1989-12-05

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's responses to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present, in both official languages, the report of the parliamentary delegation which participated in the thirty-fifth Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Barbados, October 6 to October 15, 1989.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of government bills.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I recognize the important issue that we are going to be discussing today on the motion of the Official Opposition.
Some time back I wrote a letter on behalf of my caucus to the Government House Leader indicating that if there was a need to introduce legislation to continue the variable entrance rates for the Unemployment Insurance Act, we would be prepared to do that expeditiously, and we would pass it with virtually no debate.
The point of my intervention is that I think we all appreciate the importance of the opposition day motion and I wonder if we could not save time and get on with other business by simply agreeing unanimously, if the need arises, to pass this legislation with no debate before the Christmas recess. It would allow us to get on with other business.
Just to ensure that my colleagues in the Official Opposition do not misinterpret what I am saying, I recognize this is their opposition day. We would be prepared to give up one of our opposition days to them on some other issue.
I wonder if we could perhaps seek unanimous consent to see if we could agree to introduce this necessary legislation without going through and spending a whole day debating its merits.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this new approach from the New Democratic Party. Obviously it was brought on by the election of a new leader, with an open approach where there is not going to be any more stalling of the past, where there will be no votes for leave to introduce bills or for first reading, where there will be very little debate and examination.
I am not sure from which position my hon. friend speaks because as of last night we learned there was quite a bit of deal making at the NDP convention. I am not sure, but one should check the tape to see if one is still the House Leader or the Whip in that particular case.
Despite the fact that this is such a generous offer, I have a little trouble handling it this early in the morning. What we will do is wait for the piece of legislation we sent to the Senate, one which was overwhelmingly supported by this House, and I know my hon. friends would have supported it had it not been for one or two adjustments. That was sent to the Senate some time ago.

December 5, 1989
Routine Proceedings
We expect that the folks in the other place will want to deal with that expeditiously so that there will not be any unnecessary anxiety in the minds of people who are unfortunate enough to find themselves unemployed at this time of year.
We anticipate as it is such a good piece of legislation that it should come back virtually unamended because, after all, we the elected representatives sent this piece of legislation there. I expect we will get this piece of legislation back very soon. Despite the fact that I will accept the offer to give up an opposition day-we will try to use it expeditiously on government legislation-I do not really see any need at the present time to accept my hon. friend's offer.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments. First, one can hardly give up something one does not have. The two opposition days, today and tomorrow, happen to be days for the Official Opposition, not the third party in this House. I remind the government that it cannot start negotiating on the floor of the House something that it does not have.
Second, with respect to the overwhelming support of Bill C-21, I remind the minister that on both occasions they had to invoke closure to get the bill through the House. That is hardly what I call overwhelming support. It was a Tory promotion, a Tory-supported bill. It was not supported by the opposition nor by the Official Opposition. The minister's memory is getting shorter as he gets a little older. Indeed, closure on these matters is repugnant to Canadians and we will make that message clear in today's debate.
The point of today's debate is to get this government to understand that there are Canadians who will suffer because of this government's lack of tiying to answer a very serious situation in this country where those who may be on the unemployment insurance program will not get the benefits of that program next year because of this government's failure to come to grips with legislation that is required urgently.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I regret that my hon. colleague did not see fit to accept my recommendation but perhaps that will be possible on another day. I want to echo the words of the opposition Whip that Bill C-21 is not a bill that this House unanimously adopted by any stretch of the imagination. Any piece of legislation that would adversely affect over one million Canadians financially is something that we, on this side of the House, certainly want nothing to do with. In an effort to co-operate and to get on with some good legislation eventually, we thought we would make this offer today. I appreciate that the government House leader will at least give it some thought in the future.


PETITIONS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, today, in accordance with Standing Order 36, I wish to table a petition signed by men and women from Lebel-sur-Quevillon, directed against the task force on tax benefits for isolated and northern areas which has recommended that deductions for travel by northern workers for medical reasons should be phased out a year from now and that eligibility for tax benefits for isolated and northern communities should be restricted to areas north of the 51st parallel, 51:05oN.
Madam Speaker, the people of Lebel-sur-Quevillon reject the recommendations of the task force which failed to consider that according to the Government of Quebec, the north in Quebec, starts at the 49th parallel.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, today I have the honour and the privilege of tabling another petition against the goods and services tax.

Madam Speaker, the people here join the many thousands of other Canadians in protesting strongly this government's intention to impose a hidden 9 per cent sales tax on goods and services starting in January, 1991. The Canadians who signed this petition maintain that to have hidden taxes applying virtually to everything is a



new imposition on Canadians. They strongly oppose this tax as an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians that not only will result in higher taxes for those who can least afford it, that is those on low and middle incomes, but will produce higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment in this country, things we hardly need today.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane - Superior):: Pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and honour to present this petition which has been certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions.
It contains signatures of constituents in my riding of Cochrane-Superior, more specifically the town of Ka-puskasing. They call on Parliament to reject the proposed 9 per cent goods and services tax as it will cause unfair hardship to low and middle-income Canadians, namely those of northern Ontario and northern Canada.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: I have the pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 signed by several hundred members of my riding concerning VIA Rail. The bulk of these petitioners are old age pensioners who are concerned about the reduction in rail service, including such very prominent people as Mrs. Len Shepherd, the wife of the former MLA.
They petition this government to not only stop the destruction of VIA Rail, but call upon the government to increase support for VIA Rail, to upgrade VIA Rail service and to guarantee the support necessary for a vital passenger rail service in this country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 and certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions that points out a whole variety of reasons why the petitioners from British Columbia are opposed to the government's goods and services tax. They ask that Parliament encourage the government to step down from proceeding with this tax and to introduce a taxation system that would have a minimum corporate tax and ask that wealthy Canadians and corporations pay their fair share.
Routine Proceedings


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Madam Speaker, I, too, want to present another in a series of petitions from Burin-St. George's on the issue of the goods and services tax.
The good people from the communities of Doyles, South Branch, Codroy, St. Andrew's, Searston and Tompkin's believe that 31 tax increases by this government are enough. People of Millville, Parker's Cove, Stephenville Crossing, Port aux Basques, St. Vincent's, Robinson's, Highlands, St. David's, Grand Bruit, and Burnt Island, believe that this government which has already increased the manufactures' sales tax from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent has done enough damage already.
Finally, Madam Speaker, the people in Milltown, Rose Blanche, Jeffrey's, Hermitage, Sandyville, St. Alban's and Burnt Island believe that this being a hidden tax is not the way to go, given the undertaking of the Minister of Finance.
I have great pleasure in presenting the petitions. I appeal to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to listen to what tens of thousands of Canadians are saying to him in petitions and to get behind this move to cancel this terrible tax.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to present to the House of Commons today a petition that is entitled "Help Save the Rouge". The petitioners are from Scarborough, Aurora, Toronto, Ajax and Markham. The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to work with the province of Ontario to establish the Rouge River Valley as a provincial park.
They have joined with the Hon. David Crombie, who is the commissioner on the royal commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, who has recommended that this be a park, the mayor of Scarborough, and the federal Minister of the Environment who has committed $10 million to save the valley. They are calling upon this government to work with the Ontario government to save the valley as a park.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition duly authorized under Standing Order 36. My petition is signed by people all the way from Saskatoon to St. Catharines; Welland, Ontario; Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; and Moose Jaw; Saskatchewan, who are pointing

December 5, 1989
Routine Proceedings
out that there will be millions of Canadians excluded from unemployment insurance claims if Bill C-21 goes forward.
They decry the fact that the government did not make any mention of these proposed changes during the past election and are calling on the government to adopt the recommendations of the Thirty-Third Parliament, Second Session, which much more adequately addresses the concerns of unemployed people.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, today I have the honour and privilege to present another petition signed by hundreds of residents of Hamilton Mountain.
These petitioners have spoken out overwhelmingly against the government's proposed 9 per cent goods and service tax. They believe the tax is unfair, that it places an unnecessary additional burden on low and middle-income Canadians. These petitioners humbly pray and call upon this House to reject the 9 per cent goods and service tax proposal.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition that is a substantial one. I have a great number of signatures on this petition. It was collected by constituents in my riding of Kingston and the Islands who were concerned about the bombing of Air India Flight 181 and the fact that no inquiry has been held into the cause of that incident.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada to immediately take steps to establish a public inquiry into the bombing of this Air-India flight to ensure that all the facts surrounding this very unfortunate incident in our aviation history are looked into at the earliest possible time.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty to rise today to file a petition with respect to the removal of oats from the Canadian Wheat Board.
This is a petition signed by a number of petitioners from Saskatchewan. They are concerned that the government removed oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board without proper consultation with either the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee or the major farm organizations in western Canada. They are concerned about the future of farm marketing boards and orderly marketing generally.
They call upon this government to replace oats under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and to give oats and barley the same protection under the Canadian Wheat Board that wheat presently has.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Any more petitions?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all
questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.




Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I believe Your Honour is about to call Orders of the Day.
I want to raise a point of order because I think we in the opposition have a legitimate objection to voice today concerning the procedure that has been adopted by the government.
On Wednesday last when we were sitting, the government announced the order of business for today as being, as I recall it, the continuation of report stage and third reading of Bill C-19 followed by report stage and third
December 5, 1989

reading of Bill C-15, the plant breeders' rights legislation.
Yesterday at five o'clock, the Minister of Justice came into the House. In fact it was shortly after five o'clock. He designated today as an opposition day. I recognize, as do all hon. members, that the government has the right to decide the order of business, but if we are to conduct the business of this House in anything like an orderly way I fail to understand why the government would even presume to make a change of this magnitude in the order of business to force an opposition day by surprise on us at five o'clock the previous day.
Members know that we have to give notice of our motion, and we managed to do that by six o'clock as required by the rules, but I submit that this is a totally unprecedented and improper way to deal with the business of this House.
If the government expects co-operation from the opposition in orderly debate as they have been getting-bills have been sailing through this place it seems to me-I do not understand why it would take this step. I recognize the right is there but I want to express, on behalf of the opposition, our complete abhorrence of this procedure that has been followed.
Had I known last night when the minister stood up and made the announcement that there had been no discussions about that possibility in advance of it, I would have been on my feet and objected. I was in the House at the time but I had no idea-I only assumed that there had been negotiations. I understand there have been none. That was a completely irresponsible act on the part of the government that, in my view, was uncalled for. I know the minister would apologize if he were here. I hope he will have his parliamentary assistant apologize for really an unprecedented and improper use of the rules of this House.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I do want to make a couple of comments in response to this particular point of order.
First of all, I would like to say to the hon. member that I am not happy that we were required, on such short notice, to make today an allotted day. There are a number of circumstances that have been occurring. There were discussions going on between the three parties yesterday and a decision was made at the last
Supply
moment that did not allow myself or my minister to touch base with the opposition parties.
I would also like to emphasize that the hon. member should know that there have been discussions going on in terms of a parliamentary schedule and calendar for over four days now. I think it is almost a week. We have been waiting for a detailed response. When we get that detailed response it makes it much easier for us, as a government, to lay out the agenda. It makes it much easier for the opposition, whether they be the Official Opposition or the third party, to plan their own lives and their schedules.
We are making every effort we possibly can to accommodate all the members of the House, to lay out a schedule that all of us would find acceptable and be able to live with. We are simply at this point waiting for a response and as soon as we have those responses then we can very likely avoid, except in very unusual circumstances, ending up in a situation where any member or any party is caught off guard by the legislative agenda for the next day or for the next hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I suppose the reply given by the parliamentary secretary will at least partially satisfy the hon. member who raised the point of order.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give urgent consideration to introducing in the immediate future a bill to extend the variable re-entry provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act in order to assure full protection of workers in economically distressed regions;
That this House declare its willingness to pass such a measure in no more than one sitting; and
That, for greater certainty, this House declare that the passage of this motion does not constitute a vote of no-confidence in the government.

December 5, 1989
Supply
He said: Madam Speaker, let me explain the purpose of this rather complicated motion. I want to say immediately that there is a slight typographical error in the motion. In the fourth line where it says "extend the variable re-entry provisions", that should read "the variable entry provisions". But the principle of the motion is the same and I think most members understand that we mean variable entry provisions.
According to Section 6 of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1971, individuals need 14 weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. They need 14 weeks to qualify unless, of course, they are new entries into the workforce and then they need 20 weeks to qualify.
However, in 1977, the government of the day, a Liberal government at that time, introduced what is known as the variable entrance requirement whereby individuals would only need from 10 to 14 weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits, depending on the rate of unemployment in their region. If they were living in a region which had very high unemployment, then they would only need 10 weeks to qualify for benefits. If they were living in a region with rather low unemployment, they would need 14 weeks. If the rate of unemployment was somewhere in between they would need 11, 12, or 13 weeks to qualify.
That was known as the variable entrance requirement and that was introduced in 1977 in a short one-page bill, but it was only introduced for the following year, 1978. It terminated at the end of the year.
From that year on, every year the government of the day re-introduced the variable entrance requirement for one year only, usually in the month of December, and it did it with a short one-paragraph or one-clause bill which extended this variable entrance requirement for the following year.
For one reason or another that I do not understand, neither the Liberal governments of Mr. Trudeau nor the Conservative governments of Mr. Clark or Mr. Mulro-ney made this a permanent thing. They simply extended it from year to year, always doing it in the month of December in a short one-page bill, and there was very little debate on that bill, usually lasting half a day.
The last time that this variable entrance requirement was extended was with Bill C-158, on September 29,
1988,	just before the call of the last election. Bill C-158 extended the variable entrance requirement for all of
1989,	this year, until January 6, 1990, when it expires. So the variable entrance requirement of 10 to 14 weeks will expire on January 6, 1990. That is where we stand with the variable entrance requirement.
This year, as all members know, the government introduced and passed in this House Bill C-21 which implemented very extensive changes to the unemployment insurance program. It introduced rather massive cuts to the benefits, made it more difficult to qualify, increased penalties for those who quit without just cause and terminated the government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund, which last year was $2.8 billion.
In other words, Bill C-21 brought about very extensive changes in the unemployment insurance program, including a change whereby to qualify for unemployment insurance, one would require 10 to 20 weeks. That provision in Bill C-21 which sets out the qualifying period as ranging from 10 to 20 weeks would replace the 14-weeks' qualification period which is found in Section 6 of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1971 and would also replace the 10 to 14 week variable entrance requirement which we have had year by year since 1977.
Bill C-21 was passed in this House on the evening of November 6. Bill C-21 went to the Senate on November 7, but as hon. members know, Parliament did not sit from November 11 to November 19 for the Remembrance Day recess and immediately after that, the Senate started debate on the bill and sent it to its committee last week. Committee hearings have already started in the Senate.
The problem is this. As I said, Bill C-21 introduces rather extensive changes to the unemployment insurance program. There is a reduction of benefits of $1.5 billion, which money is allocated to other purposes. There is an increased cost to employers and employees. There is a shift to welfare systems because if workers do not qualify for unemployment insurance or their benefits are terminated sooner and they do not have work, then
December 5, 1989

they have to rely on welfare, and welfare is taken care of by provinces and municipalities.
There is a loss to provinces due to the fact that moneys which went into provinces in the form of benefits will no longer go into those provinces to the same degree, and consequently the provinces do not know whether some of the developmental moneys will go to them to the same extent as the benefits did. In any case, Bill C-21 implements very extensive changes to the unemployment insurance system and I think the government would admit that itself. The government thinks those changes are good. We do not think they are very good.
Last year, there were 2.2 million claimants under the unemployment insurance program. That is a great number of Canadians. Some claims were for regular benefits and some were for the special benefits. The program last year was an $ 11-billion-plus program. The unemployment insurance program is the largest income-support program in Canada.
As I say, the bill went to the Senate on November 7. There was the recess for Remembrance Day of one week, and the Senate has started its hearings. I received information this morning that the Clerk of the Senate has already received 159 requests from groups and individuals asking to be heard on this bill, because they feel it impacts, in one way or another, on them and on the people they represent.
I also point out that in the House of Commons while we had committee hearings in the fall for four weeks and we heard as many groups as we could, we still turned down a large number of groups. We turned down, in fact, 127 individuals and groups, some for good reason but some simply because we did not have the time, due to the fact that we had to report the bill back by a fixed date.
The Senate is faced with a situation where it has had a very high number of requests to be heard on this bill by people who seriously want to give their views, and these people will have to be heard before December 22 when the Christmas recess starts. It is impossible for the Senate to dispose of Bill C-21 by that date. To have proper hearings, it would have to advertise and it would have to give groups time to prepare their briefs and so on. That is just the proper thing to do.
Supply
We are not talking about the Senate blocking the bill or unduly delaying the bill. We are talking about giving the Senate a reasonable amount of time to deal with those groups that want to be heard.
While we heard from a lot of trade unions, social groups, chambers of commerce and so on in the House of Commons committee, we did not hear from any provincial governments or provincial ministers, although some wanted to be heard. The Premier of New Brunswick wanted to be heard. Ministers from Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia wanted to be heard. We had to make a decision that we could not hear them.
We also did not hear from Mr. Forget who was the chairman of the royal commission established by the Conservative government in the last Parliament. He had spent more than a year studying the unemployment insurance program, but we did not hear from him. We did not hear from the Economic Council or from the Canadian Council for Labour Market Productivity or from other academics. We heard from a lot of grassroots groups, but we did not hear from a lot of people who wanted to be heard and should have been heard.
If Bill C-21 is not passed by January 6, and if the government does not bring in the usual bill to extend the variable entrance requirement, then it means that the standard flat qualification period across the country will be 14 weeks. If that is the case, that goes against the government's own policy of having a minimum qualification period of 10 weeks. It means that everybody will require 14 weeks to qualify until Bill C-21 is passed or unless the government introduces the variable entrance requirement.
The way to overcome this, and I say this in good faith and with the hope that the government will listen to reason, is to bring in once again either a one-page bill to extend the variable entrance requirement like the government did in September 1988 through Bill C-158, or put to the House a resolution which is provided for in Bill C-158 simply to extend the variable entrance requirement for two or three months. That is just enough time to give the Senate time to have a reasonable amount of time for hearings on Bill C-21.
According to my reading of Bill C-158, it allows the government to introduce a resolution which is approved by the Governor in Council to extend the variable entrance requirement for a time that could be open to negotiation, whether it was for two, three or four months or whatever. I suggest to the government that is another

Supply
way of doing this, either by a bill or by a resolution as provided for in Bill C-158.
We want to make clear that if the government did introduce such a bill to extend the variable entrance requirement, or if it introduced a resolution to extend it, we in this party would pass such a bill or resolution without any debate whatsoever. In the motion put to the House, we say we would pass it in less than one sitting. I give the commitment that we would not debate it at all. The motion or the resolution would be passed in a few minutes, as far as we are concerned.
We also say in this motion that we do not consider this motion to be a want of confidence motion. It is simply a plea to the government to do what it has done and what other governments have done year after year in the month of December, and that is to extend the variable entrance requirement.
7 I want to repeat that we are talking about the largest social income support program in Canada. It is a program that has ranged between $11 and $13 billion per year. This bill introduces massive changes to the program. The government thinks they are good changes, and we do not think they are. Some of them are good. Some of the provisions with respect to parental care and so on and benefits for senior citizens we approve of, but most of the bill we do not approve of, but that is beside the point. The point is that many Canadians are affected by this bill and they want to be heard. It is their democratic right to be heard.
I also point out to the government that it used closure at both second and third reading on this bill. At second reading, we only had one full day and two half days of debate. At third reading and report stage, we only had three and a half days of debate.
Another reason the government should consider introducing the variable entrance requirement or extending it for a period of time is that the government itself in Bill C-21 accepted that the minimum period for qualification should be 10 weeks, and I cannot understand why it would penalize people by allowing the 14-week minimum to apply for a month or two while Canadian groups are being heard on Bill C-21. If government members really believe that 10 weeks should be the minimum period for qualification in high unemployment regions,
then they should introduce the variable entrance requirement bill.
Another reason why they should do this is that the day after we completed the debate and the vote on third reading on Bill C-21 in this House, the government produced its new program for new unemployment insurance regions. This means that when we were discussing and debating Bill C-21, we did not know what those new regions would be.
When the groups that appeared before the House of Commons committee made their points known, they did not know what those new regions would be. As a matter of fact, those new regions changed the impact of Bill C-21. This is a further reason why we should allow the Senate a reasonable period of time to hear views on the bill now that those many groups know the proposals for the new regions.
In conclusion, let me sum up by saying that by this motion we are asking the government simply to extend the variable entrance requirement as it has done every year since it has taken office, as Liberal governments before it did, as the Clark government did. We ask the government to extend the variable entrance requirement by a bill or by a motion but not necessarily for a year as in the past, but simply for a fixed period of time which is a reasonable period of time to complete the hearings on Bill C-21 in the Senate. I am sure that that extension can be negotiated in a reasonable way in good faith.
We are asking that the government extend the variable entrance requirement because it is totally unreasonable to ask the Senate to finish its debate on Bill C-21 before Christmas. It is unreasonable to ask that because 159 groups have asked to be heard. I am not saying that all those groups deserve to be heard but at least half of them will be reasonable.
I have the list of groups wishing to be heard here. I could go through the list. They are from all parts of the country. Some of them are associations of adoptive parents, some of them are consumer counselling groups, some of them are trade unions, some of them are business associations and so on. I am not saying that all the groups that have asked the Senate to be heard should be heard, but certainly a good number of them should.
December 5, 1989

We are asking that because these people want to be heard on a major matter. This is not a minor matter. This is a very important bill. As I said, it deals with a program that last years was worth $11 billion. In the bill, the government cuts back benefits by $1.5 billion and relocates those moneys. Last year, there were 2.2 million claimants under the unemployment insurance program. That is a lot of Canadians and these people have a right to be heard.
With respect to the regions and the provinces, the impact will be considerable. For example, in Newfoundland, according to the Canadian Labour Congress study-I know the government does not agree with it but even it agrees that there will be a loss of money in the form of benefits to Newfoundland-it estimates that the loss to Newfoundland would be $51 million in benefits; the loss to Prince Edward Island, $32 million; the loss to Nova Scotia, $29 million; the loss to New Brunswick, $148 million; and the loss to Quebec, $224 million.
The government will say that it intends to put back some of those moneys in the form of training and development but there is no assurance in the bill that those moneys will go back to the province that is losing them in the form of benefits. If there are people unemployed, for example, in Nova Scotia and their benefits are cut and the total loss to Nova Scotia in the form of benefits as a result of a more difficult qualification period and a shorter benefit period is $29 million, the province is concerned that that money is not going to be going to Nova Scotia with all that unemployment. It wants some assurance that the money is going to come back and that is why the provincial ministers wanted to appear. By the way, they have already applied to appear before the Senate committee. They want time to prepare themselves and so on.
There is good reason for the government to extend the variable entrance requirement for several months but not necessarily for the whole year. There is good reason to accept the fact that many groups that have not been heard should be heard on this bill, if they believe in democracy on that side of the House. There is good reason for the regions to be concerned that they will be short-changed as a result of Bill C-21.
I emphasize that what we are asking for today is not to be considered a vote of confidence. What we are asking
Supply
for is a motion or a bill to extend the variable entrance requirement and we in this party make the commitment that we would not debate the measure at all. We would pass it immediately if the minister brought it in as has been done in previous years in the month of December.
As we approach the Christmas season, I appeal to the government to be sensible on this, to show some kindness and understanding and to accept the fact that both Houses of this Parliament need to debate and consider measures. We hope that it will bring in, as it has done in previous years, the variable entrance requirement measure to extend it for three or four months or whatever is reasonable in the circumstances. I hope before the day is over and after listening to the minister, she will agree to that.
I know she may say as the House leader said, "Well, let the Senate pass it in a few weeks". I hope that she would reconsider that because if the Senators do that, they are going to turn down many serious groups that want to be heard on the bill. As I say, let us just give them a few weeks to discuss this and have hearings on a bill of such importance.
Members opposite agree that this bill is of great importance. They think it is one of the major planks in their reform as they see it. If that is the case, if they have great confidence in their measure, then I suggest they should give ample time, not unreasonable time and not time to block the measure, but reasonable time to deal with this.
I plead with the minister to bring in a measure to extend the variable entrance requirement. It will not be a question of confidence in the government and we will pass it without any debate whatsoever.


Ron Fisher: As the member for Kamloops mentioned earlier this morning, he wrote a letter to the government House leader. With the permission of the House, I would like to read bits of it. There is no use reading it all:
For years all parties have cooperated to give swift passage to an annual bill which provides entrance requirements for UI, and enabled Canadians living in regions of high unemployment to receive benefits with a shorter eligibility period. C-21 was expected to obviate the need for such a bill this year.
He concludes by saying:
I suggest it would be most prudent for the House to pass in the customary one-sitting fashion a bill to extend varying entrance requirements until such time as C-21 is proclaimed.

Supply
I would like to commend the Official Opposition for having brought this matter before the House today on its opposition day. I think it is worth repeating parts of that motion as well:
That this House declare its willingness to pass such a measure in no more than one sitting; and
That, for greater certainty, this House declare that the passage of this motion does not constitute a vote of non-confidence in the government.
From the point of view of the opposition, I cannot think of anything which would be more indicative of the desire of the Opposition to co-operate with the government in alleviating what is going to be a very severe situation for some people who become unemployed if the action which has taken place in previous years is not also taken this year.
I have no idea what the Senate will do with Bill C-21.1 do not know if what the Senate does with Bill C-21 is the pertinent issue facing us today or over the next few weeks. The pertinent issue is that there are going to be people who need unemployment assistance, and unless we make the usual yearly accommodation for the varying rates, people are going to suffer. That is the issue.
The fact of the matter is, of course, that Bill C-21 is also an issue in this and I suspect that what really is occurring is that the government is using the fact that the bill is in the Senate and may or may not be held up as a weapon to force the Senate to come back quickly with the legislation so it can be in place by January 6. I think that is shameful, shameful but I guess understandable.
This is not all that much of a departure from the actions of the government over the last six or seven months since Bill C-21 was first introduced. Bill C-21 itself is a very severe measure and I think it can be interpreted in almost all respects as being a measure to punish those who become unemployed. There is no other way to see it, in spite of the fact that the government claims it is a new measure which will take Canada into the 21st Century.
In a previous speech I made in the House, I referred to it as being into the 20th century. I think that is far more applicable. We are not going from the 19th to the 20th Century, but probably more likely from the 20th back to
the 19th. We certainly are not going into the 21st century with this legislation.
At every stage of the passage of Bill C-21 through the House, the government introduced closure. I do not know in this context if it is acceptable to use the word "he" or not, but it gives the lie, I think, to the government's assurance that it had unanimous approval of the House when the bill went to the Senate. If I cannot use that word, at least it certainly casts into a great deal of doubt whether or not the bill going to the Senate had the unanimous approval of this House. It certainly was not overwhelming at all, it was overwhelming opposition, not only by the members of the opposition, but by the Canadian public expressing itself before the committee as the committee did its work across the country.
The fact that the government is doing what it is doing in relation to the non-extension of variable entrance requirements and the fact that I think it used closure-I think closure is also one of the things which ties in so closely with what the government is doing-is a very good example that indeed this is not a progressive measure at all, at least in so far as those who have become unemployed are concerned. It may be in so far as some yet to be explained, yet to become obvious agenda of the government. It may be beneficial in some sense but not in so far as the unemployed are concerned or even as the training which the government so frequently expressed as being one of the underlying reasons for it to do what it is doing is concerned.
What is really happening as far as Bill C-21 is concerned, as far as the non-approval of the varying entrance requirements is concerned, is that the government is indicating in no uncertain terms to the House and to the Canadian public where it stands.
Where the government stands is not at all on the side of the oppressed, but it is in fact becoming one of the major oppressors in the social fabric of Canada by using people who are in such an unfortunate situation as pawns in what is only a perceived argument between itself and the Senate.
Oppressed may possibly be a strong word, but let us look at the group of people who will be primarily affected by Bill C-21 and as well by the non-passage of the variable entrance requirements for people who become unemployed.

I have a list here of some of the jobs that are available. We keep hearing reference made to all these jobs that are available. If time permits, I will probably be making reference to those a little bit later, but for the time being, I would like to refer to some of the hourly rates that are available for some of the jobs that one would find if you went to the local unemployment insurance office: A delivery driver, $5 an hour; a landscape worker; $7 an hour; a seamstress, rather a highly skilled person, I would suggest, a mere $5.50 an hour; and floorwalkers, $5.25 an hour.


An Hon. Member:: Did he say streetwalker?


Ron Fisher: If we go into another region of Canada, we find that waiter/waitresses are making the princely sum of $4.50 an hour.
I think that was an uncalled for reference. Streetwalker, no, I think not. I doubt if too many members of the opposition have much of an idea of what a streetwalker would be making.
A fish plant worker-the list goes on and on and the rates go on and on. I would like to point out that those are an extremely disadvantaged group of people when we are talking about unemployment insurance which is precisely what we are talking about. These are people who are making those rates, the highest of which I see on my list is $8 an hour which in a year is somewhere around $16,500. For even a single person, that is below the poverty level in most regions of the country.
Even at that, if you become unemployed, that is not the rate you receive. If you were making $5 an hour when you were working and you become unemployed, the rate you now receive is $3 an hour because you receive only 60 per cent. Part of the rationale of the government bringing in Bill C-21 in the first place was because the system was being so severely abused. Can you imagine anyone quitting work intentionally, making $5 an hour so that they can subsequently earn $3? I think it shows how abusive, crass and uncaring, and, yes, how oppressing, Bill C-21 is.
Speaking of quitting, on that same job of $5 an hour, going to $3 an hour under ordinary circumstances, after a waiting period, of course, which will be increased by Bill C-21, if you quit voluntarily without just cause which, with all due respect to some changes in Bill C-21, is still going to be difficult enough to substantiate even in the
Supply
most extreme cases of unsafe work places, racial and sexual discrimination and so on, the rate you would be receiving on unemployment insurance would be $2.50 an hour. It varies accordingly if you happen to be fortunate enough to make $6 an hour. At the 60 per cent rate, you would be earning $3.60, but if you quit for any of the justifiable reasons, then, of course, you do not receive a penalty after you have established that it was justifiable, you would receive the $3.60. But if you could not substantiate it, you would receive a mere $3 an hour. That is not a lot of money, and certainly not something that anyone is going to get wealthy on.
These are the people whom the government is holding to ransom with respect to the non-voluntary passage today, if you will. Certainly the New Democratic Party is willing, as is the Official Opposition having already stated so, to pass that legislation with no interference whatsoever. I suspect that if we were to do it in the usual manner, you may possibly miss it if you blinked. It could be accomplished that quickly.
Another disturbing aspect of what I have just finished describing is that most of these people are women. Many of them are single-parent mothers who, in addition to not making very much money and having a tremendously difficult time supporting their families on low rates of pay, are also working part-time jobs.
I know the government has reiterated many times that it has created more than a million jobs, but the fact of the matter is that statistics show that most of these people are still working part time. The way statistics operate, the way Statistics Canada does its reporting, one has to work the required number of hours a month to be able to qualify as a full-time worker.
Many of these people are working at two and perhaps three jobs and, believe it or not, the hours are cumulative in so far as the reporting of the numbers are concerned. Persons working at perhaps as many as three jobs would be classified as being full-time workers if they put in the required number which I believe is 28 hours per week. These are the people who are being held to ransom as a result of the non-voluntary, quick passage of the legislation which has gone through so expediently in previous years.

December 5, 1989
Supply
We have not really talked about another group of Canadian citizens who are going to be tremendously adversely affected should this not receive quick passage. I refer to the single- parent mothers and of course that implies there are children involved. I refer not only to single-parent mothers. Of course there are men who work at these low-paying jobs as well. Not being able to qualify for unemployment insurance in a reasonable length of time in an area with very high unemployment will severely affect even more children than it will people unemployed.
The number of people who will be unemployed is a rather interesting subject to talk about. Earlier on in history, not early in the history of Bill C-21 but about midway through, after the opposition parties had been trying for a long period of time to get the impact figures on the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, government numbers showed that somewhere around
30.000	would be totally excluded. Subsequent studies have shown that the numbers are much greater than that, ranging as high as 150,000. Probably a figure of
130.000	would be very close to the number of people excluded all together from receiving unemployment insurance, bearing in mind that the people we are talking about are very low-paid workers, part-time workers, mostly women.
Again I remind the House and Canadians that that is only the number of individuals who will not be receiving unemployment benefits. It does not-and I want to emphasize this-take into account the numbers of children who will be so adversely affected by these changes in Bill C-21 and by the non-passage of the variable entrance requirements rates.
I would remind the House that a week or a week and a half ago we had a New Democratic Party opposition day with reference to the plight of children, the tremendously dire conditions in which so many of these absolutely defenceless Canadian citizens find themselves through absolutely no fault of their own. I would suggest that their unemployed parents find themselves in that position for the most part, for the overwhelming part, through no fault of their own as well.
I would certainly commend the previous leader of our party for having spoken so eloquently on the subject of starvation among children in Canada and their plight. I
think that is something we must remember when we talk about the issues before the House today.
I guess it becomes part of the social balance sheet. When the committee travelled across the country we heard representations from a large group of people. There is no question about that. When we were in northern Ontario reference began to be made by cities and municipalities which were speaking not only for themselves but for the provinces in which they were located. The city of Vancouver felt so strongly about the changes which were going to be occurring and the adverse effect which was going to be felt by it that the mayor of the city of Vancouver made the presentation on behalf of the city.
The imbalance in the social balance sheet is going to come about as a result of not implementing the variable rates for however long a period. I would not even want to put a time limit on it, for however long it requires for the democratic process to wend its way through the system it is going to be tremendously severe as are the changes to Bill C-21. We have these two things going along in an almost parallel fashion.
The government is going to have to one day wake up to the fact that it has made a tremendous mistake in judging the temperament of the Canadian people, in thinking that Canadian people would accept these changes to such a valuable social program.
I reiterate that the New Democratic Party is willing, as the member for Kamloops indicated, to pass this as speedily as possible so that the dire effects of not passing it do not necessarily have to come to pass. Certainly, if it does not happen, the government will have this down upon its head and will have to suffer the consequences.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, without question this is a very important motion that we are debating today, and I do welcome this opportunity. I thank the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace for raising this issue because it is an important one.
I remind the House that it passed Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, last November 7. In so doing the House assured the full protection of all workers across Canada who found themselves in economically distressed regions or circumstances.
December 5, 1989

While I welcome the debate the motion is an unfortunate one. Year after year governments have extended the variable entry requirement each time for only one more year. In contrast, this government has presented Bill C-21 as a genuine response to regional variations. Bill C-21 not only provides for the variable entrance requirements but it does so on a permanent basis. In effect it provides all Canadians with fair access to income support in times of unemployment.
Yet, while this government has demonstrated leadership by introducing the Labour Force Development Strategy, our friends across the way are spinning then-wheels in the mind set of a decade ago.

During the past five years, this government has taken measures that previous administrations had scrupulously avoided. The challenges of the 1990s demand genuine leadership, real solutions and at times, the ability to make difficult choices.
The government has shown that leadership, not only by making changes in the unemployment insurance program but also by setting up agreements for regional economic development, obtaining the free trade agreement and providing for prosperity and growth, a fact that did not escape the OECD. And on top of that, we have created jobs, real jobs, more than one million since 1984.

We have replaced the former make-work programs of the former government with concrete long-term strategies for job creation that spell greater opportunities for the development of our human resources and for individual achievement. Bill C-21 is part and parcel of this government's Labour Force Development Strategy which provides for an additional $775 million in new programming to meet the needs of the unemployed and to upgrade the skills of the labour force.
Bill C-21 calls for change, yes, but it does so in a balanced and fair manner, and it does so in particular by providing for a flexible variable entrance requirement.
Let me remind the House of the other ways that Bill C-21 will help Canadians. With the goal of developing our human resources, Bill C-21 significantly increases funding for training under section 26 and the new subsection 26(1) of the UI Act. In total $1 billion will be
Supply
available from the UI account for income support and courses for UI recipients.
Bill C-21 allows UI recipients with viable business plans to capitalize their benefits to help defray business start-up costs. The spin-offs from such support go far beyond simply getting claimants off UI and on to their feet. Whole communities will benefit economically. In the experience of other countries which have this kind of provision, such entrepreneurship has created an additional job for each new business start-up.
As well, the bill allows UI recipients to receive their UI payments in a lump sum, another flexible way in which recipients can benefit. That will allow some of them who wish to move to areas with better job prospects to do so. The changes also provide older workers with expanded retraining and job-finding services.
The government was determined to bring the UI Act into line with the realities of today's work patterns which have changed and with the equity provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I remind hon. members that Bill C-21 provides for 15 weeks of maternity benefits during the period surrounding the birth of a child, but it also makes available 10 weeks of parental benefits for natural and adoptive parents, for either mother or father or shared between them.
Furthermore, Bill C-21 ensures that claimants have the flexibility to draw a combination of special benefits up to a maximum of 30 weeks. I would remind hon. members that until we introduced these changes or until these changes are passed it was not possible to be pregnant and also sick. We have made that much better for women who have need of special benefits. Indeed we are getting many phone calls now from women who are looking forward to the new benefits that they will receive, hopefully in January.
Finally this bill extends UI eligibility to those who work after they reach age 65, something else that will bring our unemployment insurance in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and will also benefit those who are leading active and vigorous lives in the workforce beyond age 65.
All these changes made Canada's unemployment insurance program more equitable, more flexible, and more relevant to evolving social and work patterns. At the same time it sets out to reduce disincentives to work,

December 5, 1989
Supply
particularly in areas with strong economies and with low unemployment.
We have reached a time in Canada where we cannot afford to sacrifice a large part of the population, individual Canadians, to unemployment or to underemployment when that is not what those Canadians are seeking.
Canada is in the midst of one of the most exciting and challenging economic transitions in our history; the transition from a traditional resource-based economy to one where knowledge and skills and human resources play an increasingly central role. This transition not only confronts Canada but the entire industrialized world, and Canada has to be ready. Our competitive standing in that world will depend on how well we prepare ourselves over the next few years. It is especially important that we continue to adapt our labour market programs to the reality of a changing economy.
Canadians face a future where change is the only constant and where constant adaptation to new technologies, new market conditions and new skill requirements is imperative for the workers themselves to lead satisfying lives and for small businesses and for large companies, but most particularly of course for individual Canadians.
Bill C-21 is part of Canada's adaptation to change, as is the rest of the Labour Force Development Strategy which we announced in April. It works to develop and manage our human resources more effectively with the help of our private sector partners. All told for unemployed Canadians the strategy represents more support of activities like training and skill development that lead directly to jobs.
For Canadians who have jobs the strategy represents a chance to maintain and upgrade skills in response to changing demands. It encourages government's partners-labour, business and educators; we are not in this alone-to work together and build a workforce that is equipped for the future.
Because the co-operation of our partners is so important we tailored Bill C-21 as closely as possible to the labour market needs of Canadians. The contents of this bill, contrary to what hon. members opposite have insinuated, have been scrutinized from every conceivable angle. I would remind members that there were over 200
presentations to the committee when that legislative committee travelled across the country.
In designing the bill we considered as well the Macdonald Commission, the Forget inquiry, the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, and the de Grandpre advisory council. We listened to Canadians and parliamentarians and we did make several amendments, I would remind members, in consideration of their suggestions.
Currently I am consulting with business, labour, nongovernmental organizations and community groups to design new training programs. I must say that that is a real breakthrough in terms of the co-operation and the partnerships that can be built to deal with the realities of the workplace. I would certainly say that we have given Canadians a more than fair chance to tell us what they think about the bill.
The government, as always, had to make some difficult decisions when this bill was drafted. In a country so diverse, I think it is accurate to say that compromise is almost always a part of the solution to our problems. We believe strongly that this bill reflects the demands that Canadians presented to us.
With respect to the entrance requirements that we are debating today, it brings the UI system into line with new economic situations such as, for example, the booming area around metropolitan Toronto. Certainly Bill C-21 allows the UI system to differentiate more fairly between regions that need lots of support and those that need less support.
I think it is quite unfair that neither the Senate nor the opposition recognizes that the solution to the present variable entrance problem already exists in Bill C-21. Instead of taking that solution to its logical conclusion they choose to ignore it.
Let me remind the House that it was always our intention to use UI changes to help free up the necessary resources to expand developmental programming. We think this is a good use of the fund. I should point out, although I hate to say it, that this is not a new idea. It has been done before. The objective of these modest changes that we are making was to encourage a greater commitment to the labour market.
December 5, 1989

I would remind members that the former government did exactly the same thing. At the time when the member for Winnipeg South Centre was the Minister of Employment and Immigration he signed a report called Unemployment Insurance in the 1980s which said that when the 10 to 14-week variable entrance requirement was introduced in 1978, 87 per cent of people affected in the Atlantic provinces found the two extra weeks needed to qualify and 40 per cent of those affected elsewhere found the up to six weeks they needed. When the entrance requirements for new entrants and re-entrants were raised to 20 weeks in 1979, there was an immediate sharp rise in the number of claimants applying with exactly 20 insurable weeks, especially in the Atlantic provinces.
As an example, the number of claims established in New Brunswick with exactly 20 insurable weeks virtually doubled between 1978 and 1980. Those additional work weeks in both years were secured in spite of continuing unemployment in the range of 8.4 per cent, somewhat higher than we have today.
Now that is a report on what happened when the variable entrance requirements were changed before. It is signed, as I said, by the neighbour of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, the member for Winnipeg South Centre.
By expanding the active program assistance we are going much further and doing much more for people, because UI recipients will be in a better position to secure long-term and productive work.
Let me also remind the House that workers in areas of high unemployment often must fight tenaciously to preserve their places in the workforce. If Bill C-21 continues to be delayed until it is too late to make the necessary changes for the new year, some workers in Canada will find themselves facing difficult times, and that is not why I entered public service. We are thinking about the needs of unemployed Canadians.
Clearly the opposition and the Senate have the ability to permit the changes that we have proposed in Bill C-21. If they choose not to let the bill through, the consequences are evident. The government has provided the solution to the existing variable entrance rate which we believe has been an inadequate response to Canadians who find themselves out of work. We have modernized the entrance requirements to suit the current economic situation of our communities.
Supply
In addition, we are altering the UI program to allow those Canadians most in need to get training and other types of help so that they can find lasting, secure and satisfying jobs.

Bill C-21 arises from the demands that our country must meet in order to respond to new challenges on a more competitive world market. Thanks to this bill, the government has been able to provide a fair program that will ensure income security is maintained during periods of unemploymnent. We worked very hard, we put our solution before the House of Commons, and the House approved that solution.

The hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundum was talking about what would happen to Canadians if we do not support the motion of the opposition today. However, what Canadians are waiting to see is whether its representatives follow the lead this government has provided to ensure that deserving Canadians receive what they are entitled to in the coming year.
Let me remind hon. members that this is not just the variable entrance requirements that are at risk if they do not proceed expeditiously in the other place. The benefits to expectant mothers, to fathers, to those over 65, and the expansion of the Community Futures Program which is there to help people in regions that have particular needs will not be expanded unless Bill C-21 goes through. The expansion of the program for social assistance recipients will not go through either, unless we have some sensitivity to all the reforms we have put into Bill C-21. I may remind hon. members of the withdrawal of the repeater provision for seasonal workers which will help many of the people in the regions of Canada through our new bill.
I have already pointed out that when this same approach was taken under the former government, whose members are sitting over there snickering at what we are trying to accomplish, the people did find work; they were better off.
I would hope that members would join me today in urging the other place to hasten the passage of Bill C-21 so Canadian workers will not only have their variable entrance requirements but can develop their skills for the 1990s and will be able to take advantage of all of the advantages that we have put into Bill C-21.

December 5, 1989
Supply


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, I have some questions for the hon. minister. There is no doubt that the minister believes that the provisions in Bill C-21 are good ones. They are her proposals; it is her bill. She believes in them strongly and thinks that they will be good for the Canadian people, but she must recognize that many Canadians do not agree that all the measures in that bill are good. As a matter of fact, when the House of Commons committee sat throughout the country, 157 out of 202 groups opposed many of the measures in the bill and opposed the bill.
The minister must recognize that there are people who in good faith do not accept her point of view with respect to that bill. The minister must recognize as well that many believe that the bill will impact on them in a negative way. As I pointed out, there were 2.2 million claimants under the unemployment insurance system last year, and many of them believe that they will be impacted upon in a negative way as a result of this bill.
The minister must also accept that a lot of individuals, groups and experts were not heard by the House of Commons committee. We did our best in the committee. We heard many trade unions, many chambers of commerce and many social groups but, as I pointed out, we made a decision that we could not hear provincial government representatives. We heard very few academics and we did not hear the Economic Council, the Canadian Council for Labour Productivity, and so on. The minister must recognize that there are many people who would like to have their say on this bill who have not been heard. There are many people who feel it impacts in a negative way and many people who do not agree with it.
My first question is: Does the Minister not accept that those people who are concerned about the bill should have a right to be heard?
My second question is: What is wrong with a temporary extension to the variable entrance requirement? We are not suggesting in this party that the answer to unemployment insurance problems is a 10 to 14-week variable entrance requirement. As a matter of fact, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration in the last Parliament which passed a unanimous report with a Conservative
majority. The chairman of the committee is the present Whip of the Conservative Party. We recommended that there be a flat 10 weeks, entrance requirement right across the country no matter what the rate of unemployment because we felt it was too difficult and unfair to have a variable entrance requirement. That was after a lot of study and many hearings before that committee.
All we are asking is that the government extend the variable entrance requirement for a reasonable period of time to allow those who want to be heard in the Senate to be heard. I am asking the minister: What is wrong with such a temporary extension?
I would not support that the Senate, the non-elected body, block this bill on a permanent basis, but I think they have a right and a duty to give reasonable attention to those who want to be heard.
Finally, the minister says there has been a lot of consultation on this bill. Does she not understand that consulting on a selective basis in her department or in her office with her officials is not the same as consulting publicly before a House of Commons or Senate committee where the proceedings are open to the public, the press and are reported? There is quite a difference between that kind of consultation in a public, open way and consultation in her office.
I ask her what is wrong with giving a right to be heard to those who ought to be heard and must be heard? What is wrong with a temporary extension of the variable entrance requirement? Can she not see the difference between public consultation and private consultation in her office or in her department?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, I do not think this government has anything to learn from the opposition about the right of people to be heard. It is not a case of having consultations behind closed doors in my office. That is certainly not the way we have approached it. In fact, there is a series of public discussions and forums going on right across the country with labour and management even as we speak. They are being organized by the Canadian Labour and Management Productivity Centre in order to get a variety of opinions on the training programs and the skills development side. This is a real breakthrough. It is not something the opposition ever did when it was in government.

We have made a real point of ensuring that the voices of labour, business, and educators are heard and particularly groups such as the Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women. We will be consulting with a number of people within the native and disabled communities who will also make their voices heard as we develop the training part of the program.
Let me say as well that I have no objection to the people in the Senate calling their witnesses and hearing people they believe would be helpful to them. Since the other place is not sitting this week they have some considerable time in which to do that in committee. I understand they will hear before they are finished-and I respect not only their right to do this but the responsibility they have to do this-a variety of points of view. In fact there are some people, as I have been told by some of our members in the other place, who can come to explain just how the benefits will work.
It is also important to point out to the 2.2 million claimants last year, some of whom are concerned that they will be impacted on negative ways, that the average usage of unemployment insurance was really well below the maximum number of weeks that people are allowed to utilize. Under the new bill in Newfoundland, for example, the maximum duration of benefits under Bill C-21 is 50 weeks in all three regions. That is exactly what it was before. The variable entrance requirement in the new bill is exactly what it was before. What we are going to see is some improvement in places like Atlantic Canada in terms of the flexibility that we are putting into the program and how it is going to be so much better for people.
I am sure when people come to the other place that they can call the witnesses of their choice. If they choose to hear provincial governments, academics or whomever, I am sure they will do that.
I am very proud of this bill. I am looking forward to hearing the kind of debate and the kind of people who do come forward to the committee.
When you talk about the 157 groups who are opposed to the bill, I know that they are all opposed to it for different reasons. Some support one part while the next person who comes in is against it. It is up to the government to make the decisions and the compromises, having heard those opinions from a wide range of Canadians.
Supply


Mr. Baker:: Madam Speaker, I think the minister inadvertently said a moment ago that the qualifying period for the three new regions in Newfoundland would be exactly the same as it is now. She also said that they can still draw for 50 weeks.
I am sure that the minister must have been looking at figures for a different province and not for the province of Newfoundland. If the minister would examine her notes concerning the three new regions in Newfoundland, she would find that the entrance requirement will vary considerably in metropolitan St. John's from what it is outside of metropolitan St. John's.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, I am sorry if I confused the member. I will have to check the "blues". I thought I was talking about the maximum duration of benefits under Bill C-21, at least that was the reference that I was making, which continues to be very favourable to the people of Newfoundland.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to support most strongly the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I rise to call on the government and in particular on the minister to prevent hardship in the high unemployment areas of Canada.
On January 6, if the unemployment insurance bill, Bill C-21, has not received Royal Assent, then, as we all know, the uniform entrance requirements will come into force on a nation-wide basis. In certain areas of this country this will add to and create a hardship. I refer most particularly to those areas in Atlantic Canada, in Cape Breton, in Newfoundland and in New Brunswick. Indeed, many of the areas of the Atlantic, already hard pressed by this government, will suffer untold exacerbation of difficulty.
There are two points to be considered. One is the usual parliamentary process involving the other place. The second is the fair treatment of Canadian workers while Parliament does its work in its normal course.
The people in my riding of Halifax will not suffer greatly in the short term if Bill C-21 is delayed without the introduction of the usual variable entrance requirement bill. Indeed, they will be better off in the short [DOT] term than they will under Bill C-21.

December 5, 1989
Supply
As it stands right now, 13 weeks is the entrance requirement for Halifax. If the national standard kicks in without the VER, then 14 weeks will be the entrance requirement. Under Bill C-21, in the city of Halifax, 19 weeks will be the entrance requirement.
The minister stated that this bill was a fair bill and one that was accepted by the vast majority of Canadians as a compromise. I disagree with that. My major question is this. Why this unholy rush? Indeed, this bill has been characterized from the beginning, from its introduction, as one that required an unholy rush. If the government is in such a rush to pass this bill, then the average Canadian is going to think there must be something severely wrong-and the average Canadian would be right.
members of Parliament in the other place-this is the usual parliamentary process.
Again I say to the government, what is wrong with the usual parliamentary process? Why does it need to be speeded up? What is the great rush? What is the benefit when thousands and thousands of Canadians are going to suffer if the government does not act in its normal fashion? God knows they suffer enough when the government is acting in its normal fashion.
The government has not moved any bill which would check the entrance requirements in the event that the other place does not ratify Bill C-21 before the variable entrance requirement of 1989 expires.
There was closure moved on this bill, a limiting of debate, as my hon. colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace has already noted. There was a limiting of the number of groups who could come before the parliamentary committee as it went across the country. Indeed, in the debate that was allowed-and I use the term "allowed" advisedly-in the House of Commons, we did not know about the changes in the regional areas and the changes that would again inflict more hardship on the people in the hard-pressed areas of Canada.
Since 1977, Liberal and Conservative governments have introduced a short bill in December of each year amending the entrance requirements for unemployment insurance. Indeed, it was done by this government last year on September 29, 1988. It was one of the indicators to the political pundits that an election was coming. It was so important that the timetable was moved up so that these variable entrance requirements could be brought in. Is it less important in 1989? Is it less important to the people of the economically depressed areas of this country that they have an opportunity to survive-and I use that word advisedly, too-the very hard winter that lies ahead of them?
The terms set in December of each year were a minimum of 10 weeks and a maximum of 14. Today Bill C-21 is in the other place, having passed, albeit reluctantly, third reading in the House of Commons. But it seems unlikely, if the usual parliamentary process takes its course, that the bill will be given Royal Assent before February. This is not a delaying tactic on the part of the


Mr. Robichaud:: They want to penalize the families.


Mary Catherine Clancy: That is right. My learned colleague from New Brunswick says they want to penalize families, and that is what is going to happen.
The terms of entrance would become the ones of 1977, a flat 14 week entrance requirement should the government not pass a VER bill and Bill C-21 is held up. The hold-up, however, and I reiterate this, is not one of some diabolical plot. It is merely the right and the duty-the constitutional duty-of duly appointed members of Parliament in the other place to hear as much as they possibly can from interested groups who have something to say, particularly when interested groups who had something to say were stifled through the parliamentary committee that travelled this past summer and fall across this countiy.
I had the dubious pleasure of sitting on that committee when it came to my riding of Halifax. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that I heard something in that committee from a member on the government side that appalled me. I heard the president of the Acadian Federation of Nova Scotia talk about the fact that with this bill young Acadian Nova Scotians will no longer be able to stay in their home regions. They will no longer be able to stay in a home land that they had been driven out of once before and to which they had returned. I heard an hon. member, and I use the term loosely, say, "Well, I guess your choice is to move or starve". I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that the move or starve ultimatum does not sit well with Nova Scotians. It does not sit well with Atlantic Canadians, and it does not sit well with Canadians in general.

December 5, 1989

The hon. minister calls this motion unfortunate. Bill C-21 is unfortunate. It is unfortunate for fisheries workers. It is unfortunate for rural seasonal workers. It is unfortunate for the urban poor, and it sure is unfortunate for Canadian women. In fact, this bill is an institutionalized misfortune for our country.
The hon. minister says that we in Canada are going through an exciting transition. That must be a huge comfort to the people of Summerside. I am sure that it engenders great joy in Lunenburg and Lockeport where the fish plants are closing. Indeed, this transition is so exciting that it is a wonder that Atlantic Canadians are not dancing in the streets.
The minister tells us constantly, and we have been hearing it ever since the introduction of this unfortunate bill, about the training programs in Bill C-21, particularly the training programs as they affect women. This is another fiction that is being perpetrated upon the people of Canada.
I spoke last week to the operator of a medium-sized business in my riding of Halifax. I asked him about the training programs for women. He said, "Yes, it is going to be great. I can train my receptionist to work on the word processor and I can train my secretary to become a bookkeeper". I said, "Are you not going to be going outside and training new people so you can hire them and add to the number of employed?" "Oh, no, I don't have to do that", he said, "I can train in house and save myself a whole lot of money". That saving will be on the backs of the taxpayers of Canada, without assisting in any way the unemployment rate, particularly for women. It is great stuff.
The bill itself will make it more difficult, as we already know and as we have already heard, to qualify for unemployment insurance by increasing the qualification periods. We know it will cut off claimants sooner by shortening the benefit period. It will increase the penalty for those who voluntarily quit. Of course the whole voluntarily quit provision is a fascinating one
I spent four years in a previous life chairing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board in my riding of Halifax. I heard about some of the voluntary quits, the voluntary quits that had to do with everything from sexual harassment to absolutely untenable working conditions. Sure, the unemployment Insurance Act needs
Supply
reform. It needs lots of reform. But the reform should go in favour of the workers of Canada and not against them.
It should not be a punch in the stomach or a belt in the jaw. It should be some form of support and some recognition by the government that the workers of Canada do suffer stoppages of employment from time to time. This is an insurance program
The injustice from the voluntary quits arises when someone quits a job for what he or she believes to be just cause, but just cause under this bill is something that will be increasingly difficult to prove.
I mentioned earlier that in my riding of Halifax if the VER does not go through, if the government does not bring in this bill as it has traditionally, and if Bill C-21 does not pass until after the other place has followed its duly appointed constitutional itinerary, then Halifax will not suffer all that badly. But it sure will suffer in the long run if Bill C-21 becomes law.
Halifax suffers from a disparity in incomes. Because of this disparity in incomes there is an almost false rate of unemployment. To be unemployed in Halifax is every bit as bad-sometimes worse-as it is to be unemployed in Cape Breton because you do not have the support systems and the family support that is traditional in Cape Breton Island and in the rural areas of Nova Scotia. All of the problems of urban alienation affect the poor and the unemployed in a city like Halifax.
The rate is skewed because of this disparity. We have an area that covers my city of Halifax, that of my learned colleague from Dartmouth and down the eastern shore of Nova Scotia where employment opportunities outside the fishery are rare. Of course we know what has happened to the fishery in Atlantic Canada. Consequently, there is a grinding poverty facing unemployed workers in the urban regions of Nova Scotia this winter. This government is not prepared to do anything to assist that while the Parliament of Canada goes through its normal process.
Why is the government not moving the VER bill this year? Is it an attempt to make the duly appointed members of the other place look like the villains? Is it an attempt to make it seem as though this bill was stalled there just to flex its muscles with a complete disregard for Canadians on UI? If this is the case, then a fraud is being perpetrated on the people of Canada because the

December 5, 1989
Supply
other place is doing its duly constitutionally asked for job.
Is it to make it appear as though we in the opposition are stalling? Sure we would like to stall this bill. We would like to stop this bill. We would like to trash this bill. But unfortunately the numbers are against us. We do not want to see the non-elected members of Parliament use a power that the people of Canada do not want them to use. We do want to see them do their jobs.
One hundred and forty-seven groups oppose this bill. If only half of them have a good reason to be heard, then there is an obligation on the committee from the other place to hear them, particularly when the vast majority were unable to be heard by this House and its committee.
What is the solution? The government should not play with the constitutional mechanisms that are currently in place. This is a crucial bill which warrants the sombre and sober second thought that the upper chamber is there to provide.
However, while this is going on it is absolutely crucial that the hard-pressed regions of Canada and the people depending on unemployment insurance are protected by moving the usual variable entrance requirement bill which is available and ready to be moved and which both opposition parties, the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party, have assured the government they will co-operate in passing.
I cannot imagine what is on the minds of our government masters by refusing to take this opportunity to ensure that Canadians are protected and that Canadians in Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario, parts of Quebec, in the north and so on will not have to look toward January and February with fear and trepidation because they fear for their very survival due to the actions of their government.

Madam Speaker, unless the regional entrance requirement is implemented, we will have regional tragedies, especially in the Atlantic region, among fishermen, steel workers, miners, and all the people working in fish processing plants. The winter will be very difficult for families in our region.
The federal government must not make the situation any worse. It is time to show compassion and understanding for regional disparities.

It is time for the government to show that it cares something for the hard-pressed people of Canada. It is time, after the disastrous actions of this government in its budget and in other actions taken in the spring and the summer, to say, "We understand what the people of the Atlantic in particular will go through this winter without the normal bill on the variable entrance requirement".
Here we have a cri de coeur which goes to the government and says, "For God's sake, do something for the people who deserve your protection".


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member who just spoke, and spoke so well, understands that a solid unemployment insurance system is not only good for the workers who are unemployed but also extremely helpful to the communities in which they live when they are unemployed.
When an unemployed worker receives unemployment insurance he or she spends that money on groceries, on rent, on fuel for automobiles, on children's clothing and so on. The money is spent and it circulates in the community. During the great depression before 1940 when we did not have unemployment insurance and people were unemployed and did not have that money to spend, the recession, or the depression, the slow-down, snow-balled and galloped and the comer stores that used to sell to those people went bankrupt. The whole economy went further down the drain. That is prevented with a solid unemployment insurance system. Therefore the member probably knows and would admit that it is important not only for the individual unemployed but also for the community.
As a result of Bill C-21 unemployment insurance benefits will be reduced by $1.5 billion. The government is taking $1.5 billion away from regular benefits.
When you break that down, it means that her province, the province of Nova Scotia, will lose $29 million that would have gone into that province in unemployment insurance benefits. That money will not be going into the province. Perhaps the government might spend some of
December 5, 1989

that money on training in the province, but there is no assurance of that.
We were not able to hear in the House of Commons committee provincial government representatives. We were not able to hear people who looked at the impact on the provinces from a macroeconomic point of view.
Does the hon. member not agree that it is reasonable now for the Senate to hear these people, especially since they have the new maps of the new regions, who can inform Parliament as to what the impacts will be from an economic point of view of withdrawing these moneys from provinces like Nova Scotia or New Brunswick? Can she not make the point that it is not we Liberals, senators or members of Parliament, who want to be heard, that it is the people from these regions who want to be heard to make their points with respect to these economic arguments?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace for his comments. Indeed, with respect to the first point concerning the injection into the economy of the unemployment insurance moneys, it is absolutely crucial to a province like Nova Scotia. In the rural areas of Nova Scotia, but also to a great degree in the urban areas as well, seasonal work is something with which we all live.
In my previous life when I practised law, I had a number of clients who did a little fishing, a little wood cutting, a little repair work for whoever was around. This took place as much within the environs of the city of Halifax as it did in the rural areas. It is a way of life and it is what happens.
Consequently, the impact of Bill C-21 and its changes on the provincial economies is going to be massive. I ask you all to think of a province the size of Nova Scotia with the difficulties that it is facing, with the cut-backs in the fishery, the closure of the fish plants and on and on, losing $29 million. I am not a mathematician but I am sure if we were to take that and change that figure on a per capita basis to what it would mean in the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario the numbers would be staggering. Believe me, as a Nova Scotian, they are staggering for us. It is absolutely crucial that the voices of the provincial and territorial governments be heard as to
Supply
the impact of the changes that Bill C-21 is going to bring to their people.
In the province of Nova Scotia let us look at the fish plant closures. We have already talked a bit about the retraining the minister has promised so succinctly. Well, that is not going to do any good for the people of Lockeport who are losing their fish plant, or for the people of Louisbourgh who are losing theirs, because there are no other jobs. What are you going to train them for?
Again, we go back to the horrific statement that I heard at the committee-"move or starve". That is not right and it is not fair. It is not something that Nova Scotians or Canadians generally deserve to hear.
Indeed, all of the groups that have a vested interest, and there are many, have a right to have their ideas, their suggestions and their concerns heard in the fullest possible public debate setting. We did not hear them because of the truncated House of Commons agenda on the UI bill. The very least we can do is ensure that our citizens do not suffer while we allow the other place to do its job.


Mr. Funk:: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her excellent speech. I would like to point out to her that we cannot just look at this as an individual action taken by this government. There are several other actions which have been taken by this government that impact unfairly on those communities as well and which discriminate against a lot of them.
I want to make reference to northern communities where the goods and services tax proposal will have an unfair impact because the cost of many items are two or three times higher in those communities. They will be paying two or three times as much through the GST proposal.
As well, there is a recommendation that takes the northern tax benefit away from 2,000 or 3,000 communities in this country. Those are the same ones that will also be impacted upon this UI bill. I was just wondering if the member has examined the cumulative impact of these three measures when taken together.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I will be very brief, as I know my time is short, Madam Speaker.

December 5, 1989
Without considering the hon. member's question to be anything but serious, as I know it was, I can only say that there comes a point for Atlantic Canadians, as I am sure there does for northern Canadians, where we look at the actions of this government, proposed and already taken, and we wonder if we are living in a bad dream.
I referred in earlier comments in this House on another matter to the juggernaut of the budget. Indeed, juggernaut is what it is. The possibility of the implementation of the goods and services tax in Atlantic Canada could well be the straw that breaks the camel's back. It could well be the coup de grace to the Atlantic economy. This is why over 80 per cent of Atlantic Canadians continue to voice their opposition and, indeed-to this the government should pay heed-their rage that this should even be contemplated, given all the conglomerate attacks on Atlantic Canada by this government. As was said in a motion picture not long ago, "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, as the economic conditions in Cape Breton continue to worsen, this government is doing its utmost to try to cut out the underpinnings of the economy which still exists. One of those prime underpinnings is VIA Rail.
VIA Rail is vitally important to the economy of Cape Breton. This government has manipulated with Canadian National to do away with VIA. Now CN is doing its
best to try to get rid of the business it presently has in eastern Nova Scotia. Three-quarters of all the container traffic that once went between North Sydney and Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, is now going between Halifax and St. John's. The piggyback trailers that once went across the Gulf are down by one-third. The rail shipments are down from SYSCO to central Canada.
This government, by allowing CN to play down and to do away with business is actually aiding and abetting the downgrading of the economy in Cape Breton. VIA Rail must be protected. That is the best way to assure that a rail line will continue to exist in Cape Breton.
This is more than just an emotional need. This is an economic need.


EL SALVADOR
Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the Minister of Employment and Immigration for Canada's fast and generous response to endangered people in El Salvador. Canadians have heard much about the civil war within San Salvador. Not only air force bombing of poor residential districts, but assassinations of clergy and trade unionists and arrests of church relief workers show the danger to many civilian noncombatants.
Many Canadians who have urged our government to take action to protect the innocent are very grateful for the response. Courageous and hard-working Canadian consular officers on the scene, backed by quick and humane decisions by the minister and senior officials, are saving lives and relieving much heartbreak.
Canadians can help in this emergency by offering to sponsor these refugees. A group of five can apply to sponsor one or more people for a year by telephoning either to the nearest Canada immigration centre for details or to one of the churches organizing sponsor groups.
The minister's action is not only humane and life-saving, but is a contribution toward the negotiated peace that was called for last month by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
December 5, 1989


AGENCE DE COOPERATION CULTURELLE ET TECHNIQUE
Guy St-Julien: It will be Mr. Jean-Louis Roy's responsibility to make the Agence de cooperation culturelle et technique the linchpin of the francophonie. Mr. Roy is in fact the second Quebecer to be appointed since the ACCT was established at the end of the sixties.
His election was not easy, but the candidacy of the agency's new director was diligently promoted by ministers Lucien Bouchard and Monique Landry and by a number of Canadian ambassadors.
The agency is responsible for the preparations for Francophone summits and for follow-up activities.
Mr. Roy is the right man to implement changes in a restructured agency that will now have broader responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, this is a significant victory for Canadian and Quebec diplomacy. Bravo, Jean-Louis Roy from Saint-Georges de-Beauce!


ECONOMIC PROMOTION OF METROPOLITAN QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-East):: Mr. Speaker, on June 30 1988, the Conservative caucus for the Quebec City area and its provincial counterpart recommended, based on the conclusions of a special task force, creating a company to promote the economy of the Quebec City metropolitan area.
The company was established on February 6, 1989. Recently, I was pleased to see that in the past nine months, the company has put in place a series of consultation mechanisms and has been actively promoting the industrial and technological development of the Quebec City area.
Today, the company is monitoring 30 or so projects, in various stages of development, which together are worth more than $150 million. It has also started to produce promotional material, including a list of manufacturing companies in the Quebec City metropolitan area, a
reference and promotional tool intended to simplify contacts between members of the business world.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to belong to a community that is so economically sound, and I hope that our region will draw maximum benefits from these projects.


Guy St-Julien: Like Abitibi!


VIA RAIL
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Paul Stokaluk, a resident of Thunder Bay-Nipigon, recently travelled to Toronto with his wife. She required an extremely delicate eye operation. After the operation, Mrs. Stokaluk's doctor instructed her not to fly home because this form of travel would do further damage to her already sensitive eye. Following the doctor's advice, the Stokaluks returned to Thunder Bay on a sleeper car on VIA Rail. She was required to lie on her side all through the trip so as not to do further damage to this very sensitive area.
These concerned constituents called my office questioning what they would have done had Mrs. Stokaluk's operation been scheduled after January 15, 1990. That is the day when passenger rail service will no longer be available to the people in northern Ontario.
It is wrong to eliminate passenger train service in northern Ontario. It is unacceptable that this government eliminate a line which services over 300,000 residents of these communities. How else will the physically handicapped like Mrs. Stokaluk travel? How will the economically handicapped, those who cannot afford to fly and those who do not want to fly, travel throughout the north? It is wrong that these people and the 300,000 residents of Marathon, Terrace Bay, Schrieber, Nipigon, Red Rock, Thunder Bay, Ignace, Dryden, Kenora be denied passenger rail service after having it for over 104 years.


THE ENVIRONMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, this government is creating a double standard in environmental regulation that fails to protect the salmon resource of the Fraser River and
[Stage Direction]
December 5, 1989
endangers the health of the people of the northern interior of B.C.
In May 1989 an advisory was issued saying that the consumption of some fish near pulp mills in Prince George and other locations should be limited due to dioxin and furan poisoning. Further tests were to be done this fall but because of Environment Canada's bungling we must now wait until spring for the tests. Environment Canada is creating a double standard by continuing its work on the coast but planning to turn over testing in the interior of B.C. to the very pulp mills responsible for the pollution and the basket-case enforcement of the provincial government.
This government should accept its full responsibility for the Fraser River and take the necessary steps to guarantee its protection.

Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has done a lot of talking about the forestry agreements which expired in six provinces last March and about its intentions to renew them. Yet it has failed to replace them and this situation is creating many problems across the country. The delays brought about by the government's indecision in renewing those agreements have caused the loss of employment for 43 silviculture workers in New Brunswick.

Several times in the past, the Minister of State for Forestry promised us that new forestry development agreements would be signed with the provinces. Last August, the government of New Brunswick and the federal government agreed to renegotiate these agreements. We are now getting to the end of the year, and no agreements have been signed.

Industry and the provincial governments are ready to participate, as evidenced by the British Columbia government's commitment of $350 million toward a new agreement. Now the federal Minister of Forestry and his government must do their share. They must stop beating
around the bush and they must renew the forestry agreements.


FISHERIES
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, striking crew workers have severely reduced the government's ability to effectively patrol our waters against illegal fishing. Since this strike began the fishermen in my riding have made numerous sightings of American vessels which have taken advantage of this situation by fishing in Canadian waters. Not only are they stealing Canadian fish stocks but the fish-dragging gear they use literally chews through the lobster traps set by our fishermen, causing them significant financial losses in both revenue and gear.
This situation cannot be allowed to continue. Canadian interests in the waters off Atlantic Canada must be effectively maintained. The fishermen of Atlantic Canada should not have to pay the price for the inflexibility of a few union bosses. I call upon the government to act with all possible speed in bringing about a resolution to this matter.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, on the weekend the NDP destroyed Meech Lake. The leadership candidates, all members of this House, went back on their word and shamelessly withdrew their support for Meech Lake. Even the former leader gave way.
I thought the new leader of the NDP would stand firm, but she also withdrew her support from the Meech Lake Accord, to attract partisan support.
The Berlin Wall has come down. Countries are opening their borders. Throughout the world, people are trying to understand and open a dialogue. And now we see the NDP raising a wall of shame in this wonderful country of ours!
What the NDP did on the weekend against Quebec was shameful and degrading!


TOURISM
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, recent figures released by Canada Customs and Excise revealed that Canadians, as well as visitors to Canada, are increasingly choosing the Blue Water Bridge in my riding of Sarnia-Lambton as their point of departure and entry into Canada. Throughout and including the spring and summer of 1989 the total number of travellers reached 2.7 million, up 4.4 per cent from the previous year. By the end of October, the figures show that traffic on the Blue Water Bridge had jumped by more than 250,000 vehicles during the first 10 months of 1989. In all, almost 3.9 million cars and trucks crossed the international span, an increase of more than 260,000 as compared to 1988.
In a border community such as ours these traffic figures are particularly welcome from a tourism perspective. The tourism industry has been an integral part of the local economy and the community, including our local tourism operators, is striving to have more of these travellers stop and appreciate the many sites and attractions of Sarnia-Lambton.
I urge all members of the House, visitors to Canada, indeed all Canadians, to circle the Blue Water Bridge when travelling to and from Canada. I invite you all to come and see and appreciate our beautiful community of Sarnia-Lambton and what it has to offer.


CANADA POST
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, earlier today one of the standing committees of this House, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Consumer and Corporate Affairs, had the pleasure of listening to a representative of Rural Dignity Canada, Ms. Cynthia Paterson, who described poignantly and quite eloquently the disruption inflicted on hundreds of small towns and villages across this great land by Canada Post.
The monolithic management of Canada Post and this government are executing the policy of closing rural post offices, come what may, all in the expectation of saving a
few dollars, an expectation which, it turns out, is quite misleading.
On November 16, 1989 the Postal Services Review Committee, a committee appointed by the government, reported that Canada Post itself "acknowledged that savings from rural closures have not been material".
On behalf of Rural Dignity, and millions of Canadians living in rural areas, I ask the government of Canada and Canada Post to stop their unilateral dismantling of one of Canada's most valued rural institutions, the post office.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, at its national convention in Winnipeg, the NDP put on a marvelous show. It was truly edifying to see the former leader break under the pressure of delegates and withdraw his support for the Meech Lake Accord. A sad end to a political career and a decision unworthy of a man who has always been known as a man of principle!
A deplorable beginning for the new leader, who throughout her campaign told Quebecers that she agreed with Meech Lake, that she respected the concept of a distinct society and Quebec's five demands, and who, under pressure from her supporters and to further her own ends, has now reneged on her commitment-


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


Gabriel Desjardins: -to Quebec and joined others in demanding a reopening of the Accord.
Mr. Speaker, after such a spectacular about face, the NDP has obviously cut itself off from Quebec. The socialist party will learn that Quebecers never forget. From now on, they know who they can count on, who are their real allies and who will defend and represent them here in the House.


CHRISTMAS TREE INDUSTRY
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, it is December and the festive season is upon us. Last night the Minister of Public Works, with his accustomed

December 5, 1989
efficiency, lit the lights on the parliamentary Christmas tree in front of the Centre Block.
Inside, I must say the hallowed halls outside this Chamber don't look too bad, but they don't smell too good. In fact, they don't smell at all.
Why do I not sense the fragrance of a Lunenburg County spruce or balsam fir or even, heaven forbid, an Ontario pine? Do I sense that Parliament itself sets the regrettable example of using artificial Christmas trees? Is it possible they are not even Canadian?
The Christmas tree industry is a $70 million industry in this country and is worth some $30 million to the people of the South Shore. Is it possible that Canadian producers can export over three million trees to the United States but cannot persuade the Parliament of Canada to use them?
Real Christmas trees are biodegradable, environmentally friendly, beautiful to look at and wonderful to smell. Let this be the last year that Parliament is without the joy of real Christmas trees. Let's support our Christmas tree industry and make these buildings a real showcase for a beautiful, valuable and renewable Canadian resource.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, we want to alert all Canadians to the fact that the Conservative government is busily preparing for Christmas. The gift is Bill C-28 which spells the beginning of the end of universal senior's pensions and family allowances.
We want to alert 128,000 seniors and 14 per cent of Canadian families that as soon as the government can railroad this legislation through the committee and third reading that they will receive their cheques as usual, but they will have to return the money a few months later.
"No concern to me" say many Canadians. Not so. By the year 2000 it is estimated that 1 million seniors and 30 per cent of all Canadian families will be affected by the clawback provision.
This kind of Christmas gift is not wanted by any Canadians, so I would ask the government to rewrap Bill C-28 and present another package that Canadians will accept as a real gift.
What does the government have in its stocking for next Christmas? An attack on medicare?
* * #


LITERACY
Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, nearly 5 million Canadians have difficulty reading a sign or an instruction book. The Conference Board of Canada has recently reported that about one-third of Canadian companies have difficulty introducing new technology because some of their employees are functionally illiterate.
Last year our government introduced the National Literacy Strategy to help address these problems. The strategy focuses on remedial and preventive actions to help those with literacy problems and especially to promote literacy with children.
The year 1990 has been designated by the United Nations as International Literacy Year. This government is already doing its part to address the literacy challenge. While the cost of illiteracy to our country's economic future is enormous, the cost to the people involved is tragic.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as a defender of Meech Lake, which I believe strengthens Canada, I was disappointed in the speech made by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) in Toronto before a large and happy crowd of Canadian francophones from across this country who were celebrating Ontario's Bill 8, a major achievement by the Peterson government affirming the rights of the official language minority in this province.
I was there, and I saw how shocked and insulted people were by the minister's attack against Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the way he misrepresented that vision of Canada which had in fact furthered their cause tremendously.

One of Canada's fundamental characteristics is the existence of official language minority groups, both in and outside Quebec. Trudeau was aware of this and supported those groups. You don't beat Canada, Mr. Speaker, by rewriting its history.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board about the government's mishandling of the strike of 2,200 federal ships' crew workers and over 1,400 federal hospital workers.
For two years the government has been trying to find every possible legal loophole to avoid bargaining in good faith. First, it bungled declaring these workers essential to the safety and security of the Canadian public. Then it spent months trying to get the courts to block the legal right of these workers to strike. It went through conciliation without ever putting a serious offer on the table. Now it is so threatened by people exercising their legal rights, it has gone to the courts to stop picketing and wants to order these people back to work.
How does the minister justify risking the safety and security of Canadians with these ham-handed bullying tactics? Will he state here and now that the government will get back to the bargaining table with a good offer, a serious offer and get this thing settled properly?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the TVeasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the government has been negotiating throughout this unfortunate dispute in good faith. We negotiated throughout the months over the summer and throughout the months coming up to December. We have gone back to the table with the unions over the last few weeks in an effort of mediation. We have put a very serious offer on the table.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we have been negotiating up to the very last hour. I am still prepared to continue.if we see that there is a possibility of reaching a reasonable settlement. We were discussing this issue up to close to midnight last night.
Oral Questions
The negotiations are still open for any kind of reasonable offer to be put on the table. I can assure my hon. colleague opposite that the government has been veiy conscious of its responsibility in terms of being an employer. We have put a very substantial package on the table and we would like the union to respond with a reasonable counter offer so that we can move in terms of reaching a negotiated settlement.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the minister thinks it is the responsibility of the union to act as the government should act and settle the strike responsibly.
I want to remind members that just weeks ago in this House we were paying tribute to three Coast Guard workers who had lost their lives off the shore of Newfoundland. At that time, the Minister of Transport said of these people that their daily bravery is testimony to the finest and noblest aspects of the human character. We are talking here about workers who go out in 100-mile-per-hour winds and 40-foot waves to protect the lives of Canadians.
With our hospital service workers, we are talking about people who work every day with our disabled and ill veterans in the last days of their lives. They are working for as little as $16,000 to $18,000 a year.
This strike is costing $1 million a day in tied up shipping in the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes. Veterans and patients are being denied food-


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the hon. member to put her
question.


Marlene Catterall: Does the minister think that salaries as low as $16,000 to $18,000 are commensurate with the risks and responsibilities these people take? If not, will he immediately commit to putting a good offer on the table?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the first part of the question of the hon. member. I hope she realizes when she refers to what happened in Newfoundland a few weeks ago that this has nothing to do with the agreement we have with the union dealing with the whole question of safety and rescue operations on the St. Lawrence River or on the ocean. I hope the hon. member is not just trying to threaten people in that way. There is

December 5, 1989
Oral Questions
nothing true in the allegations that there is a problem of next few days-pay equity between the east coast and the safety on the St. Lawrence River.	west coast.
Moreover, dealing with the question of the closure of the St. Lawrence River last Friday, I did this because at the time I considered that I did not have guarantees about the safety on the river. We decided this morning, supported by the pilots, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and others, that there was no danger in permitting the ships to move on the St. Lawrence River.
As far as I am concerned, it will continue to be done in the same way. I hope that the member will no longer try to threaten people with the safety question when there is no problem of safety on the St. Lawrence River right now.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the minister is absolutely right about one thing. The unions have been exceptionally responsible in providing for essential safety and security. However, that does not alter the fact that we have oil-laden ships and chemical-laden ships at risk in the St. Lawrence Seaway and on the Great Lakes.
I want to return to the question of pay equity. This government talks about paying people fair wages for fair work. Yet we have two concrete examples that are at the root of this strike: ships' crew workers who are told that their lives on the east coast are worth $2,000 less than those on the west coast and hospital service workers who have been waiting two years since a decision of the Human Rights Commission for decent, equitable wages.
On November 8, this government appeared before the Human Rights Commission arguing that the Human Rights Commission had no jurisdiction-


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the hon. member to put her question.


Marlene Catterall: Will the minister explain why the government has been fighting equal pay for the lowest paid workers in the federal Public Service? Will he explain why his own officials are arguing against pay equity before the Human Rights Commission?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my hon. colleague the benefit of some information in terms of the negotiations. In terms of pay equity, in the ship crew negotiations we offered to establish immediately upon signing the agreement-if they wanted to in the
In terms of the hospital services, we have already paid out $28 million to meet the Human Rights Commission decision and there is another $10 million on the way. In the case of hospital services right now we are facing demands for a pay increase of 14.3 per cent per year for the next three years. In the case of ships' crews the demand is 17.4 per cent per year for the next three years. That compares to the settlement that 155,000 public servants accepted for an annual increase of 4.1 per cent. We think that is not fair. It is discriminatory and we will just not tolerate it.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. It concerns this government's plan to introduce back-to-work legislation in the matter of the ships' crews strike.
The federal government's attitude toward these employees is nothing short of obscene and contemptuous. It has steadfastly refused to put an offer on the table that would eliminate up front in year one of the contract the regional rates of pay where the east coast workers are paid up to $1,800 less than their counterparts on the west coast.
Will the minister order his negotiators to resume negotiations immediately and put an offer on the table that eliminates this discrimination up front in year one of the contract and cease and desist in using the Order Paper of this place as a replacement for the collective bargaining process?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I believe I just answered that question. The offer is on the table. I have offered the union to move immediately to wage parity between the east coast and the west coast upon the date of signing. That has been on the table for weeks.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister. This government talks a good game about pay equity, but right now it has a motion on the Order Paper which will legislate wage discrimination against east coast ship crews. It would cost the government less than $2.7 million to eliminate this discriminatory wage practice and remove the major obstacle to a resolution of this strike.
December 5, 1989

Why is this government so hell-bent on perpetuating a system of wage discrimination that allows ships' crews in my riding of Dartmouth to be paid $2,000 less than ships' crews in the Minister of Fisheries riding for doing exactly the same job. How can he possibly justify that?
Mr de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, for the third time, I will repeat for my hon. colleagues that we have offered the unions to meet the parity question between the east coast fishermen-


Ronald MacDonald: Up front, year one?


Robert René de Cotret: Right now. If the contract were ratified in two days, we would immediately move to parity between the east and the west coast.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Right now?


Robert René de Cotret: That is what I am saying. Yes, right now. The minute it is signed. That is on the table. The offer is there. We will have parity right now.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Canadians are concerned about the double standard of providing immunity from prosecution to certain corporations, government agencies and individuals while charging the little guy.
In the November 15, 1989 federal document which I obtained from Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa, serious charges are made and the minister is ultimately responsible. One of the matters raised involves Alcan and the destruction of a salmon stream in British Columbia.
As the minister must know, not only did Alcan destroy the streambed without approval, but it did so after it had been told directly and specifically by the minister's own department that it could not undertake such potentially harmful activities.
Does the minister not believe that charges should be taken against a large Canadian corporation that bulldozes the bed of a salmon stream?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House, as I did yesterday, that there is no double standard in the application of the Fisheries Act, or in the pursuit of my overriding responsibility to ensure the sustenance, en-
Oral Questions
hancement and maintenance of our fisheries resources. That will continue to be and always has been the policy of this minister and this department.
With regard to the specific matter referred to on a tributary of the Kemano river, it is my understanding that Alcan thought it was correcting a problem caused by an early winter storm and did perform activities outside the area of the approval it had been granted. It is a measure of the approach the department often takes to try to enhance, rebuild and restore these resources that an arrangement is being negotiated with Alcan to do full remedial restoration of this part of the stream bed. The solution to these problems is not always to put people in the slammer.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it does not sound like the the minister is going to charge Alcan despite the fact his own officials directed Alcan not to undertake the work and Alcan did it anyway.


An Hon. Member:: Shameful.


James Ross Fulton: With regard to the loss of fish habitat in the Swift River case in central British Columbia, I learned from the Department of Fisheries today that the Department of Justice lawyer suggested that the laying of charges be delayed because of the Cariboo by-election, and that charges have still not been laid. On the Mile 44 Nursery case, the director general of Pacific Fisheries would not approve laying charges against the B.C. government ministry of environment, because it is "political dynamite".
Will the minister request an RCMP investigation of those two specific cases, or does he have excuses for them too?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is extracting from certain very serious allegations contained within a document prepared by a field officer of the department, which document is being reviewed very, very thoroughly at my direction by the deputy minister and senior officials of the department.
I can assure the hon. member that no official within my department would have recommended any delay on any legal action which was recommended to us, and certainly would not have done so for any reasons relating to political considerations. I think it is most reprehensible that the hon. member would suggest otherwise.

December 5, 1989
Oral Questions


James Ross Fulton: The fact of the matter is that Mr. Langer is the head of the habitat management unit for the Fraser River, northern B.C. and Yukon division. One would assume if someone in western Canada knows something about what is going on with habitat, it would be the head of habitat. That is who wrote the memorandum.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: We know that the discharge of toxic effluent from pulp mills is making fish, crab, prawns, shrimp and shellfish unsafe to eat. We know that the source of 40 per cent of the marine pollution in Canada is from pulp mills and that it endangers human health.
Since the minister knows that most of the pulp mills across Canada are violating federal law and regulations, will the minister show some courage on this issue and state today in this House that all corporate polluters that are presently in violation of any federal law, any federal statute, any federal regulation will be prosecuted and charged today and that he will so direct his officials to do so?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out for the benefit of the member and members of the House that the official who prepared this document is a field officer responsible for one district within British Columbia, not the head of habitat for British Columbia. His opinions certainly do not represent the official policy of the department. We seek remedial actions, we seek to enter into co-operative arrangements with industries, and where appropriate, where advised by our legal counsel in the Department of Justice, prosecution is pursued as appropriate.


SHIPPING
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. The Coast Guard strike has put navigation in the St. Lawrence at risk. Yesterday, a ship came close to a colliding near the Pierre Laporte bridge in Quebec City. Will the Minister negotiate in good faith, or is he going to wait until we have an ecological catastrophe? Will he act immediately to settle this dispute?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, whenever a member from that side of the House states something that is false, I try to set the record straight. The ship that left Quebec City yesterday from Montreal did not have a scratch, Mr. Speaker. It was merely a false manoeuvre, and the ship was duly escorted. The regulations were very clear. Once again, there was no connection with the ban announced between Quebec City and Les Escoumins. Permission was given yesterday. A pilot was on board. Once again, it was merely a matter of manoeuvring and had no connection with the strike by employees and crews on the ice breakers.


Alfonso Gagliano: According to reports in the papers this morning, Mr. Speaker, it seems that yesterday, we could have had an ecological accident on our hands. If that had been the case, it would have been serious because of the current situation. The minister says "if". Why not settle this dispute, so that Canadians won't have to worry about the possibility of an ecological disaster?
As you know, because of the strike we are losing a million dollars a day, and this is only in Quebec! Is the minister going to wait until the Port of Montreal loses its competitive position before intervening, or will he instruct negotiators to settle this dispute quickly, so that Quebec's economy can continue to grow?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, negotiations continued informally for the better part of the evening yesterday. I think we should also bear in mind that there is a very wide gap, if we consider what we have been able to give other federal employees. On the whole, federal employees have settled for an annual increase of 4.1 per cent, while this particular group is asking for an annual increase of 17.4 per cent. I think you will agree it would be very difficult to bridge this difference. We are trying to negotiate. We are bargaining in good faith. We would like the union to come to the bargaining table with an offer that is reasonable, considering their colleagues in other parts of the Public Service, and reasonable in the eyes of the Canadian public.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that a 17.4 per cent annual increase for three years is a very significant increase and one that is very difficult for the government to accept. However, we are always prepared to negotiate. We are concerned about the safety of Canadians and we
December 5, 1989

will do what is necessary to guarantee safe navigation on the St. Lawrence River.


TAXATION
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and concerns the clawback Of Old Age Security pensions. The government says the tax only applies to senior citizens with an annual income of $50,000. However, the tax will also apply to senior citizens who receive only $40,000 in dividends from Canadian companies. Furthermore, the minimum is not indexed to the rate of inflation. Could the minister explain this injustice?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that there is a thing called a dividend tax credit that is also a part of the tax form. When the clawback, the tax back, is calculated on the income before the tax credit, the tax credit does reimburse the individual for the effects of the reduction as a result of the gross up in the dividends.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the minister and maybe his department does not understand the gross up. Certainly the dividend tax credit has nothing to do with reimbursing the clawback, it is a reimbursement of taxes previously paid in the dividend process.
In any event, last week the Minister of State for Finance stated that it was not the government's policy to end universality. If that is so, how can the government justify its discriminatory tax, which is based not on the ability to pay, but based upon age and family size? A universal program that is subject to a 100 per cent tax back is a contradiction in terms.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance to admit now, to the Prime Minister's mother and to all the senior citizens across Canada, that Bill C-28 is the end of universality. Will he not come before the legislative committee on this bill to account for this policy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me draw to the attention of the hon. member a presentation that was made to me in February 1989 by One Voice, the Canadian seniors' network. In this document, on page 6,
Oral Questions
they said social benefits are given to every Canadian citizen as a right:" They can be taxed back from the rich because the rich should pay more taxes than the poor".
That is the principle that we have established in the budget of 1989, where we are saying that on the current fiscal conditions that we have today, we will make payments to all people over age 65 with respect to the Old Age Security. We cannot afford to continue to subsidize those people in upper-income brackets, which amounts to 4.3 per cent of senior citizens who are affected. Only 1.8 per cent of senior citizens are going to be subject to the full amount of the tax back. So there is a very logical reason for this and I am sure that the hon. member, if he reflects on that, will agree that that is the right way to do.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to a minister who can explain agricultural program cuts. Since European and American governments have not made any moves to cut farm programs until there is an agreement for an international phase-down of agricultural subsidies, can the minister tell us why Canada is cutting its support programs, like the two-price wheat program and the interest-free cash advance programs, before there is any international agreement, instead of using these programs as bargaining chips at the negotiating table?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by my colleague's question. If there is a government which has defended Canadian farmers and doubled and tripled the efforts made to defend farmers, especially western grain growers, it is our government. But we have understood that fanners, in particular grain growers, also had to be defended internationally. That is exactly why our Minister for International Trade is making every effort to end the war between the U.S. and the EEC, so that our Canadian farmers, who have always behaved very well internationally, can take Canada's rightful share of the international market. That is exactly the position we have defended and will continue to defend, internationally and nationally.

Oral Questions


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand the logic of helping farmers by cutting programs to them. Perhaps the minister can explain the logic of cuts to the agricultural research program that is ongoing at the Animal Research Centre here in Ottawa, where the funding was first cut and then frozen to the point where there is barely enough funds to feed the research animals let alone to do research. Can the government explain what has happened to its so-called commitment to agricultural research?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised to see a representative of the New Democratic Party tell us about logic after the way they treated the Meech Lake Accord last weekend. We have nothing to learn from the way you are behaving towards Canadians.
As for agriculture, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to invite my colleague to come and meet with over 1,400 representatives of Canadian agriculture who will be here in Ottawa to discuss all agricultural issues and to review our agricultural policies, which was never done in the past 20 years.


Don Boudria: Tell the truth!


Pierre Blais: We intend to do what no government did before us: consult Canadians on the future of agriculture. We invite all Canadians to come with us; all aspects of farming, from research to the environment, will be considered. I hope that my colleague will be able to attend this conference to facilitate the entry of agriculture into the 21st Century.


CAR SAFETY
Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
On Thursday, December 7, the Minister will meet his provincial counterparts in Ottawa and it would seem that one of the subjects on the agenda will be the mandatory use of air bags in motor vehicles. Mr. Speaker, since the United States has a law that took effect on September 1, 1989, requiring manufacturers to equip motor vehicles with these air bags, and since the technology has evolved quite a bit recently, thus reducing the cost considerably,
could the minister tell us his position and, if appropriate, whether he would be prepared to urge his colleague the Minister of Transport to pass such a law?
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, there is greater concern about the use and effectiveness of restraints on occupants of motor vehicles. Although seat belts are effective in preventing death, the number of non-fatal injuries caused by motor vehicle accidents is starting to rise. We must look at the advantages and disadvantages of air bags and this item will be discussed this week at the Health Ministers' Conference.


CANADA POST
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation. On November 2, Canada Post issued a press release delaying proposed increases in the northern air stage commercial parcel rates until January 31, 1990.
In this House the next day, ministers told us a working group would be set up to carry out consultations with northerners before the end of January. This working group has not even begun to work because the departments involved cannot agree on who will have the lead role or who will chair the group.
Can the minister assure the House and northerners in particular that this committee will be struck immediately in order to allow northerners to make constructive suggestions?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that there was a meeting of this committee last Friday, December 1, and it was decided that two representatives from Canada Post and Indian Affairs and Northern Development would start their tour of the north to talk to people in the north about the northern air stage problem, if you will, to see if in fact some accommodation cannot be worked out so that any subsidies by way of food to the north are done in a more efficient and fair way than at present.
December 5, 1989


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, there goes the government again. It will solve the problem before it asks the people of the north what they would like to see in terms of accommodating the needs of the north.
My supplementary is for the same minister. Because of the interdepartmental confusion and conflict that we have seen in the last month, because it was supposed to start a month ago, we have lost one whole month of the three months. I reiterate that one of those three months includes Christmas at which time nobody does really much of anything, especially in a bureaucracy. Will the minister take the just and fair step of extending the consultation period beyond January 31, 1990, so that northerners do not have to pay for the government's waste in its mismanagement of this issue?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I think the proper course of action would be to allow this group to visit the affected northern communities. They will do this before Christmas. It is Christmas Day, not Christmas month, and there are still some days left in this month in which this work can carry on. It is not until the end of January.
If, in fact, some accommodation cannot be worked out by that time, perhaps the hon. member's request can be considered at that time, but I think we should let that committee do its work.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister, my question is for the acting Minister of the Environment.
As the minister is well aware, Hydro Quebec is planning the largest river diversion project in North America on the Great Whale River. But the federal government which boasts about its commitment to the environment is not even intending to apply its environmental guidelines to this massive project, nor intending to honour Section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
Will the minister or acting minister explain why a letter was sent to the Minister of the Environment in the Quebec government which opts for a co-operative plan between the two governments and would exempt the federal government from holding an independent and
Oral Questions
public inquiry in which all parties, including the Cree, who would be most affected, could participate?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has indicated from the veiy beginning that the Grande Baleine project has a significance for the federal government in that it will impact on marine mammals, it will impact on the waters of the Hudson Bay and on migratory birds.
For that reason we have made it very clear that our obligations, under EARP will apply to the Grande Baleine project and we will see that our considerations are met, either as part of a joint undertaking with the province of Quebec or, if necessary, on our own.
We have also made it very clear to the government of Quebec that there must be public hearings and that the Inuit and the Cree must be a part of that process. In fact, the federal administrator has already met with the Inuit. We have made offers to meet with the Cree and we hope that the Cree will accept those undertakings in the very near future.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary has to say certainly does not concur with the letter written to the Minister of Environment in Quebec which makes a suggestion of setting up a co-operative effort rather than a federal environmental assessment, which is what we would like the minister to commit to.
Why will the minister not commit to an environmental assessment and review process on the Great Whale River Project and assist all parties, particularly the native people who live in the area, with intervener funding so they may participate fully in the process? This is a massive project.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member and all members of the House will know, the judgment given in the Rafferty-Alameda decision made it very clear that wherever possible to avoid duplication the federal and provincial governments involved should work together in the undertaking of environmental assessments.
That is the proposal we have made to the province of Quebec, but we have made it in such a way that we will require and demand our requirements for information, our requirements that the Cree and Inuit should be part of that process must be met. In addition, we will see that

December 5, 1989
Oral Questions
the necessary funding will indeed be made available to assist the Inuit and Cree in that undertaking.


GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the acting Prime Minister. Last Thursday, the government appointed to head the Security Intelligence Review Committee, John Bassett, a man whose appointment the Prime Minister would clearly have known would be highly controversial, as it has proven to be.
The appointment was made without getting the views of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, as clearly required, in direct violation of the CSIS Act. Will the acting Prime Minister assure the House that the appointment will be rescinded and a proper consultation process put in place so that the credibility of this very sensitive and important committee will be protected?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I think with respect to you, Sir, you are still looking into this matter under a question of privilege. With respect for your responsibility, I think it is inappropriate for me to discuss this matter before the House of Commons. I think I need your advice on this because I think it is inappropriate for me to answer that question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Victoria. I will listen to the next question.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard from a minister who hides behind the RCMP, now trying to hide behind the Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wants to argue this matter further, perhaps he could raise it on a point of order after Question Period. The hon. member for Algoma.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Two weeks ago we saw the largest gathering of protesting
farmers from Ontario and Quebec that this Hill has ever seen to protest the policies of this government.
The farmers rallied on the Hill because they were afraid the government would sell them out at the GATT negotiations this week in Geneva. In fact, yesterday the government did sell them out when it accepted the GATT panel decision on ice cream and yogurt.
Would the minister agree that this precedent could be applied to all processed dairy products and thus put in jeopardy 60 per cent, 20,000 farmers in the dairy industry and their supply management systems?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Trade): Mr. Speaker, the demonstration the hon. gentleman referred to was, I know, a group of concerned farmers but I do not think it could be described as a titanic group in numbers. But we are well aware of the concerns of farmers and we have not sold them out. We have not even leased them out as the last government did.
With respect to the GATT panel report on ice cream and yogurt, we have not prevented that report being adopted at the GATT. We have pointed out, however, that we do not like the interpretation that was given by the GATT panel.


Mr. Wappel:: Oh, you pointed that out.


Mr. Crosbie:: You would not bother to point it out. You would not know enough about it to know which direction to point in.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: We have also announced that we are re-extending the quotas for 1990. The quota levels for 1990 are set at 347 and 332 tonnes respectively, up slightly from last year, tied to domestic production of industrial milk. We have advised the GATT that we will consider the situation with respect to implementation once we see the results of the current Uruguay Round of negotiations.
Now what could protect Canadian farmers more than that? Certainly it protects them more than the vacuous bleatings of the hon. critic opposite.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that that answer is a very vacuous answer. I was very careful not to call the minister vacuous.
December 5, 1989

I wonder if the genial minister would admit that what the government agreed to yesterday at Geneva and the GATT was the worst possible precedent at the worst possible time, at a time when the government is trying to renegotiate Article 11 of the GATT to redefine and to protect our supply management and marketing board system.
Since we are part of the Cairns Group and a part of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, how does he expect to negotiate and protect the supply management and marketing board system when both of those trading groups that we belong to are opposing our position and want to get rid of supply management and marketing boards and destroy our whole dairy system?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has just wondered how I could do it. I wonder myself, it was such a fantastic performance. We are members of the Cairns Group and it accepts our position, although our position is not on all fours with the position of the rest of the members of the Cairns Group.
What could be a better job for Canada than that? We remain members of the Cairns Group. The Cairns Group exports 25 per cent of all the world's agricultural exports. That group needs us. We need it. We are not going to agree with the group about supply management boards and the need to retain Article ll(2)(c)(i) and have it strengthened. The group does not agree with us on that. Other countries do. We will see what comes out of this mix but if anything that we have seen so far is repeated, we are in very good shape.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Surrey North on a single question please, followed by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte on a single question.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Housing concerning Robert Jarvis, the chairman of CMHC who wants to be known as just another lawyer when he calls the Ontario government on behalf of property developers who are seeking CMHC funds.
Could the minister tell this House whether Mr. Jarvis has filed with him or with the government a declaration
Oral Questions
of his business interests, and does that declaration contain a list of his clients for whom he has sought CMHC funding?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, the provisions in the conflict of interest rules, I have been advised by the Assistant Deputy Registrar General, do not apply to Mr. Jarvis with respect to filing requirements. The requirements of the conflict of interest rules do apply to him, but there is no requirement for him to file under those rules and therefore the Assistant Deputy Registrar General has no authority over him at the present time.
There are other rules that CMHC itself has with respect to filing. In that instance, the initial set of rules that was put in place in 1984 did not require filing by Governor in Council appointees but Mr. Jarvis did file on a voluntary basis.
In addition to that, a new set of guidelines was put in place by CMHC in June or July of this year. At the present time filings are being made by members of the board of CMHC, but Mr. Jarvis has not as yet made his filings.


AGRICULTURE
Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs.
The tariff on U.S. com for eastern Canada imposes a burden on livestock producers. In short, it has a negative effect on their competitiveness.
Could the minister give us some assurance that this problem is fully understood by the government? In so doing, could he give us an indication as to how this problem will be addressed?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I directed the Canadian Import Trade Tribunal to carry out an investigation of the situation as it currently stands and to consult all interested parties. That is taking place now.
Once those consultations have taken place they will be reporting to me whether or not another full study should take place. I will report to the House at that time when I have those recommendations.
Supply


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
December 5, 1989
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I just want to reconfirm to the House that tomorrow will be an allotted day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give urgent consideration to introducing in the immediate future a bill to extend the variable re-entry provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act in order to assure full protection of workers in economically distressed regions;
That this House declare its willingness to pass such a measure in no more than one sitting; and
That, for greater certainty, this House declare that the passage of this motion does not constitute a vote of no confidence in the government.
Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, need I remind you that I represent a region where workers and employers know the importance and significance of the variable qualifying period of 10 to 14 weeks.
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to remind this House that we do not need to renew an outdated provision which no longer meets Canadians' needs.
In many regions of Canada, each season means either work, UI benefits or frustration. From my social involvement before 1984,1 know that Canadians want to work as long as society makes it possible for them to do so.
Mr. Speaker, our government announced last April that it intended to bring in a more permanent solution for the variable entrance requirements. Improve the employment opportunities for those who hold insecure jobs is what we want to do starting January 1, 1990.
On June 1, we tabled in the House a bill that confirmed our intention. The new benefit structure which we propose to implement will better reflect regional disparities.
We have changed a system that no longer meets current manpower needs into a system that is adapted to current and future needs as well. Over one million Canadians have trouble finding work. I repeat, we must break the vicious circle of employment, unemployment insurance, welfare.
The workers of this country want something else. We call it human dignity. Felix Leclerc said that the best way to kill a man was to pay him to do nothing. As a government, we believe workers will use the training tools we make available to them. We offer them a chance to train for jobs that are worth while. However, we are well aware of the problems involved in bringing about such changes. We know it is much harder to find jobs in Newfoundland where the unemployment rate is still around 14 per cent, than in Toronto, where it is around 4 per cent.
That is why it is absolutely necessary to make the unemployment insurance program do what it was intended to do. I would like to take this opportunity today to appeal to the good will of the members of the Senate. I urge them to approve this bill as soon as possible. In doing so, they will help provide for a better qualified and a far more productive workforce.
Madam Speaker, it would be unthinkable to delay implementation of the labour force strategy any longer. Our Canadian workers want to work. Our workers want measures that are dynamic and effective. They don't want to wait six, eight or 12 months. They want to go on working, and they want to remain in the labour force. And they certainly do not want to be part of the political strategies of those people who refuse to approve our legislation. And above all, they do not want to be caught in the old vicious circle: job, unemployment insurance, welfare. Madam Speaker, this bill has was examined thoroughly by a legislative committee that travelled across Canada.
On November 7 this year, I announced in the House a new configuration of economic regions that will become official as soon as the bill takes effect. This reform will make the system even better adapted to employment conditions in the region where the person applying for unemployment insurance is a resident. This government
December 5, 1989

realizes that the economic situation has changed in many regions, a fact that the Liberals ignored for so many years. In regions where the unemployment rate is over 15 per cent, the qualifying period of 10 weeks will remain unchanged.
Madam Speaker, as part of the rhetoric that has been typical of this debate, it has been claimed, without giving any explanation, that Bill C-21 was spurious and unfair. But it is quite the opposite. Think about people aged 65 or over who want to go on working. They will be able to do so. Think as well about new parents to whom we propose offering higher special benefits. The combination of maternity, parental and health benefits will be extended from 15 to 30 weeks. These higher benefits will provide parents with a more generous income support plan while at the same time enabling them to reconcile their work objectives and their parental responsibilities. Again I say that this government seeks to make the unemployment insurance program more responsive to the needs of today's active parents.
The bill as amended provides 15 weeks of maternity benefits for the mother at time of birth; 10 weeks of parental benefits for natural or adoptive parents, mother or father, or equally shared by both; five weeks of additional parental benefits for adoptive or natural parents when the child is at least six months old when first brought home; 15 weeks of sickness benefits. This is our way of acknowledging the importance of the woman's role in an active society, just as we acknowledge the responsibilities shared by a couple.
Bill C-21 will come into force with the changes we are advocating. For instance, eligible people will be entitled to a maximum of 30 weeks of special benefits. That is what I call progressive measures.
Madam Speaker, these are only a few examples of benefits available under Bill C-21 which has now been before the Senate since early November, nearly a month.
The bill features a variable entrance requirement which takes regional disparities into account. I repeat that the bill was passed by the elected members of the government. Hon. members passed the bill in the House. The Senate still has three weeks to consider and report the bill before the House recesses for Christmas. Those
Supply
who are delaying the bill are holding the unemployed as hostages.
Madam Speaker, again I say that I share the opposition's concerns over the variable eligibility requirements as a temporary solution. Therefore I intend to vote against the motion before the House because I believe we need to implement Bill C-21, a reform which shows full respect for the dignity of the worker and takes into account the prevailing conditions in the economic regions. I will vote against the motion because I hope that, prompted by their collective responsibility, the senators will make haste and send the bill back before we interrupt our work for Christmas.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that last year there were 2.2 million claimants under the unemployment insurance system. She should also know that as a result of Bill C-21, 155,000 Canadians who would have been claimants will totally lose their claims and 775,000 will have their claims reduced.
As a result of that sort of impact, already the clerk of the Senate committee has received 159 requests by groups to be heard on that bill. Let us say that even if only half those requests to be heard are legitimate, it still gives us about 75 legitimate groups that want to be heard.
Why is the minister opposed to groups of Canadians who feel impacted on Bill C-21 having the right to be heard? I am not talking about groups that were already heard by the House of Commons committee. I am talking about groups that were not heard at all by the House of Commons committee because we had a deadline to meet.
Why is the minister opposed to those groups being heard by the Senate committee and, if she is not opposed to that, why is she not willing to extend the variable entrance requirement for a month or two so that the law will remain the same while the Senate is dealing in a reasonable way with those Canadian groups that want to be heard?
It is not the Senate that wants to extend the time. It is not the Liberal Party. These are groups of Canadians who are being impacted by this bill and they want to make their views known to Parliament. The only means they have to do it is through the Senate committee

December 5, 1989
Supply
because they were not heard in the House of Commons committee.
I ask the minister why she is opposed to that. Why is she opposed to the democratic right of Canadians to voice their views on a very serious change in their lives and their economy?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, I would like first to point out to my hon. friend that we need no lessons in democracy.


William Warren Allmand: Yes, you do!


Monique Vézina: We have an advisory committee which met groups and had discussions with UI claimants. We have a structure which involves a House of Commons and a Senate. What I am re-emphasizing to the House is the need to enact as soon as possible the legislation now before us, Bill C-21. It gives me very much pleasure to point to the statistics of thousands of people, claimants who ask for the right to be heard. I will simply remind you of the reality of the calendar.
On January 1st, we must implement the program if it is to be efficient and serve its primary goal of helping workers who are willingly looking for a job, after having lost their jobs for whatever reason. It is urgent that we implement theses changes to ensure that the system's primary purpose be fulfilled, to achieve what this reform sets out to do which is training, in partnership with the private sector. I therefore remind the House of the need to approve the Bill as soon as possible. As I said, the House will adjourn in three weeks. And my hope is, as a Member of Parliament for an area that knows all about those 10 to 14-week entry requirements and unemployment rates, and what I want is that we show respect for workers who are looking for jobs. I want to give them renewed assurances, as a government member, that our safety net will be available, today and tomorrow, to the unemployed men and women who are looking for jobs, and I would like to recall that the methods introduced through Bill C-21 are an active, dynamic, and efficient way of developing a skilled, and on effective force for next year and the years to come.
[English)


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that she introduced the new unemployment insurance regions the day after we completed the debate on Bill C-21 in this House. She waited until we had finished the
debate and until we voted on it at third reading, and then she showed us the new regions.
All the groups that appeared before the House of Commons committee did not know what those new regions would be. Members of this House who debated the bill did not know what those new regions would be. Now we have to examine Bill C-21 in conjunction with those new regions.
Considering that, does the minister not understand that it is reasonable for people to discuss this bill in the light of the new regions that she presented to us the day after we voted on that bill in this House? Is it not reasonable that these groups should have the right to give their views on the joint impact of Bill C-21 and the new regions? I ask her this again because she did not give me a logical answer.
The minister said that she cannot learn anything about consultation from us. She is talking about private consultation in the department and in the office of the minister. We are talking about public consultation in committee, with the press present and the public participating in the consultations.
We are not talking about private consultation. We are talking about public consultation. Since the minister herself introduced the new regions after the debate was completed in this House, is it not reasonable to have some discussion in the Senate with groups on what the joint result will be of the new regions and the bill?
Again, would the minister not reconsider and along with the minister for employment extend the variable entrance requirement for at least a couple of months until the Senate reasonably hears those groups that have something worth while to say? Why is she opposed to that?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, my colleague knows very well, since he has been in the House of Commons for quite a while-I have only been here for five years-and knows very well what "consultation" means. You have criticized us as a government enough since 1984 for consulting too much. What you are asking me to do today before implementing Bill C-21 is to consult some more, leading Canadians to believe that the redefinition of economic regions is the same as Bill C-21, even without Bill C-21. Madam Speaker, the economic regions had to be redefined. As I mentioned briefly, the government that preceded us neglected to review the economic reality of the regions, neglected to analyse the economic situation, to recognize regional

disparities, and now we are asked to consult before accepting Bill C-21? The redefinition of economic regions was requested by members of this House, both in our party and in the one opposite, as we often say. We need both reforms, two complementary reforms, and we can continue to go ahead with Bill C-21, knowing very well that even without Bill C-21, the economic regions would have been redefined. And I must congratulate us for being forward-looking and taking account of the differences among client groups and labour markets. That reality had to be recognized, and again, I call on members of the Senate to respect the timetable. I ask them to respect the working people of Canada so that as of January 1,1990, we can implement together these two reforms which recognize and respect the outlying regions, from which I come.


Guy H. Arseneault: A question!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry, the time for questions and comments is up. Resuming debate. The hon. member for South West Nova.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, I would point out to the minister, just on the last point she made about economic regions, that the southern end of Nova Scotia always had a sub-area up until last November when this government took away that sub-economic region. So let us not throw stones at each other.
This piece of legislation is about the worst piece of legislation-


Mr. Reid:: Let's not throw stones? Do you see any boulders falling from the ceiling?


Coline M. Campbell: The member over there says: "Let's not throw stones". The minister just spoke and said that they were responsible for the great changes in the economic regions. They may have been responsible for the great changes in the economic regions, but they left an area that had had an economic region change up until last November without that stability of a new sub-economic region in Nova Scotia,
Supply
and they made the people pay by putting in extra work weeks in order to claim.
Today we have a special motion before us. The member who just interrupted me comes from Newfoundland, so he would not understand the variable entrance requirement because the unemployment rate in Newfoundland is well above 15 per cent and is protected by this bill as it has been in the past.
The motion before the House is a motion to pass what has been passed every year since 1977 by both Liberal and Conservative governments. It has been passed in order to retain the variable entrance requirement and not go to a straight 14 weeks.
If this motion is not accepted today by the House and if it is not passed before January 6, two things will happen. This government can smile in self-satisfaction, but one of two things will happen. The bill will either pass without the proper consultation that it needs and should have in the Senate, or the variable entrance requirement will be done away with. In other words, everybody will need 14 weeks of insurable earnings in order to qualify starting January 6.
I made some inquiries at one of the local manpower offices in my riding and I found that last year, from January 3 to January 6, there were almost 500 applications from only one area, and I share that office with the member for South Shore. In that one area, those people would have to go from 11 weeks under the variable entrance requirements to 14 weeks, and because of the repeater provisions in the bill, they would need 20 weeks of insurable earnings in order to qualify in South West Nova.
This bill is such a callous way of taking funds from a given region and saying to that region that we are not any longer going to give you the funds that were normally there as income for Canadians, the income which was spent in those communities. As businesses are well aware, if you remove funds from a given area you are hurting not just the people and the families who are relying on receiving the benefits. You are hurting basic businesses in every village, in every town, across a given region.
The spin-off effect has to hurt, and it does not take long to realize it. You will soon find people, the young in particular, having to move away from areas that have always had a seasonal employment base and the greater part of Canada, whether in the north, the east, the west, central Canada or Quebec, has a seasonal employment

December 5, 1989
Supply
base. Bill C-21 forgets seasonal variations and says we are going to do it uniformly across Canada. Treat the people in Toronto the same way as you will the people there.


Mr. Kempling:: You haven't read the bill. Read the bill.


Coline M. Campbell: Of course I have read the bill. The parliamentary secretary to the minister of manpower can sit pompously back in his chair. He does not know the effect it will have on all Canadians because this bill definitely violates people.
I am the first one who would say and say publicly, whether in my riding or elsewhere, that there may be abuses of the unemployment insurance system and the government wants all Canadians to know that. However, I do know what this bill will do.
This bill reduces the number of weeks of benefits, according to the estimates of a local manpower office, by probably from 30 to 32 weeks of benefit for the 17 weeks of insurable earnings to 21 to 22 weeks. That is an almost 10-week reduction in benefits for 17 employable weeks. It does not take much for someone, particularly someone who has been involved with the unemployment insurance program, to realize the effect of that.
Claimants who go into one of the manpower offices in the first week of January normally need 17 weeks. That is what was needed last January in order to qualify. But, if the bill goes ahead without any further amendments, they will then receive for the 17 insurable weeks somewhere around 22 weeks of benefits. I figure that that brings us into approximately the first weeks of May. In my area, with the fishery and with the way the government has handled the fishery, we are not even sure there will be a fishery. At that time the people begin to look for work because the fish have been coming in and the people hope that there will be work.
So what do we have? We probably have people starting back to work any time after the middle of May to June. They work their overtime, they work their weeks and, if there were fish, they would work all year. They work part-time throughout the year when there are fish. This bill means that by the first week in May there will be no
more benefits for those particular claimants in that area, so these people must find work.
I can sympathize with people in the government who would like to say: "Let them find work", but when you come from an area whose economy is based on farming, fishing, forestry and tourism, the full employment season is barely the full months of May, June, July, August and September.
These people work and they get their 17 to 20 weeks, because they may as well know now that they are probably going to need anywhere from 16 to 20 weeks and then they go back on to unemployment insurance in the fall. By February they will have received all their benefits.
Municipal leaders have been telling me that this bill is bad law and that it has not been analysed. They are going to be the ones who are going to be under pressure next year. It will not be the minister from Bay Street. It will not be the Minister of Employment and Immigration who can callously sit there and pompously tell members of the opposition that they do not know what they are talking about.
Let the minister come down to the unemployment insurance office in any one of the areas. Last year at this time, 700 to 800 people were looking for unemployment insurance benefits. Last week, I think the number was around 2,400 in one office. That tells me one of two things. First, there is no work, and that I have to accept because there have been no fish even though the offshore quotas will leave about 26 million pounds the inshore could have fished in this particular month. There are no fish and the people have not had the work they have normally had.
Second, the people know that if they get their claim in before Christmas they will perhaps have a longer benefit period in the new year and will be able to adjust to the harsh requirements this government is setting down without providing any alternative.
I was around when there was a Liberal government and it changed some of the unemployment insurance rules. At that time I opposed certain of these changes, but never have I seen changes which take approximately $50 million out of an economy like that of Nova Scotia without having at least a make-work program established by the government in order to provide work in an area for those people who need the additional weeks of work. Never, have I seen that.
December 5, 1989

People used to laugh about make-work programs and say that they did not provide long-term jobs. But they did retrain people, they did show them that there were other jobs in the community that could be done and they did build certain things in the community. But the most important thing was that they allowed people to find the additional work weeks necessary to establish a claim at an unemployment office. As well, they gave income to the people in many communities who needed that income in order to remain there and be available for the seasonal work in those areas.
This minister has changed the direction of the unemployment insurance program. She has said, "We will retrain". She has not said the government will provide any work opportunities for the many people who will find themselves caught by the new changes in this act.
It hurts members opposite to hear this.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: It hurts anybody to hear it.


Coline M. Campbell: They will have to hear it eventually. There are 139 groups that want to appear before the Senate. I have never seen a change in any government policy and the spin-off effects it will have in the many regions, villages and towns across Canada be less scrutinized.
It is a piece of legislation geared strictly, in my opinion, to the free trade agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Coline M. Campbell: They laugh. Our unemployment insurance system has at least provided a subsidized income to allow all Canadians to have a reasonable living. Until this government or a new government provides a new outlook on how we are going to have income maintenance across Canada, we need that program in various communities or people will, as a result of this legislation, have to leave their communities and their families and go into the downtown areas of Toronto, Mississauga and other places in Ontario.
They may have full employment in St. John's, Newfoundland, but there is not full employment in Halifax. Many people there are now beginning to suffer the economic consequences because not only is the fishery not bringing income into that area but the people in the
Supply
surrounding areas are not going into Halifax and spending money.
The whole direction which has been followed since I came back to the House of Commons less than a year ago has been detrimental to the regions. We see it in the fishery. We see it in the unemployment insurance changes. Because business has said the program must carry itself, the Unemployment Insurance Act must be directed toward business. Even de Grandpre and Forget said there must be something within the economy to sustain the people in the long term. Retraining should be left for business. Retraining should be done by the IBMs and the GMs, not subsidized by the government for the GMs and the IBMs.
Madam Speaker, the other day I picked up a press release and saw that the minister had given $2 million out of the UI fund to a radio station, CBC, to provide a program for retraining senior Canadians aged 55 and up. Why does downtown Toronto need $2 million? Is there no awareness within the business community of Toronto that the older worker has to have assistance, has to be reintroduced to the workforce by the community, by those businesses?
That $2 million is coming from claimants in the east who will have reduced benefits and going to Toronto, the richest area in Canada. Business people are asking her to change the Unemployment Insurance Act and she cannot get them to submit, on a tax receipt, the assistance needed for CBC to carry that program.
That was okay. The worst part was that it was only for a designated area in Ontario, I think seven cities. It did not go across Canada to help other older workers getting back into the workforce. It only helped her area and those businesses in that area. This is a very limited area as far as I am concerned.
I have watched this government bring in a bill and impose closure on it after only one day of debate. If I recall correctly I did not speak on this bill at second reading. I think I spoke on the closure motion.
I do not think I have seen a study on what is going to replace the $50 million in Nova Scotia, but I do know that with the way the unemployment changes are going that has to be studied. I do not think our municipalities can create the weeks of work needed in order for people to make claims without some assistance from the federal

December 5, 1989
Supply
government, if it is going to proceed at the rate it is going.
At the same time, I think Mr. Buchanan is right that there is going to be a great loss of income available within the area.
This motion is simple. It does two things. It allows the status quo to continue beyond January 6 until the bill is passed. If the motion is passed as it is, it will not have all the consequences that I have said it could. But it will also allow the 139 groups which want to make representations to point out the concerns that exist. I do not know why the government feels that the Senate is not entitled to look at this, to give it a sober second look. I am glad the Senate is there.
I know what the effect will be in my riding. I think I mentioned that well over $1,000 per claimant will not be received if this bill passes. There is no provision for make-work programs to enable them to earn the benefits within the community.
I repeat, this is one of the harshest pieces of legislation that I have seen in the 15 years that I have been involved in politics. I do not believe that the government has looked at the effects and consequences. We have the opportunity for the Senate to look at it and hear the 139 groups. I think it is only right that the variable entrance requirement be maintained rather than going to 14 weeks.
The member from St. John's has been here a short time. He perhaps does not know what it is going to be like for his people to have to have 14 weeks, come January 6, if this bill is not passed. Since 1977, for 12 years, we have consistently passed this little amendment that allows the variable entrance requirement to continue. That variable entrance requirement means that people in the hon. member's area may only need 10 or 11 weeks in order to qualify.
If our motion is rejected by the other side today, people will need 14 weeks to qualify. If they are repeaters, as a good many are in some areas like South West Nova, which means they have established the second claim, they will need 20 weeks, come January 7, in order to qualify. Given the economic conditions that have existed this year for fish plant workers, it will be a very hard task indeed to find that 20 weeks.
I beg the government to pass this. It did it last year, it did it for the four years or more that it has been in office.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Just pass the legislation.


Coline M. Campbell: This is ransom. Why should the weakest people in Canada be denied the right to have fair scrutiny of Bill C-21 when the government has always passed the variable entrance requirement? It has been passed for six years.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, I will be speaking later on this and I will address some of the points specifically, but a couple of remarks have perhaps raised my blood pressure a little so that I cannot let them pass right now.
First of all, the hon. member stands there, points to me and says that I know nothing about the variable entrance requirement because the unemployment rate in Newfoundland is too high. Let me tell you about the variable entrance requirement, Madam Speaker. Let me speak of the people of Bell Island where there is a horrendous unemployment rate. It is an island in the middle of Conception Bay with no land transportation. It has a 70 to 75 per cent unemployment rate. In my region when the unemployment rate drops .2 per cent, under the old laws they go from 10 weeks to 16 weeks, just like that. That is what happens if the other place does not pass this legislation, that is the sort of thing that hurts people.
It is the variable entrance requirements and moving on with this legislation that is going to help and protect people, that is going to give them options, not stone walls. The member stands there and tells us we do not know what it is like because the unemployment rate is too high. Well, it does not work that way.
The greatest effect of changing the regions has taken place in my constituency and I have supported it because it is a response to the eight or 10 groups that appeared before the committee in St. John's, Newfoundland in the fall. They said, "Change it, make it fairer". I have supported what the minister of state has done.
I do not normally get this excited. I tiy to keep very calm and to the point, but may I sum up my comments on the hon. member's speech. I will not use the words that the parliamentary secretary used about knowledge of the legislation and having read it. The repeater provision is eliminated under the new legislation. It is gone. There are no more penalties for living off fish and forestry and seasonal employment. It is gone. It is eliminated. It is not
December 5, 1989

there any more. So it respects the fact that our people have to work sometimes two or three different times a year, sometimes in two or three different jobs.
Standing up here and going on about the repeater provision and the hurt it is doing people is a sort of scaremongering based on nothing. It hurts people more than anything else. This legislation provides options. This legislation says we can do something. The member says that we are saying, "Let them find work". We are saying to people, "We will help you find work". That is the difference between the new legislation and the old legislation which says to people, "Here it is and that's it".


Coline M. Campbell: Madam Speaker, I do not think there was a question in that tirade of words of the hon. member.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: No question. I don't want an answer.


Coline M. Campbell: I would just say to the member that he has two things wrong. If his variable entrance requirement goes from 10 to 16 right now-


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Right now.


Coline M. Campbell: -he does not realize that the repeater provisions are already in effect in his riding.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Can you explain that?


Coline M. Campbell: I cannot explain it because it is the hardest thing in the world to understand. I can do it by using as an example the southern end of Nova Scotia. Right now the variable entrance requirement is based on the unemployment rate in an economic region. For instance, because of that, 11 weeks are necessary under the variable entrance requirement. That is the VER. We are asking the government to give Canadians a chance, to allow this motion to go through so that we can continue the study on this disastrous bill.
The second thing that the hon. member does not seem to realize is that in an area like southern Nova Scotia we have repeaters in the same year, given the fact that that is what the repeater provision was in the past. With that repeater provision a repeater is penalized six weeks for
Supply
being a repeater. I agree with the minister's aim to do away with the repeater, but the member does not realize that, if this bill passes, the claimant who needed 17 weeks to qualify last year will get 10 weeks less of benefits. It is the amount of benefits they will receive that is reduced. Look at it, it is the amount of benefits.
Maybe Bell Island will get something from heaven or this government, I do not know, strange things happen with this government and some people. But I am telling the hon. member that this is an economic take-away from communities of $1,000 per claimant. I figured it out to be about $1,000 per claimant and that comes to big numbers. I said that in debate and you could probably find it in the debate of June 21.1 think it is well over $50 million that is taken out of the communities in Nova Scotia because of the reduction of the number of benefit weeks. Look at what the minister prepared.
The member may stand up and pontificate about how good this legislation is but I would like to hear how the people in his area have been affected in a year's time. If the unemployment rate in an area is over 15 per cent they are not even affected by the legislation, because it stays the same. So the member is comparing apples and oranges over there, but the effect of this legislation will be apparent to most Canadians.


Guy H. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, as the member for the riding of Restigouche-Chaleur, I want to point out that the unemployment rate is very high in my riding as well. I am astonished when I hear members on the government side saying they will not institute temporary measures, pending a decision by the other place on Bill C-21.
As a result of the proposed changes in the unemployment insurance program, the Atlantic provinces will lose $260 million in benefits, which breaks down as follows: $51 million in Newfoundland; $32 million in Prince Edward Island; $29 million in Nova Scotia and $148 million in New Brunswick. There is no guarantee that this money will be returned to and spent in those provinces.

December 5, 1989
Supply

I would like to congratulate the member for South West Nova for trying to explain to the government side what a little bit of compassion is in this House. I am not worried about theatrics. I am worried about the people who are on unemployment insurance who will not qualify come January because the government does not want to pass a temporary measure, a measure that has been passed continuously since 1977 by Liberal and Conservative governments.
The only thing we are asking today is that the government continue a tradition and pass a temporary measure while waiting for the decision of the other place on Bill C-21.


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member for South West Nova that she look at the "blues" because I seem to recall she said that Bill C-21 mandates a uniform 14-week variable entry requirement across the country. That is what she said. That is what I heard her say.


Coline M. Campbell: No.


William James Kempling: Check it out. The bulk of her remarks sounded like that old Abbott and Costello routine, "Who's on first, what's on second"? It was so disjointed it was very difficult to follow.
When I saw this motion I wondered how people could be so cynical as to put a motion like this before the House of Commons pertaining to a bill that was in the Senate. In effect, what they are asking us to do is to set aside what we have done through committee hearings and through debate in the House of Commons and bring in another bill to handle one portion of what we have done.
If you go back and look at Senate debates on this matter in 1988 you will see that Senator Frith agreed with the deputy leader of the government in the Senate that the variable entry rate should be made permanent and should be put into legislation. That is what Senator Frith agreed with. That is what we have done, we have put it into legislation and now they want to change that somehow.
Bill C-21 passed this House on the evening of November 6 and for almost a month the Senate did nothing
about it. They fiddled and diddled, that is about the size of it. They issued a series of press releases: "Senate Liberals consider delaying jobless change", "Senate likely to give UIC bills rough ride, Liberal Frith hints", "Senate may stall unemployment bill says Senator Frith", "Battle over UI reforms threatens eligibility rules", Senate threats to stall UI bill could bring serious hardships". That is the sort of little PR game they played in the Senate, Madam Speaker.
They may be wise to listen to what The Guardian from Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, my favourite province, had to say. The headline reads: "Did the Grit Senators think this one through?" The article said: "It appears the Liberal-dominated Senate could be instrumental in assuring that a number of Islanders do not qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. Word from employment minister Barbara McDougall's office is that if the Senate delays approval of the bill amending the Unemployment Insurance Act beyond January 6, the variable entrance requirements provision, formerly passed annually by Parliament, will not apply, resulting in Islanders who do not have 14 weeks of work credits not being eligible for benefits. All it took was 10 weeks when that provision was passed each year but now it is contained in new legislation and can't be effective until the whole bill is passed".
It goes on to say that they should really look at this: "Liberal Senators may not like the bill. Nevertheless it is going to go into effect eventually and it is time to choose between speedy passage or depriving unemployed workers of insurance benefits because of a matter of a few weeks of work. Surely the choice is obvious".
Surely the choice is obvious, Madam Speaker. The Senate set up a special committee on November 9 and did nothing until last week when they had their first organization meeting. They have made a lot of noise about a certain number of groups who want to appear before them and present their positions.
The legislative committee of this House heard 200 groups when it travelled across the country. Those groups represented national, provincial, regional and local labour groups and unions. They heard national business groups, provincial business groups and local business groups representing both small and large business; legal clinics, anti-poverty clinics, UI action groups, family groups, youth groups, disabled human rights groups, churches, co-ops, regional governments, tribal councils, individuals, pensioners, adoptive parents and
December 5, 1989

adult education. They heard women's trade groups, women's training and education organizations, women's centres, status of women groups and groups representing mothers. They heard steel workers, nurses, construction workers; federal, provincial and regional civil servants, forest workers, miners, teachers, farm workers, hospital workers, builders, and fisheries workers. They heard representatives from railways, the petroleum industry, hospitality and tourism, the paper industry, mining and transport machinists, the automotive industry, banking, aerospace and the garment industry. On the development side of it they heard from developmental organizations; native, regional and municipal. You have to ask yourself how much more you want to hear before you go on with more consideration of this legislation.
The backdrop to that is that from 1982 to 1988-89 the government has looked at the Macdonald commission which, from September 1982 to November 1985, travelled the country for 74 days. It went to 37 different communities and by the end of its work it heard from more than 2,500 groups. Three of its research studies are on UI alone and seven chapters in the report deal with unemployment insurance.
Then we had the Forget commission which travelled the country for 60 days. It went to 46 communities and by the end of the study had considered 1,500 submissions.
Then we had the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration which, from December 1986 to March 1987, in Ottawa, heard 53 individuals representing 26 different organizations.
After that we had the de Grandpre report that did not hold public hearings but invited comment from all interested sectors. Over 160 briefs were considered.
You look at that and then you look at what the standing committee went through, the list I just read: labour, business, social, women, development and industrial workers from various sectors. How much more do we have to hear? How much more do we have to listen to on unemployment insurance? Surely there is a limit to what you can listen to.
Supply
The members opposite are using this as a ploy. They want us to say that we will set aside the legislation that we debated and was passed, legislation that is based upon all the studies that have been done by Macdonald, Forget, de Grandpre and committees of the House of Commons. They want us to push all that to one side and hear another 159 or so groups.
After Bill C-21 was referred to the Senate we heard first that they were going to travel across the country. Maybe they still are for all I know. It is their decision to do what they wish, but we heard that they were going to travel across the country. Then we heard another rumour that they were going to have televised hearings on this bill.
I think what really happened was that the Senate took a look at the legislation and said, "My God, if we don't pass this by the Christmas break, on January 7 this whole business is going to fall apart and a lot of unemployed people across the country are going to have to have 14 weeks of work before they can apply for unemployment benefits". Then, I suppose, they looked at a list and said, "Where is it going to affect"?
In Newfoundland it is going to affect the Avalon Peninsula, Fortune Bay, Gander, Comer Brook and Labrador. It is going to affect all of Prince Edward Island. In Nova Scotia it is going to affect Cape Breton, Cumberland, Guysborough, Halifax, Yarmouth and Kings. In New Brunswick it is going to affect Moncton, Saint John, Fredericton, Madawaska and Restigouche. In Quebec it is going to affect Trois Rivieres, the Eastern Townships, Montreal, Gaspe, Quebec and northern Quebec. It is going to affect eastern Ontario, Belleville, Peterborough and other regions such as Georgian Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, northwest Ontario, Windsor and Sarnia.
We have put a bill in place. It handles the variable entry rate system very effectively. Any region that has unemployment in the 14 to 15 per cent range will still require just 10 weeks of work to qualify for unemployment benefits. That is in the bill and that is why the bill should be passed. There is no logical reason why senators should go through this little dialectic dance that they are going through in trying to convince people that this is some great horrendous thing.

December 5, 1989
Supply
The reality is that the Senate has not done its job. It did not start the thing properly and senators have been fiddling around with it ever since. They cannot make up their minds as to which way to go. They suddenly realize that they have a real problem on their hands. The newspapers in eastern Canada are beginning to editorialize on the weakness in the Senate because of this bill. So members of that place called for help. This motion was put together to try and help the senators, to try and not take the blame for this. We have done our work; they have to do theirs. But they want to shift it back to the House of Commons and say: "Set your legislation aside. Pass this special variable entrance rate that we are suggesting". The motion goes on to state: "this House declares that the passage of this motion does not constitute a vote of no-confidence in the government". What a lot of nonsense! Get on with the bill and pass it. That is what the Senate should be doing.
Aside from the variable entry rates, what are they doing? They are holding this up. They are saying to older workers: "We don't care about you. We don't care about the plans the government has for older workers to allow them to collect benefits past age 65". With respect to the special benefits for women who are pregnant and ill, that special 30 weeks that they can now get, they are saying: "Forget about that. We don't care about that. We'll pass that when we get around to it".
The member for South West Nova was talking about some of the communities in Nova Scotia that are going to be hard hit. The increase in Community Futures is tied up in Bill C-21. The repeater provision is in Bill C-21. It refers to those who are unemployed, then get some work and go back in the same year to tiy to collect benefits the second time. Under Bill C-21 the repeater provisions are waived. Much of the training that could be done under Bill C-21 is going to be held up because the funds will not be available. I just cannot believe that the Senate is that poorly informed.
In all the years that I have been in Parliament I have always sort of protected the Senate. I have listened to a lot of criticism over the years from people who said that the Senate of Canada is a useless thing, get rid of it, dump it, close it down, you can save a lot of money, and this sort of thing. I have always defended it. I have said: "I think the Senate has a useful place in our system". I
still do. But when I see the games senators are playing with this sort of legislation-dirty little games are what they are playing-I am fast becoming a convert to the view that perhaps the best thing we could do is just to eliminate the Senate.
This is playing brinksmanship, a game they should not play. Most of those guys have not worked for so damn many years they do not know what work is all about. They are totally removed from the reality of the workplace today. They do not know what training is all about. They do not know what is required in the industrial world today. Every industrial group that we talked to across the country has said that our biggest problem is that we do not have enough trained workers to carry on our industrial operations. People come to us and say: "Can we not bring in more tool and die makers from South Africa and Europe"?
When the Berlin wall came down and the East Germans were flooding into West Germany, my phone was ringing off the hook. People were saying: "We can bring a lot of tool and die makers from East Germany because they are good craftsmen and we need them here in this country". We are saying: "Look, we can train a lot of these people ourselves".
If you talk to some of our small business people they will tell you that, first, they do not have the resources to train. Second, they do not have the personnel. They have orders to fill and they cannot afford to take someone off the floor to train them. They are looking to the government to train them. The government is looking for some assistance from them, and for quite a bit of assistance from large business to help us on the way.
Let me tell you, I see this as a cynical, back-handed way of dealing with legislation. If the Senate gets away with this, I want to tell you that there will be some really upset people across this country. In the Maritimes in particular the people will be very, very hard hit. It will rest right on the shoulders of Senator MacEachen and his cohorts in the Liberal-dominated Senate.
There are areas in western Canada and in the north that will be affected by this action of the Senate. I would suggest that they sit back and contemplate what they are doing, reflect on it and get down and pass this bill. They can give it a good look-over with experts and officials
December 5, 1989

from the department who are available to go in and explain any sections of the bill that they are not familiar with. Having read Senator MacEeachen's speech I can tell you he did not read the bill. He did not know what it was all about. It was a disjointed effort on his part. His comments were a discredit to himself and to the Senate.
I hope that the Senate will reconsider the actions that are being contemplated and that senators will pass this bill before we rise for Christmas.


Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, I find it very hard to accept what was said by the hon. member who just finished his speech, and I am referring to his comment about treating Bill C-21 in a cynical, back-handed way.
What we are trying to do today is make the government understand that in January, we might have a situation where families might be in great difficulty. There might not be any money to pay the rent or heating bills or food bills.
When he says there is no reason for such measures, I think we should consider the normal parliamentary process. As soon as the House of Commons has finished consideration of the bill, it must be referred to the Senate for further consideration. We are told it is customary, that they have to do this. They have every right to do so, and if they do, it would take us practically up to February, although it might take longer.
This measure would at least have the effect of alleviating the immediate needs of families caught in a very difficult situation.
The hon. member also said the committee had heard witnesses and mentioned all these people representing chambers of commerce and local groups. However, one group was denied access to the committee. I attended hearings in Moncton, where two ministers of the province of New Brunswick would have liked to address their concerns to the committee. At the time, the committee decided against hearing them.
I wonder why the committee refused to listen to these people. When the Senate holds its hearings, perhaps these people could come and explain their position, so that we can find out how the bill will affect people in the
Supply
various provinces. I think the Senate should have enough time to hear these witnesses.
Is the hon. member saying we should not listen to these people, that they should not be given a chance to speak?


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, when we had an organizational meeting of the legislative committee dealing with Bill C-21 we had requests from Liberal members of Parliament who wanted to appear as witnesses before the committee. We had other requests of a similar nature from some of the provinces.
The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, the member from Saskatoon, myself and others sat down and agreed that we should not hear from politicians, that provincial ministers have direct access to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and on commissions. They have other ways of communicating. It is not a normal practice. I would like him to tell me of another legislative committee in this country that has had provincial ministers appear before it: That is not the normal way in which they communicate.
As far as the witnesses are concerned, when we had our organizational meeting the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace came before us and said: "We don't want to begin any hearings before September 4th", or perhaps it was the fifth, whatever it was, the first week of that month. That was his comment to us. We said: "Fine, that is all right".
He then said that we should have 16 witnesses a day and give them each 30 minutes. We agreed to that.
He then told us in which cities he thought we should have our hearings. We agreed with that, right across the country.
The member should go back and ask him, do not ask me. We went right along with everything that he said. In fact, I can tell you for sure that there were only two cities where we heard the full complement of witnesses. Those cities were Toronto and Vancouver. Even in Montreal, his own city, we did not hear the full complement of 16 witnesses.
We were going to go to the Northwest Territories and to the Yukon, but we did not have enough interest for us

Supply
to go there, even though we agreed to defray expenses. We offered to have them come to Vancouver and nobody turned up.
As I said before, this matter was talked about and talked about and talked about from 1982 to 1988. Surely to God we have gone far enough with this thing and there is enough information out there. My files are two feet high. They contain articles and comments that have been made and briefs which have been received on Bill C-21.
If the Senate thinks it can hear more witnesses, let it be selective. There is no law which says that anyone who submits a brief has to appear before the committee. We had all sorts of briefs, I think over 300, submitted to the committee and many of them did not want to appear. They just wanted their briefs to be registered, and we did that. Each day we would append the briefs to our minutes.
However, I just cannot agree that the Senate is doing anything but playing games-and a very dangerous game-with some of the people in disadvantaged parts of this country. It should remember that.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. It seems to have become a pattern for this government on very important issues that it has its members make insulting remarks to the residents of regions where hearings are held.
When the parliamentary secretary was with the legislative committee on Bill C-21 and the committee was in Prince Edward Island, he suggested that the reason there was such a high unemployment rate in Prince Edward Island was because the people were lazy. That is the kind of stuff we have been getting from these southern Ontarians who sit on these government committees as they go across the country. I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if he still holds to his insulting remark that the people of Prince Edward Island have such a high unemployment rate because they are lazy. Is that the position he is still taking?


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, this is the danger in reading newspapers and not reading the truth. The hon. member would have a very difficult time finding those remarks attributed to me. I did not say them at all. I did not say anything like that.
All I said was that there are a lot of opportunities everywhere in the country and these people are not taking advantage of them. I did not say they were lazy. One of the reporters said to me: "Are you saying that the people in Prince Edward Island are lazy?". I said: "No, I did not say that at all. Those are your words, not mine". The member should perhaps read his newspapers a little more carefully or get a better source of information. That is not what I said at all.
What I did say was that there are a lot of opportunities. I read from a list of job vacancies in Prince Edward Island that employers could not find people to fill. We had witnesses before us from the tourism industry who said: "Our difficulty is that we train people down here, but after they work for 10 weeks they quit and go on unemployment". I never heard the term "10/42" until I got to Newfoundland where members of the Liberal caucus-and the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace was there, we had lunch with him-made a bit of a joke about the 10/42 instead of the 6/49.1 think that is the way they referred to it.
We never said anything like that at all. I just think the hon. member, as usual, does not have his facts straight.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I want to join in this debate. I have looked at the motion from the Official Opposition. For those who are watching this debate they now know that Bill C-21-


Mr. Nunziata:: They just tuned out when you stood up.


John R. Rodriguez: Folks do not tune out when I stand up. They can lower the volume but they will still hear me. More important, they can see me.
I think that the people who are watching this debate understand that Bill C-21, which was an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, was pushed through all stages in this House by way of closure. In other words, the government had that legislation on a fast track. It is about the only train in this country that was on any kind of fast track. The government pushed it through. Now that it has cleared the House of Commons it is over in the Senate where it is supposed to get a sober second thought.
Neither I nor members of my party have ever invited the Senate to use any delaying tactics on any piece of legislation. Senators have a constitutional right to ex-

amine the legislation. I invite them to follow what is their constitutional right. They are doing that.
What we have here is a power play by the government. The power play is the threat that if January 1 comes and Bill C-21 is not law, and the changes have not been made to the Unemployment Insurance Act, the government is not going to introduce what it has become practice to do in the House for the last eight years or so. That is to say that a bill would be brought to the House. It would receive unanimous consent for all stages in jig time. It would extend the variable entrance requirement. The government has threatened this House and the other place that if this bill is not through the Senate that it will not introduce the variable entrance requirement bill. What we would have is 14 weeks required for unemployment insurance benefits right across the country.
It further goes on to say that if the bill is not passed, particularly since it is a Liberal-dominated Senate, the Liberals want southern Ontario to only have 14 weeks of work to qualify for benefits. People in areas like the Atlantic provinces and northern Ontario would have to work 14 weeks to get unemployment insurance benefits where in some areas they may only have to work 10 weeks.
I want to set that stage because this is a threat that the government has made. It is a power play. It is a power play between this Conservative government and the Liberal-dominated Senate. We have these two playing chicken. Who is caught in the middle? It is the ordinary unemployed, mostly poor people. That is who is caught in the middle. I think it is despicable on the part of this government to actually threaten that and be prepared to carry out the threat. But nothing surprises me any more from this gang over here.
It is our position that what the government ought to do is introduce the variable entrance requirement bill. If it wants to make it contingent on the bill being passed in the other place, the legislation being put in place or the variable entrance requirement legislation will die, I have no problem with that. We are prepared to support that. I say that to the parliamentary secretary.
Supply
It seems to me that it is very unfair and cruel to tamper with the lives of people by issuing these threats. It is not fair and I think members of the government should stop.
I am prepared to criticize the Liberals in this House as well, never mind the Liberals in the other House. The Liberals in this House have suddenly discovered how important unemployment insurance is. It was the Liberals with Bryce Macicasey as the minister who introduced a very progressive Unemployment Insurance Act in 1971.
I want to remind the House that at that time that act was based on a full unemployment rate of 4 per cent. The premiums charged to employers and employees guaranteed the payment of benefits to those who were unemployed up to a 4 per cent unemployment rate. Any unemployment beyond 4 per cent, the federal government picked up the cost out of general revenues.
It was not long after that that the economy started to slow down and the unemployment rate started to rise and 4 per cent became 6 per cent. Then it became a variable rate. We all remember the changes that were brought in in 1976 to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
First, the members of the government of the day created the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. They changed the fixed entrance requirement of eight weeks to a variable requirement of 10 to 14. They changed the benefit structure. Claimants were now entitled to one week of initial benefits for each week of insured employment up to 25 weeks. If they were still unemployed, they could claim up to 13 weeks of labour force extended benefits.
In 1978 the Hon. Bud Cullen was the minister. He introduced sweeping changes in the fall of 1978 which went into effect in 1979. The claimants were now required to repay a portion of benefits received if their annual income exceeded an amount which was one and a half times their yearly maximum insurable earnings.
Second, the benefit rate was reduced to 60 per cent of the average weekly insurable earnings from 66-2/3 per cent. There were higher entrance requirements. Anyone who had not had 14 weeks of insurable earnings in the year preceding the qualifying period was required to have at least 20 weeks. A repeater now had to work the VER plus one week for each week of benefits received in

December 5, 1989
Supply
excess of the VER requirement up to a maximum of six weeks.
The member from Gander, Newfoundland remembers the fight we had with Buddy Cullen and his bureaucrats. We remember the fight well.
What was a social contract between workers, their employers and the government the Liberals in this House began to dismantle to the great dismay of Bryce Mackasey who had been the originator and the introducer of the 1971 act. He was a very sad and bitter man. He commented constantly on the fact that every time they wanted to chip away at the social contract which we call the Unemployment Insurance Act they always pointed to cheaters and said that it encouraged malaise among the unemployed. They said that it took away incentives.
I want to point out all of this chipping away, particularly to the new Liberal members. My colleague from Gander, Newfoundland, and I went through these fights together. He fought with the New Democrats, and there were Tories too. God knows what their political machinations and motivations were. But we fought it and we lost.
What we see in Bill C-21 did not originate with Tories. This whole approach to chipping away the social programs of this country, whether it is unemployment insurance, deindexing old age pensions, family allowances or cut-backs to VIA, did not start with these Tories. It began with the Liberals.
Let us not kid ourselves. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. They cannot fancy it up and come in here pretending they are the great defenders of the unemployment insurance program. No. I was here. I have lived through it.
Along came this gang in 1984. In this gang in 1984 we had the Minister of Finance make an economic statement. He said: "Well, we have to do something about unemployment insurance. We have to cut it. We have to do something about unemployment insurance." He proceeded to cut it.
He suggested some changes, continuing in the same trend. He said that henceforth pension income would be considered earned income. He said that vacation pay will
be used in calculating unemployment insurance benefits, and that severance pay will be included.
We have once more the unemployment insurance program, which is part of the social contract, moving toward means testing. From income replacement we now move to a means-tested program.
Having put that in place the government then hired at an expense of millions of dollars Mr. Claude Forget who studied unemployment insurance and came down with the Forget Commission Report. It was music to the Tories' ears, except they had a problem. They had a problem selling it in the country.
The Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Labour, Employment and Immigration made up of members from all sides of the House studied the Forget Commission Report and we passed 89 recommendations unanimously after looking at it. I would have called that report "back to the future" because what it sought to do was to re-establish the social contract, to return the UI program to its pristine position of 1971.
We recognized the growing need to include part-time workers in recognition of a growing trend. We made those recommendations unanimously.


Mr. Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: What happened to them?


John R. Rodriguez: My friend asks what happened to them. They got put on the shelf.
Instead, after the 1988 election we have this Draconian proposal of Bill C-21 which completely removes the government from the unemployment insurance program. It removes the government from any responsibility from what was before a tripartite arrangement, a contract between the governors and the governed, the employers and the employees.
Now with Bill C-21, it has taken all the moves that the Liberals started in 1976 and 1978 and extended them to their logical conclusion. The government now has removed itself from any participation in the social programs.
What the government has done is the first step on the road to what it has called privatization. Since the Conservatives have taken this position of removing themselves from putting any money into the Unemployment Insurance Act, then they have no right to call the



December 5, 1989

shots in the unemployment insurance program. Yet the deputy minister continues to be the commissioner of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. They still want to call the shots with somebody else's money because now it is only employers' and employees money in the pot.
What they have also done is to use the money in the social insurance program for things which are rightfully the responsibility of government, such as the so-called retraining programs. They are taking $1 billion out of the fund for retraining.
I have here a planning and environment assessment document entitled "Trends and Perspectives". It was put out August, 1988, by the Employment and Immigration Department. It lists the growth occupations. I want to quote from this document because these are the studies, and surely the department ought to take a look at the trends in growth occupations. They are outlined.
Here are the top 10 occupations contributing most to employment growth from 1986 to 1995.1 will read them, starting with the first and most popular in the top 10: Sales persons; second, food serving occupations; third, bookkeepers; fourth, secretaries and stenographers; fifth, chefs and cooks; sixth, cashiers and tellers; seventh, janitors and cleaners; eighth, truck drivers; ninth, sales management occupations; and, tenth, barbers and hairdressers. These are the top 10 on the hit parade. This is a department's document looking ahead. These are the trends.
The script that goes with the document states: "By and large, low to medium-skill levels characterize these occupations, with most requiring little or no post-secondary education or training. The nature of these jobs could, however, change appreciably in the future with a higher proportion of 'mental' rather than 'manual' work being required. Virtually all the occupations listed opposite will require certain minimum standards of numeracy and literacy".
Then it talks about the quality of these new jobs. Here is the quality. It states: "While debate continues on this issue, it is worth noting that over 70 per cent of the new jobs, both full-time and part-time, created in Canada between 1983 and 1986 paid less than $20,000 annually, with over 30 per cent paying less than $10,000."
Supply
There is the trend. They are taking this money out of the unemployment insurance program to do what training? I just described what the top 10 jobs in this country will be up until 1995, and yet we are taking the money out of these jobs to train.
I heard the parliamentary secretary talk about how we need these machinists and all the rest. Madam Speaker, you do not send someone for a six-week course to become a machinist. It is all part of an apprenticeship program. In East Germany, West Germany, or European countries, it is an integrated program at polytechnical schools where people are trained for these particular trades. It does not happen overnight in six-week programs.
Why is the government doing this? Because now what we have is a system whereby the unemployment insurance fund will be used by the government for things that are rightfully its responsibility; relocating workers, labour adjustment programs, retraining programs and upgrading programs. All of that is coming out of the unemployment program. We do not have the money inside the program to improve the social insurance programs, for example, the kind of program we need for parental leave or the kind of program to enhance the benefits that claimants should get.
We know that the unemployment insurance program is not used. All the evidence points to the fact that it is not used by workers to just collect benefits. Thke fishermen, for example, people in these kinds of seasonal employment. The government decides when you fish, how long you fish, where you fish and how much fish you can catch. These are not decisions made by fishermen. If you are going to determine all those things, you have to make sure you have a network of unemployment benefits so that people can live and keep their families with dignity. On the bottom line, that is what we are talking about. Are the unemployed in this country to be made welfare seekers, or are we going to provide the benefits so that they can live with some dignity and maintain their families in dignity in the community? That is what it is all about.
I want to conclude by saying that all of this chopping away and eating away at the program did not start with the Conservatives. I want to make that crystal clear. It began with the Liberals, the first neo-conservatives to

Supply
move on this program. The Conservatives are just taking this to its logical conclusion. That is the scene we have.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments? Debate.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, I was going to ask the hon. gentleman a question, but after the remark he made about the Liberals at the end of his speech, I decided I would not ask him a question.
The parliamentary secretary and the minister made the point here in the Chamber today that they have heard from all of these organizations, the unions, business groups, anti-poverty organizations, churches, and so on. They wondered why should they have any more hearings, everyone has been heard from. The problem I have with this bill is that the very people affected by the legislation have not been heard from at all.
I have here a list of places in Newfoundland that are affected by the legislation. The hon. member for St. John's East is going to speak in a few moments. I will be very interested to hear what he has to say as it relates to his riding. For example, what do the people in Flat Rock think of this legislation? What do the people in Bear Cove, Blow Me Down, Broad Cove, Goose Cove, Frog-marsh, Lady Cove, Hibbs Cove, Kettle Cove or Nicky's Nose Cove think of the legislation? These are the people who are affected by the legislation.
I must admit that it is sometimes frustrating to sit in the Chamber and listen to the parliamentary secretary make the remark he made a few moments ago. He said: "There is lots of opportunity in a particular province. They just won't take advantage of it."
I have never ever met a person who wanted to be on unemployment insurance. You may think that there are people who would like to be on unemployment insurance but I have never met a person, not in all the years I have been here, not in all the cases I have handled before the judges, have I ever met one person who wanted to be on unemployment insurance. Why? Because, Madam Speaker, do you know how much they get? An average cheque in Canada today is $210 a week. The average cheque in my province of Newfoundland is $195 a week. You would have to be crazy. You belong in a mental
institution if you wanted to sit at home and get just $195 a week and by law have to report your earnings beyond 25 per cent more than that.
There is a fallacy and misconception out there by people who say: "Look, somebody just wants to stay at home and they want to remain on unemployment insurance". There is no such person, unless the person perhaps has a physical or mental problem that means they just have to, but Canadians do not want to sit at home and make that kind of money.
What is wrong with the bill? I just said it is the people whom it affects. I took a map of Newfoundland out a few moments ago. I took the places in the new zones affected by the legislation. Do not forget that the new legislation says that if the unemployment rate is 15 per cent or less then you require more than 10 weeks to qualify. At this very moment, if the unemployment rate is less than 11.5 per cent in Newfoundland, you require more than 10 weeks to qualify. So that is quite a difference from 11.5 to 15 per cent. Now, all of a sudden, it becomes serious because under this legislation the government has redrawn lines. It drew a line around the hon. member's riding opposite. Then the government drew a line right up through Newfoundland almost following the railway track-we used to have a railway track, but the railway is gone. The expression used to be "which side of the track do you live on?" Now it is "which side of the line do you live on?"


Ian Angus Ross Reid: In 1968 I think the railway went, didn't it?


George Baker: The government has taken the cities, the metropolitan area that has supposedly lower unemployment than the other areas and defined that as an area. Then in the province of Newfoundland they have taken the fairly, relatively speaking, well-off areas like Gander, Grand Falls, Corner Brook and made them into a zone south of the railway, and what do you have? All of a sudden, if you live in Paradise, you would require more to qualify for unemployment insurance than if you lived in Gallow's Cove, for example. If you live in Petty Harbour, you are going to require more to qualify for unemployment insurance than if you live in Bay Bulls.
The hon. member for St. John's East made the point a moment ago when he said: "Look, my area of Newfoundland has been fluctuating between 10 and 16 weeks because the unemployment rate has dipped above and below 11.5 per cent on the entire Avalon Peninsula." If
December 5, 1989

you took St. John's and drew a line around that, which has been done, the unemployment rate there is going to be much lower than 11.5 per cent. Under the new legislation, if it is 11.5 per cent people require 14 weeks. So, it is a sure bet that if you live in St. John's or around there, you are going to require much more than 14 weeks because the unemployment rate has to be less than 11.5 per cent. Therefore, his argument does not hold.
The entire Avalon Peninsula, by the hon. member's admission, was dipping below 11.5 per cent and that is why the requirement was 16 weeks this past year in certain months because the average is for 3 months in a row. Then the next month came along and it was up a little bit above 11.5 per cent. All of a sudden, that was averaged out for three months and his district was back to requiring 10 weeks. According to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, it was around 11.5 per cent and that is why he has had the problem in the entire Avalon Peninsula. With this new map a line is drawn around the city of St. John's. Do you really believe that the unemployment rate in St. John's is going to be higher than the unemployment rate in the Avalon Peninsula? That is ridiculous.
When you look at unemployment rates, you cannot take the Statistics Canada rates. The unemployment rate in the city of St. John's last month was 12.9 per cent, but that is not the adjusted rate used by the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
What is the government now doing with the rest of the province? Well, it has drawn a line that goes between Sunnyside and Swift Current. Come-by-Chance is in the middle. If you come from Come-by-Chance you don't know where you are. You could be either in 10 weeks or 13 weeks. The line is drawn somewhere down the middle. Then it goes up through Newfoundland and passes between Philips Head and Northern Arm. If you live in Philips Head, 10 weeks for sure. If you live in Northern Arm, I'll bet you they are going to need 13. What if you live along the road? There are seven houses on that road. You know yourself, Madam Speaker, that they are all going to change their postal address to Philips Head.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: What an aspersion to make.


George Baker: Why not?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: People don't do that.
Supply


George Baker: Now, here's where we have a problem. The hon. member now is going to learn something. This new bill would not be so bad if people lived where they worked. If you work where you live, you can draw some lines. But in Newfoundland if you work in the woods, you do not live in the woods. If you work on the CN boats, you do not live on the CN boats. Your mail does not come to the CN boat. If you work on a lake boat, your mail does not come to the lake boat. If you work in the woods in Labrador, your mail does not come to the woods in Labrador.
A standard work crew working this past year in Millertown, central Newfoundland, with the contractors got 13 weeks work. Suppose one man goes home to Flat Rock, another man goes home to Bonavista. The man in Flat Rock cannot collect his unemployment insurance, but the man in Bonavista can. If he is from Philips Head, as I just pointed out, or on the road between Philips Head and Northern Arm, what do you think he is going to do? He has worked in the woods next to a man who lives down the road. He does not qualify for unemployment insurance to feed his family, but the other man does. He would have to be crazy not to change his postal address. Of course he is going to change his postal address.
If you continue on along the line, Madam Speaker, you will see what the problems are that are being created. In a province like Newfoundland people do not normally live where they work. I do not know many people who live on the Funk Islands. I do not know many people who live 200 miles out in the Atlantic Ocean.


Roger Simmons: But they work out there.


George Baker: They work out there. And when they come home they do not all live in the same place. They live in various places. This year in this part of the country when the lake boats were hiring and laying off, all of those 400 Newfoundlanders went home, and they went home to various places around Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why this bill cannot work in a province like Newfoundland.
When we had the present legislation of 11.5 per cent, if the unemployment rate dropped below that, you required more than 10 weeks. It never dropped below that in the high unemployment areas. But now we are into 15 per cent and there are all kinds of areas carved out by the government in which the unemployment rate

December 5, 1989
Supply
is between 15 per cent and 11.5 per cent and so you get that great variance.
What side of the line do you live on? That is the question that is going to be asked in the high unemployment areas in this country with the passage of this new legislation. That is why I say that the legislation is very, very seriously flawed.
The other problem, and I will conclude with this point, is that it amazes me, as it would anybody, to realize that the House of Commons, made up of supposedly educated people with good research staff, and the House of Commons with its Library and all of the public servants in Canada, has not one single MP in this Chamber who knows exactly how the new bill is going to affect his province. Not one single MP. Why, Madam Speaker? Because they do not have the figures done up yet. That is what they claim.


Roger Simmons: Deliberately so.


George Baker: They do not have the figures done up. They claim that they do not know, that they are just compiling the figures now. If you ask: "How is it going to affect St. John's?" They say: "We are not sure, because we do not have the exact figures done up. We have to adjust them and so on. We do not know". If you ask: "How is it going to affect Gander? They reply: "Oh, we don't know that. That's in a different zone. We do not know that". If some member stands up in the House of Commons and says "I know how it is going to affect all areas of my province", then he knows more than the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
That is the other thing that is wrong with the legislation. If you were to say to an unemployed person: "Boy, we are going to change the rules on you in January, but we do not know how many weeks you are going to need to qualify for unemployment insurance". The fellow would say: "Why did you change the rules if you do not know what the new rules are"? You would change them if you did not understand what unemployment is all about. You would change them without knowing the results, if you believed that people were too lazy to work. You would change them if you really believed that people were living off the system on $200 a week. And, of course, you would change them if you wanted to do away with the unemployment insurance scheme altogether. You would change the law to something that you did not know you were changing it to.
As far as the motion itself is concerned, let me conclude by saying that no bill should have ever passed this Chamber without us knowing the effects of that legislation. No bill should have been passed in this Chamber.
Shame on the Government of Canada. Shame on it for changing the system and not being able to say what it has been changed to and how it affects that unemployed person, the poorest of the poor. Today in Newfoundland,
101,000	people are drawing unemployment insurance with the average cheque just below $200 a week and, in Canada, more people are drawing unemployment insurance than the government claims are unemployed. That is how serious the problem is.
I would suggest to the government that it simply pass the normal bill, extend the variable entrance requirement and then interview the people affected by this new legislation and see what they think.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: As my hon. friend has indicated, I will have the opportunity to comment a little later. I cannot, as I could not with our friend from South West Nova, let what my friend from Gander-Grand Falls has just said pass by. While it sounds marvellous and looks terrific, if you look at where we are today and where this new legislation takes us, all that has been said to us is total puffery.


William Warren Allmand: You know better than the people in Newfoundland?


An Hon. Member:: You should have been at the hearings.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: First of all, I was at the hearings. I want to quote from some of the hearings about the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, about the Fishermen's Union and about the Newfoundland Advisory Board on the Status of Women, which advised the committee to change the economic zones, to put metropolitan St. John's in its own economic zone. That is what we have done.
Who set up the variable entrance requirements? It was the crowd opposite. My friend opposite calls them unconstitutional because they are decided by where you
December 5, 1989

live. Nothing has changed, so all that we have heard is craziness because it follows on from where we are today.
I do not like the fact that some of the people in my constituency will need extra time to qualify for unemployment insurance, but I am a damned sight happier that people in the areas around the city of St. John's, in Bell Island, in Colliers, in Avondale, in Cupid's and in Brigus now have the opportunity to qualify like the areas around them where the unemployment rate is high. We have always had to draw lines.
There have always been questions about Goobies, and where the line is and where the line is not. There have always been some areas that do better than others. I get the message but I cannot let it go by. "Unconstitutional", he says. I cannot believe it. He says it is a violation of our constitutional rights. They violated them.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, to me it is unconstitutional to discriminate against somebody because of where they live.
We had lines drawn in Newfoundland on the basis of an unemployment rate that was relatively low. We have moved to a system where we are drawing lines based on 15 per cent unemployment. That is quite a difference. Not only that, but the hon. member is saying that we had lines drawn before in Newfoundland. Yes, we did, but it did not matter what side of the line we lived on.
Now it does, Madam Speaker, right throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, but much worse in the St. John's area than it was before. Why? Because there are 22 communities listed in with St. John's. Undoubtedly, it is going to require a great many weeks to qualify in that zone.
Then you have another line drawn in Newfoundland which separates the medium from the really bad off, and you have another line to deal with in Newfoundland. That is a lot worse than it was before. You could have redrawn the lines and kept it at 11.5 per cent. That is what the witnesses wanted.
The next thing the government is going to do is require more than 10 weeks if the unemployment rate is below perhaps 20 per cent. That is the next step for the
Supply
Government of Canada; in other words, to do away with the unemployment insurance scheme totally.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Burin-St. George's.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I have watched with great interest-


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Is he on debate, Madam Speaker?


Roger Simmons: No. I am allowed to ask questions too, if the member from St. John's East doesn't mind if we ask a question. I am glad to have his permission. We wouldn't want to do it without his permission.
The member for St. John's East and the member for Gander-Grand Falls focus very graphically on the two sides of the debate in Newfoundland. My friend for Gander-Grand Falls is saying that white is white and he is right, white is white.
The gentleman from St. John's East is saying that black is white. I want to say to him before I put my question that he should not dig his hole too deep because there are a lot of people who are going to hurt under this new legislation. He can put the best face on it he wants to. There are still a lot of people who are going to hurt. I will get to him later if he gets the courage to get up and speak in this debate.
I want to put a question to my colleague for Gander-Grand Falls and to congratulate him first of all on his very graphic description of that line. One is almost moved to poetry, to borrow from another poet: "Have you counted the cost, if your UI be lost, because you sleep to the south of the line?" I could go on, but the point I make is this: Has he put some figures on this either in terms of his own riding and/or all of Newfoundland?
Can he indicate to us or to the House what this is going to mean in terms of a misery index? How many people are going to hurt in round thousands? I know he does not have the figure at hand, but he probably has it in his head, because he has done a lot of work on this.
I ask the member for Gander-Grand Falls if he could educate the gentleman from St. John's East a bit. In the process could he tell us approximately how many people are going to be even more miserable if this legislation comes in, if this crowd has its will and inflicts its majority on this House and the people of Canada?

December 5, 1989
Supply


George Baker: Madam Speaker, as hon. members from Newfoundland know, I do the appeals myself to the Appeal Board and to the Federal Court judge on all unemployment insurance appeals that go through that stage. Sometimes we have had hundreds of cases heard.
I can tell you from my dealings with the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Newfoundland: if the unemployment rate is determined by the Unemployment Insurance Commission as I think it will be, it means you take the unemployment rate, take three percentage points off of it, and seasonally adjust it.
The hon. gentleman is laughing a bit now but that is quite true. Statistics Canada would show you that in his riding the unemployment rate is far above 12 per cent. The Unemployment Insurance Commission, in judging the rate in those zones, is going to knock off quite a few percentage points from that.
We can only guess at what the effect of the legislation will be because we do not know for sure, but I can assure you of this: we had a problem in Newfoundland this year and the Government of Canada had to put up $5 million to try to solve part of the problem of people not getting enough work even to make their unemployment insurance on 10 weeks.
Under this legislation, the Government of Canada will have to put up millions, upon millions, upon millions, upon millions of dollars if it is going to have people qualify for their unemployment insurance in the coming winters.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, I am about to make a mistake that a politician knows he should not make; that of course is to respond. I admit from the beginning that I will make that mistake.
This is the hon. member who told us before the unemployment insurance changes came down that Newfoundland would lose $250 million and that thousands and thousands would be thrown off the unemployment rolls.
This is the person who told us four weeks ago that there were 60 communities around St. John's which were going to be affected. Now it is down to 22.1 am dying for St. John's to be taken off the list as well.
This is the gentleman who asks us to believe that UIC is going to take 3 per cent off, then go on an average and move back and forward until the third Tuesday in the month.
All I do is put that before the members of House and ask them if they would stake their futures on it.
If I may return to the matter at hand now that I have transgressed, as I am sure I will again, the point, if I am going to address the motion before the House, is whether or not we need to move another bill to go ahead with the variable entrance requirements.
This House has already passed a piece of legislation that takes care of that, not only for this year but in the future, making sure it is there, making sure that the regions of this country get the protection that they need, and and making sure that the people who depend on seasonal employment or live in high unemployment regions get that protection.
Because their friends in the other place will not move for petty political reasons, they want us to pass another piece of legislation.
This House has spoken. That legislation has been passed. It is up to their friends to ensure that the legislation gets the due attention it deserves, because it is the people of this country who are to be affected. It is the people who live in my constituency who are going to be hurt because they will not move on this piece of legislation.
It will mean that workers in Atlantic Canada will have to depend on 14 weeks. We all know we do not have that option. We all know there is a problem. That is why we have a variable entrance requirement. That is why this piece of legislation changes the system so that there is a variety of things that we can offer people. Instead of a stone wall, there are options. I will come back to the options.
Formerly unemployed workers could qualify after 10 weeks if they lived in areas of high unemployment. That has been permanently enshrined in Bill C-21, but now the stall will not assure that that happens.
Let us talk about the regional differences that others have discussed. In Toronto the unemployment rate is 3.6 per cent. The new program will demand that you have 20 weeks to qualify. That 3.6 per cent is almost full employment. There is movement in the economy. There
December 5, 1989

is constant movement. Even in our economy there is movement. Things change, opportunities come and go, people have and create options.
In Comer Brook where the unemployment rate is roughly 16 or 16.2 per cent, one will only need 10 weeks to qualify, which indicates that we recognize people are affected in higher unemployment areas, and the program respects that.
We have seen the national unemployment rate in this country drop by more than 4 per cent. In Newfoundland and Labrador alone it has come down by 6.3 per cent. In many ways in this business we are the victims of our success. When we fiddle around with statistics, come and go with numbers so that the unemployment rate drops and drops, we become victims of our own progress. I suppose it is a nice problem to have because I agree fully with my hon. friend from Gander-Grand Falls that people want to work. People do not want to be on unemployment insurance. If there is any opportunity to work people will take that opportunity to work.
Since this government came to power jobs have increased in the Atlantic provinces by 106,000. There are
106,000	more of us working out there bringing in a wage, taking care of families and contributing to communities. That is progress. That is something we have seen as a response to government action in co-operation with provinces, the private sector and individuals in the society and in the economy. The government has pledged in the last budget over $2 billion to Atlantic Canadian initiatives alone.
We talk about the fishery and recognize that there is a problem in the fishery. But for the first time we have a government that is willing to address the problems in the fishery as a national economic issue, not some regional issue. For the first time we have a government that is willing to say there are some problems and it will set up-


Ronald MacDonald: The government is the problem in dealing with the fishery.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: I know. We took all the fish. We took them. We got them.


Ronald MacDonald: You gave it away.
Supply


Ian Angus Ross Reid: I can answer that one. I have been there. We have a cabinet committee chaired by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, appointed by the Prime Minister and responsible for bringing together government's response on fishery. There is a senior committee of officials to advise that committee. Never before has a government exhibited its commitment to dealing with this problem as a national issue. Never before have we seen that.
I would like to go back if I may to unemployment insurance. I work on the basis of two premises when I deal with unemployment insurance. First, as my hon. friend has said, people would rather work than collect unemployment insurance. Second, the people who are in the unemployment insurance system react to that system in the best interests of themselves, their families, and their communities. There is remarkably little abuse.
Let us look at the statistics. People react to the unemployment insurance system the way some members of this House react to the tax system. They make decisions based on what is best for themselves and best for their families. That is only to be commended.
What are we saying to people if we do not move ahead with this legislation? To me this comes to the core. I am a Newfoundlander. I understand what unemployment insurance is in my province: $865 million next year. That is a substantial transfer of resources not only to individuals but into the province and that province's economy. Whether we like it or not, whether we pretend it is different, it is an income-supplement-program.
If we stay rock solid with this very narrow, very restrictive program, we are asking it to do something that it was not designed to do. It is designed as an insurance program, but we are asking it to do so much more. If we are going to stay there and simply tell people "that's it, you are going to take your money and that's all", it is all built on negatives. We are going to make no progress in this country. We have to evolve that system and develop that safety net.
What are we doing? We are saying to people that there are options. There are alternatives that we can use with a bit of money and a lot of ingenuity and a fair amount of co-operation. At the same time we have to protect the interests of people who need that protection. The people of my province need to know that. Because their opportunities for employment at this stage are limited they can draw on unemployment insurance, but we have to be

December 5, 1989
Supply
able to say to those people that there are other things that we can do. I think that is particularly important.
One of those options is training. We hear a lot about training. What are you doing training someone in this community for a job that does not exist and never will exist? One of the biggest advantages to anybody seeking employment is that bit more education, training, exposure, or experience in a job. It is an investment for them. There is a feeling of accomplishment that brings confidence.
One only need talk to anybody in this business and they will tell you that that bit makes a difference every time. Not only will people have an extra opportunity if a job comes along, but they will also have an ability and a willingness to create jobs.
People may scoff at that, but I have seen it in my involvement with the youth strategy in Newfoundland and Labrador. A pilot project was designed to help kids who are having trouble getting from school to the workplace. By doing some programming with them we have broad consultation. We were told: "Give me the tools. I will create the opportunity".
The third factor is that if we have the technically capable workforce and we know where the jobs and the opportunities exist, we can bring them to us. That is another opportunity, but it is not limited strictly to training.
I can quote all sorts of figures from StatsCan. A million people say that their lack of training is holding them back. The CFIB is saying that 50 per cent of members cited shortage of qualified labour as the thing that hurts them. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association found that 36 per cent of its manufacturers in 1988 expressed difficulty in finding skilled trades people.
If we can help people get that bit of training, that bit of education, that is a step up, but I recognize that in my province it is not as easy as that. Until now we have been relatively limited in some of the opportunities that we have, but we created the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. We are just seeing the creation of the preservation of nearly 20,000 jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador alone. That has seen investment of about $600 million directly, not to mention what has accompanied it.
That is building opportunities with people who have ideas, with people who have the capacity and capability to go out and do it in co-operation with a variety of groups, including the provinces.
The training under this program will go from about
75,000	people who are being trained at this point, or 2.5 per cent of the people on unemployment, to 140,000 or about 5 per cent. What are some of the other things that, for some reason, get overlooked? For instance, I know my friend from Burin-St. George's is familiar with some very successful Community Futures projects in his constituency.
Need I mention any more than Port aux Basques, Stephenville or the Port au Port area? They have been very successful. I have a new one in my constituency that will take in a large number of communities, with diverse interests. The people of the community will be able to say to those who have ideas that there is a little money here. We have a knowledge capacity that we can pass on. We have the ability to get grants and loans from government. We have the ability to provide some travel money to bring people in or to go and find out what is going on. We are putting more money into Community Futures because what is clear is that government cannot just sit up in Ottawa and divine solutions. It has not worked. It has not worked for 100 years.
That is why ACOA is in the Atlantic provinces. That is why something like Community Futures is so successful, because it comes from the communities. It is an approach that they together can take. That is one of the things this bill will provide, more money for Community Futures, more money for older workers. There will be another $100 million under the Labour Force Development Strategy to provide a variety of adjustment assistance for older workers not only in retraining but in experience and on-the-job training, recognizing that there is a disproportionately larger number of older workers who are unemployed and do not have the opportunity to get back into a job.
As we see shifts in our economy in Newfoundland and Labrador I need not tell my friends opposite that we need to have that capacity. That is what we are addressing. The SARC program has been very successful in a number of areas in my constituency and I am sure in others. We are ensuring that we are going to see the

investment of another $200 million specifically to help those who are on social assistance, about 60,000 a year.
One of the remarkable things is the success rate in the SARC program. It is over 50 per cent. What that means is that one half of the clients of these programs are employed or in further training three months after the program. Fifty per cent in some things does not sound a lot. It was pretty good for me when I was going to school. I was delighted to get 50 per cent. Fifty per cent for all of us here is a marvellous number to get in an election, but I would suggest that in a program like this that addresses the real problems of people and that gives them opportunities in co-operation with the provinces we have seen real progress at 50 per cent.
We have also provided $230 million of this training to help get unemployed people into the private sector. As a member said earlier, the business community in this country does not do its share. It does not do as much as it should be doing in terms of training. Some big companies do and, as usual, what you have is a very small number of companies doing a huge percentage of the training. We do not have the broad application. There must be more involvement. That is what this will do.
If we continue to say to people in the Atlantic provinces or in any other part of this country who need help that they must accept the program the way it is without any changes, people are going to say: "What's the point"?
What this government is doing in so many of its programs, but particularly in this one, is giving people choices. We are going to try different things in helping you to improve your situation. We must evolve a program like unemployment insurance. It must continue to move and to change because if we do not it will not serve any better those who need it. Quite clearly what we have here is a program that does make things better for people.
I am tempted to return to my sin of responding to my friend opposite. It is a trap and I am at the brink. I would just like to say a couple of things on the economic zones. The principle of variable entrance requirements came from our friends opposite. The principle that was based on residency came from my friends opposite. The princi-
Supply
pie that in areas of higher employment, there will not be the same benefits that are available to those people who live in areas of lower employment. You have got to draw the line somewhere.
Despite the condescending comments of one of my friends earlier, I have been around the precincts of this place for a long time, and I feel it sometimes. It has always been an argument that St. John's makes it worse for the Avalon Peninsula and St. John's in this case and only in this case makes it worse for the Avalon Peninsula.
My friend from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception will tell you that some of his constituents in areas of very serious problem were not getting the same break as other people in the province because of the city of St. John's. I do not want to say to the people in the city of St. John's and the few surrounding communities that are close by that it is too bad, that I am sorry but no, we are going to have to make it tougher for you. I do not want to have to do that. I do not want to have to do that in the case of equity.
We were talking about lines, about moving people around and about where they live. When you go below 11.5 per cent today you go from 10 weeks to qualify to 16 weeks, just like that. At least now you will know as you drop a percentage point there is a week. It is as simple as that and it is no different from what is there now except the swings are not as dramatic. The effect is not as devastating. It is more predictable. It is more reasonable. That is where some of the changes are.
For my friend opposite to stand up and go on about this track and that line is ludicrous. There have to be lines. I do not like there having to be lines, but if he would like St. John's to affect the whole of the province, maybe we can have one economic zone. I guess I would be happier; most of my constituents live in the city, but that would not be fair to the people of Bell Island. It would not be fair to the people of Avondale. It would not be fair to the people of Bacon Cove. We have to do things. We have to move. We have to be progressive to respond. That is what this legislation is all about.
The question before this House today is whether the other place will deal with a piece of legislation that the members of this House who were elected by the people

December 5, 1989
Supply
of this country have passed, or do we have to piffle on another piece of legislation?


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I know the gentleman from St. John's East, as he alluded to, is a bit tender from the words of my good friend from Gander-Grand Falls. At the same time I am tempted to say that if Jimmy Bakker taught us anything, it is that you should not try to be an evangelist unless you have got something in the gut. I say to the gentleman from St. John's East that he preaches today a false doctrine. He does not believe a word he is saying. He is doing a great job of mouthing the party line on this one.
This is the brunt of my question to him. Can the hon. member stand there and categorically say that, knowing that his constituents are watching him, and in case a few miss this this afternoon, I will see that they know about it. Can he categorically say today that none of his constituents will be adversely affected by the new unemployment insurance legislation?
I put it to the hon. member that many of his constituents will be out of pocket many hundreds and thousands of dollars. He stands there and he characterizes it in very different terms. If you were to be carried away by his evangelical speech, you would get the feeling that Utopia arrives when this bill is passed finally by both Houses of Parliament.
We know the difference. I say to the hon. member that he is being less than candid with his constituents, if he leaves us with the impression that somehow everybody, without exception, in his own riding is going to be better off because of this bill. I put it to him that many of them are going to be worse off.
Just one further question, so I do not have to get up again. He does a marvellous job, an absolutely fantastic job of mouthing the rhetoric on the issue of training. I ask him to look at what this so-called training initiative has done to the Canadian Jobs Strategy in Newfoundland. It is robbing small communities of many tens of thousands of dollars they can no longer access, because every time they try and tailor an application to legitimate, justifiable training options within the parameters of their communities, they are told it is not good enough. The application is turned back and the net effect is that the Canadian Jobs Strategy, Canada Works, or whatever we called it over the years, that short-term job creation initiative is now having less positive impact on rural
Newfoundland because of this farce about a training option.
I put it to the hon. member that in real terms, in terms of the bill that is otherwise before the other House of Parliament now and in terms of the motion here today, this training as it is with the Canadian Jobs Strategy is a complete ruse, it is a complete farce as it applies to rural Newfoundland.
I say to the hon. member that unwittingly or otherwise, he is aiding and abetting the very shut-down of rural Canada with this rhetoric. I appeal to him as a fellow Newfoundlander to come clean on this one. Either he is duping or he is being duped on this particular issue. Training, yes, but make the training realistic to the opportunities that are available.
My first question, in case he has forgotten it: Can he honestly say to his constituents that without exception, none of them will be adversely affected in terms of dollars in the pocket as a result of Bill C-21?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, the answer to the first question is, no. I obviously cannot stand here, neither have I purported to stand here, and say that none of my constituents would be negatively affected. Some of my constituents will be negatively affected, and I am sorry for that.
I will tell you this: Most of my constituents, be it through the change in the economic region or be it through some of the new opportunities and options that we are putting before them, will be better off and will have the opportunity to make their lives and the lives of their families and communities better.
Second, on the question of training, the hon. member makes a point. It is recognized that in some areas of our province, the training components may not be as available under job development of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. It is a case that I have carried to the minister and it is something that I think the department is looking at. I say no more than that.
I will say that first of all, there is Section 25, which has been a huge benefit to most of us and to the people in our constituencies. As well, to call the training a farce is in itself a farce.
I look at the people that the Basilica of St. John the Baptist brought in when they decided to restore the building they are in, a beautiful historic building more than 100 years old, and I may say a program started by my
December 5, 1989

predecessor, Mr. Jack Harris. They took people off the street. Do you know what they have done? They have trained them to be masons, not licensed masons who can go to Westminster Cathedral, but good enough that people around the province are asking them to come to give them advice.
There is a professor at Memorial University who has an ongoing program. She brings in one or two people. Some of those people are now in law school. People who were unemployed, who had no options, no opportunities are now in university taking science degrees. I see this kind of thing happening all the time.
On the last point, I will take criticism for what I say in this House but I will not take criticism for my motives and I will not sit here and have an hon. member tell me that I do not believe a word I say. That is an insult to me and an insult to this House.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of the motion now before this House.

The motion urges the government to do something very simple and quite reasonable, namely re-introduce in the House a bill aimed at extending for only a few weeks the 10-to-14-weeks' variable entrance requirements which now determine the number of insurable weeks of work the applicant must have to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. This extension would enable Bill C-21 to get the normal consideration, which a bill of the magnitude deserves. It would enable the Senate to weigh the implications of this bill which will affect thousands of working and unemployed Canadians. The Senate would feel free to call in witnesses who have not been given the opportunity to air their views on this bill, witnesses such as provinces, municipalities, independent experts, research organizations like the Economic Council of Canada, witnesses who might shed more light on the impact of Bill C-21 which was rammed through the House at every stage. We want to avoid the possibility that normal consideration of this piece of legislation might be curtailed or cut off as a result of an altogether specious provision.

The so-called variable entrance requirement provision of the unemployment insurance program was introduced
Supply
in 1977 with the adoption of Bill C-27. It was meant to expire after 36 months and be replaced by a fixed 14 weeks unless extended by resolutions of Parliament.
Each year since 1979 Parliament has passed such a resolution extending the life of the VER by one more year. This government introduced this same resolution which has become a standard piece of legislation during each of its first four years of power. The exception is 1989 when instead we got Bill C-21.
Bill C-21, by altering the structure of the variable entrance requirements and the unemployment reference levels used to determine eligibility for UI in each of the UI regions across the country, makes a dramatic change to the workings of the unemployment insurance program in Canada.
In addition, the 48 UI economic regions used to determine eligibility will be replaced in January by 62 new regions and the boundaries will be substantially modified. These new regions were introduced to this House only after Bill C-21 had passed third reading.
The changes in the application of the UI program will occur simply as a result of the introduction of these regions and will touch virtually every member of this House. Yet we as members have been provided with very little information on how the introduction of these new regions will affect the unemployed. We do not even know what the unemployment rates will be that will apply to these new regions. We certainly do not know which unemployed individuals will be denied benefits as a result of the application of these new boundaries.
We do not have an independent economic analysis of the impact of the changes in the UI benefit rules on unemployed workers and on the labour market in general. Are the jobs out there for the workers who will need extra weeks to qualify? How will the new rules affect local labour markets? Will industry have a harder or easier time obtaining workers? Will there be an increase in migration from one region of the country to another as a result of this bill? In which direction? Will the bill encourage or discourage seasonal job patterns? How? What will be the consequences of the new financing arrangements which has the government withdraw from financially contributing to the UI program, on the

December 5, 1989
Supply
properties of the program as an automatic fiscal stabilizer?
Another source of uncertainty has to do with the application of the UI benefits savings to the government package of training assistance for UI recipients. During the course of the bill's passage through the Commons, we were told by government members and the minister that new consultations were taking place with business and labour to determine how these funds would be allocated. We have not heard the results of these consultations.
How will these training funds be spent? Where will they be spent? When will the savings the government will realize by denying benefits to the unemployed show up in training expenditures and in whose pockets will they land?
The government has been vague on all these questions. These are all questions which require understanding by Canadians before approval is given to the kind of major changes to UI contemplated in Bill C-21.
If the government is so confident in its legislation, if the government really believes that its UI reform can stand the test of scrutiny, will it not permit the Senate to give this bill the sober second thought it deserves? Will it not vote in favour of this very reasonable motion and introduce the simple bill that will prolong the VER? We will co-operate. The NDP will co-operate.
We can pass this bill with no debate. We can demonstrate in this Chamber a rare display of Yuletide solidarity with the unemployed of this country.
Maybe the government is not so confident. Maybe it is not sure that this package is so solid. Maybe that is why it has rammed it through this House. Maybe that is why it used closure at every stage. Maybe that is why it will not let the Senate look at it.
Maybe the government, despite the parliamentary secretary's rhetoric, is really intimidated by Mr. MacEa-chen and his colleagues in the Senate. Maybe it is scared that if the Senate takes a close look at this legislation, it will expose the flaws in Bill C-21 and in the hollow arguments of the members opposite.
Maybe the other place and Canadians will see that for the few unemployed who will benefit by the elimination of the repeater provision, there are thousands who will
be cut off completely by this legislation, that these thousands will get nothing from the government's training programs, that the Canadian economy will be that much more vulnerable to the vagaries of the next recession as a result of the passage of this bill.
Let us not play brinksmanship with the unemployed of this country. Let us permit the democratic process to run its course. I call upon the government to pass this motion and introduce forthwith the required bill which will prolong the VER for a few more weeks.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague, though I know that time for debate is running out. My hon. colleague went on at some length and at the end of his speech, he indicated that the real reason that the government opposite seems not prepared to introduce a simple motion in the House to extend the VER until the legislation comes back is simply because this government does not want the legislation to be examined properly as it should be constitutionally in the other place.
The members opposite who will very shortly be coming in to vote on this motion I think are a bit cowardly in not allowing a full legislative process to take place. Would that be something that the hon. member would agree with?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member. Unfortunately we will not have the time to hear the answer of the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.
[ Translation]
It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the Business of Supply, pursuant to Standing Order 81(14).
Accordingly the question is on the motion of Mr. Allmand.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
The Acting Speaking (Mrs. Champagne): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.
It being 6.15 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 6,1989