1989-10-25

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, this government's decision to axe The Canadian is a direct attack on the regions of Canada. Ridings such as mine, Kenora-Rainy River, feel that they have been abandoned by this government.
The withdrawal of The Canadian does not make any sense. In fact, VIA Rail's own documents show that The Canadian was the fourth busiest in Canada, carrying more than half a million people a year with the best occupancy rate on the system, 70 per cent annually and 94 per cent in the peak summer season. In fact, the VIA review states that The Canadian would not have seen further traffic growth beyond 1993 because it would have been operating at full capacity.
If this government had put money into new and upgraded equipment, it would have been able to save many of the routes it has cut. Instead, it chose to attack once more the regions of Canada. The constituents of Kenora-Rainy River and many millions of Canadians will not forget this travesty of justice.


SCHOOL SAFETY WEEK
Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, from October 17 to 24, the Canada Safety Council observes its annual National School Safety Week, to promote accident prevention among school children.
This year, the campaign is about playing safe and watching out for others. It focuses on the issue of playground accidents, which cause injuries that could have been avoided. The campaign has also drawn our attention to Canadian standards for the construction, design and manufacturing of the equipment on public and private playgrounds.
The Canada Safety Council has launched a safety appeal to all Canadians, including the general public, municipalities, day care centres in schools, and parents, asking them to be alert to all possible dangers and make any changes that might be necessary, for instance, in the installation and maintenance of merry-go-rounds, supervision of young children; and teaching children safe games and how to be courteous.
We whole-heartedly support the efforts of the Council and provincial organizations to promote children's safety by enhancing public awareness and through preventive education.
*	* sfc


DISARMAMENT WEEK
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago, the first United Nations Special Session on Disarmament proclaimed October 25 as the beginning of Disarmament Week.
As we approach the end of this decade, positive, far-reaching changes appear inevitable. Superpower leaders, especially Premier Gorbachev, are beginning to recognize the financial and military limits to the arms race.
The cold war is over. The dismantling of NATO and the Warsaw Pact have become realizable goals. New and exciting possibilities exist. Yet it saddens Canadians to see our government still using cold war rhetoric, allowing cruise missile testing, low level training flights, as well as nuclear armed ships in Canadian ports. Our government encourages and subsidizes the arms industry when it should do everything possible to make those industries obsolete.

October 25, 1989
Canada can and must play an important and historical leadership role in global disarmament. We need a government with the vision and the courage to think new thoughts. We need a government that is part of the solution, not part of the problem.
 * *


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, we all know the substantial role played by small business in this country. Ninety-eight per cent of Canada's 900,000 businesses are small businesses. If every one of these created one job in this country, there would be practically no more unemployment.
As you know, many of these small businesses are managed by business people who belong to our ethnic communities.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of Small Business Week to bring to your attention a brand new directory of ethno-cultural business organizations which has just been published. This directory provides information on about 150 organizations and will help Canadian business people expand their contacts with various cultural communities in Canada and abroad.
Ethnocultural business groups are one of the moving forces of our economy, and as a result, Mr. Speaker, I think we cannot deny that multiculturalism in Canada has an economic dimension.
Canada should use its ethnic and racial diversity to enhance its position on international markets.


VIA RAIL
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, while this government slashes VIA Rail, Amtrak poises itself to fill the void. Yesterday in the Winnipeg Free Press, Amtrak advertised a new service to connect Winnipeg to the U.S. passenger rail network. The ad states: "It's easy, just get on the bus at the Winnipeg VIA Station".
What a transportation policy: Kill VIA, all aboard Amtrak; force Canadians to use an American bus link to the American railway network and make profits for Americans.
Amtrak says in the ad: "We'll get you to Grand Forks in time to catch our superliner, the Empire Builder". What a fitting name for the train. First this government goes to bed with the Americans through the free trade agreement and now the government shuts down the passenger rail system, the very symbol of our independence.
The Americans move in to pick up the pieces. Ride the Empire Builder, Mr. Speaker. "You can connect with any other train in the Amtrak national system. It could be the best connection you make all day."
We on this side of the House want passenger rail connections to be from The Canadian to the Supercontinental. We say leave the Empire Builder to the Americans and their Tory friends.
 * *


THE NORTH
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on October 20 this year, I went to the Inuit community of Salluit for the opening of their new airport. I spent some time in two grocery stores. At the Federation des cooperatives du Nouveau Quebec, a dozen eggs sold for $2.75 and 1.38 ounces of black pepper for $3.60. At The Bay, a litre of 2 per cent milk cost $2.74, butter sold for $3.74 a pound, while a loaf of bread cost $1.89. On top of that, Mr. Speaker, effective November 13, 1989, Canada Post is going to raise the rates on commercial parcels sent by air freight to Quebec's northern regions. This means, for instance, that the price of bread will go up 80 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Government of Canada, Canada Post, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and the Department of National Health and Welfare to put an immediate moratorium on rate increases for commercial parcels containing essential products such as bread, butter, eggs, milk, medicine and all types of children's good.

[English)


SKATE CANADA INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I know that all members would like to join me in extending best wishes to the young men and women who will be representing our country at the Sun Life Skate Canada International which will take place October 26 to October 29 in Cornwall, Ontario.
A total of 62 skaters representing 14 countries will participate in this the third ranked figure skating event in the world.

This competition will be extremely important for many young athletes who hope to represent their country at the 1992 Winter Olympics at Albertville, in France.

Aside from the singles, pairs and dance competitions, there will be the debut of the men's, women's and fours artistic program which replaces the compulsory figures in international skating.
I am sure that the city of Cornwall will be an excellent host for this international sporting event and that Canada's athletes will again proudly display their talents and expertise for the rest of the figure skating world.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, with his customary dedication, Canada's Auditor General, whose mandate is to ensure that public funds are properly administered, made recommendations yesterday in his report for more efficient government management. In the report he also mentioned the considerable progress made by the government in implementing a new framework for the management of departments and corporations.
Crown corporations which, under the Liberals, seemed impossible to control, are now able to account for then-activities very effectively. The Auditor General also states that since regulatory review was initiated by this government, the project scrutiny process has been satisfactory.
Our government's appreciation of the work done by the Auditor General is reflected in measures that were a response to recommendations made in previous years and have led to considerable improvements in many departments. I am confident that this government will take into account the recommendations of the Auditor General as it has in the past, because it is the only open and responsible government citizens can really trust.



Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to cite yet another example of government mismanagement as demonstrated by the Marine Sciences Research Institute in Mont Joli, Quebec, in the 1989 Auditor General's report.
The question is, when does a $17 million project cost $77 million? The answer is when the government does not carry out a needs analysis; number two, when the government does not take the lowest bid; number three, when the government offers tenders before a thorough cost analysis is complete; number four, when the government has not made provisions for easy access to the chosen site; number five, when the government fails to include the price of essential equipment for the facility like a $6 million computer; number six, when the government does not consider the latest environmental concerns and provides for only primary treatment of raw sewage; number seven, when the government presents a $17 million price tag knowing it is much more politically acceptable than $77 million; number eight and finally, the government does not learn from past mistakes and is not terribly intelligent.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, last week's environment ministers' conference in Charlottetown produced some very concrete results which all members of this House should applaud.
With regard to the ongoing problem of PCB waste in Canada, the ministers came to the highly ethical conclusion that the destruction of Canadian produced PCBs should occur, whenever possible, within Canadian borders. The federal Minister of the Environment moreover reaffirmed that those PCBs which are under the federal government's jurisdiction will, without exception, not be exported out of Canada. That is welcome news.

October 25, 1989
Oral Questions
The minister has also announced a commitment to ensure the cleanup of contaminated toxic waste sites throughout Canada under the "polluter pay principle" and has agreed to a $250 million cost sharing program to deal with high risk "orphaned" sites.
On the subject of air quality, the federal minister announced that the federal government will impose very stringent regulations, as stringent as those that will be in place in California, to control auto emissions within the next five years.
Canadians are crying out for a cleaner Canada. It is my belief that the recent meeting in Charlottetown has ushered in a period of improved co-operation between federal and provincial governments, the result of which will be a healthier and more responsible Canada.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the National Council of Welfare released its study of the effects of this government's plans to claw back family allowance and old age pensions. It states that in spite of the Prime Minister's protestations to the contrary, the clawback proposal signals an end to the longstanding Canadian principle of universality. A social program that delivers benefits to everyone and then collects them all back from some recipients is not universal.

According to the study by the National Council of Welfare, the government is undermining family allowances and old age pensions. These new measures, which are discriminatory and increasingly complex, are gradually threatening the universality of our social programs. Clearly, our children, our senior citizens, the disadvantaged and, in the next decade, middle income families, are the victims of this policy.

By eliminating universality of family allowances, reducing unemployment benefits and backtracking on child care promises this government is dismantling, in five years, a social policy framework that it took Canada a century to construct. Canadians are saying that it is enough.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Tbrner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns ministerial use of the Challenger aircraft.
According to the Auditor General's report at page 138, the guidelines provide, and I quote:
"These aircraft may never be used for party or constituency
purposes, or for purposes connected with an election campaign".
Mr. Speaker, since the official guidelines established by the Prime Minister provide that government aircraft may never be used for purposes connected with an election campaign, could the Deputy Prime Minister provide us with a complete list of persons who used a government aircraft, at what cost and for what purpose, between October 1, 1988 and November 21, 1988? Who made use of these aircraft during the election campaign and for what purpose?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the TVeasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, further to the Auditor General's report tabled yesterday, I have instructed the Comptroller General of Canada to make this information available to all members of this House and to the Canadian public, including the number of times each minister, individually, used a government aircraft; second, the date, itinerary and names of passengers for each trip on which the aircraft was used, the reason for using the aircraft; and finally, the cost of each trip on board a government Challenger aircraft. All this information will now be available on a regular basis, and the Hon. member will have full access to that information.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, these documents are already available to the House and to the public. I will quote the relevant dates and expect to receive the information this afternoon.

I want to return to the Deputy Prime Minister because I want to ask about a rule set down by the Prime Minister of Canada and cited by the Auditor General. On page 138 of his report, the Auditor General states that ministers can take two types of flights, ministerial flights which are for non-departmental purposes and departmental flights which are for departmental purposes when a minister is carrying his or her duties as the departmental minister. The rule set down by the Prime Minister distinguishes these two kinds of flights.
The Auditor General goes on to say that 95 per cent of the flights requested by ministers were for non-departmental purposes. I can understand the occasional justification for some of these flights, but 95 per cent of the time?
Since it is a violation of the guidelines to use government jets for political, constituency or electoral purposes, will the Deputy Prime Minister explain the reason why 95 per cent of government jet flights were for non-departmental purposes?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. friend across the way that we have been very diligent in monitoring the use of government aircraft by this government. In the 12 month period ending in August 1984, government aircraft were used on 677 occasions. In the last period, with an estimate for the last two months of this period, they were used only 278 times. We reduced the use in a major way. We are ensuring that the use is made for government business.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: You will note, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has not answered the question. I want to suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister why 95 per cent are used for non-departmental purposes. Here is the situation. The Auditor General says that the allocated cost of a so-called ministerial flight is about eight times less than a so-called departmental flight. Therefore ministers can make their travel expenses
Oral Questions
appear much lower by claiming one type of flight rather than the other.
The Deputy Prime Minister has a choice. He can tell the House that either the ministers were using the jets for non-departmental or political purposes or they were deliberately falsifying their records to make their expenses appear low. Which is it? When is the government going to put into place a system where the people of Canada can get honest answers without having to go through this charade here in the House of Commons?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I strongly disagree with the premise of the question that has been asked by my right hon. colleague. We have reduced the number of flights from 677 to an estimate of 278 this year on government business.


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Robert René de Cotret: I will answer the question. The right hon. member asked when the government is going to have an in depth review of all of this. The Auditor General has pointed out that he is concerned about the way costs are computed. He has expressed concerns about the reason why these flights are used.
On behalf of the government, I have asked the Comptroller General to make a complete study of this issue on an urgent basis within the next few months. I am undertaking today to table this study in this House and make the study available for any hon. colleague who may want to have the information. We will be forthcoming. We will give you the information.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, and it concerns the government's refusal to provide travel receipts to the Auditor General. The November 1988 Treasury Board guidelines for ministers, and I have a copy in hand, state regarding travel receipts that these supporting documents should nevertheless be retained in ministers' offices for possible verification by, for example, the Auditor General of Canada.
Why is it that in the September 1989 version of the same document the words "Auditor General of Canada" have been removed? Why did the government doctor the rules after the Auditor General asked for the receipts?

October 25, 1989
Oral Questions


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, these are guidelines that are issued from time to time by Treasury Board. I must repeat that they date back to a tradition that was established in 1963 and followed by all successive governments since that time. They are changed periodically, but nonetheless they attempt to ensure that there is absolute accountability and openness on the part of government on these issues.
Yesterday I said that we would provide on a regular basis the total travel expenses of each minister in addition to the information that was being requested by the Auditor General in terms of the use of government aircraft. I believe that that is in keeping with our position to be accountable and very open about how this government conducts its business.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, with respect, that is not what I asked. I asked why the rules had been changed in September of 1989 immediately before the Auditor General's report was tabled in the House of Commons, and I did not get an answer.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President of the Treasury Board explained his refusal to provide the Auditor General with certain information by saying that it would compromise Canada's security if he revealed who had a meal or a drink with a minister.
I would like to know why it is such a secret to know with whom ministers have a drink. Since when is caviar a national secret?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, once again, my colleague is framing his question in a way that is not wholly justified.
My answer yesterday on receipts is quite clear. It is understood that a government minister might have to meet with a provincial colleague or a union leader. He might have to meet people from abroad, representatives of other states, always while conducting government business.
I think that opposition members can well understand that in such cases, it is important to maintain confidentiality. It is government business. We are prepared to provide all information on ministers' travel expenses in
the way I stated yesterday. I think that will meet the objectives set forth by my hon. colleagues.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last year's Auditor General's report referred to a half a billion dollars in lost revenues to the government because taxes were written off by this government. This year's report which just came out the other day cites another $350 million per year loss due to excise tax loopholes. Will the Minister of Finance give this House an assurance that before he collects one extra dollar from ordinary and honest Canadian taxpayers, he will close these loopholes and collect taxes from people who are not paying their taxes?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member has been away from the House for quite understandable reasons, but I have responded to that question. We are closing that loophole. We are closing it through the goods and services tax.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is precisely the reason for the goods and services tax.
I want to refer him to the eleventh report of the finance committee which commented on the temporary measure that we brought in, in the last Parliament, to close this loophole and recommended that that proposal should not proceed.
The committee made some temporary recommendations as an interim solution pending the reform of the whole federal sales tax system. The federal sales tax system itself will close the very loophole to which the Auditor General is referring.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the minister should go out in the country. He would see that there is a tax revolt brewing out there. Canadians are fed up with this government's loopholes in taxation.

My second question is for the same minister. Last year, 91 people were found guilty of tax evasion, but none of them went to jail. Why does the government not enforce the current legislation strictly?
October 25, 1989


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure I understand the thrust of the hon. member's question. We are applying the current tax laws with vigour. We are also closing loopholes with vigour. We have been closing loopholes now for five years.
In response to the questions on the administration of tax laws and the administration of justice relating to tax laws, possibly he should be addressing that question to my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, or to the Minister of Justice.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could put it another way to the minister. The minister cites the new GST. The Auditor General has said that under the present system there are loopholes, that there are ways that people are evading taxation, and that people are not being prosecuted duly for that.
I would like to ask the minister: Is it not a fact that with the more complicated goods and services tax we are going to have more leakages, more loopholes, and the honest Canadian taxpayer is going to have to pay more in personal income taxes and probably, ultimately, a raised GST? What have the Conservatives got against the honest taxpayer of Canada? Why are they pursuing this kind of policy?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance noted, the hon. member has a right to be absent from the House of Commons for the purpose that he pursues, but at least when he is absent he should pay attention to what is going on here. That question was answered in detail.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Where's Mulroney? We haven't seen him for three weeks.


An Hon. Member:: Where's Valcourt?


Otto John Jelinek: They sound like a bunch of whining hyenas, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. minister could finish his reply.


Otto John Jelinek: I will, in a nutshell, repeat what I said yesterday. We agree with the Auditor General that the present federal sales tax system is a complex one and very hard to administer. Attempts have been made to change the present federal sales tax since 1951. It was not successfully changed to accommodate the Canadian
Oral Questions
public and the Canadian taxpayer, and particularly the small business community which is so dependent on having a government provide the competitive opportunities which we believe the GST will.
The hon. member should note as well that the Auditor General, in his report in this area, has made it very clear that processing of remittances is more efficient today than it was in 1984, that the backlog has cleared more quickly since 1984, that discovered unreported income is up by over 100 per cent since 1984, and that we have accelerated source reduction remittance since 1984.
The list of positive, impressive and productivity improvements goes on and on by the Auditor General. It is good news for business, it is good news for Canadians, and it is good news for taxpayers.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns this government's attempt to stonewall the Auditor General in his request for information on ministerial use of VIP aircraft. We already know of many instances of questionable travel by ministers of this government. However we now fear that those reports were just the tip of the iceberg.
Now we have the itinerary of the Minister of National Defence, who used the government jet on July 6, at a cost of at least $35,000 to the taxpayers, to fly from Saskatoon to Ottawa, even though a regular commercial flight was available at the time.
My question is: How many more questionable trips have been taken by ministers of this government, and how many millions of dollars have been squandered by this government's abuse of its own government guidelines?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the very fact that we are willing to make all of this information available is I think a good indication that we are not using them badly.
My hon. colleague raised the question about access to information. In his report, on page 26, the Auditor General says that "access is not an ongoing problem for me or my office". He goes on to say:
On 27 December 1985 the government, by Order in Council, directed that the Auditor General be given access to a wide range of cabinet documents. These include all the information I normally need to fulfil my audit responsibilities. The Order in Council has resulted in a constructive relationship between the government and my Office over the past four years.

Oral Questions
This good working relationship has, I believe, served Parliament, the
people of Canada, and the government itself well. I am confident that it
can continue.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is not going to work in this government's defence today.
My supplementary question is again for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Treasury Board guidelines state, and I quote: "Executive aircraft should only be used in cases where commercial air service is not available or not suitable and when the purpose of the trip is to carry out ministerial or departmental business".
We know that this government is withholding information from the Auditor General which could well show an outright abuse of that public trust. My question is: How many more ministers of the Crown, of this government, would go the way of Suzanne Blais-Grenier if the Auditor General was allowed to do his job and was given all the information concerning government and ministers' expense accounts?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we undertook yesterday in this House to give all members the number of times that each minister used a government aircraft, the date, the itinerary, the names of all passengers on each trip in a government aircraft, the reason for the use of a government aircraft, and the cost for the use of the government aircraft. That is more forthcoming than any government in the past.
If my hon. colleague has so many questions, maybe he would care to explain why in 1984 the previous government used aircraft on 677 occasions while we have brought that down to less than 300.
[Translation\


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle -Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday, the Auditor General repeated something everyone knows:
The Government would need less taxes if it were more efficient in
collecting them and maximized its service delivery.
My question is as follows, Mr. Speaker: How can the Government justify ripping off taxpayers with its GST when it is not even able to administer the public finances properly?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me just remind the hon. member of the record of spending of this government.
We have held government spending growth and program spending to 3.6 per cent per annum since 1984-85.1 remind the hon. member, for comparison, that that same number was 14 per cent in the previous four years. That is 5 per cent over the rate of inflation. Our record is half a per cent less than the rate of inflation. The overhead of government-light, heat, rent, wages, salaries-has gone down by 10 per cent from 1984-85 to 1988-89. Those are two very clear indications of how this government is controlling government spending.
Now compare us to the provinces. Our 3.6 per cent growth rate on program spending is as good as any of the provinces. The provinces range from 3.6 per cent up to 9.5 per cent for the province of Ontario. The average for the provinces is 6.4 per cent, nearly double the rate of increase of the federal government.
Clearly, if the hon. member is going to be honest with himself, he will say that we have a very good record of spending in this government.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, if the minister was to be honest with the Canadian people, he would do a heck of a lot better than that. This government is out of control. The fact is that the Auditor General has said that this government cannot manage the current bureaucracy. Now it is going to triple the number of tax collectors. The government has no right to increase taxes unless it can demonstrate that that is the cord of last resort.
Instead of trying to sell an unsaleable sales tax, why does the government not properly administer the nation's finances?


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the minister did not hear the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I did hear the hon. member use the words "out of control". Let me remind him while we are on the subject of the Auditor General that it was the Auditor General, about 10 years ago under a Liberal government, who said that the public purse was close to being right out of control.
October 25, 1989

If the hon. member wants to look through the statements that the Auditor General makes about the control of government spending, about the changes in attitude, they are in the Auditor General's report this year; they were in the Auditor General's report last year; and they will be in the Auditor General's report as long as this government is in office.


TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. PCBs and other dangerous cargoes are being carried on Canadian passenger ferries.
I put this government on notice through the Minister of Transport on September 15 by outlining the details of this situation, and all we have had is silence. Yesterday the Auditor General raked the government over the coals for its failure to put in place any program whatever to inspect shipments of dangerous cargoes on passenger ferries.
Will the government now, today in the House of Commons, end its silence on this issue and give the people of Canada a commitment that no more dangerous cargoes will be transported on passenger ferries until there is in place an adequate and proper system of inspection by the Department of Transport?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important point, one which the Auditor General also raised.
The transportation of dangerous goods in any mode is subject to very strict regulations under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. Anyone who transports dangerous goods in defiance of the act is breaking the law. The Auditor General has noted that we do investigate and conduct inspections on ferries when specific concerns exist. We do random inspections as well.
The department will continue to work closely with the other jurisdictions in this area to improve upon the safe transportation of dangerous goods.
Oral Questions


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the minister's own officials and the Auditor General say that in fact they do not have the personnel to make the inspections she refers to, so the law is not being complied with.


EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday there was an earth tremor on Vancouver Island registering 3.1 on the Richter scale. As the minister knows, people in British Columbia are particularly concerned about the risks of earthquakes.
The Government of Japan spends $100 per capita on emergency preparedness. The city of San Francisco spends $19 per capita. This government spends 29 cents per capita on emergency preparedness.
The people of British Columbia want an honest, real assurance from this government that it understands the urgency of this matter. Will the minister stand up now and give us that assurance?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I thought the member might again be complimenting the progress that has been made by Emergency Preparedness Canada in its earthquake planning efforts.
I would like to advise the member that emergency preparedness planning starts at the local level and the provinces have the prime responsibility for planning for earthquakes. At the federal level our role is to ensure there is co-ordination of federal government agencies and federal government resources to fit in with the provinces' plans.
We have developed a plan at the federal level. We have designated the federal agencies and identified resources that could be called into play to assist with the province of British Columbia.
As well, we have provided the resources to the province of British Columbia to hire a full-time earthquake planner. We participated in the training of local municipal officials. We put on workshops.
In fact, if I could suggest it to my hon. colleague who represents the riding of Victoria, we would like to see

October 25, 1989
Oral Questions
more activity emanating from the province of British Columbia because we respond to requests for training. If the people in his riding would like to get in touch with us, we would be glad to assist.


FINANCE
Mr. A1 Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. For the last four weeks while the finance committee has been examining the goods and services tax, many of my constituents and the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce have been suggesting that they would prefer a lower rate of tax, even if it means including such items as food.
Recently the Conference Board recommended a proposal for a 7 per cent rate. Will the minister at least consider some of these suggestions to lower the rate?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have read about and heard from a number of people who are suggesting that we lower the rate, but let me comment for a minute on the Conference Board proposal.
It has come up with a proposal for a 7 per cent rate but in that proposal it has exaggerated the price effect, the difference between a 7 per cent and a 9 per cent rate rate. In addition to that, it has left a $3 billion gap in the reduction of the rate from 9 per cent to 7 per cent.
The Conference Board can ignore a $3 billion gap and let the deficit go up. I unfortunately cannot. This government must proceed with a package that does allow for the deficit to continue its downward track.
Now in response to the hon. member's question, I have said all along that this is a GST system, a package. It includes a GST credit or a rebate to low income Canadians. It includes a reduction in the middle income rate, a payment to small business for compliance cost and a housing rebate. If that rate is to come down many of those elements have to be reduced.
There is not a consensus, that I have heard, on ways of reducing that rate.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of two long time former members of the Parliament from South Africa, Helen Suzman and Dr. Alex Boraine.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Last week in announcing a toxic waste clean-up program the minister indicated that Canadian toxic wastes would be incinerated in Canada. He said: "We will not destroy them in England. We will not destroy them on the planet Mars. We will have to destroy them here in Canada".
Despite this commitment the minister's department had just days earlier given permission to allow the shipment of contaminated wastes from Quebec to France for destruction.
Will the minister explain this inconsistency between his words and the actions of his department? Will he explain why he said earlier today that he does not have the power to prevent this shipment?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to give the full quote on the expression of the government's policy on PCB exportation. What I said on behalf of the government was that there would be no more exports of federal PCBs to foreign countries for destruction and that we would try to reduce to the minimum the export of private PCBs to foreign countries for destruction.
Those PCBs which left Montreal last night are not federal PCBs; they are private PCBs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lucien Bouchard: They left for France and the reason we have not stopped the shipment is that we had no legal reason to do so. I had extensive consultations with the government's legal experts, and I was advised that we have no legal grounds to act because the shipment complies completely with federal government requirements.
October 25, 1989

I will not expose this government to the embarrassment of having a decision quashed by the courts as was done in Quebec the other day. I have instructed the officials in my department to examine the possibilities of enacting new regulations to control completely the export of PCBs.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that in an area of national interest there would be a difference between local PCBs and government PCBs.


John Napier Turner: They are privatizing PCBs.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Sections 41 to 45 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act give the minister the power to make regulations prohibiting the import or export of toxic wastes. Under Section 35 of that act the minister can issue an interim order in the absence of adequate regulations.
Will the minister undertake to issue such an order immediately?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, of course there is a distinction to draw between the two regulations that have been quoted. The last one is in case of immediate danger. I was advised by the officials last night that there was no danger to invoke in this case.
The other regulation is a general one, and we are in the process of examining the possibility of enacting such a regulation in the next week. We will keep Parliament posted.


VIA RAIL
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport my question is for the Minister of State for Transport. The day the minister announced the VIA Rail cut-backs he stated that unionized employees laid off as a result of the VIA cut-backs, in his words, would receive a generous package.
Will the minister confirm that VIA officials are now claiming that because the cut-backs were a government decision and not a VIA decision employees will receive benefits based on 80 per cent of their salaries rather than on 100 per cent as specified in their collective agreements? Since the government caused this problem will it continue to go along with it or will it change it?
Oral Questions


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Transport stated in the House, we have asked that VIA make sure that all employees are treated within the guidelines of the collective agreement and that they receive fair and just treatment.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. Just recently a 53-year-old VIA employee from Halifax with over 20 years service called VIA's hot line in Montreal to ask about the early retirement plan. He was told that no such plan existed. At the same time VIA is offering non-unionized employees an early retirement plan.
Will the minister confirm that a double standard does exist, that non-unionized employees are offered a golden handshake while unionized employees are not even offered a hand? Why would the government support this unfair practice?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, the VIA organization is now working on setting the plans for what it is going to be doing as it implements the changes in the next few months and the next few years. All consideration will be given to all employees whether they be union or non-union, and they will be treated fairly.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (IVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister claims that sending Haitians back to Haiti does not put them in any danger. She claims that she obtained this information from the United Nations and External Affairs.
The minister ought to know that neither the United Nations High Commission for Refugees nor Canada's representative at the United Nations are aware of such a report. Could the minister inform the House where she got this information? And could she table the information here in the House?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I said Sunday, I have reviewed the issue of deportations to Haiti. Officials in my Department and at the Canadian Embassy in Port-au-Prince were consulted.

October 25, 1989
Oral Questions

I should add that after some considerable thought I am satisfied that the situation in Haiti is not such that refused refugee claimants or other Haitians who had no legal status in Canada would be exposed to any particular danger.
I have read reports prepared by my officials and they include the results of discussions with External Affairs and with information from the IRB which routinely takes into account information from the United Nations.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the minister would surely be aware that according to a recent report by Americas Watch members of popular organizations in Haiti who speak out against the government are being killed or beaten and the Avril regime refuses to speak out or to take action to defend them.
Therefore, in view of the uncertainty in Haiti, will the minister halt all further deportations of Haitians, review their cases and allow them to remain on humanitarian and compassionate grounds?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, let me point out that Haitians in Canada-and I know this is something that the hon. member has considerable sensitivity to, as I do myself-have access to protection through the Immigration and Refugee Board, if they can show that they are refugees within the sense of the definition contained in our immigration law which conforms to international practice and indeed is more sensitive.
The cases of persons who were found not to be refugees are reviewed by immigration officials who give consideration, once again routinely, to extenuating humanitarian and compassionate circumstances before removal is carried out.


FINANCE
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. During the past two years, Quebec's mining regions, including Abitibi- Temiscamingue, have gone through a period of great economic anxiety. Many junior mines have had to close their doors and wait for better days. Unemployment has risen considerably, and last week, the Government of Quebec abolished the CNIL on mine exploration costs.
Mr. Speaker, my question is as follows: Could the Minister confirm to the House today whether he is prepared to discuss with the provincial Finance Ministers the possibility of abolishing the CNIL on half the federal deduction granted on every purchase of flow-through shares?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Hon. Member's concern about flow-through shares.

I would like to say to him that an investment decision that one would make to invest in a flow-through share is partly based on the CNIL but also partly based on the outlook for equity markets, the outlook for the gold markets and so on.
I appreciate my colleague's ongoing concern in this matter. I will certainly take his representations very much into account if there are any changes being contemplated.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism. In industrial Cape Breton the unemployment rate is twice the national average. This, coupled with the recent closure of CFB Sydney, Air Canada cut-backs, VIA Rail cut-backs, fish plant closing, ACOA cut-backs and Devco cut-backs, is crippling the economy of industrial Cape Breton.
Will the minister indicate to the House whether or not he is clearly committed to providing new moneys for insuring the longevity and viability of the Lingan mine, thereby enabling 1,200 workers to maintain their employment and to provide certainty to a community which is saddled with high unemployment?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Oral Questions FREE TRADE
I would like to tell the hon. member that I have been in touch with the corporation and the union. We are discussing corporate structuring for the future to make sure that Devco can continue as a commercial and viable corporation. We know that the Lingan colliery is an important part of that.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. In listening to him, even his own minister responsible for ACOA had to laugh at that comment, that no government has done more for Cape Breton than this government. Even he had to laugh.


Mr. MacKay:: That is misleading the House.


David Charles Dingwall: My question is this. The Premier of Nova Scotia has stated, and I quote: "We already have made it very clear to the federal government that there is no possible way that that mine can close".
Will the minister inform the House as to whether or not the respective governments, provincial and federal, have entered negotiations in order to provide moneys under a special ERDA to ensure that that mine does not close? Is the federal minister responsible clearly committed to maintaining the operations of the Lingan mine and those 1,200 jobs? Yes or no?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that this government is committed to the long-term future of Devco as a commercial operation. The long-term future of Devco as a commercial operation means that it has to be operated as a commercial operation. It must, in fact, cut its cloth to the funds available.
I have said to the hon. member, to the House and to Devco that we are there to help. We have put in place a $32 million reference plan for it this year. We will continue with something similar in the future. That means Devco can continue. That means the Lingan colliery could very well have a future.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lambton- Middlesex will have a single question, followed by the hon. member for Nickel Belt with a single question.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, before the free trade agreement became law the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds spoke about the Canadian Wheat Board being able to sell into the American market without fear once the free trade agreement became law. The free trade agreement is now law. Yet our Canadian Durum wheat producers are being subjected to a threat of countervail duty.
Will the minister outline what action, if any, he is taking to defend Canadian interests, since the free trade agreement has failed to protect our producers. Or are your hands tied by the U.S. omnibus trade bill which obviously supersedes the free trade agreement?
Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and
Oilseeds)): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to report to the member that largely as a result of free trade the Wheat Board is selling record amounts of wheat in the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Mayer:: In fact, if I remember rightly-and think about this-the United States regularly exports 30 million the United States was our fourth or fifth largest customer as far as milling wheat is concerned. It looks like we are going to sell it a record amount of Durum this year.
So, as a result of the free trade agreement, we have better and more secure access. What the member is talking about is a threat of countervail. In the meantime we are selling wheat to that market in record amounts because we have a quality product, and it is priced competitively.


SCIENCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. As the minister is well aware, Canada has an opportunity to take a leadership role in research involving sub-atomic particles. For us to do that it is essential therefore for the Neutrino observatory to be located in the Creighton mine. To do that, the Neutrino now needs $12 million over the next four years.

October 25, 1989
Routine Proceedings
Can the minister give an assurance to this House and to the scientific community in this country that the government will come up with the $12 million in funding which, of course, is hinged on other scientists contributing their $10 million? The effective date is November 15. Can the minister give some assurance to the research community in this country that we can get the Neutrino funding?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It is one that has been repeated to me by the member for Timiskaming many times.
The situation at the moment is that the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council has $15 million on the table for the project. We have a commitment from the United States, which is not entirely firm yet. We have a commitment from the United Kingdom. We have $7.6 million from the Province of Ontario. There is still some to go. I am meeting with the president of NSERC at five o'clock today to see where that extra funding can be obtained, and if we can meet the deadline.


POINTS OF ORDER
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Public Accounts of Canada in listing the indemnities to members has made a mistake in listing me, which if it were true would be remarkable, but it is not true, as having received $80,203 last year rather than $58,725 in indemnities. Public Accounts lists me as having received $26,655 in expense allowances rather than $19,525 and lists me as having received $30,927 in travel expenses rather than $22,267. All together, Mr. Speaker, Public Accounts lists me as having received $137,785 rather than $100,517.
Since I have not received the larger amounts listed, I wish to have the record show what were the accurate accounts. These are the figures that I have from the comptroller.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member.
The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam on a point of order.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Finance made reference to my absence from the House. He knows that is against the rules of the House. Perhaps it was corrected by a subsequent minister. I cannot make reference to where he is now. I would just tell him this that I did not take one of those government jets around the country, that is all.


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly shall take notice of the hon. member's comments. I know that he will discuss his complaint with some of his colleagues in the better interests of decorum in this place.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]



ORDER IN COUNCIL


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.
While I am on my feet, I move:
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member from Victoria rising on a point of order?


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I realize that we generally raise a point of order when the government has moved such a motion. Correct me if I am wrong, but the government has moved a motion which all it manages to do is cut off petitions-well, there are a few other items but presumably there is nothing else coming up under that-but the rights of the citizens of this country to bring petitions are being cut off. I would ask you to rule it out of order.
October 25, 1989


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member's intervention. The hon. Minister of Justice's motion is completely in order.
I might also say with respect to petitions that there are two ways of presenting a petition. One is by filing them with the Table. They go to the government and they have to be answered within a certain period of time. The second is that a member can stand.
I recognize the inconvenience that it causes to members on both sides when one side or the other moves to eliminate, at least for one day, some aspects of Routine Proceedings. But I must say that the hon. Minister of Justice's motion is completely in order, and I shall proceed with it.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, October 16 consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
Mr. Hopkins:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the procedure that has taken place in the House the last few minutes, I wonder if I could have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to presentation of committee reports. I have a report from the public accounts committee to present to the House today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of the House for their co-operation.
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
I wish to say a few words in presenting this report, Mr. Speaker. The public accounts committee today tables a report which addresses significant concerns in the areas of government food inspection, pesticide regulation and controls against the spread of plant and animal diseases.
Canadians continue to have confidence in the safety of the food supply. In order to maintain this confidence, as the audit considered by the committee pointed out, there is a need to assess risks to human health and allocate resources to the areas of highest risk.
While the Department of Agriculture which is responsible for the food production and inspection branch has responded positively to the audit, the committee is calling upon the Auditor General to assess the department's progress in this follow-up audit. In particular, the committee was not satisfied with the low quality of information presented to Parliament in the department's annual spending estimates, Part III of the estimates documents, and has recommended improvements in this regard.
The committee also recommends amendments to the import control provisions of legislation and regulations to help improve procedures that guard against the spread of animal and plant diseases. Finally, concerns were expressed about improved training of food inspectors and better management of labour relations in the department.
[Editor's Note: See Today's Votes and Proceedings.]


ADVANCE PAYMENTS FOR CROPS ACT
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I give notice that at the next sitting of the House, immediately before the order of the day is called for resuming debate on the motion for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-36, an act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, and on any amendments proposed thereto, I will move that the debate shall not be further adjourned.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the spirit that this House showed a few moments ago in allowing the hon. member to revert to tabling of reports, I would ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to revert to the tabling of petitions so that members can represent their constituents in the way that the House rules were designed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Justice, on the same point of order.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: As the Speaker so aptly pointed out earlier today, there are two ways to file petitions. One takes up a lot time in the House, and another is through what is called the back door and at the table. I suggest to my hon. friend that he avail himself of that opportunity and do so accordingly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina- Lumsden, on a point of order.


Mr. Benjamin:: Since we are still on Routine Proceedings, I move:
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must rule that the motion is out of order and I must also rule, be it late, that there is no unanimous consent for the member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan to revert to petitions. The hon. member for Kamloops.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could seek clarification from Your Honour. We have now unanimously reverted back to presenting reports from committees. If we have reverted back to that point in Routine Proceedings, presumably that is where we are. Would you indicate, Mr. Speaker, whether now we will be proceeding with Routine Proceedings from that point?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The way that I ruled gave the authorization to the member for Renfrew-Nipissing- Pembroke to bring in his report by unanimous consent. We go back to Orders of the Day. Orders of the Day had been called when we did that, so we will resume Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.
Government Orders SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has reviewed the arguments of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace with respect to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act to read in part as follows, and has decided that motions Nos. 21, 22 and 23 will remain grouped for debate, but voted on upon as follows: (a) A vote on Motion 21 will be applied to Motion No. 23; and (b) Motion No. 22 will be voted on separately.
I thank the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace for his comments.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I remind members, as we are about to vote on the first set of motions, that a vote on Motion No. 4 applies to Motion No. 5, and an affirmative vote on Motion No. 6 obviates the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 8 and 11. A negative vote on Motion No. 6 necessitates a vote on Motions Nos. 8 and 11. A vote on Motion No. 7 applies to Motion No. 10. Motions Nos. 12, 13 and 14 will be voted on separately. Is that clear for everybody?
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundum. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

October 25, 1989
Government Orders
The next question is on Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division stands deferred.
The vote on Motion No. 7 will apply to Motion No. 10. The question is on Motion No. 7 standing in the name of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The last three motions of this grouping, Motion Nos. 12, 13 and 14 will be voted on separately.
The next question is on Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 13 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 14, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundum. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt that motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
October 25, 1989


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next grouping is as follows: Motions No. 15, 16 and 18 are grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 15 applied to Motions Nos. 16 and 18.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon -Dundurn) moved:: Motion No. 15
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 11 by adding immediately after line 7 at page 10 the following:
"(3) for the purpose of this section, a major claimant shall be defined as being a claimant having ten or more weeks of employment during the qualifying period."


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace) moved:: Motion No. 16
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 13 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"able to a claimant to".
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 14 by striking out line 10 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"able to a claimant to".


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak on Bill C-21 today, I must admit that it does not give me very much pleasure.
This bill, which will totally revamp the unemployment insurance program, is nothing short of a policy to shut down rural Canada. It is nothing short of a policy to shut down the small community in Canada. It is nothing short of the rape of Canada's natural resources by this government with its trade policies.
I want to say today that in some rural communities there is only one industry. We have areas in this country today where the government has closed down that one industry. It sold the softwood lumber industry down the drain when it is the only employer in town. It is really brave of this government to come out and say that it will
Government Orders
provide more mobility funds to move people to new places of employment.
I just wish that all cabinet ministers who gave their consent to this legislation were put in a position where they had to sell their homes, move out to the cities or to another area of the country to find a new job. They do not know what they are perpetrating upon small community Canada, upon people who have lived in their homes for a lifetime, who will have lesser time allotted for unemployment insurance. These people will have to move out. Suppose they have to move to Toronto to find a job? Who will put up with the expenses of living in the city of Toronto today after moving from some small community in northern Ontario or eastern Ontario?
What are you perpetrating upon these people? The government is already complaining about the high cost of living in Toronto but it is ready to ram more people in there, put more pavement over the land of this country. This will go a long way to developing this nation within 100 miles of the American border. The government is against regional development in this country. Without those support programs the regions of this country will not be able to exist.
The changes to unemployment insurance will adversely affect the rural Canadian economy because local industries and firms are often set up to employ seasonal workers long enough so that they can qualify for UI benefits. These citizens need a sound UI system to see them through the slow period. If they cannot pay the bills, the local grocery store will not benefit, the local gas station will not benefit. Nobody is going to benefit in that community.
In answer to this problem of rural communities where you have only one industry, the government has chosen to increase mobility funds. It will help workers move to areas where there are employment opportunities rather than create a comprehensive regional development policy. You are uprooting these people from their homes. You are doing it with the passage of this bill.
Unemployment insurance benefits not only help the unemployed pay for their rent, their groceries and other necessities but also sustain the economic life of the very community by providing essential purchasing power for business activity.

October 25, 1989
Government Orders
Furthermore, this government has moved away from its financial responsibility for the unemployed in this country. That is a direct responsibility of the federal government as a result of amendments to our constitution back in 1940. It is throwing the whole weight of the expenses of future programs for the unemployed on the individual worker who has to pay an increased fee toward the unemployment insurance fund.
The employer, whether small business or big business, whether a farmer employing a person, must pay a larger fee to the unemployment insurance fund. Why? Because the federal government is retreating like a coward from its financial responsibility to labour in this nation. The government should not move on its reform of the unemployment insurance system, if ever, until the boundaries for labour force economic regions have been redrawn.
As it stands now, some rural regions with high unemployment rates are grouped with metropolitan areas with lower rates of employment.
My own riding is a case in point. The upper Ottawa valley has always been averaged in with the city of Ottawa and with more affluent communities to the south. As a result, even though our unemployment rate is high at many times during the year, because we are averaged in with the lower unemployment rates in more prosperous communities it decreases our level of unemployment and we do not get the true picture. It affects the number of weeks that people have to work to qualify for unemployment insurance, and it also affects the number of weeks that they will be able to collect unemployment insurance.
In my own riding, I have a very good example of what happens on these famous boundary lines. I have a boundary line between Renfrew County and the District of Nipissing that runs right through the bush. If persons live on the south side of that boundary in Renfrew County, they have a longer waiting period because they are averaged in with Ottawa on the unemployment rate standards. Someone who lives just beyond the border to the north can qualify with a shorter number of weeks of employment.
We have a submission in from the upper valley that the boundary line for the new labour force economic region be Highway No. 7 up to Carleton Place and then Highway No. 15 from there on through to the town of Amprior.
Move us up into northern Ontario where we belong instead of leaving us in an area where there is relatively good employment at times that affects every worker and every resident in an area where the average unemployment level is reduced because of the more affluent communities with which we are averaged to get the unemployment rate.
It is wrong to bring this bill in before those labour force economic regions are established. The government should understand that, but it does not care. It has been told this time and time again, but it is so anxious to get this in place it does not want the labour force economic region boundaries to interfere with their future plans.
I can only say in the 30 seconds I have left that the concept of government involvement in social assistance type programs or in regional development programs that are dependent on income maintenance schemes is now a thing of the past. Regional development is a thing of the past. Not only have we ceased to have governments assist regions in this country to grow, but by the passage of this bill the government is making things so difficult for the small, average Canadian in this country that he is eventually going to have to move out of those communities.
The government is depopulating rural Canada and sending those people to the cities. It is like standing up in the streets of the small communities of Canada and saying: "Will the last one out please turn out the lights?" This is what the government is perpetrating on small communities in Canada.
This bill is anti-employee as opposed to just anti-labour because it affects everybody who pays unemployment insurance regardless of their category. It is going to produce more urban areas in this country; more pavement and less development in the regions of the nation.
It is not only the revisions to this bill. It is the cuts in VIA Rail. It is the softwood lumber issue where the government has no sense of moving on the issue at all. As a result we are going to have rural Canada shut down.
October 25, 1989


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the amendments that have been proposed to the bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to suggest that there is very, very good reason and good cause for these amendments.
Unemployment insurance legislation presently says people cannot get access to special benefits unless they have a major attachment to the workforce. Unemployment insurance defines major attachment as someone who has 20 or more weeks of insurable earnings. That means someone who has less than 20 weeks of work cannot get pregnancy benefits or sick benefits. Surely, that is an unfair assumption on the part of the act and an unfair way for us to proceed. We do not think that is right and we very strongly feel that there are different levels of unemployment in Canada by region, by nature of industry and by gender. So we have put forward and support this amendment on the basis that it does, indeed, reflect the varying levels of work in this country, the varying circumstances of those who are attached to the workforce and would more fairly and clearly reflect the needs of Canadians.
For example, the legislation does not recognize that in this case there is less work in Newfoundland than there is in Toronto. There is less work in Mission than there is in Vancouver.
We think that the present provision clearly discriminates against women in this legislation because only women, for example, face the provision regarding pregnancy.
I think it is important that while we debate this legislation, we keep clearly in mind the circumstances that women have faced over the years in becoming part of the workforce and the circumstances that still today predicate against them being full and active participants in the workforce. We receive work, we get work, but still we face barriers once we reach the workplace, even in this Chamber.
Particularly I want to address the kinds of barriers that women face in the workforce, like unemployment insurance provisions, and like other provisions in the workforce that make it very, very difficult for women to be full participants.
This legislation creates a situation where increasing eligibility periods and maintaining the 20 week eligibility period for special claims like pregnancy leave make it increasingly difficult for women to not only receive the benefits, but to also make it difficult for women as re-entrants into the workplace. What we would be doing with the government's provision in this legislation is
Government Orders
depriving women in particular but, in fact, disabled workers and other workers who have barriers in front of them from keeping any employment benefit under the act.
I have said that women in particular would be adversely affected by restricting access to benefits under this act. But since 1985, 35 per cent of unemployed women were new and re-entrant participants in the workforce compared to 12 per cent of unemployable men. So, as you can see, Mr. Speaker, this particular clause in the amendments to the act would, in fact, continue to make it difficult for women because women would be more affected by this clause.
I would like the House to consider the fairness about inequity in access to unemployment insurance. Denying these benefits to "minor attachment claimants", in fact, perpetuates low attachment to the workforce by penalizing those people when they are out of the workforce by necessity. Women, youths, re-entrants to the workforce are especially hard hit and they have, for the most part, the shortest work records. If we want to encourage greater participation, why would we distinguish between the types of claimants? Why not make it easier for people to remain attached to the workforce?
It is interesting to note that the all-party committee during the last Parliament, some of whose members more recently served on the legislative committee on Bill C-21, recommended unanimously that special entrance requirements for these benefits be eliminated. They also recommended that the two week waiting period for maternity and adoption benefits be eliminated. I would like to know where those members from the governing side of the House are today who are standing in support of the government's motion but not supporting the amendments that we brought before the committee.
The amendments on this talk about one kind of discrimination. I would like to mention another kind of discrimination. The hon. member for Burlington yesterday talked about people appearing before the committee tabling briefs. I am not sure of his exact words, but the inference was that they were copies of the Canadian Labour Congress's brief. I would like to talk about the kinds of attitudes that permeate this whole piece of legislation. I would like to read a letter that was addressed to the chair of the legislative committee on Bill C-21. It talks about the kind of treatment a group of people received when they came before the committee. The letter states:

Government Orders
On September 28,1989, myself and two other representatives of the National Union of Provincial Government Employees made a presentation to your committee on proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Having presented dozens of briefs to federal and provincial legislative committees over the past 20 years, I was quite shocked by the treatment our delegation received at the hands of certain government members of Parliament.
As you may recall during our presentation the hon. member from Burlington whispered loudly to his neighbour, slouched in his chair and made repeated gestures indicating his disapproval of the National Union's views of Bill C-21.
Ta'o other Tory MPs whispered to each other so loudly that I had to interrupt them and ask them if there was another meeting going on. A Conservative staff person - not a member of the committee - made a loud negative comment to a committee member about the NUPGE brief prompting you to call for order.
During the question period, the MP from South Shore asked hostile questions then attempted to direct the answer and did not let me finish my response. At one point that member told me I was "out to lunch", at another point, he made a sarcastic comment about the presentation and the response to it from opposition members of the committee.
I have always believed that the purpose of legislative committee hearings was to give interested groups and individuals the opportunity to present their views on legislation introduced in the House of Commons. It was quite clear from their performance that certain committee members had no interest in our views and were determined to act accordingly.
As far as we are concerned the behaviour of the aforementioned MPs was rude and inappropriate. It was particularly inappropriate since those very members of Parliament have among their constituents members of our union and their families; do they not have a responsibility to hear what their own constituents have to say? I am confident that you, as chairman of the committee, do not condone this type of behaviour and will indicate your disapproval to your Conservative colleagues.
Democracy is too fragile and too important a process to be abused in this fashion. Let us hope that this type of incident does not happen again.
Sincerely yours,
John Fryer, National President, National Union of Provincial Government Employees.
That letter and the kinds of amendments included in Bill C-21 are the very reason that this side of the House is absolutely shocked and dismayed at the attitude of the government in terms of our presenting very thoughtful, reasoned amendments to this legislation. We would urge the government side of the House to give them serious consideration.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to speak, albeit briefly considering the guillotine that has been imposed on the debate on this legislation by the government, on some of the amendments that have been proposed to Bill C-21. I am speaking to begin with of those amendments having to do with minor and major attachment claimants.
I would just like to raise a few points having to do with the reason we in our party believe that the distinction between minor and major attachment claimants is passe. It is a breach in equity and it is about time that that distinction be abolished in the unemployment insurance program.
I would like to say why we feel that way and why these amendments, which would add a little bit of equity into this flawed piece of legislation, ought to be introduced.
First, one of the few aspects of this legislation which had any merit dealt with what the government called making UI fair. In most cases it makes UI much less fair, but the improvements to parental benefits and the making of special benefits more flexible were a movement toward fairness.
As well, the provisions which make it possible for persons 65 years of age and over to qualify for, to contribute to, and to receive UI benefits were measures that had been called for three or four years ago by the Equality For All task force in order to make the unemployment insurance program compatible with the quality provisions of the charter.
The government, in taking four years to implement those benefits, did not do itself credit, but at least we finally see the government go some way toward rectifying that inequity.
The distinction between minor and major attachment claimants, as my colleague in the NDP mentioned, has the effect of requiring claimants for special benefits, such as maternity pregnancy benefits or parental benefits, to have 20 weeks of insurable earnings before being admitted under the program. In other instances such as regular benefits, the requirement depends on the local unemployment rate. This is really a distinction that ought not to exist. It is a flaw in the program. It is a breach of fairness.
October 25, 1989

What it really says is that women who become pregnant somehow have chosen to become pregnant while a member of the labour force in order to draw benefits while they are unemployed and on maternity benefits. That is the kind of stain which the major attachment requirement places upon any claimant who applies for parental or pregnancy benefits. That is the stain that has been placed on women in the past in unemployment insurance regulations.
I draw to your attention for historical purposes one example which used to be called the "magic ten" requirement, that required a women to be in the labour force at least ten weeks from the moment of conception to the time at which she drew her benefits. This was clearly an example of a society telling women they have no right in the workforce because they might become pregnant and we might have to pay them maternity benefits, that they tried to get into the workforce so that they could draw benefits from the state. The major and minor attachment distinction is one more example of that redundant, archaic and anachronistic feature in the unemployment insurance program which, if the government had been serious about making it fair, would have eliminated.
We are giving the government one chance to do that with these amendments. I hope we can get the government side to support these amendments and remove that distinction.
I would like to speak to the broader elements of this bill in the few moments that I have remaining. One of the things about unemployment insurance, when we talk about principles for modifying that law, is the whole principle of equity. One of the features which the government has trumpeted very loudly in terms of how this legislation will better affect the regions of this country which face high unemployment rates due largely to the seasonality of their industries is the repeater provision. The way in which the government has tried to pull the wool over our eyes with its abandonment of the repeater provision is really an example of how Canadians are being sold a bill of goods with this unemployment insurance bill.
Government Orders
The repeater provision, for those who are not familiar with the unemployment insurance program, is that provision which said that a person who had been receiving benefits during the qualifying period for which he was making a subsequent claim would require extra weeks of work in order to be eligible for benefits. The number of weeks was 16 and, depending upon the unemployment rate, even higher.
The government has ended repeater provisions and wants us to applaud it for having done so. Rather than applauding it, we should condemn the government for being so cynical in trying to tell us that that is an improvement in the program which will make unemployment benefits easier for workers in seasonal industries. Quite clearly it is not the case because while the government was taking away the repeater clause, it was raising the minimum entrance requirements for everybody to a point at which in almost every economic region of the country, with the exception of maybe three or four out of 48, the repeater provisions are completely nullified by the increase in the entrance requirement.
This winter those in regions of Nova Scotia or in New Brunswick will no longer have to face the repeater provision. What they will be faced with-and there will be many more people who will fall into this category-will be higher entrance requirements of four to six weeks. Many of them will arrive at the doorstep of the employment centre and ask to be qualified for unemployment benefits as they have in the past and will be told: "Sorry, we cannot help you, the government introduced a new bill. It means that you now need four to five more weeks of work in order to qualify for UI, so sorry, you will have to go somewhere other than your local welfare office."
The government has been rather amazed that its changes to UI have gone through with such little resistance. I would like to forewarn members opposite that they are just about to start to see the resistance that the Canadians are going to convey to them once these measures are put in place.
Every member opposite whose constituents are suddenly going to find that they must require two, three, four more weeks or not be qualified for benefits, will be on the members' doorsteps condemning the government's legislation which brought this about. We on this side of the House are not going to make it any easier.

October 25, 1989
Government Orders


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment insurance changes are before us now. In this instance, we are talking increasing eligibility periods and maintaining the 20-week eligibility period for special claimants and new and re-entrants, which seems to be designed to deprive those who have the most difficulty in obtaining and keeping employment of any benefit from the act. The whole thrust would seem to be that people who are unemployed are unemployed either because they want to be, because they want to get paid for not working-


Ron Fisher: Punish the victims.


David Stupich: As my colleague says, the government wants to punish the people who are the victims of the system itself. The people who are unemployed because they do not want to be are being punished and persuaded somehow or other that they have to keep on working or go to work in the first place. It is very prevalent in periods of high unemployment to say that those who are unemployed are unemployed because they are too lazy to work. I am sure we have all heard that. There is nothing new about that idea, and it comes up more and more in times of high unemployment.
It may be hard for some people to remember, but the unemployment insurance legislation itself came into effect in 1941. There were unemployed people even before we had legislation trying to push people into going to work, whether they wanted to or not. Some people say the unemployment insurance legislation keeps people unemployed because it is there. It is a safety net. They do not want to bother working. Even before there was that legislation, there were unemployed in the country.
During the Great Depression, we had as many as 20 per cent unemployed. Of course, the popular idea then was if we could simply export all of the unemployed from Canada we would be in great shape because everybody else would be working. It sounds silly, it is crazy. Nevertheless that idea was talked about and promoted, those people are too lazy to work, get them out of the country, and leave in the country only those who do have the ambition to work. Then we would have no problem. There would be nobody unemployed. Mr. Speaker, you and I know, it just does not work that way.
The legislation came in because there was very high unemployment prior to the war. The 20 per cent unemployment rate was one reason for bringing legislation in. It came in during the war when, strange to say, there was not that unwillingness to work. People did not take advantage of the unemployment legislation during the war because there were job opportunities, because we had an economic system that put everybody to work. There was a national effort. Unfortunately, it was a wasted accumulating munitions, which to a large extent were dumped in the Atlantic as though we were trying to fill up that hole. We had a million people in the armed services. Still we were able to produce everything we could consume and there was no unemployment.
That national effort was to fight a war and I was part of it. I was in the armed services at the time. Whatever the effort was, we were able to gear our economic and political systems to work together to pursue that goal.
All we need now is a government with a national goal that will provide job opportunities for all of those people. We will not be worrying then about changing the legislation in the hope that by changing it enough, we can force those people who are too lazy to work to go to work.
If there were job opportunities, those people would be working. The government should change its economic policies. One way would be to lower interest rates which would make it possible for us to export more goods, as we were doing during the war. We were exporting then. The fact that goods were going into a hole in the ocean did not matter because that created tremendous job opportunities. We did it all without borrowing abroad because there was nobody to borrow from then. We financed within Canada. We did so to pursue the national effort. There was nothing magic about it. It was a government plan. The government devised and organized it without interference. It had to almost conscript capital to force going along with it, but it was possible to organize during the war an economic system that provided employment for everybody who wanted to work. When there were those job opportunities, strange to say, everybody wanted to work, everybody did work, and for the first time, in the history of Canada to a large extent, women got involved in what were traditionally men's
October 25, 1989

jobs before that. Of course now they have the opportunity to work in all those jobs. That is the way it works.
We cannot do away with unemployment. We cannot make the lot of the unemployed any better by making it tougher to collect unemployment insurance. That is simply going to push the load of maintaining those people onto provincial governments because welfare is going to have to come into play more. Of course, the provincial governments are getting less money, or at least the increase in transfer payments to the provinces are going down and that means that the provinces are going to finance most of this.
The federal government is going to control the economic system. The federal government is going to decide how much interest rates are going to have to go up to control what is happening in southern Ontario as opposed to what is happening in the rest of the country. The federal government will retain complete control of our economic system, but the provinces are going to have to finance the cost of the errors, the cost of the problems that are being created by the federal government.
The government has not come to fully realize just exactly what it is going to cost when you extend, as we are doing here, the periods that employees have to work in order to qualify for unemployment insurance. There will be the opportunity for employers to see that employees do not work long enough if they want to cut their costs. They are going to push people out of work before they qualify. The cost of maintaining those people is going to be borne by the provincial governments through the taxpayers in the provinces rather than by the federal government.
The fault is federal and the opportunity to change this is federal. The government has shown in the past that it can, when there is a national effort to accomplish something which is very worth while, change things. The federal government has the mechanism to do it within Canada. We are no so dependent on external forces as we would like to believe today. The federal government can do it, but it will not.
Government Orders
The federal government is abdicating its responsibility to improve the system, to come up with a system that will work and instead, deliberately pursuing policies which are bound to end in increased unemployment, and at the same time saying that the cost of supporting the people who are forced into unemployment will be borne by another level of government.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate on these amendments to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I share the views expressed by my colleagues on this side of the House as to the cruel and unfair measures the government will take in its changes to the unemployment insurance system. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace on his excellent intervention and for his sincere convictions in wishing to see the unemployment insurance system maintained and supported instead of being gutted by this government.
The amendments proposed by the Liberal members who were on the legislative committee studying Bill C-21 are both positive and valid. They seek to ensure that Canada's unemployment insurance system obtains the support it requires in order to provide effective measures for workers who become unemployed.
I ask that the government give serious consideration to adopting the amendments which have been put forward by my colleagues.
I believe that every member in this House realizes what these changes will mean for the Canadian worker. Simply put, workers will have to pay more into the system and receive less in benefits if they become unemployed. There is something inherently wrong with such a relationship. This certainly goes against the attitude of compassion which the government frequently tries to sell to Canadians.
Bill C-21 will place severe limitations and restrictions on the unemployment insurance system and those who may require its assistance. It restricts a claimant's access, eligibility and entitlements. We should remember that UI is supported in part by workers and employers through their individual contributions. Bill C-21 will increase the amount of qualifying weeks needed for a claimant to receive benefits and it will reduce the number of weeks in which those benefits will be provided.

October 25, 1989
Government Orders
The government has announced that it will withdraw its contributions to the unemployment insurance fund as of January 1, 1990. Employees and employers will be forced to make up for this withdrawal by having their UI premiums increased. The government will now make those workers who may need unemployment insurance assistance truly pay more for less.
It was very benevolent of the government to state in the recent budget that it would be willing to step in and contribute to the financing of unemployment insurance during "difficult economic times when it is inappropriate to raise premiums and prudent to allow deficits to build in the UI account". One is left, however, with the truly frightening thought as to just what exactly will have to occur before the government deems Canada to be in difficult economic times. What will be the litmus test this government will use to make such a decision?
Perhaps the government will recognize difficult economic times are in existence if for example the country is facing high interest rates, severe budget cuts, multiple tax increases, and the closure or takeover of numerous Canadian industries and businesses. Such events would certainly increase unemployment in Canada. If these are valid examples of difficult economic times, then I suggest that the government would be better off to withdraw Bill C-21 right now and maintain its contributions to the unemployment insurance.
I represent the riding of Stormont-Dundas. This riding includes the city of Cornwall and the two rural counties of Stormont and Dundas. Thus my constituents may work in either an urban or rural setting. This is not unlike the situation which exists in a number of ridings throughout Canada. The changes to the unemployment insurance system will, however, have a negative impact upon many of my rural constituents.
Many rural industries and businesses operate with seasonal workers. These workers are usually able to obtain the required number of qualifying weeks for unemployment insurance benefits. Bill C-21 will increase the number of weeks that will be required for such benefits. Given the seasonal nature of their jobs, these workers may not be able to accumulate the extra number of weeks.
Employers in rural areas lay off seasonal workers after a specific period. To become eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, many seasonal workers would have to be kept on longer. I am not sure that employers would keep their workers on longer as it means more wages have to be paid and this increases the employer's operating costs. As a result, their businesses would become less competitive.
If these businesses compete on the international market, they would suffer economically because of the increased costs. It would be ironic to see the Conservative free trade deal adversely affected by its own unemployment insurance changes.
The government boasts that it will provide additional funds for job training. Such a step in itself is positive. However there is a problem of training someone for a job that simply is not there. Often in rural communities there is only one industry or major employer. There are no other avenues for employment. If workers residing in rural areas enter training programs, then after they have learned new skills they may have to move from their present location to find jobs elsewhere.
The government has stated it will increase mobility funds to help workers relocate to higher employment areas. This, however, does not help the viability of the places where the transplanted workers once lived. Is the government content to have a series of ghost towns in rural Canada?
The unemployment insurance benefits have served as a stabilizer in communities where high unemployment exists. These benefits actually play an important role in the local economy. At times they contribute to keeping businesses alive and help keep from placing an added strain on the welfare system. Unfortunately, there are many cases of this throughout the country.
Unemployment in the city of Cornwall, as in the counties of Stormont and Dundas, is fairly high. It is between 10.7 and 10.9 per cent. While unemployment may be higher in other parts of Canada, I believe that these figures are still significant. They convince me that the changes to unemployment insurance will have a serious impact within my riding and other areas of eastern Ontario.
October 25, 1989

The problem is compounded with the inclusion of Stormont and Dundas and surrounding areas into the eastern Ontario economic region, a region which also incorporates the city of Ottawa. On August 16, 1988, the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration announced the undertaking of a comprehensive review of the unemployment insurance economic regions. These regions are used for the delivery of the unemployment insurance program. The unemployment rate assigned to the economic region in which a worker resides determines the minimum number of insurable weeks needed for that worker to qualify for benefits.
At the time of her announcement the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration said that it had been 12 years since the last comprehensive review had occurred. Since then the minister added that the distribution of people and employment opportunities in Canada have changed.
Thus, rather than just making adjustments, this review would ensure that the system of economic regions would become more responsive and sensitive to the differing conditions throughout Canada. This sounds wonderful except that the review is still going on and the implementation of the unemployment insurance changes is getting closer and closer every day.
The Minister of State for Employment and Immigration made her statement over a year ago. Officials in the department have said that the review has been in progress for well over a year. Moreover, on June 6,1989, at a meeting of the House of Commons employment committee, senior officials from the Department of Employment and Immigration said that there could be a delay in having the new boundaries in place before the unemployment insurance changes come into effect on January 1, 1990.
The town of Renfrew, the cities of Cornwall and Brockville, and the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry have all passed resolutions petitioning the government to bring the necessary boundary changes to the eastern Ontario economic region. I would like to read a portion of their resolution. It states:
Government Orders
The inclusion of the region of Ottawa-Carleton in the same economic region with such counties as Lanark, Leeds-Grenville, Prescott-Russell, Renfrew, Stormont, Dundas and Glengany implies that the level of local economic activity characteristic of Metropolitan Ottawa is also characteristic of these counties. This is not the case. The government must revise the current boundaries of the eastern Ontario economic region to accurately reflect the economic realities of eastern Ontario.
Job opportunities and unemployment rates in Stormont-Dundas are not the same as those exist in Ottawa. The two are drastically different. Ottawa has an unemployment rate of just under 6 per cent. Stormont- Dundas has a rate between of 10 per cent and 11 per cent. The inclusion of these areas with Ottawa-Carleton is a ridiculous and wholly unfair situation.
An unemployment insurance claimant residing in a region that has an unemployment rate of under 6 per cent needs, under the new system, 20 weeks of work to qualify for benefits. In a region with an unemployment rate of between 10 per cent and 11 per cent, a claimant requires only 15 weeks to be eligible for benefits. By using the old boundaries, one can easily see the inequality and hardships this will cause.
The Liberal members on the legislative committee studying Bill C-21 have put forward a number of amendments which would improve the fairness of this bill. The government should adopt their amendments if it is sincerely interested in maintaining an effective unemployment insurance system in Canada.
I believe the government would be providing an extreme disservice to Canadian workers by introducing Bill C-21 without including the amendments of my hon. colleagues. The government would in fact be saying that it does not care how Bill C-21 will affect the lives of Canadians in all parts of the country.
People who become unemployed do not automatically lose their financial obligations. Their bills are not paid for them and they do not always find another job right away. What about the older worker, women in the service sector and our youth who are trying to survive in our competitive workforce. By passing Bill C-21 without amendments the government would be saying that it does not care about these people at all.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, in addressing this stage of Bill C-21 it disturbs me to see the government's actions. We are asking the working people of this country to pay more for longer periods to get less for shorter periods. On top of

October 25, 1989
Government Orders
that, we are asking the same working people and their employers, regardless of their ability, to pay for a multitude of programs that have absolutely nothing to do with unemployment rates and have absolutely nothing to do with the principle of insurance.
This government from time to time has gone on at great length to say that we have to return the unemployment insurance system to the principles of insurability and that it should have some relevance to the purposes for which the unemployment insurance system was first designed.
But this bill not only introduces one of the most unfair kinds of taxation systems imaginable but, in terms of social cost accounting, it is moving 180 degrees in the opposite direction from which anyone with any modicum of common sense at all ought to be considering. We are asking working people and their employers, regardless of their ability to pay, be they workers or employers, to pay more for longer periods to get less for shorter periods. Obviously that does not make sense. It certainly is not justice and it certainly is not fair.
I have worked with many working people in the some 21 years I spent in the hourly paid labour force in several industries. Those who have worked for 10 or 20 years and are fortunate enough never to find themselves unemployed for a long enough period of time to collect at least know that some of the people they work with are going to benefit from the UI program. They say: "Well, even though I never got anything out of it and I have been paying all these years, at least my workmates get something".
Now we are asking them to pay for education programs and to go even further along the path which was set under the Liberal administration a few years ago. They are paying more for what should be economic development programs and job creation programs. Those programs may be fine. They may be dandy, and maybe we are not going to argue with those particular programs at all, although some of them have had pretty patchy records from time to time. On what basis of common sense or any other kind of reasoning do we suggest that these programs have any relationship at all to an individual employee's or employer's record of employment or unemployment? There is just no basis in reasoning.
Some of the other measures that are being taken within Bill C-21 have been required by court action to extend maternity benefits into paternal benefits are good. While we have not taken issue with them within the context of Bill C-21, I am one of those who have wondered for some time just what the hell they have got to do with employment and unemployment in terms of unemployment insurance premiums.
Where is the relationship between whether somebody is employable or unemployable depending upon the vagaries of their particular company or industry? These are good programs but they have no connection to an unemployment insurance program. It is fraudulent to suggest that they do. We are compounding that fraud by all of these changes, both in internal financing and the kinds of programs we are asking the UIC fund to pay, that is the whole thrust of Bill C-21.
When a measure is so far out and so incomprehensible in terms of the aims and objectives of unemployment insurance as is this, it is hard to know how to force yourself to deal with some of the detailed matters arising out of the legislation. When the entire concept is screwy, it is hard to do what you think is just wasting your time talking about the dotted i's and the crossed t's.
Other changes have been made from time to time in answer to the kinds of reactions arising from some sections of the labour force and some sections of the business community, that say we have to tighten up the rules, tighten up the periods and qualifications, et cetera. We bring in new regulations. Some ordinary employees work 5, 10, 15 or 20 years and never collect UI often never collecting during their entire lives. If they do find themselves suddenly thrown out of work, having been laid off and honestly unemployed after having paid the premiums, they go to the UI office and they make a claim. While some of the trick questions and various other methods that have been brought into the system over the years to stop abuses of the system do not do a very good job of stopping or dissuading those few who want to cheat this system and any system, these methods do an excellent job of discouraging and cheating these honest employees who, once every 10 or 20 years, find themselves on the unemployment lines. They are the ones who get shafted.
October 25, 1989

Surely we have been at this business of unemployment insurance long enough that anyone who has been a member of Parliament for a few months, not to mention several years as a number of the members opposite have been, should know that those workers are the people who get hurt every time we tighten the screws, and not the ones who Parliament has supposedly been after. So why do we keep doing it? Is it our intent to shaft honest employers and honest employees? I cannot believe that, but after experiencing this place off and on for a number of years I am really left wondering just what kind of motivations we have when we continue to abuse this entire system and the people who should be the honest beneficiaries of it in times of their own peril.
Most working people are honest, most are hard working, most employees and most employers do not mind paying their share. But in terms of equity, why should an employer who is operating a very marginal business in terms of profit, or may in fact be suffering a loss, have to pay exactly the same amount of taxes per employee as a corporation which may have been in the enviable position of earning hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in profit over the preceding year? What kind of sense of equity brings about a system in which we not only place 100 per cent of the responsibility for payment on those employers and their employees but in which we add a whole host of other programs; social programs, maternity benefits, paternal benefits, job training strategies, education programs and everything else that should properly come out of general revenue based upon ability to pay, and put them onto the backs of those employers and those employees?
The entire system, as we are amending it, is making less and less and less sense every year. If our constituents from one end of the country to the other, from cities and rural areas and the resource hinterlands of this country are up in arms, if they are feeling that nobody really gives a damn about them and nobody in Parliament really gives a damn about any sense of equity or justice, then we can hardly blame them. If we and this institution become held in contempt for what we are doing to those people,
Government Orders
I, for one, think that they are entirely justified if we go by the track record of this Parliament in recent years.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, the bill that we are considering would seek to drastically change the unemployment insurance regime, a system that has served this country veiy well. In so many other institutions or programs, be it medicare, pensions or any other item that I could mention to you in the arena of government activities there are abuses. Thke medicare, for example. It is not difficult for us to demonstrate that in the medicare area there are abuses. But who is there among us who would suggest that we ought to throw out medicare, that we ought to disrupt the basic system, that we ought to throw out the baby with the bath water? Surely there is a better way.
I submit to you that if these changes go through, if this savage piece of legislation goes through, if the government has its way in gutting the unemployment insurance system, it will have thrown out the baby with the bath water, it will have destroyed a system, a program that has served this country very well.
I hear some among us in this Chamber talk about the lazy people. I have heard it again and again, muttered at first, but now they are getting a little braver because they are beginning to realize that a number of their colleagues over there share the view that somehow people who draw unemployment insurance are lazy.
They ought to have been with me today when I was travelling back from my constituency of Burin-St. George's. At the airport in Stephenville I talked to a lady from one of the nearby communities, a married woman who has three children aged 9, 11 and 13. She was doing what tens of thousands of Newfoundlanders have done over the years. She had the option of staying put and drawing unemployment insurance at the present rate, not at the doctored rate, the diminished rate that we will have if and when this bill goes through. She had that option, but instead last night she packed her suitcase and left her children in the charge of a family member. As I speak she is in Toronto looking for a job. I said to her; "Did you have a job or some indication of a job before you decided to go?" She said: "No, I have to go. I have no choice."

October 25, 1989
Government Orders
She has a choice of sorts. She can stay home and draw that unemployment insurance and be with her loved ones including her three children, or she can go and seek employment. She is doing what the thousands of Newfoundlanders who live in Fort McMurray, Cambridge, Toronto, Halifax and Vancouver do; what the hundreds from my riding who work on the CP tracks from Saskatchewan through to B.C. every summer for many months do; and what the hundreds more who work on the Great Lakes boats for eight or nine months a year away from their families do.
I have to tell you that as a Newfoundlander I am insulted, absolutely insulted, by the pious suggestions of those people who tell us they will save us from ourselves, who tell us they will help us stop being lazy. I have news for you. It is not laziness that has put many of my fellow Newfoundlanders on the receiving end of unemployment insurance over the years, not laziness but absolute, dire necessity.
As in the example I just gave you of the mother with the three children, even when they have the option of receiving unemployment insurance benefits many of them opt to go and look for something better.
Other of my colleagues here on this side of the House will be making points about the individual problems with this legislation. I just want in passing to mention a couple, but I then want to get back on a theme that I think might help members of this House understand why it is the unemployment insurance system ought not to be savaged in the way it will be with this legislation.
The longer qualification period and the shorter benefit period are two proposed provisions which will play a lot of havoc in the area I represent. Why is that? Is it a game because they do not want to go to work? No, it is because there is no work to go to.
It is all very well for somebody who lives in southern Ontario where the economy is moving along quite fine, thank you very much, to sit in judgment on those who receive unemployment insurance benefits. It is a very different matter for those on the receiving end, a very different manner indeed.
You have to look at Newfoundland and other parts of rural Canada in this particular context. In so far as Newfoundland is concerned, and my riding of Burin-St. George's, many of the jobs are by nature seasonal occupations. That is not to anybody's blame; it is just the way it is. It is difficult in parts of Newfoundland to catch
fish through three feet of ice. It is difficult to catch fish when the Arctic ice is moving down from Greenland as it does on the northeast coast of Newfoundland, sometimes as late as June. It is foolhardy to be putting nets out there if they are going to be mowed down by an iceberg several times as high as your house.
There are realities out there. If you extract a livelihood from the harsh resources of the North Atlantic there are some realities. One of them is: just as you do not stand in front of a truck in downtown Toronto unless you have a short-term objective, you do not put your boat or nets in front of an iceberg.
All those people who piously tell us about how they are going to save Canada from lazy people ought to take a trip to Newfoundland or take a trip to Cambridge, Ontario, or Fort McMurray and have a look at the lazy Newfoundlanders they are muttering about.
They will find a couple of things if they have done a survey. They will find there are more native bom Newfoundlanders living outside Newfoundland today than there are in Newfoundland. I wonder why. It is because they had enough get up and go to get up and go to where the jobs are. But some of them, for many reasons, have not had that option open to them.
We are fed up with being characterized as a bunch of lazies because we happen to take advantage of a program that was designed for our kind in the beginning.
What is our kind? It is the kind of people who through no fault of their own have to find a way to bridge themselves between seasonal job opportunities. That is what the guts of this program is all about. That is why I get upset that the government is wanting to take the guts out of this program and that is what it is doing with this legislation, make no mistake about it.
It is Tory resettlement 1989 style. It is a cowardly, not too well disguised attempt to encourage people to move to urban Canada. Well, we have news for them. I see from your signal, Sir, that my time has run out. If I had more time I would tell you what that news is.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, for now I give you notice that if this government, through unemployment insurance wrecking, through the closing of post offices, through the shutting down and abandoning of railway lines, through the foisting upon people of another tax which they cannot pay, insists on trying to shut down rural Canada as it is doing, the public will have a message for it come the next election.
October 25, 1989

Maybe what ought to be done, I say to my good friend for Burlington whose heart is in the right place but whose head is all tangled up with the wrong gang, is to go back and, instead of bringing in those semantic rules, those changes which mean nothing, do the people of Canada who have helped build this country from coast to coast a favour, do them a service instead of being party to the insult that somehow they are lazy because they need assistance from the public purse once in a while, until the seasonal job comes around again, until they can of their own resources provide the livelihood for their family and their loved ones.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, it is with no great pleasure again that I stand here to debate Bill C-21. After having gone through the closure motions which we went through yesterday and the Draconian actions which this government has put this Parliament through in order that it would hear as little debate as possible on this measure, there is no joy in getting up to speak to it.
When we look at such measures in Bill C-21 as major and minor attachment to the workforce, the natural question to ask is: What does that mean? What it means in its essence is that those who are least advantaged in our society are going to be the ones who suffer the most.
Who are the least advantaged in our society, or the most disadvantaged, whichever way you would like to put it, Mr. Speaker? We find there are several groups of people within that description, but certainly there are those who are less well educated and there are those who work part time, and both groups contain a preponderance of women. In the final analysis, those who are going to be most severely affected by these changes to Bill C-21, and most other changes as well, are women.
For the government to come in with such a change to the act is an indication which I think can be traced to free trade. It can be traced to these fine schemes the government has for forcing the Canadian workforce to be competitive.
Government Orders
Those are phrases which we often hear the government refer to in defence of any number of things it is proposing, all the way from the general sales tax. These references are couched in language that it is trying to do something with the deficit and the national debt and so on. Of course, there have been references as well to Bill C-21 in the same context, trying to become competitive, and free trade is involved in it as well. Of course, competitiveness was one of the reasons that the government kept referring to as the necessity for getting free trade.
When we talk about competitiveness the implication is always that Canadian workers are really overpaid. When the government talks about competitiveness, it talks about lean and mean. When the government talks about reductions, it talks about social programs. There are any number of our competitors who have better social programs than Canada does.
It makes you wonder, but not for long, what the government is talking about when it talks about "competitive". The reason you do not have to wonder very long, Mr. Speaker, is that you suddenly realize that what they are talking about is our competitiveness in relation not to the more progressive countries of this world but to the least progressive countries of this world.
Members of the committee on the government side have even made direct references to how well off Canada is in relation to, I am not sure whether it was Bangladesh or the Philippines or some other very seriously disadvantaged country.
Why is the government putting in these measures in Bill C-21? When we look at the government's own impact study, we find an admission which I would be ashamed to do if I were the government. It admits that right off the top there are going to be 30,000 Canadians eliminated altogether from being able to benefit from unemployment insurance.
There have been more credible studies, I would suggest, which have shown that in the neighbourhood of
130,000	Canadians will be excluded entirely from unemployment insurance benefits, not 30,000. One hundred thousand more Canadians will be excluded entirely from unemployment insurance after the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act goes in compared to those who are able to access it now.

October 25, 1989
Government Orders
We are going to create a very large class of very poor people, again, as I said, mostly poorly educated and mostly women. It is not a marvel when you look at those countries which so often are implicated in the government's statements that we need to become more competitive, that in those countries in what are commonly called unfortunately the Third World countries, we find that the people who are abused by the multinational corporations and their own governments are the poor and that they are mostly women.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, consciously or unconsciously one of the main consequences of these changes to C-21 which the government is bringing in will be that in Canada, in preparation for an even broader free trade agreement with what we often hear the government refer to as the Pacific Rim, we will be setting up people who will be glad, because they are not able to even get the poorly paid minimum wage jobs that are available in this country now.
The minimum wage is something else we could talk about. I would remind the countiy that the federal government's minimum wage is the lowest in the country. At best on the government's minimum wage a single person anywhere in the countiy would make half as much as the poverty line in this countiy.
This bill is setting up Canadians for the multinationals to come in and use those poor people, to use those women in exactly the same way as they are being used in the Third World countries; for the menial, repetitious tasks which experience has shown time and time again wear these people out in three to five years. In many instances they are not able to continue to any other kind of employment, because of perhaps poor eyesight or because of the totally debilitating postures they have developed due to the conditions under which they have been forced to work, than going on the streets as prostitutes.
I would suggest that this bill is moving Canada very, very close to that line. With the spread to the Pacific Rim trading, to the Pacific Rim free trade deal, I predict that this is precisely one of the effects that this bill is going to have.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address Bill C-21 on changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I see that the hon. member opposite is grinning with the same kind of grin that the government is giving all of us who are very concerned about the changes in this bill; a kind of grin that says "the heck with you" because we are putting forth some changes and even though we are following a procedure that, as my colleague to the left has said, is Draconian in the extreme, we are going to put it through. Even if the contents of this bill go counter to all the principles that Canadians have come to regard as being part and parcel of this nation's fabric, principles that have taken us 100 years to build up as part of the Canadian character, we are going to shove it through without the appropriate debate.
I am pleased that we have at least a modicum of opportunity to address some of the amendments that are here before us, amendments that have been made necessary, quite frankly, because the bill does not do what it ought to do, namely, to address the unemployment problem in this country, most of it structurally.
I have heard the government members over the course of several days spread out over several months-because we have had such limited time to debate this bill in this House-read out some statistics about the greatness of their job programs. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the unemployment rates for the post-recession period, for the post-growth period that is supposedly unprecedented in the history of this country, are much higher than they were in the pre-recession period. In fact, what is very, very telling is that the structural unemployment rate in 1988, according to StatsCanada, is much higher.
I know the parliamentary secretary is trying to represen rate in 1988, according to StatsCanada, is much higher, watching him carefully on the monitor to make sure that things are being waded through properly. But I draw to his attention that the structural unemployment rate in 1988, five years after we began a post-recession period of unprecedented growth, sits at 8.3 per cent. That is 5 per cent higher than it was before this countiy entered into a recession.
October 25, 1989

That structural unemployment rate is verified in the doubling of a rate amongst older workers. In 1982, for example, as Canada was going into a recession, the structural unemployment rate among seniors was at 7.7 per cent and today it sits at 14.8 per cent. The prime structural rate nationally sits at 7.7 whereas prior to the recession and prior to all this growth it was at 5.6 per cent. The duration of unemployment in 1982, the duration of time that people spent on unemployment benefits if they found themselves without employment in 1982, prior to this country entering a recession, was 15.7 weeks for the average claimant. For the average claimant at the end of 1988, according to StatsCan figures, in a period of unprecedented growth, the duration was 19.1 weeks per claimant.
These figures beg the question why, why Bill C-21? What is this bill doing to address the structural unemployment of this country? What is this bill doing to address the longer term of unemployment in this country? What is this bill doing to address the varying disparities nationally among our regions?
Precious little, Mr. Speaker. I give you an example. The government has spent much time, through its members, reading statistics about how it is going to put in more moneys. Instead of putting moneys into income maintenance for claimants it is going to put moneys into job creation programs, into job entry, into job development, into skill shortages, into skills investment and community futures. Well, I think it is important and instructive for us all, for the nation, to understand what the government is doing. It is important so that the nation-all peoples watching this debate which has been shortened by the government's desire to pass through a bill very quickly without having the nation wake up to discover what is happening to it and to its citizens-can judge.
Let me read some of the figures because they are in juxtaposition with the minister's words. It is appropriate for all of us to wonder which speak the truth; the words of the minister and her government or the statistics of the moneys that the government is actually putting forward in these job training programs in job development.
For 1989, according to the Estimates, there was a net decrease of 8 per cent of funds available for job develop-
Govemment Orders
ment. For job entry there was a net decrease of 1.7 over 1988. The skill shortages area is extremely important because the minister is justifying the changes to the unemployment insurance bill on the basis that we require greater skills amongst our labour force. What she has done is decreased-that is spelled d-e-c-r-e-a-s-e-d, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary-moneys to the tune of 3.6 per cent. She has dropped the amount of money in skills investment by 7 per cent. She has dropped the amount of moneys for Community Futures by 2.5 per cent. She has dropped the amount of moneys available for Innovations by 20 per cent over the last year.
Mr. Speaker and hon. members, I ask you, is this an indication of a government that is telling the truth, or is this an indication of a government whose actions speak a greater lie than its words?
One need only take a look at some of the clauses that this government would ram through. For example, it is unprepared to support a motion by my hon. colleague for Notre-Dame-de-Grace in the area of benefits for people who adopt children. We have seen a reduction of unemployment benefits for such purposes go from 15 to 10 weeks, where the amendment of my colleague says, "Let us substitute the word "ten" for "fifteen". What happens? The government says, "No, no, no, we cannot support that. We are going to make some mealy-mouthed approach to the fact that we are going to rectify a problem". The government introduces a clause that is going to implement a means test from which only those who have the patience of Job will be able to profit.
That would be bad enough, but we take this very miserly and vicious attitude towards helping to develop a labour force for refer to as an equally vicious subclause in clause 19 of this bill. In addition to giving the government the power to change the unemployment insurance fund from an income maintenance program to a training type of program, it privatizes unemployment insurance and gives the government the authority to take a grand total of about 15 per cent of all funds from premiums and apply them to training programs, training programs which obviously it is not at all favouring, if we accept the Statistics Canada figures that I just read a few moments ago, figures that are corroborated by the department.

October 25, 1989
Government Orders
The estimates for Canadian Jobs Strategy, the amount of moneys that are going to be generated by this adjustment in the training program run at about $1.4 billion and the unemployment insurance bill is going to be greater than that. What will happen is that the government, with a sleight of hand, will move moneys out of unemployment insurance premiums into Canadian Jobs Strategy. Well, thank you very much. Let us suppose that this is going to serve the people of Canada, it is going to serve the labour of this country. What about those claimants to unemployment insurance who face an employment counsellor and say, "I do not want to accept unemployment insurance. I want to go on a training program".
I draw your attention to Clause 19, Mr. Speaker. Claimants cannot appeal the decision of an employment counsellor. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as I ask all members on the opposite side of the House and on this side of the House; if we are truly interested in developing a skilled labour market for all of Canada, should we not at least give them the right of appeal? I guess the answer is that the working people of Canada are going to be treated with the same contemptuous arrogance with which this House has been dealt by the minister and this government in this debate.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House focuses on the provisions of this legislation which discriminate against new claimants for unemployment and, in particular, young people. The bill discriminates, therefore, against those who have the greatest difficulty in surviving economically and socially. Once again we have an example of the government's actions confounding the government's rhetoric. Once again, the government contributes to the unnecessary divide that is building in this country between the affluent and the less well-to-do. Once again, the government pushes away from the family table the least advantaged, in this case Canada's unemployed young people.
I want to address one set of consequences of this legislation that has not so far received much focus. I speak in part in my capacity as critic for the Solicitor General's Department for our party.
It is fitting that we raise the issue of the impact on crime prevention in this country of this legislation because today the Solicitor General with a lot of PR fanfare announced Crime Prevention Week. The hypocrisy of this government knows no bounds. The very week it asked Canada in sanctimonious terms to participate in crime prevention it guts one of the key programs that
gives some hope of preventing increased crime in Canada.
Two weeks ago in Montreal an international conference of experts and civic leaders was sponsored by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. This conference included guests and delegates from Europe and throughout North America. Included in the sponsors was the European Forum on Urban Security and the U.S. Conference on Mayors in collaboration with the Montreal Urban Community, five international organizations of cities and more than 30 partners. They received over 100 briefs. They had delegates from 31 countries around the world and were addressed by the Under Secretary General of the United Nations, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, ministers from France, the Netherlands and Canada, as well as mayors from Canada's and the world's major cities.
At this conference the federal government gave merely passing attention. Two of the ministers dropped in to give speeches and disappeared. The speeches, if I may say, were marked by bromidic cliches. In the follow-up seminar after the conference the Minister of Justice did not even appear himself. He sent his Parliamentary Secretary who did not take the trouble to even understand what the seminar was about.
The overwhelming conclusion of this major international conference was that community must be the focal point of crime prevention, and that we must go beyond the criminal justice system in seeking a solution to the rising crime rate in Canada and throughout the world. Crime prevention must focus on social development, it was said in this important conference. The causes of crime, as we have known for years include poverty, unemployment, lack of affordable, decent housing and an unresponsive education system. It is particularly among our young people that unemployment has the effect of moving them to crime, and crime is largely centred among our young people.
We were treated in the seminar after the conference to a very important paper based on a study in the U.K. by a David Farrington and a Donald J. West. This study surveyed over the last 25 years 400 young people in London and traced their development from about age eight or nine to now when they are into their mid-thirties. They were able to interview in their most recent round somewhere over 90 per cent of the participants back in the early 1960s. They were able to look at those who got into trouble with the law and who had contributed to the rising crime rate in Britain. They were able to make some analysis of what it was that distinguished those who got into trouble from those who did not.
October 25, 1989

The overwhelming conclusion was the conclusion which the conference itself reached. In order to prevent the development of crime and antisocial behaviour, social prevention programs are vitally needed. These could begin, and I quote: "by targeting three important predictors of offending that may be both causal and modifiable"-sociological words at their best-"economic deprivation, school failure and poor parental child rearing behaviour". What this points to is a combination of programs, but a combination in which dealing with youth unemployment is absolutely essential.
Britain, under the Prime Minister's friend Margaret Thatcher, tried to do what this government is doing in a slightly different way. They cut off young people from unemployment insurance, or the British version thereof, between the ages of 16 and 18. That change lasted for barely a year. Margaret Thatcher herself finally understood the impact of that on the other issue which she was concerned with, which was crime in British cities. She changed her position entirely. The government was forced to reverse that decision and to reinstitute unemployment insurance for the 16 to 18 year olds in Britain.
If this government is serious about crime prevention, if it wants to do more than rhetoric, it must withdraw this bill and completely revamp the provisions applicable to young people in Canada.
UI is a major federal program. It is one of the points at which the federal government directly intervenes in the social systems in Canada. It gives the federal government some very real leverage in trying to cope with the social problems that are hitting our cities and our countryside. The delicate fabric of our social system is critical to the fight against illegal drugs and crime that accompanies that dreadful traffic.
I plead with the government to take this issue more seriously than it has. What we have seen all summer is a situation in which the government has simply pretended to listen. It has reduced the number of hearings that it has held and wants to hold across the country. It has said
Government Orders
from the outset that it is not going to accept changes, and we have seen that reaction so far in the House. It has turned a deaf ear to the pleas of the people from every section of this country not to proceed with these changes, not to do this unravelling of a critical social program for the people of this country.
At the conference I referred to earlier some of the speakers revealed the two world visions that now face us when we look at the changing social conditions since the end of the Second World War, the rapid urbanization, the tremendous growth in poverty around the world, the changing economic system that is imposing changes on the social, political and economic systems around the world.
We in the west have two possible responses, two opposite visions that we can put forward. We can put forward the vision of a Ronald Reagan or a Margaret Thatcher or the Prime Minister of this country, which is of two nations, of two worlds-a rich world and a poor world. The rich can increasingly build a bunker around themselves and try to fend off the legitimate cries for equality, the legitimate cries for a place at the table. Or we can move to a different vision, a vision at which we first begin by recognizing that the world is a family, that we are all one, and that our obligation as members of Parliament and as public servants is to tiy not to narrow the access to the riches that this country and this world can produce but instead to broaden the access to those riches and that a country is going to be measured not by the wealth of its richest citizens, but by how we treat our poor and, in particular, our young people who must begin by building a world of hope. Only then can we begin seriously and realistically to deal with the problems that confront us.


Hon. Warren AUmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Has the time for debate expired? If that is the case, I want to again say in the strongest terms that by using closure in this debate the government has shown complete contempt for democracy as many points have not been made in this debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 25, 1989
Government Orders
[Translation\


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-42, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1990.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and on Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 18.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5.45 p.m., pursuant to order adopted in accordance with Standing Order 78(3) on Tuesday, October 24, 1989, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill.

I will do the grouping on Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 18. Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 18 were grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 15 applies to Motions Nos. 16 and 18.


Ron Fisher: Motion No. 15
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 11 by adding immediately after line 7 at page 10 the following:
"(3) for the purpose of this section, a major claimant shall be defined as being a claimant having ten or more weeks of employment during the qualifying period."


William Warren Allmand: Motion No. 16
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 13 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"able to a claimant who".
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 14 by striking out line 10 at
page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"able to a claimant to".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 15. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
I address myself to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace or the member for Ottawa-Vanier. The mover of Motion No. 17 is Mr. LeBlanc. Do you want to move it on behalf of Mr. LeBlanc?


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member has decided not to put that motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Therefore Motion No. 17 is withdrawn.
The next motion is Motion No. 20.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: moved:
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 20 by striking out lines 38
and 39 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"provide assistance to claimants who have at least ten weeks of insurable employment and who are not otherwise disqualified under this Act for any".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division shall stand deferred.
The next grouping involves Motions Nos. 21, 22, and 23. A vote on Motion No. 21 applies to Motions Nos. 23 and Motion No. 22 will be voted on separately.
Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn) moved:
Motion 21
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 20 by striking out lines 26
and 27 at page 14.


William Warren Allmand: Motion No. 22
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 20 by striking out lines 32
to 35 at page 14.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 21. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division shall stand deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 22. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Government Orders


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The Chair understands that there is unanimous consent for the Minister of Employment and Immigration to move Motion No. 24A which had been ruled out of order by the Speaker on Monday, October 16.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions with Mr. Kempling and directly with the minister's office in the last ten minutes on whether both Motions Nos. 24A and 28 would be accepted as in order. We have not yet reached a conclusion on that. We will try to do that in the next few minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair gathers that there is no consent at this time.
The next groups involves Motions Nos. 25, 26 and 39. A vote on Motion No. 25 applies to Motions Nos. 26 and 39.


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 25
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 20 by striking out at line 17
at page 15 and substituting the following therefore:
"paid in any year under sections 24 to 26.1 and 116.1".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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

October 25, 1989
Government Orders


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was my understanding that Motions Nos. 25, 26 and 39 were to be moved and put to the House and that it was the vote on Motion No. 25 that would determine the results on Motions Nos. 26 and 39.1 do not think we had an opportunity to move Motions Nos. 26 and 39.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The advice of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace to the Chair is well taken. We will put Motions Nos. 26 and 39.


William Warren Allmand: Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 20 by striking out line 18 at
page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"shall not exceed three per cent of the".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is my understanding that we simply need to move the three motions and only call the vote on one. You are calling a vote on the three.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The member is correct again. That is what experience does.


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 39.
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 48 by striking out lines 12 and 13 at page 31 and substituting the following therefor:
"sion in respect of the services is subject to the provisions of Section 26.2(1)."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will propose Motions Nos. 29 and 32 and I will put the question on Motion No. 29.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Motion No. 29.
That Bill C-21 be amended by adding immediately after line 8 at page 16 the following new clause:
"21. Section 28 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(4) For the purposes of this section "just cause" for voluntarily leaving an employment exists where, having regard to all the circumstances, including any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e), the claimant had no reasonable alternative to immediately leaving the employment:
(a)	sexual or other harassment;
(b)	obligation to accompany a spouse or dependent child to another residence;
(c)	discrimination on a prohibited ground of discrimination within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act;
(d)	working conditions that constitute a danger to health or safety; and
(e)	obligation to care for a child.""


William Warren Allmand: Motion No. 32
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 21 by adding immediately after line 27 at page 16 the following:
"(1.3)(a) Before a claimant can be disqualified under Section 28 following a declaration that the claimant has quit an employment for "just cause" there shall be an initial presumption in favour of the claimant and the onus of proof that the claimant has quit without "just cause" should rest with the Commission.
October 25, 1989

(b) In interpreting Section 28 "just cause" shall include, among others, sexual and other harassment; discrimination, occupational health and safety, child care responsibilities, and accompanying a spouse who is moving to a new job."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 29. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division shall stand deferred.
The next grouping involves Motions Nos. 30, 33 and 34. They will be put to the House and then the questions will be put to the House separately.


Ron Fisher: Motion No. 30
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 23 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"twelve, but can be amended to a lower number at the discretion of a board of referees."
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out lines 44 and 45 at page 16 and lines 1 to 7 at page 17.


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 34
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 21 by adding immediately after line 7 at page 17 the following:
"(4.1) Notwithstanding subsection (4), any portion of a disqualification referred to therein shall be reduced by the number of weeks during which the claimant has worked beyond the number of weeks required to qualify for the benefits."
Government Orders


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question will be put on the three motions separately. The question is now on Motion No. 30. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division shall stand deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 33. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division shall stand deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 34. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.

October 25, 1989
Government Orders


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division shall stand deferred.
The next grouping includes Motion Nos. 35 and 36 which will be voted on separately.


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 35
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 25 by striking out lines 5 and 6 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"ered after thirty-six months from the date on which the liability arose unless in the opinion of the Commission an offence under Section 33(1) has been committed therewith, in which case no such amount may be recovered after thirty-six months from the date on which the Commission became aware of the offence."


Ron Fisher: Motion No. 36
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 25 by adding immediately after line 11 at page 20 the following:
(6) Any repayment under section 35 shall be appealable under section 79 or 80. When considering repayment, a Board of Referees shall also consider the financial circumstances of the claimant.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 35. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division shall stand deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 36. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division shall stand deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 36A which will be voted on separately.


Joy Langan: Motion No. 36A.
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 26
(a)	by striking out lines 20 and 21 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"liable to pay earnings to that claimant in"
(b)	by striking out line 33 at page 20
(c)	by striking out lines 6 and 7 at page 21 and substituting the following therefor:
"ings in respect of the same period is or"


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
October 25, 1989

And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division shall stand deferred.
Motion No. 37 will be voted on separately.


Ron Fisher: Motion No. 37
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 29 by striking out line 25 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"maximum rate of premium that persons employed in".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division shall stand deferred.

Hon. Gilles Loiselle for the Minister of Employment and Immigration moved:
Motion No. 37A.
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 31 by adding immediately after line 24 at page 23 the following;
"(2) All that portion of subsection 50(4) of the said Act preceding paragraph (a) thereof is repealed and the following subtituted therefor:
"(4) For the purposes of this section, the Commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, make regulations" ".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Government Orders


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 40 which will be voted on separately.


Ron Fisher: Motion No. 40
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 48 by striking out line 13 at page 31 and substituting the following therefor
"be costs of administration of this Act; all parties entering into such agreement with the Commission agree to have their performance and financial records reviewed by the Auditor General."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division shall stand deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 41.


Ron Fisher: Motion No. 41
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 56 by striking out line 9 at page 34 and substituting the following therefor:
"come into force on April 17, 1985."
October 25, 1989

Government Orders


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division shall stand deferred. The hon. member for Ottawa West on a point of order.


Marlene Catterall: I understand that the minister's Motion No. 24A could not be introduced because there was not unanimous consent, although we in the official opposition were prepared to agree to the introduction of an amendment that would have required equity standards in employment opportunities and training in the bill to ensure that the designated groups of the handicapped, women, natives, and visible minorities would have equal access to training programs.
However, I would like to ask if there is unanimous consent of the House to introduce Motion No. 28, which does exactly the same thing and is entirely compatible with the Employment Equity Act and the standards that the government enforces on private employers?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
I will now propose to the House Motion No. 23, which I should have proposed at an earlier time.


Ron Fisher: Motion No. 23
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 20 by striking out lines 36
to 39 at page 14.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division shall stand deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

And the Division bells having rung:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 4. The vote on this motion applies to Motion No. 5.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I therefore declare Motion No. 5 lost on recorded division. The next question is on Motion No. 6.
During the taking of the vote


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the member for Kamloops. The Chair would just like to know if the member for Kamloops is rising in favour of the motion or opposed to the motion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make that clear. I think I was asleep at the switch. We are actually voting in favour of the government motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since the Chair had already called for those opposed to the motion, the only way that we could come back to those voting for the motion would be if there was unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any more nays?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 7. A vote on this	
motion applies to Motion No. 10.	
The House divided	on Motion No. 7, which was
negatived on the following division:	
(Division No. 95)
 YEAS Members	
Allmand	Althouse
Angus	Arseneault
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) Bellemare	
Berger	Black
Blondin	Brewin
Callbeck	Campbell (South West Nova)
Clancy	Comuzzi
Dingwall	Dionne
Ferguson	Fisher
Fontana	Foster
Gauthier	Harvard
Harvey (Edmonton East)	Heap
Hovdebo	Jordan
Karpoff	Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)	Kristiansen
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) Lee	
MacAulay	MacDonald (Dartmouth)
MacLellan	McGuire
Milliken	Mitchell
Nault	Nystrom
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Peterson	Pickard
Proud	Rideout
Riis	Robichaud
Robinson	Rocheleau
Rodriguez	Simmons
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)	Stewart
Stupich	Taylor
Volpe	Waddell
Wood	Young (Gloucester)
Young (Beaches - Woodbine)-61
++NAYS
Members
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blais
Blenkarn	Bosley
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)	Bourgault
Boyer	Brightwell
Cadieux	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Cardiff	Champagne (Champlain)
Chartrand	Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Collins	Cook
Crosby (Halifax West)	de Cotret
Desjardins	Dick
Domm	Dorin
Duplessis	Edwards
Fee	Feltham
Friesen	Gerin
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Gustafson	
Halliday	Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hawkes	Holtmann
Horner	Homing
James	Johnson
Jourdenais	Kempling
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Koury
Landry	Langlois
Layton	Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lewis	Littlechild
Loiselle	Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
Mayer	Mazankowski
McCreath	McDermid
McDougall (St. Paul's)	Monteith
Moore	Nicholson
Oberle	Paproski
Plamondon	Porter
Pronovost	Redway
Reid	Reimer
Richardson	Robitaille
St-Julien	Schneider
Shields	Siddon
Soetens	Sparrow
Stevenson	Tardif
Thompson	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Timer (Halton-Peel)	Venne
Vezina	Vien
Vincent	Weiner
White	Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)
Winegard	Worthy-93


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I therefore declare Motion No. 10 lost on recorded division.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa- Vanier on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we have a standing order that is quite clear about the fact that a member who wants to vote here in the House must hear the question. I notice a number of government members are leaving right now. If they didn't hear the question, they will not be able to vote, and we will object to their voting.

Government Orders


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 12.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 13.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 14.
de Cotret Dick
Duplessis
Friesen
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Halliday
Holtmann
James
Kempling
Landry
Layton
Lopez
MacKay
Masse
Mazankowski
McDermid
Monteith
Nicholson
Paproski
Redway
Reimer
Robitaille
Schneider
Siddon
Sparrow
Tardif
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Vien
Weiner
Wilbee
Assiniboia)
Desjardins
Dorin
Fee
Gerin
Gustafson
Hawkes
Horning
Jourdenais
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Langlois
Lewis
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Martin (Lincoln)
Mayer
McCreath
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Moore
Oberle
Porter
Reid
Richardson
St-Julien
Shields
Soetens
Stevenson
Thompson
Tbrner (Halton-Peel)
Vezina
Vincent
White
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek- Winegard-83


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 15. A vote on this motion applies to Motions Nos. 16 and 18.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 20.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 16 and 18 lost on recorded division.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any responsibility more onerous on members than the casting of a vote in division. I have some doubts about the wisdom of standing up 24 times, but when the results of the last vote were announced, there was a total of 38 members present in the chamber on the opposition side and I suspect that there were fewer members on our side than the vote count would indicate.
If we fall into sloppy habits in relation to votes, we could get the House and the integrity of Parliament into trouble down the road. I would suggest that members should be present in the chamber to hear the motion read and they should remain in the chamber until the vote is announced or they should not vote.
I would hope that on all sides of the House we might respect that set of principles so that we can have clarity on the results of the votes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Anderson
Bertrand
Blackburn (Jonquiere) Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean) Campbell (Vancouver Centre) Chadwick
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Collins
Cote
Crosby (Halifax West)
de Cotret
Dick
Dorin
Fee
Friesen
Gibeau
Halliday
Hogue
James
Jourdenais
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Landry
Layton
Lewis
MacKay
Masse
Mazankowski
McDermid
Monteith
Nicholson
Paproski
Pronovost
Reid
Richardson
St-Julien
Shields
Soetens
Tardif
Turner (Halton-Peel)
Vincent
++NAYS
Members
Atkinson
Bjomson
Blais
Bourgault
Cardiff
Champagne (Champlain)
Cole
Cook
Couture
DeBlois
Desjardins
Domm
Duplessis
Feltham
Gerin
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Hawkes
Horner
Johnson
Kempling
Koury
Langlois
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lopez
Martin (Lincoln)
Mayer
McCreath
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Moore
Oberle
Porter
Redway
Reimer
Robitaille
Schneider
Siddon
Sparrow
Thompson
Vezina
Weiner

October 25, 1989
Government Orders
White	Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek -
Assiniboia)	Worthy-83


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 21. A vote on this motion applies to Motion No. 23.
Tardif	Himer (Halton-Peel)
Vezina	Vincent
Weiner	White
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
Worthy-78


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I therefore declare Motion No. 23 lost on recorded division.
The next question is on Motion No. 22.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.	Sparrow	Tardif
Tlirner (Halton-Peel)	Venne
Vien White
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek- Winegard
Worthy-86
The next question is on Motion No. 25. A vote on this wemer motion applies to Motions Nos. 26 and 39.	JSboia)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 26 and 39 lost on recorded division.
The next question is on Motion No. 29.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. The next question is on Motion No. 30.
Gibeau	Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gustafson	Halhday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hogue	Holtmann
Horning	James
Johnson	Kempling
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Koury
Langlois	Layton
Leblanc (Longueuil)	Lewis
Littlechild	Lopez
MacKay	Martin (Lincoln)
Mayer	Mazankowski
McCreath	McDermid
McDougall (St. Paul's)	Monteith
Moore	Nicholson
Paproski	Plamondon
Porter	Pronovost
Redway	Reid
Reimer	St-Julien
Schneider	Shields
Soetens	Sparrow
Thompson	Tbrner (Halton-Peel)
Venne	Vien
Weiner	White
Wilbee	Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-
Assiniboia) Worthy-80-	Winegard


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 30, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 105)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Althouse
Angus	Arseneault
Assad	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellemare	Brewin
Clancy	Comuzzi
Dionne	Fisher
Fontana	Gauthier
Harvard	Harvey (Edmonton East)
Heap	Hovdebo
Keyes	Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kristiansen	MacAulay
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	MacLellan
McGuire	Nault
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Peterson	Pickard
Proud	Rideout
Robichaud	Robinson
Rocheleau	Rodriguez
Simmons	Stupich
Taylor Wood-41	Volpe
++NAYS
Members
Anderson Bertrand
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Boyer
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Chadwick Cole Cook Couture DeBlois Desjardins Domm Edwards Feltham


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there might be a disposition in the chamber to apply the vote that was just taken to the next two motions, Motions Nos. 33 and 24, and in exchange give all members a five minute adjournment to attend to obvious necessities which might give us all a little comfort.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the generous offer of my hon. friend. However, I think the fact that since this government has used some form of closure more than any other government in history it is important we stand to be counted.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 33.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	MacLellan
McGuire	Nault
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Peterson	Pickard
Rideout	Riis
Robichaud	Robinson
Rocheleau	Rodriguez
Simmons	Stewart
Stupich	Taylor
Volpe Young (Beaches -Woodbine)-43	Wood
++NAYS
Anderson
Bertrand
Bosley
Boyer
Campbell (Vancouver Centre) Chadwick
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Collins
Couture
DeBlois
Desjardins
Dorin
Fee
Gibeau
Gustafson
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hogue
Horner
James
Kempling
Koury
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Littlechild
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Martin (Lincoln)
Mazankowski McDougall (St. Paul's)
Nicholson
Paproski
Porter
Redway
Reimer
Robitaille
Schneider
Soetens
Thompson
Thrner (Halton-Peel)
Vezina
Vincent
White
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Winegard
Members
Atkinson
Bjomson
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Brightwell
Cardiff
Champagne (Champlain)
Cole
Cote
Crosby (Halifax West)
de Cotret
Dick
Edwards
Friesen
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Halhday
Hawkes
Holtmann
Homing
Johnson
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Langlois
Lewis
Lopez
MacKay
Mayer
McDermid
Monteith
Oberle
Plamondon
Pronovost
Reid
Richardson
St-Julien
Shields
Sparrow
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Vien
Weiner
Wilbee
*Assiniboia)
Worthy-83
The next question is on Motion No. 34.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 35.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 36.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Althouse
Angus	Arseneault
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) Bellemare Clancy	Comuzzi
Dionne	Ferguson
The next question is on Motion No. 36A.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
(Division No. Ill)

Members
Allmand	Althouse
Angus	Arseneault
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)	Bellemare
Blondin	Brewin
Clancy	Comuzzi
Dionne	Ferguson
Fisher	Fontana
Gauthier	Harvard
Harvey (Edmonton East)	Heap
Hovdebo	Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)	Kristiansen
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)	Lee
MacAulay	MacDonald (Dartmouth)
MacLellan	McGuire
Nault	Ouellet
Pagtakhan	Peterson
Pickard	Proud
Rideout	Riis
Robichaud	Rocheleau
Rodriguez	Stewart
Stupich	Taylor
Volpe Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-45	Wood
++NAYS
Anderson
Bertrand
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Bosley
Bourgault
Brightwell
Chadwick
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Collins
Cote
Harvey (Chicoutimi) Homing Koury Langlois
Leblanc (Longueuil) Littlechild MacDougall (Timiskaming) Masse McCreath
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Moore
Paproski
Plourde
Pronovost
Richardson
St-Julien
Shields
Sparrow
Thompson
Turner (Halton-Peel)
Vezina
Vincent
Members
Atkinson Bjornson Blais
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean) Boyer
Campbell (Vancouver Centre) Champagne (Champlain) Cole Cook Couture DeBlois Desjardins Dorin Fee Gibeau Gustafson Homer Kempling Landry Layton Lewis Lopez MacKay Mayer McDermid Monteith Oberle Plamondon Porter Redway Robitaille Schneider Soetens Tardif
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne Vien Weiner
Crosby (Halifax West)
de Cotret
Dick
Edwards
Friesen
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)

October 25, 1989
Government Orders
White	Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia) Winegard	Worthy-81


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 37A.
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 37A, which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 112)
++YEAS
Althouse
Atkinson
Bertrand
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Boyer
Brightwell
Chadwick
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Collins
Cote
Crosby (Halifax West)
de Cotret
Dick
Fee
Friesen
Gray (Bonaventure - iles-de-la-
Halliday
Heap
Horning
Kempling
Koury
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Layton
Lewis
Lopez
MacKay
Mayer
McDermid
Monteith
Nicholson
Paproski
Plourde
Pronovost
Reid
Riis
Rodriguez
Schneider
Soetens
Stupich
Taylor
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Vien
Weiner
Wilbee
Assiniboia)
Worthy-94
Members
Anderson
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bjomson
Bosley
Bourgault
Brewin
Campbell (Vancouver Centre) Champagne (Champlain)
Cole '
Cook
Couture
DeBlois
Desjardins
Edwards
Fisher
Gibeau
Madeleine) Gustafson
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Horner
Hovdebo
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Kristiansen
Langlois
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Littlechild
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Masse
McCreath
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Moore
Oberle
Plamondon
Porter
Redway
Richardson
Robitaille
St-Julien
Shields
Sparrow
Tardif
Thompson
Tbrner (Halton-Peel)
Vezina
Vincent
White
Wilson (Swift Current -Maple Creek- Winegard
++NAYS
Members
Keyes
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
MacAulay
MacLellan
Nault
Pagtakhan
Pickard
Rideout
Rocheleau
Volpe
Kilger (Stormont-Du ndas) Lee
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
McGuire
Ouellet
Peterson
Proud
Robichaud
Stewart
Wood-32


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 40.
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 40, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 113)
++YEAS
Allmand
Angus
Assad
Bellemare
Brewin
Comuzzi
Ferguson
Fontana
Harvard
Heap
Keyes
Kristiansen
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
MacAulay
MacLellan
Nault
Pagtakhan
Pickard
Rideout
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Stewart
Taylor
Wood-47
Althouse
Arseneault
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Blondin
Clancy
Dionne
Fisher
Gauthier
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdebo
Kilger (Stormont -Dundas)
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Lee
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
McGuire
Ouellet
Peterson
Proud
Riis
Robinson
Rodriguez
Stupich
Volpe
++NAYS
Anderson
Bertrand
Blackburn (Jonquiere) Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean) Boyer
Campbell (Vancouver Centre) Champagne (Champlain)
Cole
Cote
Crosby (Halifax West)
Desjardins
Edwards
Friesen
Atkinson
Bjornson
Bosley
Bourgault
Brightwell
Chadwick
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Collins
Couture
DeBlois
Domm
Fee
Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Gustafson Halliday	Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hawkes	Hogue
Holtmann	Horning
Kempling	Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Allmand	Arseneault	Koury	LandryAssad	Bellemare	Langlois	LaytonBlondin	Clancy	Leblanc (Longueuil)	LittlechildComuzzi	Dionne	Lopez	MacDougall (Timiskaming)Ferguson	Fontana	MacKay	Martin (Lincoln)Gauthier	Harvard	Masse	Mayer
October 25, 1989

Government Orders
McCreath	McDermid
McDougall (St. Paul's)	Monteith
Moore	Nicholson
Oberle	Paproski
Plamondon	Plourde
Porter	Redway
Reid	Reimer
Richardson	Robitaille
St-Julien	Schneider
Shields	Soetens
Sparrow	Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)	Tbrner (Halton-Peel)
Venne	Vezina
Vien	White
Wilbee	Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-
Assiniboia) Worthy-80	Winegard


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is	on Motion No. 41.
The House divided	on Motion No. 41, which was
negatived on the following division:	
(Division No. 114)
 YEAS Members	
Allmand	Althouse
Angus	Arseneault
Assad	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellemare	Blondin
Brewin	Clancy
Comuzzi	Dionne
Ferguson	Fisher
Fontana	Gauthier
Harvard	Harvey (Edmonton East)
Heap	Hovdebo
Karpoff	Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)	Kristiansen
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee	MacAulay
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	MacLellan
McGuire	Nault
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Peterson	Pickard
Proud	Rideout
Riis	Robichaud
Robinson	Rocheleau
Rodriguez	Stewart
Stupich	Taylor
Volpe Young (Beaches -Woodbine)-49	Wood
 NAYS Members
Anderson	Atkinson
Bertrand	Bjomson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blais
Bosley	Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Bourgault	Boyer
Brightwell	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Chadwick	Champagne (Champlain)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Cole
Collins	Cote
Couture	Crosby (Halifax West)
DeBlois	de Cotret
Desjardins	Dick
Domm	Dorin
Edwards	Fee
Friesen	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure - Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Gustafson	
Halliday	Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hawkes	Hogue
Holtmann	Horning
Kempling	Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Koury	Landry
Langlois	Layton
Leblanc (Longueuil)	Littlechild
Lopez	MacDougall (Timiskaming)
MacKay	Martin (Lincoln)
Masse	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
Plamondon	Plourde
Porter	Pronovost
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Richardson
Robitaille	St-Julien
Schneider	Shields
Soetens	Sparrow
Thompson	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Tbmer (Halton-Peel)	Venne
Vezina	Vien
White	Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-	-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
Winegard	Worthy-85


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Barbara Jean McDougall: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government what is in the works for tomorrow and if it could inform the House what kind of an agenda it has for tomorrow and Friday.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the business of the House tomorrow will be Bill C-36.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a different point of order. It has been a long evening and I think all members of the House would want to congratulate the people at the table for the manner in which they have conducted business tonight, particularly as members changed their places.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 9.15 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 26, 1989