.
1 repeat what I said yesterday. Canadians remember 1982, when that Party put $34 million in Maislin, and the following year, the whole business was bankrupt, everybody lost his job, and the Liberal Party had spent another $34 million. They did that kind of thing for a long time, but I think today, Canadians know the score.


PRESENCE OF DIOXINS IN FOODS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Canada has been treated to the spectacle of a Minister of the Environment who chases ambulances to the scene of an environmental disaster and then pops up with a press kit. Well, Canadians are really concerned about preventing pollution in the environment.
What does the Government plan to do-and what is it doing-about a really serious environmental problem, namely, dioxins in our food because there are dioxins in the environment? There is a report of the Minister's expert advisory committee on dioxins from 1983. The Liberals slept on it for a year. This Government has had four years. What is the Government doing to act on these recommendations which say we ought to eliminate the sources which put dioxins into the environment? It has been four years and dioxins are not yet even on the toxic substances list and cannot be regulated. What is the Government doing about the serious environmental problem of pollution besides just reacting to the crisis after it has been discovered?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my hon. colleague, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is absent on government business today, that the Minister did reply to that question yesterday. So did the Minister of the Environment, if my memory serves me right. I would direct my hon. colleague to page 19440 of Hansard. I think the answer is pretty clear.
September 21, 1988


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of the Environment misled the House in answering my question on precisely this matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member would not have meant that the Hon. Minister was intentionally misleading, and I would expect she would make that clear in the remainder of her question.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 repeat, the Minister of the Environment yesterday misled the House-


Some Hon. Members:: Out!


Lynn McDonald: -in answering my question, namely-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Lynn McDonald: -he stated that through the Canadian-


Some Hon. Members:: Out!


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to make it clear to the Minister and to the House that she is not suggesting the Minister intentionally misled the House.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 didn't say intentionally. 1 simply said "misled".


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's reply referred to "the Canadian Environmental Protection Act which, among other things, manages toxic chemicals, including dioxins, through their full life cycle-" I have a copy of the Act and dioxins are not on this list. So I would like to ask the Prime Minister why dioxins are not on the list of toxic substances? They were certainly not put there by the Liberals. They ignored the problem for long enough. Why has this Government not put them there? And how is the Government going to deal with the serious problem of dioxins in the environment and, therefore, in the food supply, when it has not even begun to put them on the toxic substances list?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, again, with respect to the question of food, since the Hon. Member did refer to that, 1 refer to the answer of my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who
Oral Questions
said yesterday, and 1 quote particularly his last paragraph in Hansard at page 19440:
I want to reassure the Member and the House that the Government is not looking at changing regulations in order to fit the new requirement whereby trace amounts of dioxins are found under these sources but rather to eliminate dioxins, and that remains our purpose.
[ Translation]


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, do we need a crisis like the one at Saint-Basile-le-Grand for every toxic substance? What is the Government going to do to eliminate these very hazardous substances from the environment, when the substance is not mentioned on the list? Shouldn't we start with the list and then set up a program to eliminate the substance? Do we have to wait until the next crisis?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I think that for once I agree with the Hon. Member. Obviously, no one sees a crisis as a way to solve the problem, if there is one, Mr. Speaker. I think that using the example of Saint-Basile-le-Grand to show that we only act when there is a crisis, is totally wrong.
I would like to refer to Hansard at page 19439, where the Minister of the Environment also said, although the Hon. Member omitted this passage in her quote:

In addition to that we have greatly tightened the rules and regulations surrounding the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. To boot, we have achieved, for the first time in the history of the country, a four-jurisdiction agreement on stemming the flow of industrial chemicals into the Niagara River by 50 per cent by 1996. Those are all initiatives of the Government of Canada on the very subject which the Hon. Member has mentioned.
And there are a lot more initiatives of this Government on the environment issue.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday, the Minister met the truckers and promised they would get an answer today about their operating licences. The Minister has the authority to issue these licences, which means that the truckers would be able to continue their business and thus meet their financial obligations.

September 21, 1988
Oral Questions
The truckers were back this morning, and unless the Minister takes action, they will not only be underfoot but literally on foot and out of work!
Has the Minister acted on the request of the truckers; and if not, when will he do so?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I said we would look at the Transportation Act to determine what our responsibilities and what our options are.
It is a fact, and the Hon. Member for Shefford ought to know, that the provinces have jurisdiction over this area, and I would have to suspend the provisions of the Transportation Act in order to-In other words, I would have to forget about provincial jurisdiction to be able to intervene. We are trying to do what we can, and we will try to get in touch with the provincial Governments to find out exactly what their position is. Obviously, we cannot give an answer today.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the truckers are not at all pleased with this answer.


Mr. Boudria:: Certainly not!


SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS-REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister also ensure that the thousands of dollars owed these independent truckers and other workers by Transport Route Canada Inc. will be paid, and will he prevent Transport Route Canada Inc. from selling off its assets before all its accounts with the independent truckers and other workers are paid up? Before letting this company sell off its assets, we must make sure its accounts are settled. Will the Minister take action? Will the Minister be able to do what is necessary?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member will stop playing politics he knows perfectly well that in the case of a private company, the Minister of Transport has no authority to force that company to make payments on which it is in arrears, especially since the company has not filed for bankruptcy. The company has given no notice whatsoever. I repeat what I said earlier and that is that the Liberal Party has always ignored the legal implications and considerations governing the private sector, and just look at the disaster we had in 1984!


TRUCKERS' LICENCES AND HIGHWAY PERMITS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get some answers from the Minister in charge of
privatization instead of from people who do not know anything about what is going on in transport. I want to raise the matter of the sale of CN Route to Route Canada. The Cabinet authorized this swindle of taxpayers, more than 2,000 employees, and about 350 truckers.
I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. These truckers are owed some $4 million in unpaid fees and freight rates from Route Canada and they cannot continue to operate. These truckers do not have their licence plates, and the Highway Traffic Board permits as well as the licence fees and the insurance are in the hands of Route Canada.
Would the Minister now intervene and request the provincial highway traffic boards to cancel all the permits of Route Canada and allow them to be taken up by these independent truckers?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, of course my friend is a specialist in transport. I understand why Canadians have always kept that expertise on that side of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Route Canada is a company which is officially in operation in this country. As long this company is legally in operation we do not have the ability to cancel its permits. It is a company which operates officially in this country.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, they just do not care what they have done to people with privatization.


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to use his good offices to ensure that the employees and the truck operators under Route Canada be guaranteed first call on any cash or assets of Route Canada, and then order and set up a judicial inquiry into the sale and the operations of Route Canada since it was taken over?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know the Liberals do not view this as a serious matter but I am trying to answer a serious question from the NDP.


Don Boudria: We were there to meet with them. Were you, Brian?


Mr. Axworthy:: He was at the Empire Club.


Mr. Nunziata:: Tell us about your trucking experience.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
September 21, 1988


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank you. 1 am trying to answer a serious question from my friend in the NDP and we are both being obstructed by the Liberals who apparently care very little about it.
My hon. friend asks a very legitimate question. The distinguished Minister of Transport met yesterday with representatives of the truckers. He has undertaken to initiate the necessary inquiries. He is clearly looking for an appropriate and helpful solution. I know that in that process he will bear in mind the suggestions made by the distinguished Member from Regina whose expertise is widely noted in this area.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: You just got him defeated. He's washed up.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ELECTIONS
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Many of us are expecting an election in the not too distant future and we have heard from the Canadian Community Newspapers Association that the Chief Electoral Officer might be planning to reduce the number of publications in which he puts the advertising for the upcoming election, and resort mainly to the daily newspapers.
In that the local papers are important in rural communities, and many of them are delivered free of charge to every household, some of which may not receive dailies, can the Minister request the Chief Electoral Officer to review this decision and, hopefully, change it?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for that question. I have received a number of representations regarding the issue that he has brought forward and I have, in fact, made representations to the Chief Electoral Officer in a telephone call this morning.
He indicated that he is already in the process of acting upon some of the representations that individuals have made to him. He assures me that he will be making the necessary exceptions wherever possible to ensure that the broadest possible coverage will be carried out in the rural areas in terms of advertising.
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


LOCATION OF OFFICE IN MINISTER'S RIDING
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The immigration office at 130 Bloor Street in Toronto was closed on August 25, relocated in the Minister's own riding one and a half blocks from her campaign office, began operating on September 6, and yesterday, after complaints from area residents, and after blaming her own officials, the Minister quickly decided to wind down the operation and move it elsewhere.
This chain of moving episodes gives the clear appearance that her obligations as a national Minister in charge of a national Department have been juggled to satisfy her own personal political interests in her own riding. Why did the Minister permit the office to move into the riding in the first place? Was this move simply a politically appetizing venture that quickly went sour?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, first, I found out about this office probably about 24 hours before the Hon. Member did. There was a decision made in our Department under my predecessor, my colleague to my right, in order to serve our immigration clients, that the policy of the Department-and it is a good one- would be to open offices to serve the public in areas where there is a high demand.
It was decided to open an office in Scarborough and in North York. As the Hon. Member well knows, Eglinton Avenue is not in North York and the location that was chosen is in a neighbourhood with small retail shops, a residential area with seniors, and no parking.
The officials of my Department, in their ongoing commitment to improve the service, are going to be doing something about the line-ups at that office and at other offices in Toronto. They will be looking at a more appropriate location for this office in an area that is better served, a commercial area or an area near public transport.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister might as well put the office on wheels. One must really stretch one's imagination to believe that a Minister, who is supposed to be on top of her Department, did not know that an office was going squarely in the middle of her riding, one and half blocks from the Conservative campaign office for the next election. That really stretches the imagination.


COST OF RELOCATING OFFICE
Sergio Marchi: I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister. The Regional Director of Public Works in Toronto has refused to release any financial information to anyone with the exception of the Minister and her colleague, the Minister of Public Works, which I find offensive as a Canadian.

September 21, 1988
Oral Questions
Therefore, can the Minister inform this House what the final costs were to close the office at 130 Bloor Street, relocate it in her riding, break the lease agreement, and move it yet again?
[DOT] (M50)
How many taxpayers' dollars have been scandalously wasted in order to subsidize the Minister's own political interests in her riding, in first having the office come to the riding and then relocating it?


Barbara Jean McDougall: First, Mr. Speaker, there is the question if it is determined that the office will be moved to another location, and 1 should say that this is not an appropriate location either for the neighbourhood or for the clients it serves. People who come to that office do not have a place to park.


Don Boudria: Why is it there?


Barbara Jean McDougall: It is in the wrong place. 1 have already said that.


An Hon. Member:: You are in the wrong place.


Barbara Jean McDougall: We have started to open some branch offices. We have opened one in Brampton. There will be another one in Scarborough in November. We have established criteria for doing this in immigration offices. One of the criteria that will be added, as 1 think is appropriate, is whether the neighbourhood is a suitable location, whether it is here or anywhere else.
I can assure the Hon. Member that the money will not be wasted, nor will the space.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The Minister has confirmed in a recent letter to me regarding nerve gas tests at CFB Suffield: "Before 1968, there was a small number of nerve agent tests, mostly conducted in the laboratory, in which people participated".
Yesterday, neither the Minister nor his Associate, nor the ADM responsible, knew how many people were tested or were involved in how many tests over how many years prior to 1968. If we do not know who the participants were in these tests of deadly nerve gases, how can the Minister be so sure as he said in his letter to me that none has suffered any lasting ill effects?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Because, Mr. Speaker, in trying to reconstruct the records of
some 20 years ago, what we found was that in the vast majority of instances the people who participated were themselves civilian researchers at DRES. Employees at DRES are required to take annual medical check-ups, and over the course of that time at no time was there a single instance when we found any long-term effects of exposure to nerve gas whatsoever.


NUMBER OF TESTS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is continuing to be evasive on this subject.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: I have asked how many there were, who they were-


Miss MacDonald:: He just answered that.


Pauline Jewett: His Assistant Deputy said there were 10 or 12 tests. How many tests were there? Has there been any followup on those who submitted to these tests?


Mr. Kempling:: Yes.


Finlay MacDonald: He just said it.


Pauline Jewett: Tell me exactly who was subject as a guinea pig to these nerve gas tests?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I think any reading of Hansard will show that I answered the question that was asked. Now the Hon. Member changes the question.


Pauline Jewett: I said how many. That was the question.


Henry Perrin Beatty: If she will permit me to answer the question instead of shouting-


Pauline Jewett: How many were involved?


Henry Perrin Beatty: If the Hon. Member will permit an answer I will be glad to give it.
We have gone back. There have been none in the past 20 years whatsoever.


Pauline Jewett: I said before 1968.


Henry Perrin Beatty: During the 1960s we have been able to identify some nine separate tests. We are looking for information on that at the present time. In terms of who was involved, as I have indicated, in the vast majority of instances it was civilian researchers at DRES themselves.


Pauline Jewett: Who?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Who? Civilian researchers at DRES themselves.


Pauline Jewett: Any lasting effects?
September 21, 1988


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Hon. Member asks how do we know, then, that there have not been any long-term effects. It is because civilian researchers at DRES are required to take annual medical check-ups. If the annual medical check-ups of these civilian researchers had shown any problems associated with exposure to nerve gas we would have known.
Notwithstanding that fact, I have asked my staff to go back and try to identify the individuals involved in each case and to do follow-up studies, notwithstanding the fact that never has there been any evidence of any long-term effects. But in view of the fears that are being created by the NDP, I think we owe it to these employees to do follow-up tests.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns a matter which falls into the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the RCMP are in the process of conducting an investigation into the conduct of two Members of the Conservative Caucus, the Hon. Member for La Prairie and the Hon. Member for Hochelega-Maison-neuve? Can he indicate to the House the nature of the RCMP investigation?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General I will take the question as notice. I have not been informed of any such investigation as Acting Solicitor General, but I will take the question and make the appropriate inquiries.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE INQUIRIES
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this matter should wait for the return of the Solicitor General. Will the Minister of Justice undertake to inquire into this particular matter and report to the House at the earliest opportunity?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I find this line of questioning quite offensive. The Leader of the Opposition at the beginning of this Parliament laid down what I thought were quite reasonable rules respecting the whole question of raising allegations on the floor of the House on the basis of some alleged investigation. Our system of justice requires that when allegations are made or investigations take place, they should be left to the RCMP who are a competent and dedicated police force in this country.
To have the Hon. Member stand up and suggest by innuendo that there is something wrong, I find that offensive and I think he should get up and apologize to the House and the Members in question.
Oral Questions HOUSING


METROPOLITAN TORONTO-FEDERAL SURPLUS LANDS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Housing. When the Minister announced last week that the Government was releasing some 123 acres of surplus land at the Downsview Airport, the Minister also said that only about 25 per cent, or 30 acres of that land, would be put aside for affordable housing. That is like trying to use a garden hose to put out a forest fire.
In order to face the housing crisis in Toronto, is the Government prepared to release some if not all of the additional 25,000 acres of land that the federal Government owns in Metro Toronto, for the construction of affordable housing?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (International Trade) and Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for his question. We have commissioned the McLaughlin Report which assessed the available federal lands in Toronto and made certain recommendations. Those recommendations are being assessed at the present time.
One of the recommendations within that report concerned the lands at Downsview. I can also be very up front with him and say that that was the easiest one to deal with. Some of the others caused other problems that Mr. McLaughlin has presented in his report.
We are looking at those lands and, when we have an announcement, we will make it at the appropriate time.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION-DEFINITION OF AFFORDABILITY
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, in response to questions from the press last Friday when the Minister made his announcement, the Minister or other Ministers who were at that press conference refused to define affordability. Indeed, when I asked the Minister again on Monday whether or not he could define affordability, he said he would not be pinned down on the question.
Is the Minister aware that his own Department, Canada Mortgage and Housing, has a definition of affordability? If he is aware of that, is he also telling us that it is the Government's intention to change that already long-established definition of affordability?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, affordability differs from community to community, as the Hon. Member can appreciate, with cost of living that is taken into consideration and so on. To pin down what is affordable is a very difficult thing to do. The Hon. Member is not going to pin me down today on that.

September 21, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Jourdenais
As far as a definition from Canada Mortgage and Housing regarding affordability is concerned, those policies and those statements are always under review, and could be changed.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board my question is addressed to the Minister of State for the Treasury Board. It has to do with the dock workers on the East and West Coasts. I think the Minister is aware of this, and I appreciate the matter is in mediation, but I would like to ask the Minister a question. Would the Government be prepared to admit that wage parity on the East and West Coasts will come in time, and the mediation will be about how it is supposed to come in time, whether it is over a three-year contract period or a two-year contract period? Would he please answer that, Mr. Speaker?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, for some time now it has been the policy of the federal Government to reflect local rates of pay for public servants which are comparable to that of workers in the private sector in the regions. My hon. friend asks me to reverse that policy by way of a question, and I am not prepared to do that.
The matter which he refers to is subject to mediation which started yesterday afternoon and may still be going on. For that reason 1 do not wish to comment on the actual question he asks, either in generalities or specifics.

[ Translation]


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for postal service or his representative. A document obtained from Canadian Press shows that some post offices to be closed by Canada Post are cost-effective. For a long time, the Minister has been telling us that he is closing these post offices because they are unprofitable. If someone could answer in the
Minister's place, I would like to know the real reason for closing these post offices, which nevertheless are cost-effective. [English]


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it being 3.04 the Hon. Minister has left the House. 1 will put that question to him and he will try to get back to my hon. friend.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for La Prairie on a question of privilege.


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House and the Chair to give me a few moments. My name was just mentioned while I was outside the Chamber. A Member said that the RCMP was investigating me in my riding. I would like to see the "blues" tomorrow, but I would say that no one from the RCMP ever came to my riding or questioned me about anything whatsoever.
I think that before making such accusations, the Opposition Member should seek the facts, analyze them and know what he is talking about before starting to accuse some people publicly in this House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to five petitions, Nos. 332-5349, 332-5350, 332-5351, 332-5352, 332-5353. [Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap) moved: for leave
to introduce Bill C-328, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs
Act (cautionary label on alcoholic beverage container).


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
September 21, 1988
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration presented to the House on March 19 be concurred in.
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Quite often in the Chamber there are prior discussions that lead to a general acceptance in the Chamber, quite often unanimously, of a committee report. I am unaware of any conversations that have gone on in advance of the motion on this occasion. I just wonder whether it was because I was away from the House on Monday when such discussions took place, or whether they did not take place. I wonder if we could have that clarified before we proceed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. 1 recognize that while there have been pockets of prosperity in the last little while, particularly in southern Ontario, there are vast parts of the country that in fact are still experiencing excessive and unacceptable levels of unemployment. We had some discussions earlier in the day, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, indicating that perhaps this would be a good day to put on the record some of the concerns that opposition Members have regarding the unacceptable levels of unemployment in parts of Canada and the ways and means in which the Unemployment Insurance Act could be used to alleviate some of those concerns.
I simply want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that, indeed, perhaps he has not been privy to these discussions, but there have been consultations and discussions I know between ourselves and the Official Opposition at least.


Mr. Speaker:: Just to clarify the situation, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) has put a motion for concurrence. In the usual course-just so Hon. Members understand and so that the public watching and listening understand-that will of course now lead immediately to debate. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has said that often these matters are discussed between House Leaders. They are often discussed between House Leaders. However, the rules are clear, and whether or not there was any discussion, or as full a discussion as the Parliamentary Secretary might have wished, the situation is quite clear. The
Committee Reports
Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East is entitled to lead off on debate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, just so that Members can plan their day, I wonder if perhaps both Parties would be willing, through unanimous consent, to not see the clock at six o'clock so that we could continue subsequently to debate the child care legislation which was on the Government's agenda for today. It is very important to an awful lot of parents and children in this country.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Mitchell:: Why did you not bring it in two years ago?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, we recognize that since the Government was very remiss in not allowing witnesses to appear before the committee and actually jamming this matter through the committee, we want to have adequate time on the floor of the House of Commons at least to allow Members of Parliament an opportunity to reflect on this issue of child care.
Since we are likely going to be here for another three or four weeks, I do not see any reason for wanting to rush this legislation through. We will debate it for the rest of the week, all of next week and the following weeks, until it is appropriately debated.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of State.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to advise the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 115 or 116 with respect to an allocation of time for the third reading stage of Bill C-144, an Act to authorize payments by Canada toward the provision of child care services, and to amend the Canada Assistance Plan in consequence thereof.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 117, 1 give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House, for the purpose of allotting one additional day for the consideration of disposal of proceedings of that stage of the Bill.


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


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, this is completely out of order. The floor had been given to the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), and I object to that kind of procedure, bootlegging in a motion by the Government, or giving notice of a motion, I should say, when the floor, with respect to all the Members here, was given in good faith to the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. I think that it is completely contrary to our rules.

September 21, 1988
Committee Reports


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am perplexed at this initiative by the Government, because we have only had one speaker per Party, as far as I know. I have never heard of having time allocation or muzzling Parliament with only one speaker having had the floor on a piece of legislation that is not routine legislation. This has to be one of the most important social initiatives being considered by this House in decades. We had one speaker, and already we have time allocation for a single day. It is unprecedented.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am on a point of order now, but 1 understood that I had the floor when I was interrupted by points of order on the other side. When you called Motions, I got up to move concurrence in my motion and to debate the motion. I had the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say that the Chair has been taken by surprise, and I would prefer that that not happen. I have listened to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and I understand his objection as far as what has happened. Strictly speaking, the Minister was recognized on a point of order, and I, of course, had no knowledge at all of what the Minister was going to rise on.
The Minister, when recognized on a point of order, can move a motion. I know that what has happened has angered some Members but, procedurally, the Hon. Minister is within the rules. I had recognized the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East for debate, but even if the Hon. Member had been speaking and a Minister had risen on a point of order, he could still be recognized by the Chair.
The Chair does not know in cases like this what the particular matter is. Even if I had, I think that the Hon. Minister is within the rules. The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not want in any way to question your comments-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Just a minute. I am part of this House like everybody else, and I think that I have the right to say-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has asked to be heard again. The Hon. Member is an experienced and long-time Member of this House, and 1 think that he ought to have the attention of the House when he speaks. The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not want to quarrel with the way that you have interpreted the rule. I always believed that the point of order to put a motion under Standing Orders 116 or 117 had to be-


An Hon. Member:: Notice.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is notice. It has to be given on a bona fide point of order, but the Member could not be interrupted while he is making his speech. This is the first time in my experience that I have seen a Minister interrupt a Member while he had the floor, to put that kind of notice. The rules do not say
anything else but that the Member or the Minister can rise in this place on a point of order, but not that he can interrupt a Member of this House. 1 think it is impolite and absolutely contrary to our rules to interrupt a Member who has the floor and do what the Minister just did. It should not be accepted.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I followed the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). I did not make the interruption. I want to get that straight. I did not create the interruption in the speech of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). I think that should be made very clear.
The rules state that notice shall be given. I respectfully suggest-and Mr. Speaker has confirmed that-that notice has been given under Standing Order 117. That is all that we intended to do, because the business of the day, which was child care, has been interrupted by this manoeuvre of the Opposition. That is fair ball. Let us have the two-hour debate. The notice has been given on time allocation.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification of your ruling, because as far as 1 am concerned it is the first time that I have seen this kind of ruling in my experience here in a long period of time. If I understand correctly, when you called Motions, 1 moved a motion that I had had on the Order Paper for a long time. I had been recognized to move and debate that motion.
It is also my understanding that points of order, once I moved that motion, were to relate to the motion that I had made and not to anything under the sun. For people to make points of order with respect to the motion that I had made, or with respect to the rules of the House as they impacted on that motion, I can understand, but to get up on a point of order and make a motion such as was made by the Hon. Member, as far as I can see, is unprecedented.
Does this mean that we shall now interrupt the motion that I had moved, debate the motion but by the House Leader, and then return to the motion that I had put?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can assist the Hon. Member. Whatever Hon. Members may think of the tactics of either side at any given time, I have to call it as the laws of procedure prescribe.
I want to repeat again that I have made it clear that it has been done in the past. As I understand it, there is precedent for this. Whether the Hon. Minister's rising when he did is necessarily conducive to a generous reaction on the other side is another question.
With respect to the Hon. Member's concern, the Hon. Member was recognized for debate before the Hon. Member commenced debate. Another Hon. Member was recognized on a point of order, and then the Minister. The Minister has moved a notice of time allocation. No debate flows from that at this time. As a consequence, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East has the floor in debate on his motion.
September 21, 1988


William Warren Allmand: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in November of 1984, soon after the election of 1984, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) rising in this House tabled a financial statement in which he spoke about a broad range of cuts in Government and an approach to what he called fiscal responsibility of Government.
In making that statement in November of 1984, he said that there was an urgent need to reform our unemployment insurance system and that he was going to set up a commission to review the unemployment insurance system and to recommend changes. That was in November of 1984.
In July of 1985, some seven or eight months later-one might ask what that says about the urgency that the Minister of Finance mentioned in November of 1984-but in any case, in July of 1985 the Government set up a Royal commission, known as the Forget Commission, to examine and to recommend on changes with respect to the unemployment insurance system. That commission, the Forget Commission, sat and heard witnesses and travelled across the country for one and a half years, and it cost Canadians approximately $7 million. It tabled its report in November of 1986. In that report the Forget Commission made approximately 35 recommendations concerning unemployment insurance.
At that point the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration had the report referred to it for additional study. That all-Party committee immediately set up a series of meetings both inside and outside of Ottawa. The hearings went on for more than three months, and finally the committee produced a report containing 90 recommendations. That report was tabled in this House on March 19, 1987. Immediately after tabling the report I moved a motion that this House concur in the recommendations of that report.
I want to make it absolutely clear that the report was almost unanimous. This was before parliamentary reform and I believe there were more Members on the committee then than there are now. However, it was unanimous except for two recommendations out of the 90. Recommendation No. 17 was subject to two dissenting votes, and another recommendation was opposed by one vote. What did the Government do? After several months of study the then Minister of Employment and Immigration totally rejected the recommendations of both the committee and the Forget Commission. This despite the fact that the Minister of Finance said in November of 1984 that reform of unemployment insurance was absolutely necessary. This despite the fact that a committee of this House unanimously recommended serious reform of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
For example, a principal recommendation was that unemployment insurance should be available to part-time workers. As we all know, the long-term trend since 1980 in the number of part-time workers has been going up. Management of many
Committee Reports
businesses are laying off full-time workers and replacing them with part-time workers. In a way that explains how the Government can boast of creating more jobs. Of course it is easy to create more jobs when you do away with one full-time job of 40 hours a week and replace it with two part-time jobs of 20 hours a week. You double the number of jobs, but it is part-time jobs replacing full-time jobs.
Not only that, if those part-time jobs involve fewer than 15 hours, the workers do not qualify for unemployment insurance. Not only that, they usually do not qualify for pension or health benefits. Shifting your workforce from full-time to part-time is a way of lowering the cost of salaries and benefits for your workers.
The committee also recommended that there be extended maternity and child care benefits under the unemployment insurance system. It also made an excellent recommendation that those on unemployment insurance be allowed to take training which would give them a better chance of finding employment. As we know, a good number of people who are laid off and collecting unemployment insurance benefits very often do not have the qualifications or training to get the jobs that require a higher technology and new skills. Under the present law you must be ready and available for work in order to qualify for unemployment insurance. If you go off and take a part-time education program or part-time training program you lose your unemployment insurance. We think this is a bit ridiculous and the committee unanimously recommended that in that case you be allowed to keep your unemployment insurance benefits.
The committee also made a very excellent recommendation with respect to strikes and lock-outs. Let us say you have a large industrial plant with several unions. One union goes on strike and the others do not but the company shuts down and the non-striking workers are locked out or laid off. They cannot collect unemployment insurance. That issue went to the courts, and it is true that the courts ruled in those circumstances that the workers who are laid off because of a strike should be eligible for unemployment insurance. However, this should be clarified in law.
There were also excellent recommendations with respect to overpayments. Members of this House from all Parties are faced time and again with constituents who tell them horror stories of how they, by a mistake not of their own making, received unemployment benefits that were too high. This sometimes would go on for five or six months. Finally the UIC realizes its mistake and tells the unemployed worker "We have paid you $3,000 or $4,000 too much, give it back". It has been absolutely cruel and harsh in its approach to those unemployed workers. The money they receive is less than their salary or wage, it is used to pay rent, buy groceries and so on to keep them going while they try to find another job, and how are they to pay back thousands of dollars to the UIC because it made a mistake?

September 21, 1988
Committee Reports
Recently I had a case in my own constituency where a worker finally got a job and got back on his feet. Then the first thing the Unemployment Insurance Commission did was to seize his salary to collect the moneys which the UI had overpaid to him because it had made a mistake.
We can all understand claiming those moneys back from a worker who intentionally misled the Government or who put down false information, but the committee is not talking about that. The committee is talking about cases where the Unemployment Insurance Commission makes a mistake, overpays and then harshly tries to claim moneys back without any reasonable term of payment or whatever against the unemployed worker.
There were 90 recommendations made by the committee. Those are some of the major ones relating to unemployment insurance and part-time workers, unemployment insurance with respect to maternity and child care benefits, unemployment insurance with respect to job training while a person is unemployed, unemployment insurance with respect to workers who are put out of work through strikes and lock-outs, and unemployment insurance as it relates to overpayments and the collection of them.
Some recommendations also relate to the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and how the commission can be made a more effective and efficient operation.
Since this report in March, 1987, Members in the Opposition have time and again put questions to the Government asking if it would move on certain recommendations of that report, but the Government has always refused. The Government appointed the Forget Commission but did nothing about its recommendations. We recognize that three of the recommendations of Forget were rejected by the parliamentary committee. The Forget Commission recommended that we do away with regionally extended benefits and benefits for fishermen. We rejected those recommendations and also rejected Mr. Forget's recommendations that UI benefits be calculated on an annualization formula, which is a complex one, and which would have resulted in extremely low benefits for unemployed workers, benefits which would not allow them to pay the required rent and costs for families. We rejected those major recommendations of the Forget Commission.
By the way, I said earlier that Forget had made 35 recommendations. I was wrong. He made 53 recommendations. Our committee made 90. While we rejected several of Forget's key recommendations, there were many recommendations in common between the Forget Commission report and the report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.
Despite the fact that this report of the committee was unanimous, Conservative Members included, and despite the fact that many of the recommendations were in common with
the Forget Commission report, the Government did nothing. The Government is the one that said that something had to be done in November, 1984. The Government is the one that said we must set up this Royal commission to re-examine the unemployment insurance system to make it more effective, but it did nothing.
Just this year, because all of a sudden a specific case came to our attention with respect to maternity leave and child care, the Government made a very small amendment. In that case it is a typical example of this Government, that it will do nothing until we get a flagrant abuse of a system and then it is dragged kicking and shouting to make a reform that was necessary. In that case, Mr. Speaker, you will remember the case of one young mother who died giving birth to a baby. The father felt he had to leave work to take care of the newborn baby because the mother had died, but because he was the father he was denied unemployment insurance. Only the mother would have been allowed unemployment insurance to take care of the baby for the 15 weeks following the birth. This young man was a worker. By the way, he was a trucker, I believe. We have had the problems of truckers presented to the House in the last few days. However, because this father was not working as a trucker during his absence he lost his salary and could not collect unemployment insurance although he was taking care of a newborn baby as a result of his wife having died giving birth.
That individual case caused so much controversy that finally the Government did bring in a Bill just to correct that one instance. A year previous to that the Standing Committee saw that kind of problem and recommended that child care benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act be considered for both father and mother, that either one should be able to receive those benefits if necessary to take care of a child, but the Government did nothing until we got the case to which I have just referred. Then the change was made because there was an uproar in the country and people felt that something had to be done.
These problems have not been resolved. In a recent case that went to the Federal Court of Canada, again with respect to maternity leave and child care benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, Mr. Justice Strayer of the Federal Court said that the Unemployment Insurance Act is:
-shot through with arbitrary distinctions-
He said that several of its provisions were discriminatory. Mr. Justice Strayer recommended that certain corrections be made. I asked a question a few weeks ago of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) as to whether she would take action and correct these ambiguities in the law and introduce some of the recommendations of the unanimous committee report. She said she would not do that. She said she was waiting for the written judgment of Mr. Justice Strayer which she said she expected shortly.
September 21, 1988

Here we are with a situation which has been ongoing. There are many cases of unfairness, injustice, inconsistency, and arbitrariness under the Unemployment Insurance Act, waste in some cases and poor administration. The Government recognized that in 1984 but did nothing about it, and it should be no surprise to the Government that I now move concurrence in that report. 1 put that motion to the House several years ago and I have been waiting to see whether the Government would do something, but it has not.
Finally, with an election approaching, we want to put the Government to the wall to respond. I will be particularly interested to see how Conservative Members on that committee will now vote on my motion. Conservative Members who were an overwhelming majority on that committee supported the recommendations of the committee. As a matter of fact, the committee could not have reported if the members had not supported the recommendations. There was overwhelming support for them. Now 1 am asking the entire House of Commons to approve that report and to do something worthwhile for Canadian workers who are unemployed.
Every time we raise this issue of unemployment insurance benefits and the reform of the Unemployment Insurance Act and ask why the Government is not implementing the unanimous report, the Government does not answer the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member's time has expired, but I will give him an extra minute to wind up.


William Warren Allmand: I will conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker. When we ask the question, the Government simply says: "Look at the great number of jobs we have created". But a great percentage of the jobs that the Government has created are in Ontario. They are not in Atlantic Canada, not in the northern part of our provinces. In British Columbia there is over 10 per cent unemployment. The new jobs created are very regionally located. Despite that, over the last two months the rate of unemployment has increased. It has risen to 8 per cent, with over one million Canadians unemployed. There is an increasing rate of part-time work. The Government has done nothing about the older worker problem. The rate of unemployment among our youth is still well over 12 per cent.


Mr. Della  Noce@: It is better than it was.


William Warren Allmand: The Hon. Member again shows that he does not know what he is talking about. Of course it is better than it was in the depth of the recession of 1982-83. Before the recession in 1981, the rate of unemployment was 7.5 per cent. Here it is five years after the recession and the Government has not yet got the rate of unemployment down to 7.5 per cent. In the years of Liberal Government from 1965 to 1980, the rate of unemployment was 5.6 per cent. This Government cannot come anywhere near it, nor does it have the political will to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? Debate.
Committee Reports


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). I note that his motion has been on the Order Paper since March of 1987, some 19 months. I have been waiting all those 19 months for him to raise this motion so we could address it, but in actual fact, the House was debating Bill C-144, the child care legislation, which is a critical piece of law for the millions of women in Canada who are working and need help. As such, I believe it is important for the House to get back to that debate.
I therefore move, seconded by the distinguished Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes):
That this House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than fi	ve Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.		
The House divided on the motion (Mr.		Thacker), which was
agreed to on the following division: (Division No. 577)
 YEAS Members		
Attewell	Gray	PetersonBelsher	(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	RcdwayBinns	la-Madcleine)	RicardBlais	Hamilton	ScottBlenkarn	Hawkes	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Bradley	Hicks	ScowenBrisco	Hnatyshyn	SparrowBrowes	Horner	StevensCadieux	James	TaylorCaldwell	Jepson	ThackerClark	Joncas	Towers(Brandon-Souris)	Jourdenais	TupperCrosbie	Kempling	Turner(St. John's West)	King	(Ottawa-Carleton)Crosby	Layton	Warner(Halifax West)	Lesick	WenmanDarling	Lewis	WilsonDella Noce	Mantha	(Swift CurrentDesjardins	Mayer	-Maple Creek)Dorin	Mazankowski	WilsonDuplessis	McCain	(EtobicokeFennell	McDermid	Centre)Ferland	McKinnon	WinegardFontaine	Nicholson	Witcr-65Friesen	(Niagara Falls)	Girard	Nickerson Nowlan	
September 21, 1988
Business of the House

Members
Allmand	Hopkins	NystromAxworthy	Hovdcbo	RiisBenjamin	Jewett	RodriguezBoudria	Langdon	RossiCaccia	Malcpart	Tardifde Corneille	McDonald	(RichmondFoster	(Broadview-	WaddellFulton	Greenwood)	Young-28Gagliano	Mitchell	Gauthier	Nicholson	Harris	(Trinity)	Heap	Nunziata	
to debate on Friday. 1 have one which I planned to debate tomorrow. There have been discussions that we would want to switch these two private Members' hours. However, that requires the unanimous consent of the House. Therefore, I seek unanimous consent to switch the private Members' hour with the Hon. Member for York Centre on Thursday and Friday of this week.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


An Hon. Member:: No.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 declare the motion carried.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. There have been some consultations regarding the speaking order. I know that yesterday the Speaker recognized the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), and he had the floor. He spoke for but a few minutes. However, I think the order in which the Speaker should have seen Hon. Members in the House yesterday was for the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) to be ahead of the Hon. Member for Regina West. The Hon. Member for Regina West has been very nice to let his place stand without prejudicing his right to speak so that he will be the next speaker in the order of speakers. There has been agreement in this respect.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of courtesy to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), I hope the House will agree. I will explain to the Chair at some other occasion why. I was only on my feet for a minute and a half or two minutes. I would appreciate it if the Hon. Member for Trinity could take her proper place in the debate without precluding me from making my speech at a later time.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) has a private Member's motion which he wishes