1989-06-06

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



NATIONAL LIBRARY OF CANADA


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of the Access to Information Act, I am pleased to submit copies of the National Library of Canada annual report on access to information and privacy for 1988-89.



CANADA COUNCIL


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: In addition, Sir, I have the honour to deposit, conforming to Article 32 of the Standing Orders, two copies of the supplement to the annual report of the Canada Council.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the Parties and I would like to propose the following motion:
That during consideration of Private Members' Business this day,
Motion No. 272, standing in the name of Mr. Angus, may be moved
by Mr. Kristiansen.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Translation\


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petitioners from Kamloops, British Columbia, point out that the Government has failed to provide the necessary resources to VIA Rail to enable it to fulfil its mandate to provide first-class passenger rail service.
We heard the news today that we are going to experience significant reductions in passenger rail service in Canada, so this petition makes more sense than ever.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to maintain, improve and modernize VIA Rail service, particularly in those areas of the country where it can provide a rapid, economical, safe, convenient, environmentally sound

June 6, 1989
Petitions
and energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition which points out the concern that an increasing number of Canadians have with the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act proposed by the Government.
The petitioners are asking that the Government come to its senses and not proceed with the legislation that would make those changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act and take money from the UI area for training. The petitioners feel that training ought to be funded from a more appropriate source.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with regard to the Government's plans to cut back funding to VIA Rail and the fact that this is going to increase the danger in passenger transportation in this country. The announcements that have been made over the last couple of days indicate that they are going to be putting crews on for longer periods of time.
As a result of that, it does increase the danger and the threat to passenger safety in our countiy. Therefore, the people who have signed this petition humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain, improve and modernize VIA Rail service in those areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient, environmentally sound and energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a duly certified petition sent to me by residents of southwestern Saskatchewan who note that the federal Government's decision to remove oats from the marketing jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board will severely reduce the income of oat producers and place them at the mercy of grain speculators.
They note that this decision will further erode the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board. They call upon the Government to place oats back under the Canadian
Wheat Board and as well to include canola under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour and duty to present a petition to the House today regarding VIA Rail. The petitioners who come from different parts of the country urge the Government, in light of news reports yesterday about threats to the funding of VIA Rail, to provide for a triple-E VIA Rail; economical, efficient and reliable-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Triple-E with an R? To err is human.


Brian L. Gardiner: -so that we can have a VIA Rail service in this country that is effective as well.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to present a petition today signed by a number of residents, principally of Ontario and Quebec, which requests that this Parliament maintain, improve, and modernize VIA Rail service in those areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient, environmentally sound and energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation. There is much wisdom in this petition, Mr. Speaker, and I commend it to the attention of the House.


Brian L. Gardiner: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to table a petition in the name of several constituents to the effect that many restaurants do not place a complete list of take-out fast food ingredients on food packaging and do not provide easy customer access to the same information as eat-in restaurants.
The petition goes on to ask that the House ensure legislation and regulations be enacted to require ingredient labelling of take-out and fast foods, with public access in all restaurants to a complete list of food ingredients for sale in restaurant establishments. There are people who may be allergic to food items who would like to have that information made public.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 with a petition again on the subject of VIA
June 6, 1989

Rail, signed by a number of residents of Sarnia, London and Toronto, Ontario. The petition has been approved as being proper by the Clerk of Petitions.
The petition calls upon Parliament to maintain, improve and modernize VIA Rail service in those areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient, environmentally sound and energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation. I hope the Government will listen, Mr. Speaker.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 37 and 65.


Mr. Volpe: Has the Government sought public assurances from the government of the United States that a mobile MX nuclear missile system will not be based in an area near the Canada-United States border where it could utilize its proximity with Canada to avoid nuclear attack by moving near to the border, or even across it and, if not, is it the intention of the government to take such action before the United States government decides whether to go ahead with this MX mobile missile system?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The new U.S. Secretary of Defence, Dick Cheney, has proposed that the MX missiles currently based in silos in Wyoming could be placed on special train cars so that they can be shunted along the United States commercial rail network. This proposal is not new and is just one of several still being examined by the U.S. military.
There are no current requests to have the trains enter Canada. The USA is aware that our policies prevent them entering or transiting Canada with nuclear weapons without the prior approval of the Government. The USA has a large number of railway lines to meet any of their requirements and although Canadian security relies in part on the USA nuclear deterrent, they have no need to use Canadian territory. It is well known that in times of rising conflict, the trains would be constantly on the move to make detection more difficult. To ensure
Order Paper Questions
these weapons act as a deterrent, it is clear that they would not be bunched on the Canada/US A border or any other central point that could make their detection easier.
There are mechanisms in place for ongoing consultations on issues of national and joint concern with respect to the defence of North America.


Ms. McLaughlin: 1.	For each year since 1984, did the government estimated the tax revenue lost because of (a) personal (b) corporate tax evasion and, if so, what was it?
2.	For each year since 1984, did the government estimated the number of (a) personal (b) corporate income tax evasion cases and, if so (i) what was it (ii) what was the average amount of evaded income tax?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
Attempts have been made both within this Department and outside to measure the extent of the "underground economy". However, these estimates vary significantly and none are confined to "tax evasion".
2. The number of individual and corporate tax evasion cases prosecuted through the criminal courts pursuant to Section 239 of the Income Tax Act is as follows:
Individuals	Corporations	Total Federal Income Tax Evaded (Million)1985	146	49	$13.71986	114	53	4.81987	141	44	5.31988	94	34	5.3


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the Government House Leader a question that has been on the Order Paper since April 6, asking for certain information of the Government.
Again, we seem to wait until the House reminds the Government or those officials in charge of preparing answers before we receive an answer. This question on April 6 in fact became dated on May 21. Today is June 6, Mr. Speaker, and I know you have reminded the people in charge of preparing answers in the past to answer them.

June 6, 1989
Excise Tax Act
It is a veiy basic question, asking how much money we give per year for leases to the Campeau Corporation. One should be able to find that out with a phone call to Tory headquarters, of all places.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, which studied these matters from 1980 to 1984, I must tell my hon. friend that that is not where one would go looking for that information. However, I would say that I will look into the matter and get back to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill implements the changes announced in the Budget of April 27, 1989, concerning excise taxes and duties on tobacco products and gasoline, and increases in sales tax rates pending the implementation of the goods and services tax. These measures reflect our commitment to deal with the problem of our substantial and increasing national debt. Meeting this challenge and meeting it successfully is a responsibility that we have to present and future generations of Canadians.
During the past four years, we have acted to restrain public spending. We have closed tax loopholes for business and high-income individuals. These measures have reduced the annual deficit and slowed the growth of the debt. Additional measures are needed, however, to ensure that the national debt does not jeopardize our ability to maintain programs valued by Canadians and to sustain the economic growth and high standard of living they expect to enjoy.
The measures taken in this Budget to control the debt affect government spending and revenues. They were carefully chosen to ensure a balanced approach that takes regional situations into account and that imposes the heaviest burden on those who are most able to bear it. The revenue measures are also distributed in a balanced way among several categories, including the federal sales tax and excise duties and taxes.
The federal sales tax is also the centrepiece of another key element of our strategy to strengthen Canada's economy and preserve essential programs. The present sales tax will be replaced by the new goods and services tax on January 1, 1991. The new tax will provide a more stable foundation for dealing with the public debt problem. It will improve the overall fairness of the tax system. It will make federal sales taxes more visible to consumers. Finally, and most important, it will result in significant gains for economic production in all sectors of the economy and all regions of Canada.

One of the key elements of the Bill we are considering today is an across-the-board increase in the existing federal sales tax rates in advance of federal sales tax reform.
Some Hon. Members may question why the Government would raise the tax rates under the current federal sales tax system at this time, when it is widely recognized as being seriously flawed. These rate increases provide a revenue bridge to the new goods and services tax. They will provide much needed revenue to address the deficit and debt problems pending sales tax reform, while avoiding more substantial increases in other taxes, in particular personal income tax. Given the major deficiencies of the manufacturer's sales tax, it is only possible to use the existing system to help meet the Government's fiscal needs now, because it will be replaced in a little over 18 months. The relatively short time that the system will remain in place will minimize the incentive for business to engage in the tax planning and avoidance activities that have helped undermine it.
Moreover, the problems associated with the current system will not be seriously compounded by the rate increases because of the brief period during which the rate increases will apply.
The rate increases include a 1.5 per cent increase in the general sales tax rate from 12 per cent to 13.5 per
June 6, 1989

cent, effective June 1,1989. The other sales tax rates will all be increased by 1 per cent to 19 per cent for alcohol and tobacco products, effective April 28, 1989; 11 per cent for telecommunication and telecommunication programming services, effective June 1, 1989; and to 9 per cent for construction materials, effective Januaiy 1,1990. Together, these measures will contribute about $1 billion in 1989 and $2 billion in 1990 toward reducing the deficit.
It is the policy of this Government to provide assistance through the tax system to help those in need. In the February, 1986 Budget, the Government introduced the refundable sales tax credit to benefit low-income Canadians. With the implementation of the goods and services tax, we will be introducing a new sales tax credit which will involve a substantial expansion in current benefits. The new credit will ensure that families earning less than $30,000 per year will be better off as a result of sales tax reform.
In the interim, the existing sales tax credit is being doubled and the threshold increased in order to more than compensate recipients of the full credit for the sales tax rate increases. The budget Bill to implement changes in the Income Tax Act will increase the refundable sales tax credit for adults from $70 to $100 in 1989, and to $140 in 1990. For children under age 19, the credit will be increased from $35 to $50 in 1989, and to $70 in 1990. The income threshold for credit will be increased from $16,000 to $18,000 in 1990. Therefore, a two parent family with two children, and an income of up to $18,000 will receive a maximum credit of $420 in 1990.

To come back to the Bill that we are considering today, I would like to draw your attention to the changes implementing increased excise duties and taxes for tobacco products.
Under the Bill, excise duties on cigarettes, together with the federal sales tax, will increase the federal revenue from cigarettes by $4 a carton. The excise duty and tax on cigars increases proportionally. These measures should generate some $535 million in additional revenue in 1989 and $770 million in 1990.
The Bill provides two increases in excise duty and tax for manufactured tobacco. The first amounts to $4 per 200 grams and took effect on April 28, 1989. The second will add $1.30 per 200 grams to the sales and excise taxes and the excise duty and will take effect on October 1, 1989.
Excise Tax Act
As well as adding revenue to lighten the debt burden, the increased duty and taxes on manufactured tobacco will bring the rates on this product closer to those for cigarettes. The wide gap between them encourages consumption and development of manufactured tobacco products such as fine-cut tobacco which make it possible to avoid paying the higher duties and taxes on cigarettes. Thus, federal government revenues decreased as regular cigarette smokers turned to other tobacco products.
Mr. Speaker, these changes to tobacco taxes, in addition to providing the government with revenue it greatly needs, are part of its overall strategy to reduce tobacco use in Canada.

The Bill also implements increases in the excise taxes on gasoline and aviation gasoline. With these increases, excise taxes will rise by one cent per litre as of April 28, 1989, and by an additional one cent on January 1,1990, to generate $250 million in 1989 and $660 million in 1990.
As part of the changes in taxes on motive fuels, the excise tax on leaded gasoline is increased an additional one cent per litre, effective April 28,1989. This measure will help to accelerate the decline in the use of leaded fuel as we adjust to the phasing out of lead in gasoline by December 1, 1990.
Under the goods and services tax to be implemented on January 1, 1991, all commercial users will be entitled to recover federal sales tax on motor vehicle fuels used for business purposes. To provide a bridge to the new system, the sales tax portion of the fuel tax rebate program for farmers, fishermen and other primary producers, which is scheduled to expire on December 31, 1989, will be extended for one additional year. For the period after December 31, 1989, until the goods and services tax commences on January 1, 1991, farmers will continue to be eligible for a sales tax rebate of 3.5 cents per litre while other primary producers will receive sales tax rebates of three cents per litre on motive fuels used for off-highway production purposes.
Finally, this Bill contains a number of technical amendments. New marking requirements are being introduced in the Excise Act to address concerns that cigarettes are being imported illegally without payment of federal taxes and duties. Also, certain archaic provisions regarding the burden of proof in offences under the Excise Act are being amended. In the Excise Tax Act,

June 6, 1989
Excise Tax Act
the point of imposition of the tax on laundry detergent is being shifted from the manufacturer's level to the wholesale trade level to correct anomalies in the application of sales tax to these products.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that this Bill is an important part of the responsive and responsible action plan to deal with the public debt, as set out in the Budget. It recognizes the need to build on our progress to date and to take firm action at this time to ensure that we can pass on to the next generation the ability to protect and strengthen the fundamental values that are so much a part of life in Canada.
Therefore, I urge the Hon. Members to give their full support to this Bill and to ensure that it is approved by this House as quickly as possible.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister, in introducing his Bill this morning, has placed it squarely in the context of the Budget and the Budget's objectives in attempting to reduce the deficit costs which have mounted steadily since the Government took office almost five years ago.
The impact of continuing high rates of deficit spending and the demands of interest obligations on the debt has been such that the Governments attempting to counter those increases by major tax increases, less by government expenditure control and more by tax increases.
Here we have today the first tangible evidence of the Government's intention to move against its deficit by taxing Canadians in what is a regressive way. The Minister knows full well that the sales tax increase that he has proposed today, from 12 per cent to 13.5 per cent, which will be in place as he pointed out for the next year and a half, is a regressive tax. It impacts more on the lower income Canadians than it does on the more affluent. It also continues a tax that by the Government's own recognition is what the Minister of Finance has called "a silent killer of jobs".
The manufacturers' sales tax is an outdated form of taxation. We have had it in place since 1924 when we were the first country to introduce such a tax. Today, we
are the only country still with a manufacturers' sales tax. The Government is now increasing that same sales tax, which it recognizes is regressive and which it recognizes is an outmoded form of taxation, from 12 per cent to 13.5 per cent.
It is a sales tax which is largely hidden from consumers. It is concealed in the price of goods. It may well be that some Canadians will not be aware immediately of the impact of this regressive tax measure intended to reduce the size of the Government's deficit.
The manufacturers' sales tax, by the Government's own recognition, has another major problem. It impacts much more severely on Canadian exporters, Canadians attempting to export abroad, than it does on importers. Yet, the Government has gone ahead and increased that adverse impact even more than it has in the past.
The manufacturers' sales tax, in that sense and indeed in a variety of ways, distorts the production and distribution decisions of corporations. Most corporations, with any imagination, attempt to find ways of transferring the impact of the tax from manufacturing to the non-taxable part of their activities, that is, marketing and distribution. The result is a further distortion in the impact of the manufacturers' sales tax.
I would submit that in addition the manufacturers' sales tax which the Government is now increasing-not reducing, not eliminating, not replacing by any other tax, but rather seeking to increase it-is complicated in its administration. We have several levels of sales taxes in Canada, such as the manufacturers' sales tax and the excise taxes, which the Government is again increasing today. The effective tax rates for a number of items vary substantially, again causing distortions in our sales tax system.
I could go on for some time about the inadequacies and the distortions of the manufacturers' sales tax. I am sure the Minister will want to reply, if he has the occasion to do so, that the goods and services tax is intended to eliminate some of those problems.
However, the fact remains that today the Government is increasing from 12 per cent to 13.5 per cent that same tax which it regards as unfair, inequitable, and distorting. We are expected today to accept that increase as a

sensible policy in the total government effort to reduce its deficit.
I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Minister, that this piece of legislation today confirms what Canadians have recognized, that is, that the Government of Canada, in attempting to reduce its deficit very late in the economic cycle, long after it should have taken corrective action if indeed it were serious about reducing its deficit, is doing so in a way that is regressive and impacts more on lower income Canadians than on the more affluent.
I said a moment ago that the Government has left it late in the economic cycle to take any corrective action with regard to the deficit. It is well recognized that the Government took no action from 1986, for whatever reasons; we can all speculate. My own view is that they were directly related to its standing in the public opinion polls at the time. From 1986 to 1988, it took no effective action on reducing the deficit.
Now, at this late stage in the economic cycle when a downturn is expected, we see the Government introducing a variety of measures in the name of deficit reduction, including an increase in the sales tax which may well have the impact-and this is a point I shall return to in a moment-of making the expected downturn even more severe than had hitherto been anticipated.
It is a traditional role of government that in prosperous times such as Canada has enjoyed for the last six or seven years, a Government acts to reduce its intervention in the economy and its spending and to put funds aside for what inevitably will be less prosperous times. This Government failed to do so. This Government has moved at the end of the economic cycle in a way that, as many independent economic forecasters and experts would have us understand, is more likely to create hardship in Canada than in fact rectify this Government's deficit problem.
I want to turn for a moment to the impact of this tax on the Canadian people. I have said that the increase in the manufacturers' sales tax is regressive, despite the fact that the Government had initially and indeed throughout its recent mandate taken the position that expenditure control was the primary focus of its fiscal management; not tax increases but expenditure control would be its chosen tool for deficit reduction.
Excise Tax Act
What we have in this Budget is a program of tax increases. Far more important in this Budget is the tax increase element rather than expenditure control. The result is that we have a Government that has not lived up to its promises of four or five years ago. We have not seen the Government carry out its commitment to ensure that taxes were reduced and not increased.
The net effect of the Government's actions in this Budget is to increase the tax burden on all Canadians further. In the case of sales taxes, taxes directly on the products which Canadians consume, we have had an increase in the sales tax rate from 9 per cent to 12 per cent during the previous mandate of this Government. That sales tax has now been increased again. Today the Minister is introducing a Bill increasing that same sales tax from 12 per cent to 13.5 per cent. Thatof course must be added to a 10 per cent tax on long distance telephone calls, which has now become 11 per cent. There was already a 5-cent per litre increase in the gasoline tax, which has now become 7 cents per litre. For those of us who are affluent enough to travel by air, there has been an increase in air transport taxes without, it appears, any additional safety in the air.
The central question in any tax increase is whether they are fair or spread equitably among taxpayers. The Minister, the House, and Canadians know that sales taxes, whatever the credits the Government may wish to bring forward, are by their very nature inequitable. A sales tax is regressive. It will hurt lower income Canadians more than it will hurt more affluent Canadians. It is the opposite of a progressive income tax. A sales tax impacts inequitably. It impacts more on lower income Canadians.
The record of this Government in increasing inequitable and regressive taxes is deplorable. I could cite a number of instances. The National Council of Welfare, for example, recently demonstrated in a study that during the first four years of this Government's mandate, the personal income taxes of a working family went up by 60 per cent, those of a middle income family went up by 17 per cent, while those of an upper income family went down by 6 per cent. Those are personal income taxes, and of course it is a result of this Government's

June 6, 1989
Excise Tax Act
determination to deindex income tax, which it has done in previous Budgets and again in this one, and to impose a 3 per cent income surtax in the past which in this Budget now becomes 5 per cent.
The real increases in taxes during the past four years have not only been in income tax, but it has been in sales taxes. For example, the increase in the manufacturer's sales tax in the past from 9 per cent to 12 per cent. The combination of higher income taxes and higher sales taxes in the recent Budget means that an average income family will now pay $700 more in taxes annually. This means in turn that the average Canadian family is now paying $2,000 more in taxes since the Conservative Government was first elected in 1984.
With that piling of tax upon tax, of income tax upon income tax through the surtax, through the deindexing of income taxes, and through the increase in the manufacturer's sales tax and excise taxes today, no wonder we have heard nothing more from the Minister of Finance-about his 1984 election promise not to raise taxes. Here is another example of a Conservative Government that makes promises before a campaign, the 1984 promise to reduce taxes, but have had nothing but increases in taxes for the last five years.
Prior to the recent election, we had a series of promises totalling some $17 billion about the great measures the Government would undertake. The day after the election, however, the Government found surprisingly that its cupboard was bare and that it had to increase taxes in order to meet the demands of interest payments on its debt, a debt that has risen from approximately $170 billion when this Government took office to $350 billion today.
In this Bill we are talking about increases in the sales taxes and excise taxes. The $2 billion to be generated by the federal sales tax compares to total income tax increases of less than $1 billion. Quite obviously, this means that the Government is relying more on a regressive than a progressive form of taxation. A greater reliance by the Government on sales taxes rather than on income taxes to generate additional revenue means that the burden of taxation is being moved even more from high income earners to lower income Canadians who pay a greater proportion of their incomes in sales taxes.
Let us look at that matter for one moment. I want to draw the attention of the House and indeed of all Canadians to the fact that we as a result of a combination of income tax and sales taxes, taxes on families with children are being increased more than taxes on families without children. For a one income family, taxes on an average family with two children have gone up more than $900, compared to an average one income earner family without children. We see here a greater impact on Canadians families with children than those without.
The budget measures the Minister brought forward today, combined with other aspects of the Budget, means that total taxes on an average single parent family with two children have been increased over $250 since 1984. For a family with two children where both parents work, the total taxes paid by a family at the poverty line have almost tripled since this Government took office.
In contrast, total taxes paid by a family with two children where both parents work and earn more than $100,000 have increased only 11 per cent since 1984. In other words, the taxes of a family near the poverty line, with two children, and both parents working, have gone up 176 per cent, whereas the taxes of a comparable family with $100,000 or more of income have gone up only 11 per cent. If that is progressive and fair taxation, it is not my definition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roy MacLaren: When the budget measures are fully implemented,as I gather is the intention of the Government, the additional tax burden borne by Canadians will be increased by an average of $382 per family-$151 in personal taxes and $231 in the type of consumption tax which the Minister is bringing forward today. Of the 10 million families in Canada, 8.3 million will see their after tax income drop as a result of this Budget. Of the 3.6 million Canadian families whose income is less than $25,000, over half will see their after tax incomes drop as a result of this Budget.
The Budget impacts most severely on two parent families with children. I have already pointed out the impact on them. The sales taxes which the Minister has introduced today will have an especially adverse impact on families, an intent that this Government denies but
June 6, 1989

has nevertheless given constant expression to during its previous mandate and during the course of this mandate.
I want to turn to the question of regional considerations of a federal sales tax change. The Minister will recognize that the regions of Canada, those distant from the principal areas of production and distribution in our country, incur higher taxes and pay a higher part of a sales tax than those Canadians living in what is called central Canada, near or at the places of manufacture and production.
The costs of shipping goods to the more remote regions is embedded in the final price of those goods. Therefore, when the Minister imposes higher transport costs as a result of the increases in fuel taxes, the basic price of goods, and hence the sales tax paid on them, will be higher in remote regions. People living in more remote regions will pay more sales tax than those living in central Canada. The tax credits available, which the Minister extolled in his speech this morning, make no allowance for regional considerations. The adverse impact on Canadians living in the regions are greater than on those in central Canada. There is no offset, no credit, no effort on the part of this Government to compensate those in the regions for the fact that they must pay higher taxes.
This is from the same Government that in a variety of ways has imposed a severe burden on the regions. A greater burden as a result of this Budget has been imposed on the regions than has been imposed on what has been called central Canada. I say that because we are all conscious of the fact that the reduction by this Government of transfer payments to the provinces, the way in which it introduced the tax-back of old age pensions and of family allowances, has the indirect result of reducing further the tax revenues of the provinces.
The closing of military bases, the changes in the way in which UIC will be provided for those in high unemployment areas combine to have a major impact on the regions. Today we have yet another piece of legislation, namely, the increase in the excise and sales taxes, which will only exacerbate the already severe impact of this Budget on the regions.
Excise Tax Act
I want to turn for a moment to the question of the inflationary impact of sales taxes. The Minister knows, the House knows and the Canadian people know that sales taxes are by their very nature not only regressive but inflationary. They increase the cost of goods and services. Increased prices drive up inflation. They are an expression of inflation within our country. What we have then today is a situation which as a result of this Budget will make yet more serious the possibilities, not only of economic recession as I mentioned a moment ago but of higher inflation. Indirect taxes are one cause of higher inflation.
I am sorry that the Minister has chosen to leave the House and not continue to participate in the discussion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I think the Minister is probably outside watching it on television, but I do not think the Hon. Member should mention who is and who is not in the House. He has been here for quite a while and he knows as an Hon. Member that he should not do that.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, it was only that I was so flattered for the Minister to listen to me I hoped he might persist, but never mind.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roy MacLaren: I was saying that the indirect tax increases embodied in this Budget will cause higher inflation, so the dilemma facing this Government has not really addressed.
The risk of inflation is enhanced, leaving Canadians without any prospect of significant cuts in interest rates. On the contrary, the indirect tax measures which the Minister has introduced today, and indeed the goods and services tax which the Government intends to become effective January 1, 1991, will fuel inflation. The increases certainly will not encourage the Governor of the Bank of Canada to lower interest rates in what he sees as his fight against inflation. Indeed, the direct result of the sales tax increases will put upward pressure on interest rates.
Many in the business community in particular are concerned that this Budget, by choosing the tax route and not the expenditure control route, has not given room for a more accommodative monetary policy by the Bank of Canada. Therefore, in those circumstances we can be quite certain that we will see, partly as a result of these major sales tax increases, a further increase in interest rates or at least a continuation of the present

June 6, 1989
Excise Tax Act
high level of real interest rates in Canada and a major difference in those rates between U.S. and Canada.
This Government has in the past got wrong its mix of high interest rate policy and high deficit spending. Those two policies combine to make life more difficult for all Canadians in the sense that higher interest rates drive up the cost of the deficit, and the Government then imposes higher sales taxes to pay for those higher interest rates. However, in so doing the Government drives up inflation. The bank says "well, we must now have higher interest rates to counter that inflation". We are into a vicious circle, and this Budget and the sales tax measures brought before us today only make that vicious circle yet more difficult.
Real interest rates are simply too high. They are now at a level where they themselves contribute to inflationary pressures. It is not surprising that the Conference Board of Canada, one of the more respected of the economic institutions in our country, has noted that the Budget is disappointing on the one hand to the financial and business communities that were expecting larger expenditure cuts and, on the other hand, is damaging to consumers who were hard hit with tax increases.
The Conference Board has raised the very real question of whether the present mix of high interest rates and high government spending is right. It has raised the question of whether this Budget, even late in the economic cycle, has addressed that central problem.
The Government acts as if it had nothing to do with interest rates, that it is something to do with a man along Wellington Street at the Bank of Canada. That of course is nonsense. The Government has pursued the high interest rate policies. It fully agreed with the Governor of the Bank of Canada in imposing high interest rates, higher than they have been in the past five years.
There is little evidence that the pursuit of that high interest rate policy during the past two years is in fact countering inflationary pressures. Certainly the Government is doing nothing to offset this unequal regional impact of high interest rates.
I spoke a few moments ago about the fact that sales tax increases and the Budget generally have a particularly harsh impact on the regions. High interest rate policies, of course, have yet a further harsh impact on the regions.
The inflation which the Governor of the Bank of Canada so fears is generated largely by central Canada. The Government and the Governor of the Bank insist on pursuing their high interest rate policies in an effort to stifle what they see as the inflationary pressures coming out of central Canada, but the only way that they can compensate the regions is by introducing fiscal measures for regional development that will offset that adverse impact of the monetary policy.
However, what do we see in the Budget? In fact, we see a net reduction in the transfers to the provinces and to the regions, not an increase in the amount of transfers to help the regions counter the adverse impact of higher interest rates.
The further result of the high interest rate policies that this Government has pursued, and gives every reason to believe will be further pursued in light of the inflationary impacts of this Budget and of the sales tax increases, is that we have been attracting U.S. dollars into Canada which seek a higher rate of return than they would receive domestically. The result is that the value of the Canadian dollar has been driven up.
A further result is that Canadian exporters encounter yet more and more difficulty in pursuing their export opportunities in the United States and elsewhere. So we have a further result of high interest rates, which is that Canadian exports have been adversely impacted.
A third problem with high interest rates and high Government borrowing is that generally affluent people benefit from that borrowing. It is higher income people who have the money to lend to the Government, yet it is all Canadian taxpayers who have to pay for that Government borrowing. They have to pay for the interest on the Government borrowing. The net result of that is that we get sales tax increases today. In part, we are getting sales tax increases so that Government has some additional revenue to pay for the interest on the money that it borrows from more affluent Canadians, the rentiers, if you wish, of Canada.
The net social impact of all this is simple. It is a transfer of money from poorer Canadians, lower income Canadians , less affluent Canadians who are paying a disproportionate amount of the sales tax to help repay the higher income Canadians who lend their money to the Government to help the Government meet its debt obligations. It will be clear from what I have said that I
June 6, 1989

am very much convinced that the current mix of monetary policies, high interest rates and fiscal policy, because of its undue reliance on monetary restraint, has adverse implications for our economy, for unemployment, which the Government itself acknowledges is going to increase as a result of this Budget; for the regional disparities that I have mentioned; for investment levels and hence on greater productivity which Canada needs in a more global trading economy.
I have perhaps said enough to indicate that we on this side of the House are not much enamoured of these excise tax increases which the Government has brought forward in its Bill today. They have a severe impact on lower income Canadians that will not be offset by any credit that the Minister wishes to introduce.
Sales taxes are regressive. They have an adverse impact on those who can least afford to pay them. We see also that regional disparities are increased as a result of this Budget. Inflationary pressures will be further increased as a result of the measures which the Minister has introduced today and will be further stimulated by the goods and services tax which the Government intends to put in place in 18 months.
It will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, that on this side of the House, we shall oppose and oppose vigorously, this Bill which does nothing to rectify the errors and the disadvantages of the existing sales tax. It only makes those problems worse by increasing the level of the tax. Its worst feature of all is its impact on lower-income families who will not receive adequate compensation for the impact of this tax.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-20 at the second reading stage. I think there has been a mistake on the Bill itself because the title says this is an Act to amend the Excise Thx Act and the Excise Act. Perhaps the title ought to have read that this is the largest tax grab in Canadian history. That would be a more accurate reflection as to what we are debating today.
Excise Tax Act
The topics put on these Bills sound rather innocuous. It says, "An Act to Amend the Excise Tkx Act and the Excise Act". When one hears that, it does not sound too bad. One thinks that this is something that Governments do. It has to amend these Acts from time to time.
When we actually get into it and starts analyzing what all this legislative gobbledegook actually says, it says that the Government has decided to reach into the pocket books, wallets and purses of Canadians like we have never experienced in the entire history of our country before. This is the most massive tax grab we have ever seen. It goes beyond everything people ever imagined.
I do not recall during the last election campaign when the Members from Prince George-Peace River, or from Lanark-Carleton were out on the hustings describing a plan to have this incredible tax grab occur if they were elected.
The Hon. Member was in Kamloops. I remember his visit well. I cannot recall press reports that said the Hon. Minister of State for Forests was going to be planning this massive tax grab if the Conservatives were elected. As a matter of fact, I do not recall even a mention of increased taxes.
Perhaps we should not even be discussing this Bill C-20 today. As a matter of fact, there is a better reason that we should not even be discussing Bill C-20 today. That is because this whole process is illegitimate. The Government should never have introduced its Budget from which this particular Bill flows because of the way it was handled.
It is the only time in parliamentary history in the face of the earth where a Government has leaked out a Budget days in advance and says that that is just the way it is and there is nothing one can do about it. It says that this is the way we do business here.
It is the only time in world history where a parliamentary system has seen a Minister of Finance who has ample evidence his Budget has been leaked, and knows that many people in privileged positions have had advance copies of the Budget, yet says that that is just the way it is and we are not going to do anything about that. Then he continues on with the Budget, reading it on television.

June 6, 1989
Excise Tax Act
I think we have to look long and hard in the annals of history to find a Minister of Finance that introduced a Budget via press conference the day before the scheduled presentation in the House of Commons.
We consider the Budget itself to be illegitimate. We ought to be considering Bill C-20 to be an illegitimate piece of legislation before the House.
This Government has decided to ignore all of the advice that has been given. It has decided to ignore every reflection that Canadians have been able to provide the Government and every editorial writer of financial affairs saying that the Minister should resign and start over. It just sort of blunders on, regardless of the people.
In the last few days, we have been reminded of another Government in another part of the world that has done a similar sort of thing in terms of attitude: forget the people. " We know what is best". Father Knows Best. Remember that old television program? The Government says it knows what is best for Canadians. It is going to impose this incredible tax grab at this very critical time for the people of Canada. What is this going to do to our country?
The justification of the Minister was that something had to be done about this deficit problem. We all agree.
Once again my memory fails me because I do not recall the Minister of Finance or the government Members who were running the last federal election making a big to-do about the deficit and indicating how to reduce it. Now we are finding out. We are finding out the real agenda, because rather than do it in a fair, just and equitable way, there will be a continuation of this regressive path of increasing sales and excise taxes on ordinary working people.
There is another way, as we are well aware. That other way is to start collecting a few taxes from some of the large profitable corporations that do not pay anything. Those people listening and watching today just do not believe that there are thousands of large, profitable corporations that fail to pay one penny in income tax year after year. People do not believe it because it sounds too ridiculous and incredible. Yet I have here the Minister of Finance's own statements where he identifies a number of profitable corporations that do not pay any income tax. There are more than 60,000 profitable corporations that exist in Canada that do not pay a penny in income tax. That is to say nothing of the thousands
that may pay 50 cents or $20 in income tax. This is a list of the ones that do not pay anything.
They are not the small Mom and Pop shops, the auto-body shop at the comer, or the hair salon down the street. They are companies such as Alcan of Canada that made a profit of $312 million in 1986-87 and did not pay one penny in income tax. There are others such as Hees International, Cadillac-Fairview, and Trilon Financial. There are 60,000 that do not pay any income tax at all.
Why would the Government on the one hand state that we have to struggle against this deficit yet fail to take an obvious course of action? For example, in 1986 the United States administration stated that it was unreasonable, unjust, unfair and discriminatory to allow large corporations to pay no income tax, so it introduced a minimum corporate tax. I give the United States credit for that. Now those corporations that are able to take advantage of the dozens and dozens of loopholes that are listed in the Government's handbooks still have to pay at least a minimum corporate tax. Does the Conservative Government in Canada follow suit in a fair and equitable manner? No, that is not in the cards. There is a better way. Let's get ordinary people again. Let's pass more of the tax burden to ordinary men and women.
In 1950 we had a tax system that was essentially balanced. The revenues coming in from people and the revenues coming in from the corporate sector were relatively balanced at 50-50. With all due respect to the Liberal finance critic who has just spoken, over the years as a result of successive Liberal and Conservative Governments this 50-50 balance has now shifted to 85 per cent of the revenues coming from people and less than 15 per cent coming from the corporate sector. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it a fair system when 85 per cent of the revenues come from people and only 15 per cent come from the corporate sector?
It does not matter whether a Liberal or a Conservative Government is in power. As a matter of fact, I believe the present Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) when he was Minister of Finance in a previous Liberal Government, introduced this whole myriad of corporate loopholes that resulted in 100,000 profitable corporations in those days, not 60,000, that paid no income tax. The Tories have moved to close off the most ludicrous loopholes and have got it down to only 60,000
June 6, 1989

large, profitable corporations that manage not to pay any income tax year after year.
What else could be done? If we are concerned about the deficit, which we are, let us take some real action and introduce a tax system that treats the various sectors of the economy in a fair and just manner. Who pays income tax in the business sector? Small and medium-sized businesses are paying more than they should because the large corporate taxpayers are getting away scot-free in many cases.
There is another issue and that is the whole matter of the interest rate policy. I am sure when you read all the newspapers this morning, Mr. Speaker, you also noticed that the Americans have reduced their interest rates. Now their interest rates are 2.5 per cent lower than ours in Canada. When one crosses the border there is an extreme variation in interest rates. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what the difference would be in our country if the Minister of Finance came into the Elouse this afternoon and made a statement that tomorrow morning interest rates in Canada will be reduced 2.5 per cent to harmonize with those in the United States.
Two things would happen immediately. It would send a clear signal to those people in the country who want to expand their operations, purchase new goods or supplies, or new services. With interest rates 2.5 per cent lower many economic initiatives make sense. We would have a generation of new economic activity which would result in additional jobs, lower UIC pay-outs, lower welfare pay-outs, more jobs, therefore more sales taxes, personal taxes, and corporate taxes collected. That would be a way to bring in more revenue to reduce the deficit. Not only that, reducing interest rates by 2.5 per cent would save an incredibly large amount of accumulated debt. If 2.5 per cent was knocked off the cost of $320 billion, billions of dollars would be saved.
Why wouldn't someone with the brains of a Minister of Finance not do that? Why would he not do something that everyone is advocating? Every premier in the country has come to Ottawa on a number of occasions and said: "For goodness sakes, give our regions an opportunity and drop the interest rate down two or three percentage points". However, the Government refuses to do that. It refuses to take action that would result in economic activity, decreased unemployment levels, and
Excise Tax Act
increased opportunities for entrepreneurs, builders and workers. The Government has a better idea: add more taxes on the people who are presently working.
I believe that we are desperately close to a tax revolt. I am not sure what form that tax revolt may take, but on balance Canadians know that they pay too much and will not take it any more. When they get the next opportunity to evaluate the Government and say whether or not they support it continuing in office, there is no question in my mind that those people are going to state that, in spite of some of them being half-decent people, we cannot afford it any longer. They cannot afford to raise their families, continue in business, or continue in farming. People have been pressed too hard.
As parliamentarians, one of the concerns that we must have, and about which the Government ought to be worried, is the development of the underground economy as a result of people's loss of faith in our tax system. Now billions of dollars of transactions are taking place underneath the table. There are no records and no taxes being paid. The best estimate of the size of this sector of our economy is that between $60 billion and $120 billion of transactions every year are moving underground because people have lost faith in the system.
They know that while they work and struggle to pay taxes, many people do not pay any taxes. Perhaps some people who live down the block do not pay any income taxes at all, be they individuals or high-income earners. You and I both know, Mr. Speaker, there are many people earning $200,000 or $500,000 a year who do not pay any income tax and are able to use the various loopholes. The person who is struggling in a small business, the backbone of the country in terms of employment, knows that while he or she is paying a lot of income tax, Alcan Aluminum does not pay anything, not a single cent. Hees International does not pay anything. Some years the Bank of Montreal does not pay anything. The Royal Bank of Canada does not pay anything.
Why do we not change the system? I wonder if one of the reasons, and I hate to say it but it is a suspicion of mine when one sees which large profitable corporations that do not pay any income tax give financial support to in terms of political Parties, lo and behold, the Conservatives get the lion's share, the Liberals get a fair share, in

June 6, 1989
Excise Tax Act
case they form a Government again, and the one Party that does not get any hand-outs from the Bank of Montreal or the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce or the Royal Bank is the New Democratic Party. We do not take that type of money. Why does this improper, unjust, biased system remain? I suspect that might play some role in why some of the legislation does not change to resolve it.
I think it is now time to be specific. We are discussing the principle of the Bill, and I want to mention some items. We have to warn Canadians about what this Government is going to do to them. A lot of damage has already been done, but the big blow is yet to come. Talking about the damage so far, the Government wants to increase the sales tax on construction material at a time when our economy is very sensitive in terms of its recovery, particularly in the regions of Canada where the construction industry drives a lot of the employment opportunities. If there is a lot of housing, office and plant construction, not only are there jobs in building, but all of the infrastructure that goes into those buildings, all of the manufacturing, all of the service industries and so on. The Government says, we think we have got a good idea. We are going to increase the sales tax on construction material. Why would a Government that has any brains want to increase the cost of building houses, factories and office complexes? That is what the Government is doing, and it just perplexes me.
The Government is going to slap the usual sales tax increases on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. These are up from 18 per cent to 19 per cent. That is an area that is going to get hit, I suppose, on a regular basis. Again it just drives up the cost of living for so many people.
It is going to increase the sales tax on telecommunications and programming services from 10 per cent to 11 per cent beginning June 1. That sales tax on telecommunications has already been introduced. Then there will be an increase in the sales tax on all other goods to which it applies from 12 per cent to 13.5 per cent. Where does this end, Mr. Speaker? There will be an increase in the excise tax on gasoline by one cent a litre beginning April 28, then again on January 1, 1990 as well as a
further 1 per cent per litre increase on leaded gasoline beginning April 28, 1989.
It does not sound like much when you look at it on an individual basis: one cent per litre on gasoline, a few cents on a carton of cigarettes, a 1 per cent increase in telecommunications costs, a 1 per cent increase on all construction materials. But when it is added up carefully, what it means to the average family-we have done some very thorough analysis and I am going to define the average family as being a family of four individuals with two working adults with two children and with a combined family income of $44,000. Some people will make more than that and some less, but that is your average combined income in Canada today from the cities of central Canada and into the regions. When you add it up, what does this one budget so far mean in terms of additional costs? It means an addition of $710 per family. We know how in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 the Conservatives increased all of those taxes year after year, budget after budget, but on top of all of that, this is an extra $710 per family.
What is silent, of course, is the national sales taxes coming next year. There is no mention in this particular Bill of that, but I think I would be remiss if I did not at least refer to it. It is stage two. This is the softening-up punch and the big one coming on January 1,1990 is going to knock them right out.
What is it going to cost? Leaving aside next year's budget that will probably end up being more, this average family with two people, two children and earning an income of $44,000, it is going to cost them next year an additional $1,000 a year in sales taxes. It will be applied to everything. If you get your hair cut, you are going to be paying an extra 9 per cent. When you go to the movies, you are going to be paying an extra 9 per cent. When you go bowling, you will be paying 9 per cent. When you fill out your will, you will be paying 9 per cent-9, 9, 9 everywhere you go. That is why we call this the beginning of the largest tax grab in Canadian history because next year it is going to be worse.
Your constituents, Mr. Speaker, are living in Edmonton and the Hon. Minister of State (Forestry) (Mr. Oberle) has a number of his constituents living in Prince George and Dawson Creek and a little further west. Both of you will know that an extra $1,000 per family in many cases cannot be handled. That is $700 this year, an extra $1,000 next year, $1,700 out of the pocket of every

family in Edmonton, Red Deer, Prince George, Kamloops, Montreal, Toronto. It is a form of highway robbery.
There is something sinister at work here, and I am not going to suggest that any Minister has had sinister motives by imposing this. I do think it is a plain ordinary tax grab, but what does it mean in the regions of Canada where for every family you pluck out $1,700 in sales and excise taxes and take it down to Ottawa to be used in some cases for rather questionable purposes? What it means is that $1,700 a family will not be in Prince George, $1,700 a family will not be in Edmonton. For all those families circulating between the businesses during the year it will be plucked out in sales taxes and excise taxes and sent down to Ottawa. It means that we are going to be curtailing business opportunities; in other words, the ability of local small businesses to do more business in the future. The money just will not be there. The disposable income just will not be there. When you reach in and pull $1,000 out of your pocket every single year from now on, on top of all the other money you pull out, you will not have that money to spend locally on a pair of new snow tires or some children's running shoes.
This national sales tax is actually going to put a tax on children's clothing, running shoes, lunch kits, books, and hats. When you think of it, it is rather a dastardly kind of tax. Yet, while this is taking place, there is no minimum corporate tax being introduced. There is no effort to reduce interest rates. There is no interest reducing the huge corporate loopholes that exist.
I want to refer to some of those corporate loopholes. When one looks at the corporate loopholes and one adds up what they cost taxpayers in taxes not collected, it comes to almost $30 billion. In other words, corporations, if they were paying taxes as most people do, would be paying an extra $30 billion. What is our deficit a year? It is about $30 billion. So the deficit we have is the money that we essentially lose in terms of corporate loopholes. I would ask anyone to find anywhere in our country a single tax lawyer, tax expert or accountant to identify a single corporate loophole where we get good return on the money that we lose.
Excise Tax Act
I have asked some of my colleagues to use this debate to identify which corporate loopholes give us value for money. The financial advisers, tax lawyers and accountants that I have heard from cannot identify one, at least not in public. They like them because corporations get good deals. I challenge anyone here or anyone listening or watching to identify a single corporate tax exemption that costs taxpayers money and lost revenue where we get more than that investment in the long term. I do not think it can be done.
I ask the question: when you add up the $30 billion in lost taxes, is it worth it? What are we getting for it? This is an analysis that must be done. If we are going to slap every working family with an extra $1,700 in sales and excise taxes, surely to goodness at the same time we should be spending time looking at other ways and means of increasing income as opposed to simply relying on those same taxpayers that have none of these tax incentive programs of which to take advantage. The few that they did have have now been eliminated, such as the regular tax deductions for medicare, medical costs and so on as well as the investment income. Now they have to be declared as well. Where are we going?


Mr. Oberle:: I am going to Kamloops on Thursday.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My hon. friend, the Minister of State for Forests, indicates that he is going to Kamloops on Thursday. When he has the opportunity to talk in Kamloops, I hope he will explain the value of the national sales tax that takes effect next year.
There is another problem associated with this national sales tax of which the Minister will be aware. A 9 per cent increase on all goods and services will obviously increase the cost of living. The cost of a haircut will go up 9 per cent. The price of children's shorts will go up 9 per cent. The cost of running shoes will go up 9 per cent. The cost of everything will increase by 9 per cent.
What will the Governor of the Bank of Canada do in his usual knee-jerk reaction when he sees the cost of living go up by 9 per cent? He will predict that inflation will rise by some 3 per cent, making the inflation rate in Canada about 7 per cent or 8 per cent. John Crow, the

June 6, 1989
Excise Tax Act
Governor of the Bank of Canada, will flip out and say that now is the time to increase interest rates substantially-
Not only is the Government going to hit consumers with $710 worth of sales and excise taxes, and on New Year's Day hit them with another 9 per cent sales tax across the board for another $1,000 out of the pockets of every family in Canada, the Governor of the Bank of Canada will surprise Canadians by jacking up interest rates immediately to curtail any increase in inflation.
Canadians cannot and will not take it any more. There is a limit. Canadians will no longer stand for it because of the discrimination in our tax system. They know that while Bill C-20 will result in many additional taxes for them other people will pay nothing.
I hope my hon. friends across the way will stand in their places during this debate and explain why they think this is a good idea. I hope they can explain how ordinary families can be taxed, while companies like Hees International, Cadillac Fairview, Alcan Aluminium, and Brascan do not pay any taxes in many years.
I ask my hon. friends opposite to explain the benefits of this policy and to explain why they believe an increase in these taxes at this time is a good idea when the Government at the same time is dismantling the Canadian economy as part of the trade deal.
The construction aspect of these tax increases is particularly interesting. I had an opportunity to speak to the Interior Construction Association in British Columbia about what it thought of this recent government initiative. I asked whether it thought an increase in the tax on construction materials made much sense.
I was rather astounded by the association's response that it had been to Ottawa to talk to some of the cabinet Ministers about this construction tax and thought it was told that the Government would actually eliminate the tax on construction materials. It is not surprising that it was before November 21 that the Government informed the association that it would actually eliminate tax on construction material.
The elimination of such a tax would make much sense in terms of kick starting the construction industry into high gear, to say nothing of what it would do for the forest industry in light of the additional home construction across the country. That too would have incredible spin-off for job creation, investment, and economic development.
Not only did the Government not eliminate the tax on construction material, it decided to increase it, to the disbelief of the construction industry.
I will not say that the industry was misled or misinformed, because that would be too obvious. However, it is perplexed at how the Government thinks this will help the economy or generate additional economic activity and revenue to the Treasury.
Perhaps I have said enough for the moment on this matter of taxes. The Bill we are debating represents an unprecedented tax grab. This debate will be the acid test to see whom Members represent in the House. While I do not know about members of the Liberal Party I assume they will oppose this measure.


Mr. Milliken:: We have already said we will.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have not heard members on the government side say that they will represent their constituents this time as opposed to supporting a Minister of Finance who should not be there. Every financial writer in the country I know has said he should not be the Minister of Finance, but the Minister does not listen and simply stumbles ahead.
This is a test to see whether Conservative Members opposite represent the construction industry in their constituencies. If they do, they will surely not suggest that an increase in tax on construction materials will be appropriate.
Will they represent ordinary working families? If so, I do not think ordinary working families want to see an increase of $1,700 a year on an already incredibly high tax burden that is weighing them down. Do Hon. Members want an inflationary factor introduced with the introduction of a new sales tax? If they really want to hold down inflation in an effort to keep interest rates down, they will vote against this Bill.
Let me return to the whole matter of the legitimacy of this initiative in the first place. The Minister of Finance said that the federal sales tax he would introduce will be revenue neutral. Subsequently he said that it would really generate a whooping $23.5 billion a year in revenue.
June 6, 1989

Excise Tax Act
The Hon. Member for Mississauga South, the chairman of the finance committee, said that this would be an incredible tax grab, essentially a printing press for money.


Mr. Reid:: He said that before the election.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Before the election. Now that he has been made chairman he toned it down somewhat. He still stands by his words.
This will be a massive tax grab by an illegitimate Minister in a Budget that should not proceed, through legislation that we should not be debating.
How does this affect our international reputation? What do countries throughout the world think about Canada when they see its Government loading such an incredible debt on working Canadians, a small portion of the population, while letting others go tax exempt? What does it say about a Minister of Finance and a Government that will do nothing about these leaks of budget information to privileged people in advance?
The best barometer to judge this is the money markets. There was a downward movement of the Canadian dollar as a reflection of the loss of faith in the Minister. I assume they are waiting for him to resign. They will be waiting for that good news for a long time.
We oppose Bill C-20, even its title. Normally, the Opposition opposes various clauses of a Bill. However, when we are eventually asked if we support the title of this Bill, we will have to say no because it is not accurate. The title should read: "A massive Canadian Government tax grab of working families". We hope that government Members will speak for their constituents, do the honourable thing and vote against this Bill so we will not have to examine it clause by clause in committee.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-20, a Bill that will increase certain taxes. When we look at tax increases, we wonder, and I am sure Canadians are wondering, why we have these tax increases. Why did the Government take a step that is not necessarily very popular? I don't think many Canadians are delighted to hear they will have to pay more taxes. So why? Because, Mr. Speaker, and we often forget this, because the figures involved are enormous!
We must remember that in 1984, when this Government was elected, the national debt, in other words, the money Canada owed, was $200 billion. In other words, before 1984, over the years from, let us say, 1968 to 1984, the Government of the time annually spent more money than it was receiving in the Treasury, and it did that for 20 years, leaving the Conservative Government which took its place a bill for $200 billion. I often hear Opposition Members say: Yes, but you made it even worse. I agree, Mr. Speaker, that the national debt has increased by $120 billion since 1984, but if we calculate the interest charges paid annually since 1984 on their debt, these charges add up to $120 billion. So since 1984, if we exclude the interest charges on the debt that was a legacy from the previous Government, this government has had a balanced budget practically every year. However, we now have a situation where our debt is $320 billion.
Expressed in figures more readily understood by you and me, this means 3 million per hour. Our national debt, the money Canada owes, is increasing by $3 million per hour or $80 million every day, just because a previous Government spent a lot more money than it was able to collect. So now, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where some very vigorous concrete measures must be taken if we are to control our annual deficit and the national debt, which has grown to enormous proportions.
Last week I was talking to people in the riding of Trois-Rivieres, as the Hon. Member for the NDP said, to small business people, Mr. Speaker, people who have a business and employees, and so forth, who are aware of the national debt problem, and who are in favour of the measures that have been taken, although they realize they will have to pay a little more.
The Canadian people, Mr. Speaker, want a Government whose first goal is a healthy economy, because a healthy economy means new jobs, and new jobs in turn mean bread and butter for everybody. And if we are to have a healthy economy and new jobs, the starting point is good management putting our own house in order. This is what the last Budget is all about. This is what has been done with increases in certain taxes-19 per cent on liquor. I am not aware of anyone opposing increased taxes on liquor and tobacco products. Nine per cent on building materials is still less than the general federal

June 6, 1989
Excise Tax Act
sales tax. Starting January 1st, 1990, there will be an 11 per cent tax on communication services. Finally, the rate will be 13.5 per cent on every other product already subject to the federal sales tax!
It is interesting to note the Liberal Finance critic stated the federal sales tax was regressive. The federal sales tax as we know it is 65 this year. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, the time definitely has come to retire it. This is why we came up with a new tax, a new way of taxing, that will be introduced on January 1, 1991. But in the meantime we had to increase the existing tax. But the reason why this sales tax is not regressive is that we are the first Government to innovate, as you will recall, before 1984 the previous Liberal Government used to increase the federal sales tax, period! We have introduced and this is why I refer to our being innovative a refundable federal income tax credit on sales tax. In the case of adults in 1989 it increases from $70 to $100, and for children, from $35 to $50. In 1990, the credit for adults increases from $100 to $140, and for children, from $50 to $70. This means that in 1990, a family with two adults and two children with an income of $18,000 or less will receive $420 to make up for the increase in the federal sales tax.
When I hear a self-appointed finance expert suggest that tax is regressive, Mr. Speaker, I believe he is on the wrong track. Statistics reveal that with an amount of $420 the two-adult family with two children will not be affected at all by this tax increase. I referred to the $18,000 threshold, Mr. Speaker, because you know that this year it is set at $16,000. It will rise to $18,000 next year.
I heard the Hon. Member say that the federal sales tax costs more in remote regions such as that of my colleague from Newfoundland and others. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely one of the reasons why our system has to be overhauled. The tax now applies at the manufacturer level. Nobody knows about it, it is hidden. Just ask your constituents who knows there is a 12 or 13.5 per cent manufacturer tax on practically all consumer goods.
In addition a number of provinces levy a sales tax on top of the federal sales tax. In other words the Canadian consumer, say in Quebec, now pays close to 23 or 24 per
cent in provincial and federal sales taxes. That is sheer lunacy! What we want is to levy a 9 per cent retailer sales tax on goods, products and services. This way the Canadian consumer will see for himself how much the tax costs because it will no longer be hidden. Since the tax will apply to all goods and services it will be the same everywhere, easy to collect and more equitable as well.
I repeat that we will not hit low income families because the refundable tax credit we have devised will be maintained and even paid in advance. To put it another way, when the new tax becomes effective on January 1, 1991 families will already have received their first advance cheques. That, Mr. Speaker, is what I call fairness, justice and innovation, something both Opposition Parties have not even thought of!
Mr. Speaker, in speeches on the Budget after it is presented or on any bill having to do with taxation, unfortunately, we never hear positive suggestions from the Liberals or New Democrats. What did they suggest to improve the tax system, as we are prepared to do, to lower the deficit while at the same time ensuring that the Canadian economy will continue to operate well as it has done? You know that nearly one and a half million jobs were created in the past four years. But why were the jobs created? They were created because there was a government that managed the economy in such a way that jobs were created.
Mr. Speaker, eleven years ago, in 1978, I was studying for my master's in taxation at the University of Sherbrooke and the professor, a brilliant tax expert, especially on the federal sales tax, Normand Guerin by name, said in 1978: "The present federal sales tax system is archaic and no longer meets the needs of the country, much less of manufacturers, business people and the general public".
He said: It is unfortunate that the government in power is afraid to make changes because it is very complicated and it is not necessarily easy to tell people, "There is a hidden 12 per cent tax. We mil abolish it and replace it with a 9 per cent tax that you will see". Certainly, the people must understand that there is now a 12 per cent tax, which will be replaced by a 9 per cent tax!

So, that Liberal Government never had the decency, the courage or the nerve to implement a system that would benefit everyone and that at the same time would help reach this Government's first objective: restoring public finances.
Mr. Speaker, I am flabbergasted when I realize that the Government of Canada will have to pay this year $39 billion only to cover the interest on the debt which the previous Liberal Government left us as a legacy. Imagine, $39 billion!
Mr. Speaker, you know as I do what we could do with so much money. If we did not have to pay our national debt, we would have money a-plenty for Old Age Security pensions, daycare programs, research and development, environmental protection, etc. But we are saddled with this burden, we have this almost grotesque problem to solve before even considering any further investments in social, economic and cultural programs.
I was listening a while ago to a Member of the New Democratic Party who claimed that many corporations do not pay any corporate income tax. I do not know just how many do not, but my Honourable friend failed as usual to indicate that the corporations who do not pay any income tax may have one of two perfectly legitimate reasons for not doing so.
One of these reasons could be that they might have incurred losses in previous years and had elected, pursuant to the Income Tax legislation, to apply these losses against their profits for the current year. But this is something which is available not only to corporations, but to ordinary Canadian men and women, including you, Mr. Speaker, as well as all the Members of this House. If your corporation came out the loser following a bad transaction in 1989, and if it shows a profit in 1990, you may apply this loss incurred in 1989 against your profit in 1990. You would certainly run the risk of being revilled by my NDP friend as one who does not pay income tax. I am not saying that he tried to mislead the public, but he certainly failed to thoroughly explain the fine points of the Income Tkx legislation as it applies to corporations and individuals.
Another reason which might explain why your corporation does not pay any income tax is if you have made a major investment which entitles you to amortization. It is a well-known fact that amortization is deemed an
Excise Tax Act
admissible expense which can be applied against a corporation's profit.
These are the two reasons which might explain why you are not paying any income tax.
The Hon. Member forgot to mention on the other hand that it was this Conservative Government which has implemented since 1986 a minimum income tax scheme, so that individuals earning $100,000, $50,000 or $25,000 have a minimum income tax to pay. This obviously was an oversight on his part.
He also emphasized the fact that all Canadians will be paying more income tax. But he forgot to point out, Mr. Speaker, that with the 1988 tax reform 85 per cent of Canadians pay less income tax than before. That he forgot to mention. Eighty five per cent of Canadians pay less income tax and if I remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, one million Canadians do not pay income tax any more because of tax reform. Measures have been implemented and Canadians have realized it after filing their income tax returns this year.
Many residents of my constituency of Trois-Rivieres, who were skeptical after tax reform was announced, have told me: "Sir, you were right. It's true! We are paying less income tax for 1988 than 1987. Your reform is good and worthwhile." At the same time, companies and businesses have seen their income tax rates go up.
I think it is normal that businesses pay their fair share but we should bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that they are the ones that create the jobs in this country. If we had the same rationale as NDP Members, we would tax businesses 100 per cent. They would not make any profits at all and would only pay taxes.


Mr. Langlois:: They would not be in business for long.


Pierre H. Vincent: My colleague, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for the beautiful riding of Manicouagan (Mr. Langlois) made a quite logical and realistic comment: "They would not be in business for long". As a matter of fact, if we want our Canadian businesses to make progress, they should make normal profits, they should pay a reasonable tax rate to be able to reinvest then-profits, thus make a move forward and automatically create new jobs in the process.

June 6, 1989
Mr. Speaker, if we compare the 1980-84 Liberal Government with ours regarding job creation, we created 10 times more jobs than the previous Liberal Government. Even better, 9 jobs out of 10 that we created were permanent, while under the Liberal Government, 9 jobs out of 10 were temporary. You will recall, M. Speaker, the nice programs implemented by the Liberals about painting fences, doing housework, repairing different residences, presbyteries, etc. They were calling that job creation. Certainly, the community that was offered a grant was very proud and happy. But those were not permanent jobs. When the construction is over and the painting done, the job is gone!
So there was a "work/no work" cycle. That was the cycle we had from 1980 to 1984, but now, we see the real job creation that has taken place, despite tax increases, Mr. Speaker, since 1984.
No company or government can go into debt all the time and hope that one day the debt problem will solve itself. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Members of the other two parties to come up with ideas-concrete, realistic suggestions-for, first, reducing the deficit and, second, creating jobs, while solving the national debt problem.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating to me that my time has expired. Thank you. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge all Hon. Members of the House to vote for the adoption of Bill C-20 as quickly as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, while anxious to reduce the deficit, the federal Government proposes to finance a very costly project named OSLO for the extraction of oil from tar sands. This would significantly increase carbon dioxide pollution at a time
when scientists are urging a reduction if we really want to slow down the global warming trend.
If the Government is really concerned about global warming, if the Government cares about the greenhouse effect it must put a stop to the OSLO oil sands project and any other fossil fuel megaproject which increases our dependence on oil.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Epp) is a minister of the environment. His energy policies are of great environmental importance. Oil extraction megaprojects and nuclear power are not the foundations on which to build a sound environmental energy policy. If the Minister of Energy is to keep the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on sustainable development, he should cancel these projects.



SOLIDARITY


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, the Solidarity Union movement, outlawed until two months ago, appears headed for a massive victory in Sunday's Polish elections.
Millions of Poles eagerly and gladly seized their first opportunity since World War II to exercise their limited yet very significant freedom through secret ballots to vote against the Communist Government and for their Solidarity candidates.
I am sure that all Members of this House would want to join with me in congratulating the Solidarity movement, and its leaders for their persistence and courage over the years and for their excellent performance Sunday, June 4, in this historic milestone in democratic reform in Poland. Father Popieluszko would have been overjoyed to have seen what took place in Poland on Sunday.
I urge the Government of Canada to do all in its power to support the democratic reform process under way in Poland today.
June 6, 1989



WORLD WAR II


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, much of the world is looking and remembering D-Day. We Canadians in particular have a special reason to recall June 6, 1944.
This morning representatives of all Canadian units involved in D-Day and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Merrithew) were at the Beny-Sur-Mer Canadian war cemetery in Normandy. There are over 2,000 Canadians buried there, young men killed either on D-Day itself or in the follow-up drive to push inland.
We naturally think of D-Day as an event colossal in scope but in truth D-Day was like any other battle. Success or failure depended on a series of individual engagements.
Today let us bless the memory of those Canadians who fought those individual battles. Some are buried in Beny-Sur-Mer. Some went on to liberate The Netherlands less than a year later. All helped to restore freedom to Europe. Our gratitude has not faded with time, and let us hope it never will.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, on May 19, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. James) handed a little note to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, the contents of which will spell death to the centre and its work by 1991. Their demand for full cost recovery by the centre is nothing less than unjustifiable discrimination. Why the double standard?
If 1,000 Canadians per year were to die, 20,000 permanently disabled and hundreds of thousands suffer illness or injury due to any one choice of personal life style, unhealthy diet, or smoking or drinking, the Government would and does pay the bill, however inadequately, for research and dissemination of free public health information and warnings.
But if you are a Canadian worker who will, in fact, suffer these casualty rates every year as a result of simply working for a living-not much choice there-the Conservatives say "Root, hog or die" and pay your own way.
This is not a class act. This is an act of class discrimination. I urge the Government to reverse its decision, restore funding to the centre and allow Canadian workers equal access to the information which will grant them the right to work and to live in the safest environment possible.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to bring to the attention of the Government a matter of grave concern.
A publication of the Library of Parliament Research Branch entitled "Railway Safety, 1988" points out that more people are killed at level crossings than in derailments and collisions. The Foisey Report and the inquiry into the Mississauga derailment addressed the latter two issues. These inquiries also point out safety concerns regarding crews and equipment. A constituent believes that an inquiry into level crossing accidents would point out several deficiencies with inadequate visibility being the most common.
On November 12, 1988, three young people were killed and in 1975 two people were killed at Mile 46.76 of the CPR mainline north of Cambridge. In correspondence and interviews with my constituents there is reason to believe that these accidents could have been avoided if proper warning signals were in place. As five people have now died at this crossing, I urge the Department of Transport to install automatic railway crossing signals at side road 30 in the Township of Puslinch.



HISTORICAL EVENTS


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, June 7, Sikh Canadians will join the 15 million Sikh adherents world-wide to commemorate the execution of a great religious leader, the Guru Arjan Devji, who compiled the Sikh teachings into a single volume

June 6, 1989
5. Q 31
that became the scriptural base of Sikhism. The Guru Arjan Devji was executed for his refusal to renounce the principles of his faith.
More than 100,000 Canadians adhere to Sikhism. Their teachings have since the 16th century stressed the equality of men and women, opposed discrimination in all its forms and emphasized philanthropy, family and the maintenance of a moral, responsible and selfless everyday life.
Sikh Canadians have made, and continue to make, a great contribution to Canada. They hold firmly the noble principles of their faith and their origin. I would like to convey to them my respect and admiration and to join with them in commemoration of this special day of remembrance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of National Access Awareness Week, I think it would be appropriate to ask ourselves individually and collectively whether we are really doing enough to help disabled people participate fully in community life. The disabled have the same basic needs as the rest of the population. However, obstacles have sometimes hindered their autonomy-in transportation, housing, employment, recreation or education.
To pay tribute to the communities that have done the most to integrate the disabled in each of the five areas that I just named, the Department of the Secretary of State together with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is sponsoring the Five-Star Community Prize Program. The Five-Star Community Prize is the highest award a community can obtain in recognition of its efforts to integrate the disabled. Mr. Speaker, many organizations in my riding are working on this and I am sure that they all deserve this prize!



AIR CANADA


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, later this month at the beginning of the tourist season on Prince Edward Island, Air Canada will end its direct flights from Ottawa to Charlottetown. This move will add time and money to the cost of doing business on the Island. It will discourage tourists from visiting and it will create an inconvenience for Islanders. It is also insulting that a provincial capital is losing its direct flight from the nation's capital for economic reasons.
Economics is all this Government seems to care about. But 125 years ago when the Fathers of Confederation met in Charlottetown to plan this country, they had a vision for Canada which included more than economics. So I urge this Government to reconsider its transportation policy because the people of Prince Edward Island deserve better.



FISHERIES


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, during the past few months there has been some considerable discussion as to which area of Canada truly deserves the title of "Lobster Capital of Canada".
Some have suggested Shediac, New Brunswick because of its long history of participation in this industry. But clearly that participation is dwindling. Some have suggested Yarmouth, Nova Scotia because so many lobsters have been shipped through that historic port.
But surely so distinguished a title can only rightfully be attributed to the place in Canada where the most lobsters are caught, the most lobsters are landed, where the dollar value of landings is the greatest, and that place clear and away is Shelburne County, Nova Scotia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter L. McCreath: Accordingly, with the mandate given to me by the people of South Shore, Nova Scotia, I hereby declare and proclaim, without fear of retribution or

contradiction, that Shelburne County, Nova Scotia is the lobster capital of Canada.
Furthermore, I would like to bring to the attention of Parliament and all Canadians and issue an invitation to all to attend the Third Annual Shelburne County Lobster Festival to be held this weekend, June 9 to June 12 in the Lobster Capital of Canada, Shelburne County, Nova Scotia.



FORESTRY

[Stage Direction]
EXPIRY OF FEDERAI^PROVINCIAL AGREEMENTS
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, forest resource development agreements between the federal Government and six provinces expired on March 31. Yesterday, at the signing of the Constitution of the Canadian Woodlot Owners Federation, the president of the organization said that the lack of new agreements is wreaking havoc on planning by woodlot owners and other producers in the forest sector. He went on to say that further delays will be disastrous.
Recent Budget cuts clearly indicate that this Government is prepared to sacrifice the future of the forest industry. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will be in B.C. this week to address a Conservative Party fund-raising dinner. In light of the Minister of Forests failure to deliver forestry agreements, the Prime Minister should make a commitment to British Columbia and this country to fund forest agreements.



TRANSPORTATION


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the situation is desperate at the Port of Churchill in northern Manitoba.
After signing a $90 million agreement just four years ago to rebuild the port, the present Conservative Government has allowed the Canadian Wheat Board and CN to renege on their commitments. Just two weeks ago, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) confirmed that no grain shipments will be made through the port this year. Rather than look for alternate and creative ways of
utilizing the port, the Government has preferred to ignore the problem.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to an innovative proposal which has been put forward by the Member from Niakwa in the Manitoba legislature. He has introduced a private members' resolution recommending that the federal Government designate Churchill as the port for federal commodity and foreign aid purposes. Rather than losing Churchill to further neglect, the federal Government could give this new mandate to ship all foreign food in through the port of Churchill and thereby provide aid for the countries of Africa, and to provide major stimulus and economic health for a port in our own country.
I applaud and support this creative initiative. I recommend it to the federal Government as a way of dealing with an important port in an important province.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Garth  Ttorner@Halton-Peel: Mr. Speaker, last weekend I worked with a number of citizens in communities in my riding, Bolton and Burlington, doing something for the environment.
We did not have a meeting. We did not talk. We did not prepare a report or pass any resolution. Instead, we got our hands and our boots dirty, scouring ditches for litter and pulling old car parts from a creek.
There were not as many people out helping as I had hoped, but I think this tells us something valuable. This is Environment Week. It comes at a time when our public opinion polls show that environmental concerns are of the utmost importance to average Canadians. It is still easier to talk about the environment than to do something about it. My weekend experiences certainly reinforced that.
It is time for a change in attitudes. It is time to recognize that we all have an activist role to play when it comes to ensuring that future generations of Canadians have a clean world to inherit from us.
In our everyday lives, we have choices about buying groceries with excessive packaging, about the disposal of paint cans and batteries, about whether we substitute natural substances for harmful household cleaners, and about conserving our water and making sure we drive in a way that does not create air pollution. Protecting the

June 6, 1989
environment is not somebody else's job, Mr. Speaker. It is yours and mine, so it is time we all did something about it.



HEALTH AND SAFETY


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, over
800,000	work days are lost annually by Canadians to disabling injuries and over 440 lives are lost annually in Canada due to industrial accidents.
As a result, more than $7 billion is spent annually to cover medical expenses, compensation for lost earnings, pensions, insurance and loss of production. Accidents carry a high price. Recently, the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System was imposed by Governments across Canada. It ensures access to data and instruction on how to handle dangerous material by workers. This, however, did little to change the working environment.
Canadian occupational health and safety statistics are abysmal and becoming worse. In spite of this, the Government has seen fit to decrease funding by over 11 per cent towards occupational health and safety.
Canadian workers do not deserve more cuts, Mr. Speaker. They deserve action and more direct input into resolving and eliminating occupational hazards in the workplace.



THE PUNJAB


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the fifth anniversary of the storming of the Golden Temple in the Punjab by the Indian army. It is therefore appropriate to reflect on the ongoing problems faced by the Sikh community in India.
Amnesty International reports allegations that dozens of political prisoners in Indian prisons have died after being tortured while in police custody and also that there have been staged encounters by the police in which political activists were killed. Other reports indicate that
hundreds of Sikhs are being kept in jail awaiting trial, many without any formal charges against them.
Included among those imprisoned is a Canadian landed immigrant, Mr. Amaijit Singh Sohi, a member of the Punjabi Literary Association of Edmonton. He went to India last April to work in drama and human rights groups, and was arrested in November while attending a convention. He was charged with being a Sikh terrorist. There is apparently no evidence to support the charge, but Mr. Sohi remains in detention.
Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of Sikh people favour a peaceful resolution of the difficulties in the Punjab. Continued harassment and repression by Indian authorities contribute nothing to such a resolution. I urge the Canadian Government to use its influence and express our concern to India regarding that country's treatment of Sikhs, and particularly Canadian Sikhs who visit India.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton):: Mr. Speaker, in the context of National Environment Week in Canada, I wish to remind Canadians that there are two distinct perspectives evolving in the world's approach to managing our planet earth, both for our and future generations.
Dr. Jim MacNeill, Secretary of the World Commission on Environment and Development, has made these two perspectives very clear. The first is environmental protection, the area with which we have thus far been primarily concerned. It is critical that we intensify our efforts to clean and protect our environment from the ways we abuse and misuse its resources. We should understand though that in so doing, we are generally reacting to effects from our activities.
The second is sustainable development, the more recent recognition that merely reacting to protect our environment is not enough. We must do more. We must pro-act to manage our future use of the world's resources so that we may cause both those resources and humanity to be sustained in perpetuity.
In both of these perspectives-environmental protection and sustainable development-the world has much to accomplish. Canada can set that lead.
June 6, 1989



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Thrner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question or two for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Canadians and the world watch in horror as events unfold of the terrifying spectacle in the most populous nation on earth. The world watches as young Chinese are killed because Government leaders there are playing power games and because the Chinese authorities refuse to recognize the legitimacy of a valued and brave struggle for freedom.
When does he anticipate that Canadians will have been evacuated from China? How many Canadians does the Government expect will remain in that country?
I would like to ask him whether, upon reflection overnight, he has come to a decision, which I urge him to take, to use our seat on the Security Council of the United Nations to initiate a motion of censure in that body against the People's Republic of China.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition for his questions. He placed three.
A chartered Canadian Airlines International aircraft is on its way to Beijing. It will be leaving Beijing, carrying more than 200 Canadians out. It will be leaving in about 12 hours from now en route to Tokyo. There are about 210 Canadians who have indicated an interest in being on the aircraft. There are still spaces available.
It is our intention to remove all Canadians from Beijing with the exception of about 20 of the more senior officials of the Department of External Affairs who will remain on site for the foreseeable future. If circumstances require their removal, then that will be done.
At the moment we are not recommending the evacuation from other points in China of other Canadians who are there. There are about 300 other Canadians else
Oral Questions
where in China. We have identified the whereabouts of virtually all of them, although we are checking to make sure that we know the exact location of tourists or business persons who might be in some more remote parts of the country. We have arrangements in place, if necessary, to bring them out.
We have dispatched today a Canadian Air Force plane which will stand by on a military base in Japan in case there is a need for further evacuation.
With respect to the actions in the United Nations, as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and other Members of the House made clear last night, this country has been very active in the recent and, until this point, progressive history of China. We have excellent credentials to exercise a leadership role in responding to these tragic events.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will know the judgment of the Secretary General of the United Nations who drew attention yesterday to the requirements of the Charter of the United Nations, that the United Nations should abstain from intervention in regard to matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states. Obviously, disorder and conflict in a country as large and as powerful as China cannot long remain an internal matter.
One hour ago I was in touch with Ambassador Fortier in the United Nations. He is continuing his active consultations with members of the Security Council and other members of the United Nations to explore every possible and practical opportunity for Canada to exercise leadership in allowing the United Nations also to express its outrage at these actions and perhaps to have an influence that could encourage Chinese leaders to adopt a more positive, less dangerous course.


CONSULTATIONS WITH OTHER NATIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the thoroughness of the Minister's answers on the information I requested in the first part of my question.
I would urge him with respect to the United Nations to recognize that human rights know no boundaries or frontiers and that this is an issue involving human kind. I know he wants to act prudently. I hope that he acts

June 6, 1989
Oral Questions
decisively on behalf of the people of Canada in the United Nations.
Could the Secretary of State be good enough to advise us what consultations his Government has had with the United States, Great Britain, and other nations as to the possible consequences for the world if the current thrust of the Chinese Government persists in that country?
Will the Chinese Government be advised that we in this country will have great difficulty in accepting a transfer of Efong Kong to the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China if these events continue?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the House would expect, we are in active consultation with a range of other countries, not simply our normal allies but a range of other countries with an interest in the stability of China. We are doing that bilaterally. We are doing it at the United Nations, particularly with regard to other members of the Security Council. To a limited degree we are exchanging information on the ground in Beijing among missions that are there.
There are a number of other questions that will have to be faced in the days, perhaps early days to come with relation, for example, to the status of the Chinese application to the GATT, with relation to the future of CIDA projects, with relation to the EDC line of credit, and with relation to the specific question the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has raised concerning the status of Hong Kong.
We are fortunate in this country to have very experienced officials who have spent a lot of time in China. We are making full use of their expertise.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would agree that we do not want to make any of those decisions too quickly, but we want to be in a position to take them immediately when the time is appropriate. I hope that we
are following the course that I believe will put us in that position.


REQUEST AS TO PLANNING OF HUMANITARIAN AID
John Napier Turner: Finally, Mr. Speaker, could the Minister inform the House of the new steps that have been taken or will be taken by Canada to provide humanitarian aid through the Red Cross or other volunteer organizations?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I made it clear last night during the emergency debate here in the House that Canada is prepared to offer humanitarian aid, in response to official requests from the Red Cross and other organizations. So far, I don't think we have received any official requests, but I made it clear that Canada is prepared to make an affirmative response to such requests.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Immigration and it too concerns the situation in China.
Yesterday's announcement to halt deportations of all rejected Chinese refugees for 60 days, along with the Secretary of State's decision not to send back some 4,500 Chinese students presently studying in Canada, was an exemplary response to the tragedy we have all witnessed during the past few days. I commend the Minister and her colleagues in the Government for those decisions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sergio Marchi: Last year, only 2,700 people were landed in Canada from the People's Republic of China. Today the Canadian-Chinese community, which numbers somewhere in the area of 400,000 across Canada, is somewhat concerned for the safety of family members, not only in Beijing but throughout China.
Given the circumstances of the events in China, and the low acceptance rate in the last number of years of Chinese citizens, is the Government prepared to specifically relax the family class and the assisted family class criteria in order that more Canadian-Chinese families will have an easier and more successful time in sponsoring relatives from China to Canada?
June 6, 1989


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his support and sensitivity to the issues before us all in the House.
We will be working closely with my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs to ensure that Canadians of Chinese origin have all the help that they can get in terms of information having to do with their own families.
As the Hon. Member knows, part of the problem has traditionally been the difficulty getting exist visas from China. We will be pursuing every avenue that we can in humanitarian terms with my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PROGRAM FOR CHINESE IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Immigration and, of course, it concerns China.
All Members of the House and Canadians are well aware of the problem and are sympathetic to the Chinese people in their struggle for democracy. While we hope and pray that the situation will improve, in view of the explosive nature of the situation, will the Minister consider setting up a special program to deal with those people who wish to escape China as it presently is?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my first answer, we have great concern and will be working with the Secretary of State on any measures that the Government can do as a whole that can be helpful.
We will also be discussing those measures with the UN High Commissioner on Refugees, as we do when special situations arise, and we will continue to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to help the Chinese.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my comments by complimenting the Government, specifically the Secretary of State for External Affairs, for the high level of competence and the deep level of concern that the Government of Canada is showing in this tragic situation in China.


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


John Edward Broadbent: I assume the Minister will continue to keep the House informed both of new developments in that country and what the Government of Canada is doing.
He *	*


TRANSPORTATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like now to address my question to the Minister of Transport.
I have here a copy of the letter sent from a special adviser to the Prime Minister dated October 14, 1988, that is to say in the middle of the recent federal election campaign, in which this sentence occurs with reference to the plans for VIA Rail:
The plan is for specific capital programs to enhance the quality
and reliability of VIA's services.
It goes on to say: "commitment is made to expand the dollar amount and improve the service of VIA Rail".
Is the Minister of Transport happy that a letter in the middle of an election should be sent out in which a commitment is made to expand and improve VIA Rail service and then after election the Government moves in precisely the opposite direction?


An Hon. Member:: Double-cross.
[ Translation \


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the April Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance was quite clear on the matter. The new reference levels we gave the Crown Corporation VIA Rail basically reflect our ability to invest in a transport mode that Canadians use only 3 to 4 per cent of the time. There is work to be done in developing transportation in Canada, something we have been trying to do since 1984, with relatively conclusive results. However, I repeat, Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear we can no longer afford to invest $600 or $700 million annually in a corporation that Canadians are using less and less or not at all. That is why, in consultation with the Department of Finance and the Government as a whole, we have used reference levels that will enable VIA Rail to let us know, to make proposals that the Government will

June 6, 1989
Oral Questions
deal with accordingly, in turns of the interests of developing transportation in Canada.


REDUCTION OF SERVICES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, one thing is quite clear: During the election campaign, the Government promised one thing, but after the campaign it did the exact opposite. Canadians have no trouble understanding that!
According to a report published today in the Globe and Mail, the Government intends to cut back services in the province of Quebec. The Government promised during the campaign to increase services. There are 33 regional trains running in the province of Quebec, but according to today's report, the Government intends to reduce those 33 regional trains to zero. Is that correct, according to the Minister?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the New Democratic Party knows very well what I think about leaked documents.
For Quebec or for any other province, it is exactly the same. This report has not been given to anybody in the Department. I have never seen the report.
Before the end of June VIA Rail will give the proposals that we have requested. They will be considered by the Government, and then we will give the answer. Until then I have nothing to do with a leaked document.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we know what the Government thinks of leaked documents, and we know what the people of Canada think of this Government, too.


POSITION OF GOVERNMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering the Minister says that he has not received the report yet, will he give us assurances that the Government will not move in the direction indicated in this report?
Specifically it says with reference to regional service in Atlantic Canadathat the recommendation will be to reduce regional service from 52 trains to zero. In terms of western trains the recommendation is to reduce service from 36 trains to 8. As I said earlier, in the Province of Quebec regional service will go from 33 trains to zero.
Since this would amount to the complete decimation of rail service in Canada, will the Minister give us his
assurance that these regional trains will not be reduced along these lines and that the Government will live up to the commitment it made in the 1988 election campaign?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, first I want to deal with what Canadians think about our Party and the Hon. Member's Party. They saw the difference on November 21.
Second, of course I will not give any commitment. VIA Rail will make proposals. We will consider the proposals. We will make a decision. Once again, I will not give any guarantee because VTA Rail has not even given any proposal.


IMPACT OF CORPORATE PLAN
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport, and it concerns the future of VIA Rail in our country.
Today we were advised that VIA Rail's five-year corporate plan will eliminate almost half or 48 per cent of all VIA Rail's total operations as we know them in Canada. This plan calls for the elimination of all 52 regional services in Atlantic Canada, 33 in Quebec, all 23 in Ontario, and 7 in the West. Now that we have heard what the VIA Rail budget cuts were, we know what is the plan for VIA Rail and VIA Rail workers in Canada.
Will the Minister tell the House and Canadians today, especially the workers at VIA Rail, what are the plans for their future employment in Canada?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, my friend is lucky to have been advised about the future of VIA Rail. I have not been yet. I will be, yes; the Minister will be advised, but by VIA Rail of course. We can be advised by the Leader of the Opposition, but what does it mean? I want to be advised by VIA Rail, and when I will be advised by VIA Rail I will make up my mind.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Just in reply to the Minister, some of us were not advised about the Budget, either, but we had to make a comment on it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 6, 1989


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, how has the Minister allowed this corporate plan of VIA Rail to proceed to this extent, to the end of the month when it is going to be revealed, without involving the people who are going to be unemployed, laid off, without involving the communities in small towr or rural Canada that are going to be so disastrously affected? Will he answer that question?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is again assuming that a certain proposal will be made in a document submitted by VIA Rail. I think it only makes sense to wait until proposals are made in terms of the references we have given. Then, and only then, will we be able to criticize the choices that were made, but until those choices are made, I do not intend to refer, I repeat, to leak documents. This is certainly not the way to take a serious approach to the proposals that will be made by VIA Rail. That is quite clear!


THE BUDGET
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and it concerns failed attempts by the Government to hide the second budget leak.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: On May 31,1989 the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 2374 of Hansard and in response to my question:
The suggestion that the Government took a decision to hide
information from the people of Canada is, of course, an absolute and
complete fabrication and falsehood.
Given the latest revelations that Mr. Stanley Hartt, the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff participated in a top level meeting of officials at which it was decided to hide information from Parliament and from the people of Canada, is the Prime Minister now ready to stand up in the House of Commons to tell us how it really happened?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House, the statement made by the Hon. Member on that date was false and a fabrication, and the statement contained in Maclean's magazine this week is false and a fabrication.
Oral Questions


Don Boudria: It is interesting to note that everyone is false except the Prime Minister.


THE SECOND LEAK-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. According to Maclean's magazine, Mr. Hartt, the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, advised the Prime Minister to keep quiet and to hide the second Budget leak from the Canadian people.
Considering these facts, is the Prime Minister now prepared to inform the House why the decision was made to hide the second Budget leak? And who was party to this decision to hide the leak?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion was false in English and is equally false in French.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
During the election campaign in 1988, there was a promise made through the Prime Minister's Office to enhance the quality and reliability of VIA services. In the Budget, not many months later, $1.2 billion was cut from the level of subsidy going from the Government of Canada to VIA Rail. The Government was saying one thing before the election and did exactly the opposite after the election.
Will the Minister be so good as to tell the House what was the difference before and after the election, other than a desire of the Conservative Government to hoodwink the people of Canada just to get elected?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, my friend is referring to before the election. On April 27 the Minister of Finance tabled his Budget in which $500 million less was given to VIA Rail.

June 6, 1989
Oral Questions
We have asked the corporation to tell the Government what it intends to do with the new referred levels. I repeat what we have always said, that we cannot afford to put more money into VIA Rail. We will try to give the services but within the new referred levels.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, there was not much difference in the economy between the time of the election and the Budget. What changed overnight so that in 1988 the Government felt it had enough money in order to enhance the viability of VIA Rail and then turned around and said it did not have the money?
Second, did the Government, not VIA, do any studies whatsoever to determine the level of operating subsidies for VIA Rail, or did it just pick that out of the air?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the studies which have been done were by the Department of Finance on the capacity of Canada to put money in a corporation that is not used by Canadians.


Mr. Benjamin:: Where is the Department of Transport?


Benoît Bouchard: The NDP wants to keep VIA Rail. They do not use VIA Rail.


An Hon. Member:: There are not enough seats.


Benoît Bouchard: I am sorry, we on this side of the House do not have the money that you have.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The saga continues. On May 25, the Hon. Minister of Finance, in response to a question, said:
Mr. Speaker, I made it quite clear that my office knew at 1.30. I found out later in that afternoon.
That was referring to the budget leak. I understand that the questions cause some concern, but they cause concern to a great many more Canadians than just those who sit in the House. That is why they need to be pursued.
On June 5, the Minister of Finance said in response to a question:
When the call came in from Mr. Masterman he went to see the Deputy Minister of Finance, and events moved from there for the further discussion that Mr. Gorbet had with Mr. Masterman and subsequently the RCMP.
The Minister indicated yesterday in his response that it was non-political people who had been involved in this process. My question to the Minister of Finance is fairly direct-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Let's hear it.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put his
question.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the question is very difficult to put because the answers have been tough to get.
Is Mr. Richard Remillard a political appointment on the Minister's staff?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Remillard is a political assistant on my staff.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gloucester on a short supplementary question.


Mr. Andre:: Follow his example and keep it short.


M. Douglas Young: The Hon. Minister is pretty short, and a lot of people know that, in a lot of ways.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Sometimes being short is helpful. Please put the question.


POSITION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Finance still going to stick to his version of how this matter has unfolded, that he is satisfied that his staff did not advise him from 1.30 when they were made aware of this so-called second leak, that he did not advise the House-


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister may wish to reply.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burin-St.
Georges.
June 6, 1989


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Roger E. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It relates to last week's establishment of a working committee between the European Community and the Government to deal with the dispute relating to the transboundary fish stocks off Newfoundland.
The Minister will be aware that his colleague, the Minister for International Trade, has already publicly stated that he does not hold out much hope that the foreign fleets can be convinced not to continue overfishing. He has also dismissed the idea of extending jurisdiction to include the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
Has the Government already thrown in the towel on the whole issue, or is it just diverting attention while it proceeds to cave in to the European Community as it has already done to France in relation to the 3PS fish issue?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, none of the above. What was signed and agreed to in Brussels is an important step forward in terms of process. The Vice-President of the European Community, on behalf of the commission, agreed with Canada to establish a process that would be based upon two very important principles: one being the conservation of the stocks and the other being the principle of rational management.
The case that Canada has been making to the Europeans, to the Community; making bilaterally when the Prime Minister met with the Prime Minister of Spain and the Prime Minister of Portugal; and has been making generally is that if current European overfishing practices continue, there will be no fish left for Canadians, no fish left for Europeans. It is consequently important for us to have the Europeans accept the principle of conservation as a basis of this discussion. That is what has occurred.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


SPECIAL CONTINGENCY PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In Hansard on May 16, in answer to a request by the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's for a special contingency program for the east coast fishery, the Minister said:
I will undertake to appear before the Standing Committee next week and describe in detail the plans which he has asked me to enumerate.
It was a special contingency plan. Yet the Minister came before the committee on May 30 and said: "Business as usual. There will be no special relief plan".
Why did he mislead the House and the fishermen and plant workers of Atlantic Canada? Why does the Government not have a special relief program for Atlantic Canada as it did for farmers in the Prairies and auto workers in Ontario? Why will he not stand up and commit himself to an income support program for Atlantic Canada?
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, first, the plans that I spoke of related to the direction of the question asked by the Hon. Member who asked the previous question, with respect to matters within my jurisdiction as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, dealing with quotas, with enforcement measures, and with the management of the fishery.
I did indeed appear before the committee and attempt to describe those plans in detail but for the insistent interruptions of opposition Members who were more inclined to make speeches than to listen to my detailed response.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NATIONAL STRATEGY ON AIDS
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It deals with the AIDS situation. Yesterday he

June 6, 1989
Oral Questions
made another speech on the question. It was full of words but there was no substance, just as he has done in the last year or so in the House. For example, on May


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question, please.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the many commitments the Prime Minister has made about the programs with regard to AIDS, we have a situation in which the Minister of National Health and Welfare said a couple of times over the last month that we have no AIDS strategy or plan.
Is it the Prime Minister who is right with his grandiose statements about what the Government has done on AIDS, or is it the Minister of Health who is right, who has said we have been slow and we do not have a plan or a strategy to deal with AIDS?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that in the past two years, the federal government's contribution to the conference being held in Montreal has been very substantial.
In June 1988, we added a budget because as a government, we are very concerned about a major social issue that is international in nature. As the Prime Minister said so eloquently yesterday, our concerns are in the areas of education, public awareness and research. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is engaging in consultations at this very moment, and we certainly intend to take the present situation very seriously.


TIMING OF NATIONAL STRATEGY
Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. When are we going to have this strategy? We have had a 2,200 per cent increase in the number of people suffering from AIDS in this country in the five years this Government has been in power and still there is no program.
When are we going to have a strategy? When are we going to have a program to deal with AIDS?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, how can a Member of the House of Commons issue this kind of ultimatum? This is a serious matter. We are concerned, and we are engaged in consultations. We have invested substantial funding, and after these consultations, we intend to respond to specific needs. This Government consults. I think that is to its credit, and we will decide on our strategy when we are ready.


THE BUDGET
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, why does the Minister of Finance find it so difficult to recognize that it is hard to believe that when his departmental assistant was informed by the President of Mutual Life at 1.30 on the afternoon of April 27 of the budget leak the Minister was not advised immediately? It is equally incredible to understand why, when his politically appointed press secretary was informed about the same time, the Minister was not immediately informed.
This being said, why did the Minister at least not come clean with the House of Commons later that afternoon when he presented his Budget? Who authorized this cover-up, not only on April-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question has been put.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, a number of those questions have already been answered, but there is one question that I believe the Hon. Member from New Brunswick was trying to put and the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has put in relation to my press secretary. He was advised some time around three o'clock. I think that that is something that the Right Hon. Member should understand.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that the Minister was not informed immediately. Why did he not present the facts later that afternoon? He has to be involved with an entire governmental decision led by the Prime Minister.
June 6, 1989

Who authorized the cover-up? Why did the Minister of Finance, knowing the necessity for his credibility in the country, accept the judgment of the Prime Minister to cover it up for 28 full days?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of definitions of cover-up. How can there be a cover-up when we went straight to the RCMP and provided them with the information-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday in the House, the Hon. Member for York West criticized the Government for its record on Lebanese immigration to Canada. In the course of doing so, the Member provided certain figures which he said demonstrated the Government's shortcomings in this respect.
Could the Minister please confirm or deny-


An Hon. Member:: Question.


Edna Anderson: -the figures provided to the House yesterday?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have a chance to clarify this matter. As I said yesterday, I have been monitoring this situation virtually on a daily basis.
I know Hon. Members who have an interest in this issue will be glad to know that family class applicants are now receiving service in Cyprus on a walk in basis. I did want to clarify that the number of Lebanese who have been landed in Canada this year is 1,179. That compares with 813 in 1983.


CONFIRMATION OF OFFICIAL FIGURES
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question-


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Sergio Marchi: Relax.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member on a supplementary question.


An Hon. Member:: What is the subject again?


Sergio Marchi: Loosen the pants, Harvie.


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


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question because one of her own Members is alleging that I misled the House, and I did not.
Would the Minister confirm whether or not in the last month after she announced the official person in Cyprus, more than 131 people were landed permanently under her so-called special programs. If that is not the case, then why did her officials give us those figures at last week's committee meetings?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think what is important about this is that the Government has been doing everything that it can in Lebanon.


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Perhaps the Hon. Member would like an answer. The special measures are a continuation of the special measures program that has been in place in Lebanon for some time. They were the special measures which were put in place by the former Government. It is a program that we are proud to continue. We think it is a good program. What we have done is speed up the process, through doing it in Cyprus, and we have landed 1,179 people.


JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, our extradition treaty makes it possible to send someone back to the United States from a Canadian prison at any time the Justice Minister sees possible and would like to do it.
Since the Act does not allow this and it states "shall not send back", and since the departmental officials of the Minister of Justice have agreed that the Act does not agree with the treaty, would he be willing to consider changing the Extradition Act so that it would agree with

June 6, 1989
Oral Questions
the extradition treaty with the United States and we could send these American criminals back to the United States from our Canadian jails before the expiration of their complete sentence, which in some cases is life?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the act clearly states that where there is an extradition arrangement the provisions of the arrangement or the treaty take precedence over the Act.
The decision whether or not to extradite is a decision with discretion in the hands of the Minister of Justice. I appreciate the concerns with respect to the treaty and the Act. As I said before, we are trying to balance our responsibilities under the treaty with the rights of eveiy individual to due process of law.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina -Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. He will know that the preliminary report on the impact study on the Rafferty-Alameda dam project was released yesterday. He will also know that that report identified some very major negative impacts of that project, as well as some major deficiencies on the impact study done by the Province of Saskatchewan.
Is the Government prepared to move to full public hearings, rather than the public meetings they are having now, and an independent panel to deal with this project?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as all Members of the House know, on April 10, Federal Court Judge Mr. Justice Cullen issued an order setting aside the licence granted in June of 1988 on the grounds that the environmental assessment review process had not been complied with. As a result of that court decision, this Government naturally agreed to comply with that request, and we are now in the process of doing so. In fact, what was made public yesterday, or perhaps this morning, was the initial assessment, which is the first stage in that process.
The Minister also agreed, although it is not required by the guidelines, that public meetings be held in several locations in the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba so there be ample opportunity for public input. Those meetings have now been scheduled. They will be held in three localities in Saskatchewan and three localities in Manitoba. There will be ample opportunity for the public to make representation at those meetings.
As a result of this process, and the public input will be a part of that process, the appropriate authorities will then make a recommendation to the Minister, when required, as to whether or not there should be a second stage. That second stage would be the independent panel to which the Hon. Member has referred.


REQUEST FOR FULL PUBLIC HEARINGS TO BE ANNOUNCED
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The report was tabled yesterday revealing the major deficiencies of the Saskatchewan impact studies, on which the licence was issued by this Government, surely that is enough for the Government to declare that there be full public hearings held. In other words, move the process over. Don't wait to decide whether you will hold public hearings somewhere down the road.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, there are guidelines in place. I would note as well that Mr. Justice Cullen in his review of the case before him gave those guidelines virtually the force of law. We are now complying with those guidelines.
In this particular case, as the Hon. Member said, a detailed document was made available to the public. I note that the detail in this document surely puts to rest the criticisms of those groups which have said this process is a white-wash. It very clearly is not a whitewash.


FINANCE
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The present system of tax benefits for northern and isolated
June 6, 1989

Point of Order-Mr. Angus
areas is unfair. Some towns manage to qualify, while nearby communities are denied the benefits.
Last week the Minister of Finance announced in a press release that he was changing the mandate of the Task Force on Northern Benefits because it would provide more flexibility.

The press release issued by the Minister of Finance was obviously intended to influence the task force's report. Could the Minister inform the Flouse whether he intends to eliminate these benefits in communities that already receive them, or could the Minister inform the Flouse whether he now intends to deny these benefits to the communities that deserve them and are not receiving them, as is the case with the communities in my own riding of Restigouche?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member has said, we did ask a task force to review the whole system of northern benefits. That task force is still operating. I expect we will have its report sometime later this year, October or November. After we receive the report, we will be able to make decisions based on the recommendations they make.

[Translation)


PANEL OF CHAIRMEN OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that the names of the additional Members appointed under the provisions of Standing Order 112 to constitute the Panel of Chairmen are as follows: Maurice Dionne, Louis Plamondon, Geoff Scott, Marcel Tremblay and Brian White.


POINT OF ORDER
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, having given you notice at the first opportunity since I discovered some new information.
Yesterday in this House, dealing with a piece of legislation at approximately five o'clock, the Acting Speaker put the question on the approval at second reading. By my eye, the clock was past 5 p.m. When I raised the matter with the Deputy Speaker, he indicated that his clock showed it was not yet five o'clock.
However, I noticed in today's Hansard on page 2579, and you will note that Hansard duly records the times based on ten-minute intervals, but immediately following the notation of (1700), Hansard reads:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the said motion?
I want to make two brief points. It is clear that there is some disagreement as to which clock says what. I accept the words of the Deputy Speaker when he indicates to us that his clock showed it was not yet five o'clock. However, that is different from what Hansard shows and what the clock in the Chamber showed.
Mr. Speaker, I want to respectfully request, because two out of three clocks said it was after five o'clock, that you rule the matter is still before us. Therefore, the vote that is scheduled for six o'clock should be cancelled and we can resume debate on this particular Bill under Government Orders at the appropriate time.
Secondly, and I think more importantly in the long term, we should move to have electronic digital-display clocks that are clearly visible to all of us, both the Speaker and the Members of the House, so there can be no question on this matter. This has happened a number of times before, usually around the adjournment hour. Clearly, the Standing Orders show that at exactly five o'clock on Tuesdays we go to Private Members' Business. In fact, my colleagues and I assumed that would happen and were quite surprised by the quick move to complete the debate on that particular Bill.

June 6, 1989
Point of Order-Mr. Angus
I accept your judgment, Mr. Speaker, and I want to draw it to your attention and ask that you pursue these two matters.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, that was legislation standing in my name. It is quite clear that when the Acting Speaker was in the chair yesterday that he was seeing the clock and felt it was well within the rules that the question be put.
There is another question that must be addressed, and it relates to something that has been ongoing for some time. It is one thing to make an argument the day after that the clock was not seen accurately. However, the Hon. Member who just spoke, was not in his seat. In fact, he was speaking to the Whip of the Liberal Party at that time. When he was speaking to the Whip of the Liberal Party at the Whip's desk, the Acting Speaker called whether there was any further debate, and the NDP had exhausted the number of speakers they had in the House at that time. So there was the time-honoured attempt by the NDP to put forward a specious point of order in order that they could get the time past five o'clock so that the Speaker could not put the question.
That is what happened yesterday, and I believe the Acting Speaker was well within the rules of the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Hon. Minister, I must disagree. We all recognize that this place operates on goodwill.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: On rules, too.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As well as rules.
At about five o'clock, there were considerable negotiations taking place between the parties. The Whips, Deputy Whips and Deputy House Leaders were discussing the matter of achieving unanimity on a motion that could be put before the House in terms of the Adjournment Debate later in the evening.
Just prior to five o'clock, when the Hon. Member was in the lobby watching the clock so that he could come in to participate in the debate, he noticed that the clock said 5 p.m. When the clock says 5 p.m., very clearly that is when the adjournment occurs in terms of the debate.
As Hansard points out on page 2579, it is very clear that five o'clock had arrived. After five o'clock is when the Acting Speaker then asked, "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?''
It is very clear by reading Hansard that that was after five. Naturally, no one from the government side or the opposition side would be rising to speak because five o'clock had come and passed.
What we are doing is suggesting that the vote scheduled to occur at six o'clock is out of order, that had the Speaker followed the traditional rules, followed the traditions of the House and been sensitive to the very important negotiations that were under way at that moment, no way would we have had the question put in a period after 5 p.m.
We are asking that you rule on this matter and suggest that we have two or three additional speakers, Members who were awaiting an opportunity to participate in this important debate. There was no filibuster effort, as the Minister knows. He rose. There were a few speakers and there is no suggestion of any effort to prolong the debate. He knows it is an important piece of legislation. There were two or three NDP Members interested in participating in the debate, but now they have been curtailed from participation at the second reading stage of this important legislation.
I assume it was an oversight on behalf of the Acting Speaker at the time. But, as Hansard points out very clearly, the question was put after five o'clock when we should have been on Private Members' Business.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, back in 1980, perhaps early 1981, I rose in the Chamber at some length on a question of privilege related to the clocks. It might be wise to check the precedents, but my recollection is that the Speaker at that time did indicate clearly to the Chamber that the clock in front of the Speaker was the dominant clock in terms of the Speaker's world. That was several years ago. I think that was part of what was said yesterday. I just draw your attention to the precedent.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, if this House is going to be running on clocks that nobody sees except the Speaker, we have a problem. This House runs on good will, debate, and on the understanding that people can rise in their places and debate Bills on which they decide to speak. Liberals had no intention of speaking. It is true, since my name was
June 6, 1989

brought into the debate, that I was negotiating with the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) when the Speaker rose at five o'clock sharp and put the question. At that time, the Member ran to go to his seat because he wanted to object to that procedure and call for debate. That is what I was told, that is what I believe and, as far as I am concerned, the procedure yesterday was rather quick.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a way to resolve this situation. As my hon. friend, the Whip for the Official Opposition indicated, this House operates on rules, regulations, traditions and, most importantly, goodwill. There is no intention to cut off debate prematurely. The Official Opposition Whip has described accurately the effort of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) to get to his seat. It was simply a matter of wrong time viewed by the Acting Speaker. Perhaps there would be unanimous consent of the Members to not have the vote tonight and so allow those few Members an opportunity to complete their remarks at a later day.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, not to belabour the point but I am reminded by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Laporte), that when the Hon. Member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke (Mr. Kristiansen) started speaking, the clock in the Chamber showed 4.32 p.m. for a 20-minute speech followed by a 10-minute question and answer period. But the Member from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre was, in fact, on his feet at the time the Acting Speaker rose, trying to get the floor to pursue the remaining two minutes in terms of questions and answers. I think that should be taken into consideration and perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you might wish to check the very meticulous records kept at the table in front of you in terms of the start times for various speakers, because I know that that is what the Speaker has to adhere to.
In any case, I do want to remind you that the long-term result is to have one clock that we can all see so there can be no question about not seeing the clock unless we all agree that we are not going to see the clock.


Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, I would want to intervene briefly. I was present yesterday when the events took place as described by the Official Opposition Whip, and they were essentially as described. I would point out that if there is any question at all, it is whether or not there should be a deferred division. It is true that the Deputy House Leader for the New Democratic Party did try to make his way back to his seat to get the floor, but he had already spoken as had the other three Members of that Party who were present
Point of Order-Mr. Angus
in the House and there were only four Members in the House.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Every one of them.


Murray Dorin: The Liberals had no intention of speaking and when the vote was called, only four Members of the NDP were present and rose to request the recorded division. After some time a member of the Liberal Party rose but initially there was an indication that there would only be four Members seeking a recorded division. If there is any question at all, it is whether or not we should be having a recorded division. Frankly, there were not enough Members initially seeking that division.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is right.


Murray Dorin: I think it is clear that the matter came to a vote and one could argue that the Bill actually passed and there is no need for this recorded division.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this is unfolding into a very strange debate. The point is that the House made a decision yesterday. We proceeded with the calling in of the Members. The Whip from the Government side requested, according to our rules, that the vote be deferred. That decision has been taken. I disagree with the procedure but I say a decision has been taken. It is there. We have to stand by it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who has been here for many years and who understands the working of this place as well as any of us has, of course, reduced the discussion to its essence.
The Speaker cannot go back in time, whatever the time was.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: What we have now is several things. We have an argument over which clock was right. I have been here when none of them were.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 6, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act


Mr. Speaker:: But that does not take away from the fact that there was a complaint here. Clearly, members of the New Democratic Party did not wish at that point to proceed in answer to the question put by the Acting Speaker. It was not-I have to very gently and with great courtesy correct the Hon. Minister-"Shall the debate continue?" or words to that effect. It was "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?" Now, whether that was said before five o'clock or after five o'clock, we have to accept the word of the Acting Speaker who was in the chair at that time and has clearly indicated that he was watching the clock.
The point I want to make is this: There has been discussion about the fact that this place operates ultimately on goodwill and that is true. All I can say to my hon. friends in the New Democratic Party is that I accept that what happened was not what they intended to happen. I think that Hon. Members will agree with me. I have deliberately allowed some discussion on this so that the members of the NDP are entitled to make their point. I had the feeling that even in the strong representations they made they realize that the Speaker cannot go back to yesterday and undo what has been done. As the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has pointed out, the House has taken a decision.
However, it is a caution to all of us, those in the chair and those on both sides of the Chamber, that we must be alert, we must be following debate carefully and we must do it in such a way that nobody feels at any time that he or she has been unfairly treated or in any way prejudiced in trying to present the point of view of a particular Member or the point of view of a particular Party.
I regret that there has been this dispute. But I think Hon. Members can understand that we must accept what the Acting Speaker says as to his own point of view with respect to time. We also have to accept and I have to so rule, according to what the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier has so clearly stated, which is absolutely correct procedurally, that I cannot go back and undo what happened yesterday even if some particular Members might feel aggrieved. All I can ask is the co-operation of the House to be sure that these things happen very seldom, if at all.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


Barbara Jean McDougall: that Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open the debate on Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
As Members are aware, these changes are a part of the Government's Labour Force Development Strategy. As such, they should not be considered in isolation from other elements of the strategy designed to improve the amount and quality of training in the private sector.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, failure to come to terms with training concerns throughout our labour market will severely affect Canada's ability to compete in the future.
All Ministers in the Government have been looking at the issues we must address to make Canada more competitive, more confident, and more compassionate. This means asking some tough questions.
How can Canada compete when our private sector spends on training only half of what its U.S. competition spends? How can we give our workers the skills they need to provide them with a more secure personal future? How do we better help our less prosperous regions? Can we afford any longer to have the easiest entry into unemployment insurance of almost any western country? Is our unemployment insurance program doing all it can to help Canadians get back into the workforce quickly and permanently?
The answers which our Government has come up with are clear from the announcement that I made on April 11 and in Bill C-21 which I was proud to introduce on June 1.
June 6, 1989

We did not expect any or all of these initiatives to be popular with everyone. In many ways, they redefine roles and responsibilities and they challenge vested interests. But we know that our approach works and we have the record to prove it.
Since we came to office in 1984, our philosophy as a Government has recognized that the private sector is the key to the future success of the Canadian workforce and the Canadian economy. Privatization, deregulation, tax reform and free trade are all parts of the same agenda for revitalizing the Canadian economy to meet the requirements of increased globalization of markets and rapid technological change.

The Labour Force Development Strategy will build on the Canadian Jobs Strategy model by bringing the private sector-business and labour-together to set the course for each sector and industry.
In 1985, our Government radically changed the approach to employment programs. We ended the mishmash of more than 40 ineffective make-work programs with the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
We believe not in making work but in making jobs. Our new approach was to focus on the individual and his or her training needs. It also recognized that bureaucrats in Ottawa are not the people who should be determining what local labour market needs are. We brought in an approach that recognizes that the people who best know what is needed in a local economy are the people who live there.
Let us look at Bill C-21. Our Government believes that the unemployment insurance program can work better. The current variable entrance requirement was designed to reflect more closely the labour market differences across the country. However, with the many varying economic conditions across the country, the current system is too inflexible and limited. The result has been that people in areas such as Montreal, Moncton and St. John's face the same entrance requirements while facing very different employment prospects.

We have designed a new variable entrance requirement which is much more regionally sensitive. The result is that in areas of lower unemployment, where there are greater employment opportunities, Canadians have to wait a little longer to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. As well, if you live in a low unemployment region, the duration of the benefits will be
Unemployment Insurance Act
shorter. I stress that this will occur in areas where greater job opportunities exist.
As the unemployment rate rises, entrance requirements will be progressively easier to meet. Similarly, the duration of benefits available will reflect the varying degrees of difficulty that Canadians face in finding new jobs. The current entrance requirement ranges from 10 weeks to 14 weeks. We will increase the range from 10 weeks to 20 weeks, maintaining the 10-week requirement for regions with unemployment over 15 per cent.
The Government believes that the UI program must continue to reflect regional differences in unemployment. The new entrance requirements are therefore more regionally sensitive and fairer in this regard.
Mr. Speaker, those who are legitimately out of work, or who leave a job with good reason, deserve support. They will continue to receive it. The small minority who simply chooses not to work at various times should not be encouraged by a system paid for by all Canadians.

The UI system was not designed to serve that purpose. The Government has a responsibility to Canadians to see that the system helps those who genuinely need help and discourages those who just do not want to work.
Mr. Speaker, it is an irrefutable fact that in the world we now live in, people drive economic growth-"brainpower" and "skillpower"-and that our future growth will depend more than ever on a highly skilled, flexible labour force.
In individual terms, this means satisfaction and the rewards which go with better job qualifications.
Mr. Speaker, that is why under the Labour Force Development Strategy, the Government is doubling the money spent on training by the unemployment insurance program. There have been a lot of inaccurate statements made by Members opposite on what the Government is proposing in this area.

June 6, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
First, let me clearly state that the unemployment insurance program has been providing training to UI recipients for many years. This practice was initiated by the previous Liberal Government.

The UI account currently spends $255 million annually in income support for those who take training while on unemployment insurance. Many of these people need additional assistance. Through the Canadian Jobs Strategy, the Government also spends considerable funds to purchase the courses, to provide dependant care allowances and transportation costs for these UI recipients.
Mr. Speaker, under Bill C-21, clause 20, it will be possible to pay for a portion of the current CJS costs devoted to UI claimants out of the UI account. This makes room in the Canadian Jobs Strategy to pay for the programs outlined in the labour force development strategy which do not go directly to UI recipients.
We are doubling the funds allocated to section 26 training under this program. This is consistent with recommendation 40(a) of the report of the Standing Committee on Labour and Employment Immigration from the last Parliament on their study of the Forget Report to increase the use of section 26 training. Hon. Members can clearly see from Bill C-21 that UI funds will continue to be used to assist only UI recipients.
Another important aspect of this Bill is contained under clause 20. That is the provision for claimants to be able to receive assistance in helping them move to places where they may have found employment. Again, this is similar to the recommendation in the standing committee report that I mentioned earlier. I might add that this was a report signed by the employment critic for the Official Opposition, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand).


Mr. Allmand:: There were 90 recommendations.


Barbara Jean McDougall: The funds freed up under the Canadian Jobs Strategy brought about by Clause 20 of Bill C-21 will allow redirecting $230 million under CJS to increased training activity in the private sector through co-operative programs. Our intent is to stimulate an additional $1.5 billion each year from the private sector for training from now until 1994.
We plan to spend $65 million annually on sectoral human resource planning. The pilot projects done to date have shown encouraging results. We will also be creating a new entry level skill program akin to the apprenticeship program which we believe will train an additional 40,000 to 50,000 people per year. We are quadrupling the funds that we provide for co-op education under CJS.
We will be doubling the budget of the Industrial Adjustment Service in response to its effectiveness in dealing with labour force adjustment.
In addition, under this section of the initiatives, we will be providing an additional $50 million to the Community Futures Program of the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
Finally, we will be providing an additional $50 million from CJS for training for social assistance recipients. Under this program, begun by our Government in 1986, the Government has committed $400 million to train
60,000	social assistance recipients annually. Together with provincial funds, this will bring total expenditures under this program to $800 million. It is a very successful program, Mr. Speaker.
It is in everyone's interest clearly that this approach work. Canadian productivity is lagging far behind most industrialized countries. As 60 per cent of the people who will be in the workforce in the year 2000 have already left school, the private sector will have to train and retrain those people if we are to remain competitive. That is why we believe that these expenditures will generate $1.5 billion in expenditures on training annually by the private sector, because we have seen this work before.
Someone mentioned older workers. Ours is a workforce increasingly dependent on Canadians who are 45 years of age and older. It is imperative that their talents and experience not be lost either through market changes or entrenched hiring practices. Our new strategy recognizes this phenomenon specifically by providing $100 million in new programming for older workers to complement existing programs. From an equity standpoint, the strategy recognizes that older workers do want to work and should have access to income protection past age 65. I should add that this means that older workers
June 6, 1989

will continue to pay premiums after age 65 if they choose to remain in the paid labour force.
Women have also changed the face and the faces of our labour force. We have recognized the importance of their participation and contribution by providing not only additional training, but also other supports through enhanced maternity, parental, and sickness benefits. Contrary to what some critics in the business community may say, these supports are essential to them as well to maintain a highly trained and effective Canadian workforce in the 1990s.
Women represent 52 per cent of our population, and that is 52 per cent of the talent in this country. They are a key to our competitiveness in the future. When I speak to groups of Canadian women, especially young Canadian women and girls, I ask them to go out and to raise their sights, to go for the good jobs and not to settle for second best. Today I am telling Canadian business, labour, and members of the Opposition the same thing: raise your sights, recognize that the labour market in Canada is changing and that we must treat each individual Canadian worker as a vital national asset. Men, women, older workers, young workers, minority groups, everyone, and business particularly ignores this great store of talent to its peril.

Mr. Speaker, the Government is determined to adjust the Unemployment Insurance Act to reflect the realities of today's work patterns-and the equity provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
With this in mind, we are proposing that 15 weeks of maternity benefits be available during the period surrounding the birth of a child, that 10 weeks of parental benefits be available to natural and adoptive parents, for either mother or father or shared between them, and that there be fewer restrictions on a claimant's ability to collect the entitlement of 15 weeks of sickness benefits.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we are putting forward adjustments to ensure that claimants have the flexibility to draw a combination of special benefits up to a maximum of 30 weeks, that special benefits are available to claimants involved in a labour dispute, and that those who delay retirement past the age of 65 are eligible for UI benefits.
These are important adjustments, Mr. Speaker. These changes make Canada's unemployment insurance program more equitable, more flexible and more relevant to evolving social and work patterns.
Unemployment Insurance Act

The Government believes that through these measures we have taken important steps to make the UI Program more sensitive to the changing needs of Canadians. Canada is a very complex country. In some areas we have relatively high rates of unemployment, while in other areas jobs go begging for applicants. Paradoxically, even in some of the higher unemployment areas there are job vacancies because of skills shortages in that area. Clearly, facing such a challenge, there must be many approaches, not only one. That is why we rejected some of the sweeping proposals of earlier studies.
We cannot solve all of the labour market's problems in one fell swoop through government intervention. That is why we have chosen an existing mechanism-there already are training problems under the Unemployment Insurance Act-to redirect passive programs to more active uses. Even this approach has been done with moderation and with sensitivity to the needs of individual Canadians. That has been our approach all along: point people in the right direction and they will find their own way and it will lead them to a better future.
We have been accused of merely shifting people from unemployment insurance to welfare. Nothing could be further from the truth. Past experience has shown when entrance requirements for unemployment insurance have been increased-this is nothing new. The Opposition, the previous Liberal Government, did this in 1977 so do we do have some behavioural evidence-people did in fact adjust their behaviour. In the worst case, they got the extra weeks necessary to qualify for UI. In the best case, they obtained permanent and frequently better employment.
Before I close I want to talk about the financing of the Unemployment Insurance Program. In the Budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced that the Government will no longer contribute funds from general revenue to the unemployment insurance account.
As I stated earlier. Governments are elected to make difficult choices. Our Government was elected to restore fiscal responsibility to the spending of Canadians' tax dollars. Years of irresponsible financing by previous Governments has meant that it is this Government that has had to make those tough choices. The Government

June 6, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
has made a commitment that it will be there to ensure that the funds do not run into a deficit position. I would like to remind Hon. Members that government funds are tax dollars and as such the UI account has always been a fund financed by the taxpayers of Canada. That is not changing.
We recognize that Canadians want to work and we are doing something positive and constructive about it. Since we were elected in 1984, 1.4 million more Canadians are working. We do not have to take a back-seat to anyone, particularly the opposition Parties, on this subject. Clearly, the best income security for any Canadian worker is a job, and the second best form of income security is the wherewithal, the skills, and the training necessary to obtain those jobs.
Income support is very important. We recognize that, but we must return to the principle that it is a temporary measure rather than a permanent remedy. In fact a fundamental principle of our strategy is to establish a continuum of programs and services for unemployed and employed Canadians that link income support, employment services, federal Government labour-market programs and skill development initiatives and bring in the provinces and labour and business in providing the solutions. These are necessary steps to help meet all the needs of a changing labour-market, the needs of current workers, of employers and of those Canadians wishing to find a productive place in our labour market. The status quo is no longer an option. In fact, the status quo does not even exist. The competitive challenges Canada faces in this world are real and they demand a co-operative response which mobilizes all of our resources and all of our talents.

To continue to grow and prosper in the 1990s and beyond, Canada needs a dynamic, flexible and highly skilled workforce. Individual Canadians need to know that they have a productive role to play that will produce a better life for them.
I am continuing to consult business, industry, labour and the various provincial governments about how we can best prepare Canadians for the changes to come.
Your input, and your cooperation, are essential if Canada is to build on our recent economic growth and achieve our great national objectives.

By working together now in this Chamber and with the other groups that I have mentioned, we will ensure that Canada is poised to take advantage of a future of unprecedented opportunity and to meet those objectives that I have talked about before, the objectives of competition, confidence, strength, compassion and sovereignty.
I look forward to the study and timely passage of Bill C-21 so Canadians can benefit from these very positive initiatives.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the principal purpose of this Bill, the legislation which is before us, is to massively cut back on our unemployment insurance system, a system which has served Canadians well since it was introduced in 1940 following the great depression of the 1930s. In 1940, the unemployment insurance program was introduced by the Liberal Government of Mackenzie King in the aftermath of a depression where thousands and thousands of Canadians were unemployed and had no unemployment insurance, very little social assistance and had to rely on breadlines and soup kitchens which, by the way, seems to be a trademark of Tory Governments because they are back with us again in many parts of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that program was introduced to make sure that Canadians, unemployed against their will, had enough money to pay their rent, buy their food and take care of their children. Since that time, it has been improved on two main occasions, in 1955 and again in 1971.
The principal goal and purpose of Bill C-21 is to cut back on that program. The reasons seem to be threefold. First, the Government is using the unemployment insurance program and the cuts that it is proposing today to cut back on the deficit. We agree that the deficit has to be dealt with, but never on the backs of the unemployed,
June 6, 1989

the people who are less capable of paying for such a huge cut. That is obviously one of the goals of the Government in introducing this Bill, to deal with their deficitcutting program.
Another obvious reason for this Bill is the Government's goal to create a level playing field to facilitate the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement. We warned Canadians during the election campaign that the Government would try to cut social programs to create this level playing field with the United States in order to create conditions so that Canadian businesses would be able to compete on a more even footing with American companies which are now allowed to come into this country without tariffs. We said that they would cut programs or the companies would move to the United States or threaten to move to the United States, and that is what is happening with this Bill and other Bills like it.
Finally, I believe the third reason which was alluded to by the Minister in her remarks, is based on a real Conservative philosophy that a progressive unemployment insurance system encourages laziness, that it makes it difficult for employers to find workers. Let us look at the record in this respect. If we look at the countries of the world with the most advanced, the most progressive unemployment insurance systems, it is in those countries that we have the lowest rates of unemployment. If we look at Sweden, Switzerland, West Germany, France, Austria, all countries with progressive, advanced unemployment insurance systems, they have very low rates of employment. All those countries, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, have rates of unemployment less than 5 per cent.
In Canada, from 1965 to 1980 over a period of 15 years under Liberal Governments, the average rate of unemployment was 5.6 per cent. We had what I would call an excellent system for unemployment insurance. Therefore, it is a myth, a fallacy that just because we have sound social programs, sound and advanced systems of unemployment insurance, that we encourage laziness and make it difficult for employers to find workers. Sure, there are a certain number of cheaters, and I will refer to that in a minute. Sure, Canadian workers will not take jobs of poor quality, low wages, jobs where there are no unions and where there are poor working conditions which some employers, not all, would like them to do. The Government would like to make it so hard and
Unemployment Insurance Act
difficult for the unemployed that they would take those jobs. We will not support that.
Very briefly let me refer to the figures that were given to me by the Department of Employment and Immigration with respect to cheaters. In the period 1987-1988,1 am told that there were 5,507 claimants under the unemployment insurance system who were caught cheating on their unemployment insurance. That is 5,507 out of a total number of beneficiaries amounting to 2.4 million. That means that the number of cheaters was 0.2 per cent of the total number of beneficiaries under the system in that year, a very low number.
If we also look at the figures on those who lost their benefits because they refused a job, there were 6,215 who refused a job and therefore lost their benefits. Again this is out of 2.4 million beneficiaries which means that 0.25 per cent were disentitled because they refused a job. Those figures indicate that the vast majority of Canadians want to work. The main reason that they go on unemployment insurance is because they are put out of work against their will. They need that money to help them get along until a new job is given to them, to help them support their families, to buy their groceries, to pay their rent or their mortgage.
The House should know that in the Unemployment Insurance Act as it already exists, in order to collect unemployment insurance you must be ready and available to work. That is in Sections 25 and 55. It is in the legislation that you must register with a Canadian employment centre to make yourself available for work. It is in the legislation that you must accept interviews, in Sections 40 and 107, that you must accept an available job if it is a suitable job in your area of work. The legislation already requires that. Therefore, there is no evidence that unemployment insurance creates laziness and cheaters. It is true that we have a small percentage of cheaters and a small percentage of people who refuse to work, but they are less than 1 per cent of the total number of claimants under the fund.
I want to refer briefly to that history. The reason for this program, and the reason it was improved in 1955 and 1971, always by Liberal Governments, was based on the horrible experience Canadians had with the great depression of the 1930s. it should be pointed out that not only does a sound and progressive unemployment insurance system help workers when they are unemployed, it

June 6, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
also helps the economy and prevents a depression from growing deeper.
In the 1930s when a plant closed in a particular community and the workers were put out of work without any unemployment insurance, it was not long until they stopped buying groceries, stopped paying their bills and stopped paying their rent. There was a snowball effect and more industries went in the hole in that community.
By having a sound and progressive system of unemployment insurance, we make sure that the lay-offs and the closing of firms does not snowball into a deepening and widening recession. The people who are receiving the unemployment insurance spend every cent of that money when they are unemployed. They do not go to Florida, put it in the bank or under the mattress, they spend it to survive. That money goes back into the community and helps other businesses. The program is not only sound for the individual who is unemployed, but also for the community.
I want to describe how the moneys in unemployment insurance help some of the less developed provinces. In 1988, Newfoundland workers paid $169 million into the fund but collected $670 million. A lot more money went back into Newfoundland because of the unemployment situation there than the workers in that province paid into it.
In Prince Edward Island, workers paid $39 million into the fund and collected $138.5 million. Quebecers paid $2.7 billion into the fund in Quebec and collected $3.3 billion in benefits. Those moneys have flowed into those provinces and kept the basic economy of those provinces going despite high rates of unemployment in certain sectors.
The record will show that in six provinces more money has flowed into those provinces in unemployment insurance funds than has been paid into the fund by the workers. It is only in the Provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta that last year more was paid in than they received in benefits. I point that out because that will change as a result of the cuts proposed by the Minister in this Bill. Less money will go into the underdeveloped provinces than has gone in until now.
According to the changes put forward in this Bill, Canadian workers will pay more into the unemployment insurance program and get less in the form of benefits. In addition, because the Government is eliminating its legislative contribution to the fund, employers and employees will pay more in contributions once again.
I want to give a few examples to the House of what the results of these changes will be. Under the changes in Bill C-21, it will be more difficult for Canadian workers to qualify for unemployment insurance. Once they qualify they will be covered for shorter periods of time.
Let us look at some of the examples as a result of these changes. In St. John's, Newfoundland, where 10 weeks of work are required to qualify for unemployment insurance, under this legislation 14 weeks of work will be required in order to qualify. In Halifax, Nova Scotia, where 12 weeks of work was required to qualify, 18 weeks of work will be required to qualify. These are not areas known for their wealth.
In Saint John, New Brunswick, where 10 weeks of work were needed to qualify, 15 weeks of work will be required to qualify. In Quebec City, where one needed 12 weeks of work to qualify, one will now require 18 weeks of work to qualify. In Montreal, 10 weeks of work were required to qualify. Now 16 weeks of work are required in order to qualify.
In Ottawa one needed 14 weeks of work to qualify. One will now require 20 weeks to qualify. In Sudbury where 12 weeks was required, it is now 18 weeks. It is the same in Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Vancouver. There are very few communities in Canada where the qualification period will not be more difficult.
The same is true with respect to the duration of benefits. The duration of benefits in St. John's, Newfoundland, is changed from a minimum of 40 weeks to a maximum of 50 weeks, to a minimum of 33 weeks to a maximum of 50 weeks. In Halifax the duration goes from 28 weeks to 21 weeks; in Saint John it is from 36 weeks to 30 weeks.
Again, I could demonstrate for the record that the duration of benefits for most communities in Canada is shorter as a result of this Bill.
Who will pick up the burden for these unemployed people who will be left by these cut-backs? While we do not have the correct numbers because the Government has not given us its impact studies, it is obvious that if it is
June 6, 1989

more difficult for Canadian workers to qualify then fewer will qualify. If their benefits are cut off in a shorter period of time then they will be left without any benefits while still unemployed.
Who will take care of those unemployed people who do not have any unemployment insurance benefits? There are only two options. They are either picked up by the provincial welfare systems or they go on breadlines or to soup-kitchens and rely on charity. Although we are seeing more and more of that, I think we have decided that we do not favour that option in this country.
We must question whether this is a phoney, false saving? While the federal Government cuts back on unemployment insurance, there are people who will be unemployed and not covered by unemployment insurance. They must be picked up by provincial welfare systems. Everyone knows that there are means tests under provincial welfare systems, where inspectors continuously check into one's affairs. It is a demeaning process in many cases.
In addition, many provinces say they cannot shoulder that burden. I have a press report from the Halifax Chronicle Herald of April 17, just after the Minister announced her plans on April 11. Premier Buchanan of that province said that these changes in the unemployment insurance system are a real threat to the social service budget of Nova Scotia. The Minister of Finance in Quebec said the same thing.
Mr. Buchanan said: "This is of grave concern to me because that means there is a transfer of funding for these people from the unemployment insurance books to our social service books".
The Government is creating a real problem for the provinces and has not suggested any way in which it will be resolved.
In addition to cutting back on the benefit period and the qualification period for Canadian workers, it is also cutting out entirely the legislative government contribution to the fund. Presently, the unemployment insurance fund is made up of premiums paid by Canadian workers, premiums paid by Canadian employers, and a Government contribution. The Government contribution is based on the principle that it is up to the Government to
Unemployment Insurance Act
ensure some sort of full employment policy. The law states that when the rate of unemployment goes beyond 4 per cent, measures come into effect which extend the benefits and the federal Government should pay for those extended benefits. The Government said when it introduced those provisions that until there is approximately 4 per cent unemployment, the workers and employers will pay. However, once unemployment goes beyond 4 per cent, on an increasing basis the federal Government must pay because the Government is responsible to a certain extent for the unemployment situation.
That has been the situation in the legislation for some time, this tripartite contribution, workers, employers and the federal Government. In this Bill, the Government is cutting out its legislative contribution which last year was $2.9 billion, almost $3 billion. Who is going to make up that $3 billion? It is obvious it is going to be the workers and the employers. This is being taken in a very serious way, not just by the workers of Canada but also by the employers. What this will amount to is a payroll tax and an increasing payroll tax. What do payroll taxes do? They act as a disincentive to hiring workers. If a firm has to pay so much in an increasing amount for every worker they employ, they are going to look for ways for not employing workers. They are going to use contracting out. They are going to use part-time workers. They are going to use machines and more and more automation. It will mean that we will have less and less employment for Canadian workers, and in areas which have been traditionally labour intensive.
In the budget brought down by Mr. Levesque in the Province of Quebec earlier in the month of May, he calculated that the cost alone in Quebec for the Government of Quebec for its own employees as a result of these measures would be over $100 million. Because the Government of Quebec is a large employer and will have to pay the employer contribution, he says that the increased cost, as a result of this Bill, will be over $100 million for the Government of Quebec. That, by the way, if the Minister would like to refer to it, is taxpayers' money. It will be taxpayers' money in the Province of Quebec to the provincial government, while this Gov-

June 6, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
eminent is carrying out cut-backs on the backs of the unemployed and shifting the burden to the provinces.
I want to now say a few words about the measures in the Bill for job training and job development assistance. Listening to the Minister's speech, one would have thought that this was only a Bill dealing with training. She spoke of the Bill as if it were the Canadian training act, that it did not deal at all with cuts in the unemployment insurance system and massive changes in the unemployment insurance system. She went on to speak about the training measures that the Government hopes to introduce with the moneys it is taking out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund.
I want to make it absolutely clear that for years in this House we have been pleading for more and better training programs. But not once did we suggest that those programs should be paid for principally out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund.
In the existing unemployment insurance legislation, about 2 per cent of the funds are used for special training programs. We saw room for making some changes and improvements. But never did we suggest that the principal burden for the payment of training programs in Canada, especially for the unemployed, should be on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. To pay for those programs out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund is a regressive form of taxation to pay for programs which are for the benefit of all Canadians, not just for the workers who receive the training but for the firms that get the trained workers and for the entire economy that benefits from the productivity of these trained workers. Those training programs, which are good programs, co-operative education, apprenticeship programs and entry programs, fine, let us have more of them. But let us not pay for them principally out of a fund that was contributed to in order to help people pay the bills when they lost then-jobs.
What the Government has done is to look into the unemployment insurance books last year and it found that there was a surplus in the Unemployment Insurance Fund in 1988 of $2.8 billion. Then it said: "Let us take out $2.9 billion and use that to pay for training programs" which, by the way, it had cut back by 32 per cent from 1984.
In the period from 1984 to 1989, the Government cut training programs from $2.2 billion, which was the amount spent in 1984 at the time of the election, and it cut that back to $1.5 billion. That is a figure of $700 million. Now it puts back in $800 million after five years and takes the money out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund to do it because it wants to cut the deficit.
We have always supported training programs and more of them but not to be paid for in this way. In addition, we ask the Minister, because she is doing this in conjunction with cutting funds out of the Unemployment Insurance Act, what she is going to do to ensure that persons trained in slow development areas of this country are going to benefit from that training. Let us say that we use some funds under this program to train workers in Summerside, P.E.I., where the Government is about to close the military base, is the Government going to create jobs in that area so that the people trained in high tech, or whatever it might be, will be able to work in Summerside, Prince Edward Island? Or will they have to go to Toronto, Calgary or some other place to get a job? It is not good enough. The solution to unemployment is not simply training. That will help in some cases, because for some people all they need to get a job is to have the proper training. There are a lot of people in Atlantic Canada who are fully trained, who are highly skilled, but there are no jobs for them. The Government has not done very much about that.
I get a kick out of the Minister and other Ministers who brag about their great success in unemployment. The rate of unemployment is 7.8 per cent; 7.8 per cent five years after the recession. In the year before the recession, under a Liberal government, it was 7.5 per cent. In the 15 years prior to that we had an average of 5.6 per cent. The Government has not even got it down to 7 per cent, although it is five years after the recession. There are still over one million Canadians unemployed in this country. The Government is going to take money away from the unemployed, from the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and put it into training. It does not say what it is going to do once they are trained. It has cut back on regional development. It has no commitment to full employment. It has no commitment to an industrial strategy. We are going to have trained workers in many parts of the country with no jobs to go to. Should they get on the train to the greater area of Toronto,

which is the only area with full employment in this country because it is under a Liberal government in Ontario?
With respect to the training programs, the Minister states that the Government is on the right track. We have had several reports recently which do not confirm that. The de Grandpre report was critical of the Government for its cut-backs in training and recommended changes. As a matter of fact, what the Government has done is taken up some of de Grandpre's recommendations but it is not paying for them in the way de Grandpre recommended. It is using unemployment insurance funds to pay for them.
I have an article from the Financial Post dated May 24, 1989. "Workers want better training". The editorial is dedicated to the proposition that the present training programs are not sufficient.
I have another article from the Financial Post dated May 17. "Employers don't provide needed training in Canada". I have an article from the Toronto Star, dated May 22. This is an article written by Arthur Donner, in which he refers to the recent report of the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre. It was highly critical of the training programs that this Government is operating.
The headline on the article is: "Public Private Sector Fail in Job Training". Referring to a recent report by Armine Yalnizyan and David Wolfe, who completed a report entitled "Target on Training Meeting Workers Needs in a Changing Economy", they say that the federal programs for training are not appropriate for even a fraction of Canada's unemployed.
Yes, we want improvements in training but let us not have the Minister telling us that the programs that are now in place are just wonderful and we just want more of the same. That is not true.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this unemployment insurance system which we have is a complicated one. It is not one that is easily understood by Canadians. We are dealing with a lot of complex terminology, funding, benefit periods, qualification periods, a lot of tables, a lot of graphs and so on.
Despite the fact that this is a complicated area of legislation, the Minister said the other day in committee and in a press conference that she does not intend to consult on the unemployment insurance changes in the
Unemployment Insurance Act
program she is giving us. She said she will consult on her new approach to training, but she will not consult on the proposals with respect to changes in the Unemployment Insurance Program.
That is totally unacceptable. Here we have something that affects millions of Canadians. As I pointed out, last year 2.4 million Canadians had claims under the unemployment insurance system. These people change from year to year because the situation changes in the different regions. Here she is making important and serious changes and cuts in the program, and she will not consult.
I want to tell her and the Government that it is our intention to continue this debate so that Canadians will understand what is happening to them and what the Government is doing to them. We feel the only way to make the Canadian public understand is through this debate in the House of Commons, which is televised. We hope through the speakers who will speak to the interests of different regions in this country that we will help Canadians understand what the Government is doing to them.
Recently we passed a resolution in the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration that the committee should travel throughout Canada to get the views of Canadians on these changes. However, when the report of the committee reached this House it was sabotaged. It did not go forward. The hearings were to start more than a week ago. This Government sabotaged the report.
Once again, this morning we attempted to pass a resolution that the committee of the House should travel and hear the views of Canadians once this legislation has passed its second reading. In this debate, we are exchanging views of Members of Parliament. That is fine. But there is nothing better than getting out into those regions of the country where they have serious problems and listening to the people of Canada tell us directly what they think about these changes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: It is shameful that the Government should attempt to prevent that type of travel.
In the last Parliament, the same committee travelled throughout Asia, Africa and Europe to visit immigration offices because they thought that was important. I supported it at the time. However, surely if the committee can do that, it can visit the different regions of this country experiencing high levels of unemployment. The

June 6, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
people will want to tell us what they think about these changes.
The Minister says we do not have to travel. She does not have to consult because this issue has been studied for quite some time. Well, it is true that the Government set up the Forget Commission in 1984. The Forget Commission sat through 1985 and reported in 1986. However, very few of the recommendations made by the commission were taken up by the Government. As a matter of fact, the Government is legislating in many areas in a manner completely opposed to the recommendations of the Forget Commission.
The same thing is true about the parliamentary committee. In the last Parliament, the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration spent one year studying the Forget recommendations. The committee made 90 recommendations. I stood by all but one of those recommendations, 89 of the 90. The Minister, however, has not taken up the thrust of that report. She says two or three of her proposals are based on those recommendations. That may be so, but they are clearly not based on the recommendations; they are partly based on them. The fact is that many of those recommendations were totally contrary to the legislation being proposed today.
I refer to that committee report to indicate to the House and the Canadian people that the Liberal Party is not against improvement and reform of the unemployment insurance system. Far from it. We stood for 89 out of 90 of the recommendations in that report, which were directed toward reform and change in the unemployment insurance system. We still stand by those recommendations.
I want to refer again to the issue of credibility with respect to this matter. During the election campaign, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) on October 13, 1988, right in the middle of the election campaign, when asked by certain reporters and others whether the Government had any intention of changing or cutting back the unemployment insurance system after the election, said, and I quote from The Evening Telegram of St. John's on October 14:
"It's complete nonsense," he replied to questioning by reporters at
Hotel Newfoundland following a Progressive Conservative rally for
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
He then went on to say that he asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) about the report that they may cut unemployment insurance and the Prime Minister
said:
-no the government has no plans to make changes to the plan.
"You're damn right I asked him (prime minister) about it. And he said no.
"No one is planning any changes in the unemployment insurance program.
Mr. Speaker, only a few months later we have Bill C-21 that not only changes the unemployment insurance system but drastically cuts benefits and qualifying periods for unemployment insurance and in which the Government totally withdraws its financial contribution, which last year was $2.9 billion. No wonder there is cynicism with respect to Government in this country when we get such opposing positions from different Ministers. One Minister is saying, "Absolutely no, never. The Prime Minister backs me up. There will be no cuts, no changes in the unemployment insurance system." Here we are a few months later with a Bill bringing in cuts.


Mrs.   Blondin@: Shame!


William Warren Allmand: The Government has done so much of this that Canadians are beginning to turn it off. There have been so many instances of scandal, corruption, and breaking of promises that it is all rolling into one bad dream. Canadians do not want to listen to it any more. It is certainly a sad commentary on our governmental system.
In conclusion, we in the Liberal Party support changes in the unemployment insurance system, but they must be changes that will improve the program for workers and employers. We will not support cuts that make it more difficult for unemployed Canadians to pay their rent, buy their groceries and take care of their children. We will not support that kind of Bill, nor will we support cuts which simply transfer the burden of the unemployed to the provinces. We will not support that kind of Bill.
We want this Government to begin listening to Canadians. We want this Government to withdraw this Bill
June 6, 1989

and send it back to the drawing board. For that reason, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Eglinton- Lawrence (Mr. Volpe) that:
The motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "that" and by substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon -Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise in opposition to Bill C-21 now before the House. I would like to state my opposition to the Bill by showing how little credibility the Government of the day has in relation to its philosophy, programs and platforms which it has put before Canadians.
Someone said Conservatives get elected by promising the poor that they will look after them and assuring the rich that they will not. I think what we have before us right now is one of the finest examples that that is eminently true. I heard Ted Kennedy say that. It is absolutely true.
The Government has said how compassionate it is and how much it cares for the unemployed when, in actual fact, what we have is a vast transfer of what used to be a very good program into the private sector. That is consistent with the philosophy of this Government, a philosophy which seems to believe that if you deregulate things the market-place will take care of the economic situation, the country will prosper and the people within the country will prosper. I would like to give a few examples to show that this is simply not the case.
For example, let us look at airline deregulation in the United States. I refer to that because that same philosophy to deregulate the airlines in the United States is extant in the Government of the day here. Arguments were heard that there was too big a concentration among the larger airlines and fares were too high. What you had to have was deregulation of the industry so that competition could flourish and the free hand of the marketplace could have its way. People would then receive better air fares as a result of that greater competition.
Deregulation of the airlines started in 1979. At that time the five largest airlines in the United States had cumulative profits of 55.5 per cent. By 1984, after deregulation had run its course, the picture had changed
Unemployment Insurance Act
somewhat. We know, because the evidence is there, that the airlines flourished. We also know that there was a plethora of bankruptcies among airlines that started up. We know that fares initially went down and we know that subsequently they became higher than ever.
One of the major tenets of deregulation, that of producing more competition, had in fact come to a point where in 1984 the proportion of profit of the five largest airlines in the United States, where it had been 55.5 per cent, was not 60 per cent, was not 70 per cent, was not even 75 per cent, but 94 per cent. So much for competition.
Free trade is a similar example and it certainly demonstrates how much this Government really lacks compassion. When this Government became involved in free trade with the United States, rather than going for what was the highest common denominator between our two countries, or possibly even in the larger region, if you want to include some of the other countries in North America, which was, of course, our own country and which was the course taken by the European Common Market when it set up its association several years ago, what this Government tied us into is being associated with virtually the lowest common denominator in North America. The Free Trade Agreement has tied us inexorably to compete with the very, very, very low wages which are now the norm in the northern part of Mexico adjacent to the United States border, called the "Micila Dora Strip". We are in a situation where several Canadian employers are saying that unless workers in this country accept lower wages they are going to be moving either to the southern United States, where wages are lower, or else they are going to move to Mexico. So much for compassion.
I am glad the Minister referred to compassion and I am glad she referred to free trade and deregulation because there is just no evidence that any of those concepts are of any benefit to Canadian workers, and certainly Bill C-21 is an example of something else which is not very healthy in so far as Canadian workers are concerned.
One would not really be surprised either by a report from the Fraser Institute, actually commissioned by the Government of Canada. I find it extremely difficult to believe the results the institute arrived at and I am at a loss to understand why the Government, having commissioned the report would not-it is a wonder the Depart-

June 6, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
ment of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has not gone after it for false advertising.
In the report, Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute declares that 99 per cent of the economy's total output of goods and services could be produced by the service sector. I do not know how the Fraser Institute can possibly in one sentence combine services and goods because in the usual description of economic parlance goods and services are two different things.
That being the case, I would like to make some references to the actual situation in relation to what has happened in this country which relates to the constant claims we get from the other side of the House on the number of jobs the Government has created.
The fact is that since 1974 there have been no jobs created in the goods producing sector at all, and that by virtue of the fact that the employment statistics for the goods producing sector are still not up to the pre-recession levels. Therefore, by definition, any of the jobs created since then have been in the service sector.
There are two significant points to remember in relation to these numbers. The first is that in the goods producing sector, which predominantly employs blue collar workers, they are for the most part well paid.
In the report of the Fraser Institute it claims there is a tremendous amount of viability within the service sector. The claims are made for the goods producing sector as well. In in a limited way credit is given to the goods producing sector for being a well paid sector. In spite of the fact that the institute took information out of context, if you have an understanding of which sector is which you are at least able to extrapolate that much. There are several points to be made within the framework of the jobs the Government has claimed to create. As I said, jobs have been totally within the service sector, and there are three or four different things to take into account when you are talking about that sector.
First of all, a good many of the jobs are part-time jobs. Second, many of them are poor paying jobs. I will get into that in a minute. Third, a lot of the National Jobs Strategy initiatives which the Government have taken are in the service producing sector as well. I will get into that later. The first thing to remember is that the average hours worked by people in the service sector is 28 compared to 38 in the goods producing sector.
The second thing to remember is that, for the most part, in the goods producing sector, most of the jobs are unionized and well paid. That accounts for the well paying jobs in the goods producing sector.
There are predominantly three types of jobs within the service sector. About one in five jobs is available within the trade and finance sector where services are provided primarily to business and finance. Those one in five jobs are relatively well paid; roughly $497 per week as compared to $230 for those in the straight service sector of the economy. The top one in five jobs can be described as those being services to business and industry.
The second sector which accounts for two out of five jobs are in the services to people industry part of the sector. These are the servant jobs where people are extremely low paid. Pay can range from as low as $150 per week for those in the tourist and food industry to a high-if one would want to refer to it as a high-of somewhere around $218 in the retail sector.
When we look at the compassion and wonderful things that the Government has done in relation to job creation in relation to their initiatives and free trade deregulation and so on, it is rather obvious that this claim for compassion is just simply not something that is part of their delivery system.
Last fall during the election, there were assurances on several sections and by several people. It was referred to by the previous speaker. The Government said there would be no changes to the unemployment insurance system. There were promises that there would be no changes. I guess it is again part of that philosophy where one promises the poor that they will be looked after. If that is the philosophy under which one operated, those are the things one would have said last fall in trying to assure people that if the Government was re-elected, there would not be these changes that were supposed to be coming about.
Today, we are debating changes to the unemployment insurance system. The changes are so vast that it will leave an indelible mark on the economic fabric of this country. I say that because if we were to consider that over the last several years-certainly through the depression which we came into and which we were actually in the process of coming out of about the time the Government opposite was elected in 1984-without the

unemployment insurance system having been in effect, this country would have been immeasurably less well off.
Now this Government is putting into place something which is almost certainly going to guarantee that if we have another recession that we may not be able to pull out of it to any extent that would have any meaning for the people of this country, for the unemployed of this country. Certainly, business and industry in this country would suffer as a result of that.
It will be difficult for the people of Saskatoon to realize, presumably after January 1, 1990, that where previously they would be able to qualify for unemployment insurance after working for 10 weeks, they will now have to work for 16 weeks. That is at an unemployment rate of 9.2 per cent. It is one of the higher percentages which we have in Canada. Those are the facts. Anyone who puts in a program where people compared to that example are going to have to work those longer periods of time and claims that to be compassionate, I would suggest certainly has a rather warped idea of what compassion is.
In a policy paper called Success in the Works, the Government said that employers, employees and the federal Government together pay for the UI program which will cost an estimated $13 billion in 1990 and that employers and employees contribute to the premiums. In the introduction to the paper which the Minister gave before the Budget, there was an addendum. It was almost as an afterthought. In spite of the fact of having referred to the fact that the Government does contribute to it, it goes on to say that changes to the way the UI program is financed will be announced by the Minister of Finance in his forthcoming Budget.
It is after the Budget. We now know that after January 1, 1994, the federal Government will no longer be contributing to the unemployment insurance scheme.
I would suggest that had the Minister of Employment, Immigration and Labour done the proper thing, after the Budget was tabled in this House-and I do not want to get into an argument about the way in which it was tabled-but after it was tabled, I suggest that the whole context within which this paper was first of all formu-
Unemployment Insurance Act
lated and, second, in the way it was conceived ought to have been removed.
There is a fundamental difference between what Canadians had a right to think the unemployment system was in spite of the massive changes before the Budget and after the Budget. I think that it was inconceivable to Canadians on the day the Minister first introduced the policy paper that Canadians would ever have thought that the federal Government would withdraw its participation in UI.
A phrase oft repeated since is that the Government is allocating funds. We have to ask, as far as UI is concerned, what funds after 1990? What funds? The program goes on to make claims for programs which have no connection any more to the unemployment insurance scheme, yet the Minister does make references to programs which I think would unjustifiably lead Canadians to believe that there is going to be some security for them insofar as some of the the programs are concerned. I will get to that in a minute. I am talking about people who, for the most part, would have no claim to the unemployment insurance moneys.
When the Minister talks about allocating funds, we have to ask what funds she is talking about. The funds the Minister is talking about are funds which, through juggling within the unemployment system itself, she claims to have made available. She found those funds in the pockets of the unemployed and by making it more difficult for Canadians to qualify, as I alluded to in the references to Saskatoon.
In St. John's, Newfoundland, with an unemployment rate of 10 per cent, before this legislation someone would be able to qualify for unemployment insurance after 10 weeks and now it will be 14 weeks. I guess there is a magic about using numbers. If the document had stated that it would take one month longer to qualify it would have certainly sounded longer than going from 10 weeks to 14 weeks. In Quebec City with an unemployment rate of 7.1 per cent it will now take 12 weeks to qualify. Once the legislation goes into effect it will take 18 weeks. The same applies to Sudbury. Vancouver and Saskatoon share the same unemployment rate and in those areas the qualifying period will go from 10 weeks

June 6, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
to 16 weeks. That is one of the areas where the Government found almost $1.29 billion.
Another area which is directly tied in with the figures I mentioned is the length of time people will be eligible to receive unemployment insurance. In St. John's, Newfoundland where a recipient would qualify for a period of 40 to 50 weeks, that person will only receive benefits, after having put in a longer qualifying period, for 33 to 50 weeks, and so on down the line.
In Quebec a person could receive benefits for 26 to 50 weeks and that will go to 22 to 41 weeks after the legislation comes into effect. In Sudbury where it was previously 28 to 50 weeks, it will be 21 to 41 weeks. In Saskatoon and Vancouver it was 32 to 50 weeks and now it will be 27 to 49 weeks after the legislation passes.
The Government states that the program it is introducing is one that is predicated on compassion. When a person has to work longer in order to qualify for benefits, and having worked longer receives benefits for a shorter period of time, and in addition because of the changes in the Budget has to pay a higher premium to receive any benefits, it is inconceivable and a mystery to me how anyone could claim there is any compassion within that system.
Having heard that those changes were coming about, on several occasions we asked the Government for a study on the impact of those changes. At one point in committee we were told that we would receive them summarily. Perhaps not unexpectedly we did not. We tried to receive an indication of the impact of those changes through the use of the Freedom of Information Act. We were told that these impact studies had been exempted from the Act for a rather technical reason. However, it is probably quite well known to all Members in the House this afternoon that the reason that those figures were not made available to us is that they will prove to be extremely embarrassing to the Government.
The results are that it will obviously take longer to qualify and the benefits will not last as long. There are a couple of other ways that the Government will be able to
juggle money around in order to provide for some rather questionable training as a result of having this money.
The Government is going to penalize people who quit their jobs without just cause. As the present legislation stipulates, people who quit their jobs because they are hazardous, because their spouses move, or because of sexual harassment will not be penalized. However, by implication, and in spite of the fact that the Minister stated that not very many people are cheaters, she made a second reference which I believe pretty much indicated how the Minister and the Government feel about that. They feel there is an exorbitant amount of cheating. I am not in favour of cheating. I would suggest that the figures put forward by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) were very small and indicated that the unemployed people of this country are immeasurably more honest than a good many other segments of the population.
There is another interesting aspect of this whole idea of cheating and those who are disqualified from receiving benefits. I would certainly enjoy seeing within the legislation provision for an advocate to assist people to wend their way through the bureaucracy, not the civil service part of it, but the bureaucracy of the unemployment system. That would be very helpful. When people have an advocate who is able to appeal their exclusion from full benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, which is their right, 80 per cent of those who appeal are found to have not been in violation of the provisions, as far as quitting is concerned, and they receive the full unemployment insurance benefit. I have no idea of the percentage of people who appeal. I am virtually sure that it is a small portion.
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the number of Canadians who are excluded from full benefits under the UI Program because in the view of the bureaucracy within the Unemployment Insurance Commission they have committed some type of a dishonest act and have quit without reason. We can be certain from the amount of evidence available that if those people had an advocate they would be receiving benefits as well. The whole claim by the Government that there are cheaters is spurious from the very beginning.
The Government has claimed to find approximately $1.29 billion from the four methods it has used to

capture this money: the longer qualification time; shorter duration of receiving the benefits; penalizing people who quit, according to the Government, unfairly; and when the Government prosecutes people, and saving money in that manner.
The Government upbraids the private sector for not spending enough money on training in Canada. Approximately 25 per cent of the private sector in Canada does train. I would suggest that we do not need to be talking about all the training that will happen under the changes to the unemployment insurance program if the private sector did the type of training that it ought to have been doing all along. As I said, $1.4 billion is the amount of money the private sector spends on training.
Through these changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, the federal Government has captured very nearly $1.4 billion from the workers of the private sector. In effect it has added a tax on the worker insofar as they are receiving less benefits. If you do not get the money, it does not come, it does not accrue to you and it is money that you do not have. If it is the Government that takes it away from you, I think it quite legitimately can be called a tax. The Government has forced on to the workers an amount of money equivalent to what the whole private sector spends on training and it has said, hey, this is what we are going to use for training, we have such a wonderful gift for you.
I think we ought to be emphasizing here that the majority of training really ought to be taking place within the larger corporations in our society. As a matter of fact, within my experience, I know that a goodly portion of the training really takes place in small business, with small contractors. More often than not the large multinationals or the larger Canadian corporations suck up these training people at the expense of small business which is not able to afford that kind of a drain on its earning power.
There are four or five programs which I believe the Minister ought to have come clean about and said: "Listen, since the Budget, these things are no longer relevant. It might be nice for us to be able to talk about them in Parliament, but they really do not have any claim on the unemployment insurance funds and, therefore, are irrelevant to this discussion."
Unemployment Insurance Act
I would have thought that the Minister at least would have had the decency not to refer to the entry level skill jobs where she was talking about co-op training. Co-op training occurs in high schools. There is no way that a high school student is going to be able to amass enough unemployment insurance credits to be able to draw on the unemployment insurance fund. I cannot understand why the Minister would be making reference to that kind of training at all when the Bill is supposed to be talking about changes to the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
I would repeat, as the speaker before me has done, that it would be foolish for me as an individual, as someone who has been a worker all my life, as a Member of the New Democratic Party to stand here and say that we are opposed to training. What we have here are two different subjects. One is unemployment insurance which is to protect people when they become unemployed. This Government must be very fond of unemployed people because it sure has created enough of them. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) is absolutely right. Unemployment still has not risen to the level of the pre-recession level. The Government makes a lot of claims about the growth in the Canadian economy, but when you start from so low, even the 4 per cent that they claim does not really amount to very much. The Government ought to recognize that and confess it.
The Community Futures Program is a similar program. It should not have been included here. By definition social assistance recipients are not eligible to receive unemployment insurance. The reference to social assistance recipients in this context is abhorrent to us. I know it happened back in the Province of Saskatchewan. What we are really talking about is work for welfare, and the federal Government should not be involved in that kind of a scheme. It is something which borders so closely on enforced slavery that it is not something that the Government of this country should be involved in.
With reference to self-employment and entrepreneurship, can you imagine, the Government is bringing in legislation that is going to allow unemployed people to be able to take out lump sums of money in order to start businesses. I would suspect that most young people who become unemployed are totally unaware that 90 per cent of all new businesses fail within the first year. A federal Government should not be involved in a scheme that gives money to an unemployed person in the hope that

June 6, 1989
Transportation Safety
they will be able to start a business. Maybe they are trying to make them think that they will be able to start a bank.
I saw in the paper on the weekend that the bank profits are up again. That is certainly not much of a surprise. Maybe these young people are going to receive assistance to form a bank. If that is the case, they probably will do well, but I suspect the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and a few others might have a few words to say about that.
It is a mystery to me how the Government can make claims as it does that these things are part of the unemployment assistance program. With regard to the industrial assistance program that is in place, I found out from the Government today that indeed it will continue to put in its portion. However, unemployed people, when they now go to take courses, will have their tuition paid for out of the unemployment insurance fund. This whole program is nothing more than a scam by this Government in order to privatize the unemployment insurance system, in order to privatize the training within the country.
The Canadian Jobs Strategy brought in in 1985 has proven to be nothing more than that. The numbers available on it are atrocious. I would like to give an example of one of the Canadian Jobs Strategy Programs in Peterborough, Ontario which states that a good example of the fly-by-night training resulting from the Tory strategy occurred in Peterborough, Ontario. After cutting back on purchases of space at Sir Sandford Fleming Community College, a $340,000 contract was given to the newly created Gowrie Computer Systems to train 50 people in computer skills.
I certainly have discovered that computer skills among the Canadian Jobs Strategy proponents in the Government seems to be very high on the list. We find that after a one-shot course, the company's training work was finished, but they still got to keep $100,000 worth of computer equipment purchased with CEIC money, and meanwhile the computer facilities at the community college have been allowed to deteriorate.
This epitomizes the problem which we are facing with these changes to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I cannot do anything but vote against this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call it five o'clock, the Hon. Member's time has expired. I assume that Members do not want me to call a question this evening on this Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Member's Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESS - MOTIONS   TRANSPORTATION SAFETY INCREASED FUNDING FOR SAFETY INSPECTORS
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of increasing funding for transportation safety inspectors.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to bring forth this motion today, particularly on behalf of my colleague, the Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), who is presently busy in the Transport Committee on a matter not totally unrelated to the subject matter of this motion.
Safety is always an important concern, especially with regard to the transportation industry. I suspect that in the minds of most Canadians and Members of the House it is even more important when it comes to the matter of airline safety.
The subject matter of the motion before us is that in the opinion of the House, the Government should consider the advisability of increasing funding for transportation safety inspectors. That is rather a broad motion that could cover air, marine, long-distance interprovincial hauling by truck and other modes, and rail. I believe the main thrust of the remarks this evening will be related to the airline industry.

Most Canadians and Members of the House perceive a real problem in safety and safety inspections throughout the airline industry in Canada. We have all been only too familiar with the many stories about near misses and the increasing concern by the travelling public and those associated with the industry directly about safety with transportation and what appears to be a deteriorating standard of safety inspection. This has taken place over the past number of years, beyond the terms of any one government, and has been creating a considerable state of concern within the body politic.
In studying this complicated question of transportation safety, particularly air safety, I want to begin by talking about deregulation and its increased stresses on the transportation industry. The deregulation of the transportation industry, begun by the Liberal Government in 1983 and continued by the Conservative Governments since that time, operates under the theory that increased competition is good for the travelling public. Undoubtedly there may be cases where that is so, but there are problems.
One problem with deregulation is that it allows a number of smaller carriers into the industry. Again, while that may be good in some instances, it also creates problems particularly in the area of safety and inspection.
For example, let us look at the air passenger industry. Previously, the vast majority of air travel was handled by the big three: Air Canada, Canadian Airlines and Ward-air. These airlines tended to police themselves with self-inspection and random checks by Department of Transport employees on safety regulations. These DOT inspectors were assigned to work with the major airlines on site. That was their prime mandate in the past, and is quite different from the work they are required to perform now.
Two things have happened since deregulation. First, the big three have become the big two, and there has been a proliferation of smaller, short distance airlines.
It is to be assumed that the big two are still operating under the old system of self-policing and random checks by DOT officials. The problem occurs with the smaller airlines and smaller aircraft. They are often small operations with less than 10 aircraft, aircraft which tend to be hand-me-downs discarded by the majors both nationally and internationally.
Transportation Safety
Second, these smaller companies do not have the qualified personnel nor the cash to pay to have these qualified personnel on staff as maintenance workers.
Third, they are operating in the hub and spoke system, which means that many smaller aircraft are flying into the major airports like Toronto, Vancouver and Edmonton, where passengers are transferred to the major airlines for long distances. This means that there are more aircraft with more parts, and more varied parts, flying more often.
For example, where a major carrier used to fly a 747 carrying some 400 passengers once a day, a small feeder airline will fly a Dash-8 with 20 passengers five times a day.
I am the Member for an area with an airport that is both famous and infamous to many Members of the House, past and present. Castlegar Airport used to have one or two flights a day, with fairly large passenger jets carrying a significant number of passengers. Now there are some four or five flights a day, almost every day, by two different airlines. In addition, there is a small regional airport that also serves as a training base for a pilots' school operated in conjunction with a community college. The number of flights going in and out of what until recently was the airport with the least proportion of successful landings and take-offs in the western hemisphere, has created more than a normal share of problems in terms of safety.
Luckily, and largely due to the skill and dedication of the people employed in and around the industry, to my knowledge there have not been any near misses or serious incidents. We are thankful for that, but unless there are improvements other airports in similar situations to ours may find themselves running out of time and luck. I hope not.
As a result of deregulation there are more flights on feeder routes and more flights into minor airports without state of the art technology and often in veiy difficult locations.
There are more take-offs and landings per hour of aircraft operation. Those familiar with the industry will know that it is during the take-offs and landings that serious incidents are more likely to occur.
There are also more people travelling as a result of deregulated prices. That has been one of the benefits of deregulation. The locations are much busier.

June 6, 1989
Transportation Safety
During this process the number of inspectors have been dropping due to budget cuts. In a recent article on April 14 in the Times-Transcript of Moncton, New Brunswick, Dick Peters, chairman of the Aircraft Operations Group Association, said that Budget cut-backs and insufficient staffing levels make it difficult for staff inspectors of the Department to keep up with changes in the industry.
The association represents some 440 civil aviation inspectors.
I want to quote from this article. The headline states: "Budget cuts creating unsafe airline industry?". The article states:
"The skies won't be safer unless the federal Government begins keeping pace with changes in the airline industry", a spokesman for civil aviation inspectors said Thursday.
R.A. Peters, chairman of the Aircraft Operations Group Association, said budget cut-backs and insufficient staffing levels make it difficult for inspectors to keep up with changes in the industry.
"Nothing has changed," said Peters, noting his predecessor made similar comments in an interview here last year.
"In fact, it's gotten worse."
Peters, whose association represents about 440 civil aviation inspectors, says insufficient salary levels also means many of their numbers are also being hired away by private industry.
There are some Members, I am sure, who are going to say that this is obviously a self-serving statement. To some extent, it possibly is. However, it does not alter the facts of the situation that the salary levels are far below other areas and are not sufficient to keep the very highly qualified people they must have in order to do their job. It is an important job.
Peters pointed out a recently leaked memorandum that confirmed inspector workload in the large aircraft field has increased 400 per cent and yet the numbers of inspectors have declined by 50 per cent.
How many of us would put up with that kind of situation in our own line of work, whether it is in this House or elsewhere? Maybe we would put up with it here, because nobody drafts us for this job. In the case of most Canadians, they would find a situation intolerable where there was a workload increase of 400 per cent and a reduced workforce, down by half.
To go back to the story:
"Numbers have declined partly to attrition but also because we're not attracting people from the military any more," said Peters.
He said trained aviators from the armed forces either re-enlist or are hired by private airlines.
Peters explained civil aviation inspectors must be as well trained as pilots because they must regulate the industry.
However, low staff levels means training time is increasingly difficult to come by.
"In Tbronto at Pearson Airport, some inspectors haven't been on training courses for four to eight months" he said.
"If we don't keep up with the industry, we'll start losing credibility and our ability to assess the industry," he said.
Working conditions and salaries just aren't attracting new inspectors. "In order to be an inspector, you have to be as qualified as a pilot, and our inspectors are going out the door like you wouldn't believe," he said.
Inspectors earn about 50 per cent less than an average airline pilot, Peters estimated.
"The gap in salaries must become a more realistic one", he said, pointing to the situation in Great Britain -
In Maggie Thatcher's Great Britain, in fact-
"-where inspectors automatically earn two-thirds the salary of a British Airways captain".
I hope the Government will listen to that because we have to bring these salaries more into line with the situation in other countries in order to keep and attract the best possible people. Nobody can argue that we need the very best people when it comes to this kind of occupation, where lives are at stake.
"With the public's increasing concern on health and safety", said Peters, "the government would be wise to ensure safety standards are maintained in the skies.
The industry", he said, "is not capable of auditing itself. "We need an adequate third party to ensure federal standards are met."
Surely, Members on the other side of the House and all Members will want to ensure that the standards that we do have, whether they are fully adequate or otherwise-and we hope that they are-that at least those standards that we do have are met. I am sure that will not be argued by anybody.
I just want to quote briefly another story from the Toronto Star of May 27 of this year, entitled: "Union says safety may be threatened by shortage of federal pilot inspectors". It largely draws on the same sources but a number of the facts and figures are different.
A shortage of pilot inspectors may threaten air safety, their union warns.
June 6, 1989

The federal Transport Department may be forced to have airlines
inspect themselves, leading to a possible drop in standards-
They state that:
-an airline employed inspector may pass unqualified pilots to please management. He's liable to come under pressure from management. After all, where does the employees' allegiance lie?
I think all Members here recognize that that may be the case. It is why we go to great pains in a variety of agencies, whether they deal with occupational health and safety or public health and safety, or many other areas of jurisdiction, to ensure that there are two-party or tripartite boards which represent a number of different constituencies so that the public will know or feel secure in the knowledge that those decisions are made not by someone with a gun to their head, directly or indirectly, but by somebody who knows what they are doing and whose only duty is to the travelling public.
"Large numbers of senior pilots are due to retire", Peters said. One airline that Peters refused to name faces 700 inspections next year so its pilots can fly newly introduced aircraft, move from one aircraft to another and move up to captain from first officer.
Seven hundred inspections next year in just one airline.
"This is where the benefits of an independent checking system get thrown out of the window- There are 180 vacancies in the transport department's pilot and pilot inspector group", he said, "and management has made little effort to fill them".
A transport department official said the shortage is smaller than Peters claims and the Department does not expect to let airlines do inspections.
But Roger Burgess-Webb, a spokesman for the Canadian Airline Pilots Association, agreed that the inspector shortage could lead to declining standards, particularly on smaller airlines.
"The pilots association believes the Transport Department, which sets the standards for pilots, should accept the responsibility to enforce them", Burgess-Webb said.
I might add that the Canadian Airline Pilots Association has a great deal of credibility. If any one hedges, usually on the side of caution in making statements that seem alarmist, it is certainly not the Canadian Airline Pilots Association. They tend, and understandably so, to be very defensive of their role and their own right to refuse to fly aircraft that they deem to be unsafe. If they
Transportation Safety
are alarmed, I suggest there should be more than a little concern amongst the rest of us.
My colleague for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) spoke with Mr. Peters just the other day regarding one of the memoranda mentioned in the article. He says that he has just done a tour of airports out West and it is "chaotic" out there. Inspectors are leaving daily, 10 this month and 30 or so next month. That is alarming, considering the drop in inspectors we have already had. If we are continuing to see this kind of demise of an occupational group upon which so much depends, we have to be more than a little alarmed and concerned.
To wrap up this point in brief, there is increasing workload, a decreasing number of inspectors, less time available for training to keep up with new technology.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the matter of Bill C-2, an Act to create the Transportation Accident Investigation Board: This Board is going to amalgamate accident investigations presently carried out under the various air, marine, rail and commodity pipeline boards. Because of the possibly expanded scope of the new board, to include such areas as passenger boating, there will be a need for more safety inspectors for this board to function well.
The reduction of inspection staff is further complicated by this Government's decision to replace the Canadian Aviation Safety Board and other transport safety inspection agencies with one super board. I think that does not need much explanation. However, there is a story here dated May 19, 1989, in the Ottawa Citizen which, in quoting a number of sources including the Pilots Association, it says:
-warned that the proposed new board would lack the expertise to properly investigate air accidents and would likely degenerate into the internal problems that plagued the safety board.
Some board members obviously felt their investigators were not pursuing enough leads before. That I suspect, Mr. Speaker, is probably due to the fact that there were not enough of them. That is what the motion before us is all about.
The Pilots Association recommended that the government retain an exclusive aviation safety board and not submerge it in an agency that investigates a broad range of transportation accidents.
There is enough in what was said and directly quoted by those most intimately concerned with the inspection of air safety people in this country to realize that we have a problem on our hands. The Government has acknowl-

Transportation Safety
edged that there is a serious problem and that there has been a serious backlog in terms of staffing levels. We must begin to make changes now that will ensure we pay appropriate levels of salaries, that we get enough people with the experience to do the required job if flying and other methods of transportation in Canada are to be as safe as the public has the right to expect them to be.
I support the motion and ask that other Parties in the House give it their support as well.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to address the House on the important issue raised by the Hon. Member for Kootenay West-Revels-toke (Mr. Kristiansen) on behalf of his seat-mate, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), namely the adequacy of the present level of funding for transportation safety inspection.
I want to thank my hon. friends for the opportunity to set the record straight once and for all. Transport Canada employs some 550 federal civil aviation, airworthiness, passenger safety and dangerous goods inspectors and others who have had day-to-day responsibility for ensuring air safety. These people are recruited into Transport Canada as highly qualified professionals in their respective medium. They then undergo training for up to a year to become fully qualified. Their jobs and responsibilities are as diverse as the aviation industry itself, but Transport Canada has ensured that aviation regulation staff numbers and the qualifications they bring to their respective jobs are adequate to meet the increasing demands brought about by rapid expansion and restructuring of the aviation industry.
Air-worthiness inspectors verify that civil aircraft are in compliance with air-worthiness standards by inspecting companies for adherence to regulations and by inspecting aircraft to determine that safety standards are met. Inspectors also examine and licence aircraft maintenance engineers and approve maintenance manuals and procedures for all air carriers. They collect and analyze data related to aircraft defects and take corrective action where necessary.
Since 1986-87, the number of air carrier inspectors grew to 137 from 102 across Canada. In 1988-89, 29 of these inspectors oversaw large air carrier operations. Air carrier inspectors conduct initial and continuing inspections of air carrier operations, air crew and facilities.
The number of dangerous goods inspectors in the aviation sector has increased to 15 from 9 since 1986-87. Dangerous goods inspectors conduct on-site inspections of all air carriers to ensure the safe transportation of dangerous goods by Canadian and foreign aircraft operating in Canadian air space.
The number of person-years in the passenger safety inspection activity increased to 16 from 11 in recent years. These inspectors conduct inspections of air carrier passenger operations, cabin attendant training courses and perform audits to ensure compliance with regulations.
Staff in the inspector engineering training section of the aviation group develop training courses and provide training to all the departments' civil aviation inspectors, air-worthiness technical inspectors and air-worthiness engineers to ensure they are fully qualified.
Transport Canada's licensing inspectors, 112 in number, conduct flight tests associated with the issue and endorsement of aviation personnel licences. They also monitor and inspect the activities of flight training staff and organizations, corporate passenger aircraft and special aviation events. Industry personnel who exercise licensing authority on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) are monitored by these inspectors. They also develop and implement policies and standards for the licensing of aviation personnel such as pilots, aircraft maintenance engineers and air traffic controllers and for the registration of aircraft.
The need for comprehensive investigations relating to air carrier operations and air-worthiness infractions resulted in ten more person-years being added to the aviation enforcement section of Transport Canada. The unit which employs 48 is responsible for preventing, detecting, investigating and processing infractions of the Aeronautics Act, air regulations and air navigation orders. This includes the preparation and preservation of court cases before the Civil Aviation Tribunal and the application of regulations addressing occupational safety
June 6, 1989

and health of crew members aboard aircraft. They also are responsible for developing national policy, procedures and training for maintaining functional control of the aviation enforcement organization.
The inspector workforce in the aviation safety programs unit has increased to 17 in 1988-89 from 12.5 person-years in 1986-87. Inspectors in this component conduct accident prevention programs for commercial aviation, the Civil Air Search and Rescue Association, private and recreational aviation, as well as passenger safety education. They also conduct confidential safety surveys, company aviation safety officer courses and aviation safety briefings.
There are 31 inspectors in the Aviation Regulation Directorate who are not directly available for inspection duties. These inspectors are managers who are responsible for ensuring inspection responsibilities are carried out in accordance with departmental policies, procedures and standards.
While my preceding remarks have discussed the 550 inspector resources, there is a total of 900-plus employees engaged in regulatory activities. Further, the aviation group of Transport Canada, whose principal mandate is aviation safety, number some 7,000 employees.
These human resources are supported by an excellent aviation navigation system that has been developed over many years and is continually improved and modernized to take advantage of new technology and to meet the changing need of the air transportation system. In Canada and world-wide, air navigation systems exist to prevent aircraft from colliding with one another. Transport Canada has a mandate to reduce the threat of mid-air collisions and in fact has recently set up a mid-air collision avoidance committee. It is now studying a number of proposals it has received from other groups on this issue.
The Department also asked for public comment from the aviation community last year. At this moment, it is studying all the comments received.
The Department will also develop policies on technical equipment designed to avoid airborne collisions through the use of what are termed Mode C and Mode S transponders. It is expected that within three years, most Canadian carriers will have equipped their aircraft with these traffic alert collision avoidance systems.
Transportation Safety
It should be mentioned at this point that Transport Canada last fall organized a conference in Ottawa on collision avoidance agencies to exchange ideas and information. Many of the participants were given airborne flight demonstrations to see how the systems worked. The reaction was most optimistic.
For the past several years, the microwave landing system project that involves replacing and improving current systems that are used in guiding aircraft during approaches and landings has been under way. The new MLS will be much more accurate and reliable in determining the flight path to a runway. Approximately 150 such systems will be installed right up to the year 2000. A number of private organizations have purchased MLS units, and Transport Canada's specialists are installing them and helping with instrument design.
Transport Canada is constantly looking for ways to improve its services to the flying community through its flight services stations. Recently, improvements have been made by the provision of new electronic displays and storage of aeronautical information, pilot self-briefing systems and automated weather observation services. Transport Canada is also testing an automated system that displays meteorological and other operational data for pilots. It is known as MIDS or Multi-purpose Information Display System. Four stations in the Arctic are using earlier versions and so are five sites in Ontario. Within a few years, it is expected that about 100 new MIDS units will be in operation.
Another major modernization program currently under way and expected to be completed within the next two or three years is the RAMP Program. This is one that will re-equip all major radar sites across the country with more sophisticated technology. This kind of equipment does not come cheap. The total cost is estimated to be close to $800 million. The team that got this project under way was formed early in the 1980s. Its task was to produce and install 24 primary and secondary surveillance radar systems, along with 17 independent secondary radar systems, plus 29 display and data processing systems at various locations across Canada.

June 6, 1989
Transportation Safety
New radar systems have been installed at Ottawa and at Transport Canada's training institute in Cornwall, Ontario. There are other systems at sites in Hamilton and Goose Bay, Newfoundland. Installation work has started at other sites in Sept-Iles, London, Calgary and Victoria. A new system goes into operation at Toronto this fall and others will follow in due course across the country.
My time has run out but there are other things, Mr. Speaker. There is a CAAT system, the Canadian Automatic Air Traffic System. It is a major Crown project which has become a focus for air traffic control modernization. It will produce extensive automation for handling of flight data and the use of common controller work stations. Transport Canada is now evaluating two requests for proposals that were released to the industry in September, 1988.
Incidentally, many of the projects I have outlined represent only a part of the Canadian Airport Systems Plan or CASP which is Transport Canada's approach to the modernization and restoration of the technical infrastructure of the country's air navigation system. This is a strategy for an evolutionary development of the technical infrastructure into the 21st century.
I could go on but I see time has taken over, Mr. Speaker, so I rest my case.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak during Private Member's Business to motion M-272, tabled on April 4, 1989 by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability on increasing funding for transportation
safety inspectors.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide an overview of Transport Canada's programs for the maintenance and improvement of aviation safety in Canada. Transport Canada has established a company aviation safety management program. This innovative program is free and is designed to help companies with risk management. The
program has three components, which include an executive safety seminar, a company aviation safety officer course and a follow-up service provided by Transport Canada's regional aviation safety officers.
The seminar was launched in 1987 in the Aviation Group's six regions. The purpose of the seminar is to motivate and encourage company chief executive officers to establish and maintain a safety program within their companies. This approach has proved to be very effective, and a number of executives have already taken steps to set up programs of this kind. The course designed for company aviation safety officers has existed for many years. In 1987, course content was restructured to adjust to changing needs. The course is designed to teach officers or representatives of company chief executive officers methods for risk management within their own companies. Regional personnel responsible for the aviation safety program offers one course per year. Between 30 and 50 people participate, depending on the region.
In the same program, the regional aviation safety adviser offers a follow-up service whose main objective is to ensure the continued existence and effectiveness of company aviation safety programs. Basically, the overall objective of the company aviation safety management program is to help companies help themselves.
There is irrefutable evidence that this type of program is profitable for the airlines. It helps save lives and keep aircraft in good condition. It is one more way of providing Canadians with a safe and efficient air transportation system.
Mr. Speaker, the company aviation safety management program is only one of many accident prevention programs that regional aviation safety officers offer directly to the industry. New programs are being designed daily.
International experts on aircraft accident prevention have confirmed tht at least 80 per cent of aircraft accidents are the result of human actions or the absence thereof. The remaining 20 per cent are attributed to flight equipment and atmospheric conditions. Pilot decision-making is involved in and determines the majority of accidents in the human factor group.
June 6, 1989

To reduce human error, a new program was made available to all pilots in 1987. The pilot decion-making program is the result of joint efforts by American, French and Canadian civil aviation authorities.
A decision-making course has also been incorporated in the Canadian program for student pilot training. This part of the program will be directed by the services responsible for Canadian aviation regulations. Decisionmaking workshops conducted by regional aviation safety officers in all regions of the Aviation Group are offered to pilots.
In preparing these workshops, experts on safety awareness reviewed reports on specific aircraft accidents and incidents and the reports on occurrences drafted by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board.
Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada's aviation safety programs also acknowledge the important role of education.
In Canada, over 70,000 licensed pilots receive the Aviation Safety Letter six times a year, as well as the changes published in the Transport Canada aviation information bulletin. Every year, Transport Canada receives positive comments on its news bulletin.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada will produce and publish about 1,600 publications on aviation this year. Among these publications, the Aviation Safety Letter has the widest circulation and the largest number of readers. It is read by pilots, operators, mechanics, air traffic controllers and the industry. It is even read by experts in other countries who use the information in the news letter in their own aviation safety services. This publication even gives information obtained from foreign air safety services that can be useful to Canadian pilots.
Transport Canada's national verification program is a key and essential strategy for performing the Department's duties and ensuring an adequate level of service to the aviation community and users of air services. During the period from April 1, 1988 to March 31, 1989, 504 checks were performed nationally under this program.
Mr. Speaker, this overview of Transport Canada's air safety programs shows-as if it were necessary-the care, vigilance and great importance Transport Canada gives to maintaining and constantly improving air safety.
Transportation Safety
Despite what some claim, one must realize that the resources, efforts and initiatives for this purpose are not lacking.
The International Civil Aviation Organization itself thinks that Canada has one of the best safety records in the world and our Government wants to do everything in its power to maintain and even improve this image.
The commitment to maintain a high level of safety in the Canadian transport system is a top priority. Section 3 of the 1987 National Transportation Act enshrines this commitment to safety and the legislative and regulatory framework gives the Department the power to ensure air safety.
[English\


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, my comments are directed toward safety inspection in the marine sector. First let me state that this Government is dedicated to the development and operation of an efficient and safe national marine transportation system. This mandate is a prime responsibility of the Canadian Coast Guard.
In discharging this responsibility, the Coast Guard operates in a demanding environment. First, economic and technological advancements have expanded both the scope and complexity of the Coast Guard work in marine safety matters in recent years. Larger and more technologically complex vessels pose new challenges to marine regulators. The Canadian Coast Guard continues to work in this regard toward improved safety in the marine environment.
The marine surveyors of the Ship Safety Branch of the Coast Guard assume many of the tasks associated with responding to recommendations from investigations and inquiries following any major marine accident. In the course of their analysis, existing safety regulations and standards are thoroughly reviewed. Revisions are incorporated to be certain that prevention of marine accidents is improved.
The Ship Safety Branch administers, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, those parts of the Canada Shipping Act involving all aspects of the programs for ship safety and ship-source pollution.

June 6, 1989
Transportation Safety
In order to achieve this objective, approximately 310 inspectors, including professional management staff, are located across the Dominion of Canada providing services from six regional offices and overseeing 30 district offices distributed from Newfoundland to British Columbia, including the Canadian Arctic.
All of these offices receive guidance on the application of the Canada Shipping Act and other pertinent legislation from Ship Safety headquarters located in Ottawa. The distribution of human resources reflects the level of activity in each area.
In order to ensure a safe marine transportation system, Coast Guard marine regulatory activities include development and enforcement of marine regulations for Canadian and foreign ships visiting Canadian ports; assessment and design approval of all commercial ships to ensure the adequacy of their construction; inspection and certification of these ships to ensure their safety and sea worthiness; examination and certification of marine officers and crews to ensure that ships are properly and competently manned; inspection of marine cargoes, including dangerous goods; and the registration of ships and licensing of vessels.
Under the pollution prevention function, regulations are developed and ships inspected to reduce incidents of ship-source pollution in Canadian waters and to ensure that ships satisfy international convention requirements. Investigations are also carried out to obtain evidence for prosecution purposes where ship-source pollution occurs.
I would like to take this opportunity to spell out some of the services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard designed to facilitate safe navigation of all vessels, including particularly those with potentially polluting cargoes. These remarks are particularly pertinent in the wake of the Exxon Valdez incident. I would like to provide a summary of some of the measures already in place in Canada to ensure that such an incident as the Exxon Valdez accident does not occur in Canadian waters.
These services include an extensive network of conventional and electronic aids to navigation; the broadcast of safety information by a network of Coast Guard radio stations; a system of traffic lanes and traffic separation zones in waters with significant volumes of traffic; and a
series of vessel traffic management stations which monitor and guide ships through areas of significant traffic or in areas where large volumes of potentially polluting cargo are routinely carried by ship.
In Canada, high level traffic management systems, including radar surveillance and real time communications, are provided in areas with substantial tanker traffic and similar systems with VHF radio coverage but without radar are provided in three other sites. The radar equipped sites include Placentia Bay, Newfoundland; Halifax Harbour; approaches to the Bay of Fundy and to Saint John Harbour; the areas of Les Escoumins, Quebec City, and Montreal in the St. Lawrence; the Straits of Juan de Fuca; approaches to Vancouver Harbour, B.C., and the lower west coast of Vancouver Island. Sites monitoring traffic by radio only operate in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, the Detroit-St. Clair River area and in St. John's, Newfoundland. Participation in these traffic management systems is mandatory for all vessels over 60 feet in length.
This system of traffic management centres with trained regulators and standardized procedures is among the most extensive in the world. It has been put in place specifically to reduce the risk of collision, grounding and striking accidents involving large ships, particularly where they carry potentially polluting cargoes.
In addition, Canada has established a unique system of off-shore reporting systems in which ships wishing to enter Canadian waters first file with the Coast Guard, by radio, information relating to their voyage and the condition of their vessel to ensure that it meets Canadian standards and does not pose a pollution risk.
Once entering confined waters, a comprehensive system of pilotage provided by the four Crown corporations responsible for this service ensures that a trained mariner thoroughly familiar with the local area boards each vessel to provide guidance and local expertise.
In addition to these systems designed to facilitate safe passage, Canada also has an extensive regulatory regime under which tankers must meet stringent standards of design, construction, manning and operation. In addition to these standards applying to Canadian flag vessels, Canada imposes additional requirements on foreign flag vessels beyond those already required by international convention. We require that ships of foreign registry
June 6, 1989

cany a non-Canadian ship compliance certificate to demonstrate that they meet these standards.
Current Canadian requirements regarding oil pollution prevention are contained in the oil pollution prevention regulations and non-Canadian ships compliance certificate regulations. They were both made pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act. Safety regulations regarding construction, equipment, operation, officer certification and safe manning requirements are similarly made pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act.
In addition, under the same legislation, pollution prevention officers are created and empowered to take action to prevent a pollution incident within Canadian waters or fishing zones. These powers require that a ship allow boarding and inspection by a pollution prevention officer, produce information or documents demanded by such an officer, and enter or leave certain areas as may be designated by the pollution prevention officer. This is all with a view to preventing a pollution incident or mitigating its consequences.
Notwithstanding the various systems and provisions outlined above designed to reduce the risk of a similar accident as happened in the waters of Alaska, Ministers have recently directed their deputies to carry out a thorough review of various tanker safety systems. I think that is very appropriate at this time, particularly in view of the fact that we are recognizing Environment Week in Canada.
I would like to inform this House that we are committed to safe marine transportation systems. We are confident that the present level of funding allocated for this purpose is adequate. It is something that we will continue to look at in the future to make sure that we maintain those standards.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the motion of the Hon. Member opposite as it applies to the work of two groups of inspectors; those dedicated to ensuring the safety of the railway system in this country and those who ensure that dangerous goods are transported safely. I would first like to put forward some historical background on the place of railway inspectors in the system.
Transportation Safety
The federal Government is responsible for the regulation of safety on much of the railway system in Canada. This responsibility has been successfully carried out by a highly qualified, professional staff ever since widespread development of railways was undertaken in this country.
For many years, regulation was performed by a regulatory agency, most recently the National Transportation Agency. The NTA, and its predecessor boards and commissions, derived powers to regulate safety from the Railway Act, one of our older and more durable pieces of legislation. Nevertheless, as Members will recall, it became increasingly clear that railway regulatory staff were burdened with outdated legal requirements which limited their powers and impeded the modernization of regulations. There was also the need to separate safety regulation from economic regulation and accident investigation.
For these and other reasons, Parliament passed the Railway Safety Act in 1988, proclaimed on January 1, 1989, making railway safety regulation a responsibility of the Minister of Transport.
The Government made it clear when the Railway Safety Act was introduced in the House that safety inspectors had been doing an excellent job. The excellent safety record of the Canadian railway industry testifies to that performance. The Government also made a commitment to strengthen railway safety by the passage of the new Act. This is being implemented as the provisions of the Railway Safety Act replace those of the old Railway Act.
First, the new Act has substantially reduced unproductive regulatory activities by removing paper burden from the inspectors. For instance, under the old legislation, regulatory orders had been issued at the rate of more than five for each working day, mostly because the Railway Act required them, not because it was in the interests of safety. Written orders are now only produced when the resolution of a safety problem cannot be agreed upon by the inspector and a railway company or other party. In other words, improved communication, backed up by the powers granted by the new Act, has replaced detailed regulation by written order.
For railway construction and alteration projects, the old legislation required inspectors to review plans, visit construction sites, issue pre-construction orders, inspect completed works and issue final approvals. The majority of these works were routine alterations, often in remote

June 6, 1989
Transportation Safety
locations, which posed no threat to safety. Field forces now are no longer forced to carry out multiple inspections and can choose sites to visit on a random basis, exercising professional judgment as to what railway works ought to be monitored.
Work is already under way on a major overhaul of the operating rules which are critical to the safety of the movement of trains. Safety inspectors can now move quickly with a minimum of bureaucratic paperwork to modify and update rules that previously were locked into the cumbersome regulatory process. This was one of the key concerns of Mr. Justice Foisy in his inquiry into the Hinton train collision.
What is the impact on railway safety? The Government has retained all the railway safety inspection resources that were available under the previous legislation. By giving the inspectors greater ability to direct resources toward the most productive safety activities, Canadians are getting more for their regulatory dollar. Both the regulator and the industry spend less time on paper-pushing exercises. The Government can focus on essential safety activities and the industry must respond.
There are 97 railway safety inspector positions in Transport Canada's Railway Safety Directorate. Inspecting staff have expertise in the three major disciplines of safety regulation: railway operations, railway equipment, and railway infrastructure. These persons are certified to enter and inspect railway premises as necessary to carry out their responsibilities. They are knowledgeable about railway rules and operating practices, about the operation and maintenance of equipment and machinery, about the construction and maintenance of railway track and structures, and train movement control systems.
The staff of 97 inspectors are located across the national railway system. There are 23 in headquarters in the National Capital region. The balance of 74 are in regional offices maintained in Moncton, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver. Each regional office has available inspectors with expertise in all aspects of railway operation and maintenance. The regulatory staff carry out a program of inspections on a continuous basis and are available to respond to requests, inquiries and complaints from local authorities, from railway employees, or from private individuals.
Persons appointed as railway safety inspectors are no longer encumbered with other duties to perform, such as accident investigation or cost arbitration. As well, the inspectors have greater powers under the new legislation than were available under the old Railway Act. Again, I point out that changes brought about by the Railway Safety Act mean that the resources, particularly the inspectors' time and talents, are better employed. We have had a tangible increase in resource-utilization because of this realignment.
The Railway Safety Act provides the inspectors with right of access to investigate anything pertinent to safe railway operations. Companies and individuals are compelled to assist the inspectors in carrying out their legitimate duties. Most important, the inspectors can intervene and take direct action where they see a threat to safety.
To an increasing extent, government inspectors are monitoring how the railway companies are performing safety-related activities and spending less time attempting to duplicate these functions themselves. Inspecting to ensure that railways are managing safety provides Canadians with effective regulation.
After three months of regulation under the new legislation, the results are positive. Inspectors have welcomed their new powers and freedom to exercise judgment. Of equal importance is the fact that the industry, both management and unions, and other involved parties, have reacted in a co-operative manner and are assisting in the development and implementation of modernized regulations, standards, and rules. Indeed, the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson) knows that the Government is monitoring the implementation of the Railway Safety Act very closely. He also knows that the measure of success will be the safety performance of the industry and the ability of our inspecting staff to influence it.
The Canadian railway system has an excellent safety record. Our goal and the goal of railway safety inspectors is to ensure that this record is preserved and improved.

I would now like to turn to a somewhat separate but nevertheless related matter. In 1985, regulations designed to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods were put into force pursuant to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. These regulations reduce the possibility of an accidental release of a dangerous good by requiring that all dangerous goods, as listed or defined in the regulations, be identified, be classified, be marked, be handled in an appropriate manner, be contained in approved packages, tanks, cylinders or containers, and that individuals involved in their transportation be trained with respect to both the requirements of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and regulations, as well as in the characteristics of the dangerous goods being moved.
The dangerous goods regulations also ensure that in the event of an accidental release of a dangerous good, the consequences will be minimized. The requirements are that there be immediate notification of the release, remedial measures be undertaken, dangerous goods being transported be marked with identification labels and placards, and that shipping documents clearly identify the dangerous goods, thereby providing immediate information to emergency response personnel.
In addition, for certain more dangerous goods, the regulations require that before shipment occurs, the shipper have in place an emergency response assistance plan detailing how the shipper will respond to correct the effects of any accidental release.
To further support emergency response measures, Transport Canada produced a book entitled Guide to Initial Emergency Response. This has received wide distribution in Canada. It provides advice on initial actions to be taken in the event of an accidental release.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the Order is dropped from the Order Paper.
Exploration and Development




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp that Bill C-19, an Act to amend the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-19, an Act to amend the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program Act.
Call in the Members.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, June 7, 1989

Prayers


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, Mgr. Angelo Palmas, posted in Ottawa since December 1975 as the Vatican's representative in Canada, has become Dean of the Diplomatic Corps in Ottawa on the basis of seniority.
I was astounded and shocked this morning, Mr. Speaker, when I heard that the Prime Minister had downgraded the Apostolic Nuncio. This kind of gesture from the Tory Government is both petty and outrageous. Today, when Canadians hear the news, they will feel insulted by the Government.
The Prime Minister should immediately apologize to the Vatican and to Mgr. Palmas for his decision and reinstate the latter as Apostolic Nuncio and Dean of the Diplomatic Corps in Ottawa.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, many of us are convinced that Canadian aid, particularly bilateral aid, should be linked to respect for human rights and the progress of democracy in recipient nations. It should benefit the people most in need.
Those who share this view are concerned about Canada's role among seven industrial nations in providing
financial aid to Guyana linked to IMF austerity measures, near neo-colonialist measures which in other developing nations have exacerbated property and promoted instability. With an international debt of $1.8 billion and a level of poverty nearly the worst in the western hemisphere, Guyana does need help but not just in the economic sphere.
The people of Guyana are not helped if the poorest are ignored, their voices unheard and if human rights abuses continue and democracy is persistently compromised. Canada must not be implicated in a new colonialism that perpetuates the sins of the past. Its aid must serve those most in need. It must enhance human rights. It must promote free and fair elections in Guyana. That is the plea of the Guyanese to the Canadian Government. I ask that they be heard.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, today more than every before, Canadians are concerned about their quality of life.
The federal Government shares that concern and has designated the week of June 4 to June 10 as "Environment Week".
This year's theme, "Our Common Future: It's in Our Hands", is very apt.
Canadians are demonstrating their concern by becoming more active in community clean-up projects and consumer awareness programs.
The federal Government has shown leadership in this area at the international level.
In fact, Canadians have earned the respect of the international community for having made the environment a national priority.
This week is a special opportunity for us all to demonstrate our environmental awareness and to become personally involved in protecting our heritage.

June 7, 1989
I am proud of the initiative taken by the Chamber of Commerce in the riding of Drummond, which is carrying out some important clean-up jobs on the banks of the Saint-Frangois River, within the territory of Saint-Charles de Drummond, Saint-Nicephore and Drum-mondville.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Harry Chadwick (Brampton-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, it was a memorable day some years ago when a Lockheed L-14 became visible in the sky, carved a path through some cloud cover and landed safely at its destination.
The first Canadian scheduled flight to land at this site was filled to its capacity. Fourteen passengers stepped out of the aircraft and headed toward the terminal, a converted farmhouse which also served as the headquarters for the airport's administration operations and weather office. The year was 1938. The place was the present site of Lester B. Pearson International Airport.
On Saturday June 10, the Airport will celebrate its fiftieth birthday, a celebration which marks not only the progress of the airport but the progress of air travel in Canada.
As Canada's busiest airport, more demands are being placed on Lester B. Pearson International to allow for maximum efficient use of the facilities while maintaining safe, equitable levels of service and a positive relationship with the surrounding communities. While this has not always been easy, I am confident that a co-operative relationship can exist and that these communities will continue to reap the indisputable economic benefits-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention relates to the federal Government's financial involvement in the completion of Highway 50 between Masson and Lachute.
Quite recently, Mr. Speaker, Quebec Transport Minister Marc-Yvan Cote was in Hull to announce that even without Ottawa's participation his Government would go ahead and complete the Highway 50 Masson-Lachute stretch.
Mr. Speaker, I still dare believe and hope that the federal Government will make a financial contribution to what has often and rightfully been referred to as the backbone of expansion projects in the entire Outaouais region.
Mr. Speaker, I still dare believe and hope that, just as the federal Government had quickly come up with the funding required to build roads in the Prime Minister's riding, it will do the same thing in the case of Highway 50. Again I seek the support of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) in favour of an affirmative decision at the earliest opportunity so that such an important issue might be covered under the next Canada-Quebec highway construction agreement.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Edna Anderson: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are more concerned than ever before about the environment. The week of June 4 to 10 marks Canada's National Environment Week. This year's theme, "Our Common Future: It's in Our Hands", emphasizes the personal contributions we can all make toward preserving our environmental heritage.
While individual Canadians have shown their concern for the environment through a new involvement in
June 7, 1989

community clean-up projects and consumer awareness groups, the federal Government too has made record progress in environmental issues. Through federal projects such as the Environmental Choice Program, Canadians will be encouraged to waste less and recycle more.
Consumers will be able to purchase a growing variety of products made entirely of recycled materials. It is Environment Week and the meaning is clear: The environment is everybody's business.



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo -Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this week is National Access Awareness Week. Rick Hansen, "The Man in Motion", who set in motion this annual event, is perhaps the most famous Canadian to have come from my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin.
We of the Cariboo are very proud of Rick's accomplishments. We are especially proud of the heroic way in which Rick brought national and world-wide attention to the plight of disabled persons.
The job which Rick Hansen began, however, remains far from finished. I want to urge all Canadians to do their bit to help disabled Canadians become fully integrated into Canadian life.
Rick Hansen showed us what he could accomplish in a wheelchair. Let us show disabled Canadians what we can accomplish by providing better access for them.



THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished Canadian who has reached a milestone in his life. Today the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Thrner) celebrates his sixtieth birthday. He is a distinguished parliamentarian who has demonstrated time and time again integrity, honesty, decency and dignity.
He is a courageous politician who has always placed government and public service before himself, a man whose commitment to Canada and Canadians has been completely unqualified.
He is a true Liberal, injecting passion and reason into politics while always emphasizing human dignity; a great Canadian who has been able to strike that delicate balance between politics, family and friends. Within each facet of his life, his is a story of success.
I know that each Member of the House joins with the constituents of Hamilton Mountain to wish the Right Hon. Member continued health and happiness today and in the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, on this National Access Awareness Week for disabled people, I want to bring to your attention one of the major problems disabled people face, which is employment opportunities.
Many barriers to equality of opportunity exist to disabled people. Several Canada Employment Centres are not accessible to persons with disabilities. Many personnel are not aware of the needs of the disabled community. Many of those offices are located in buildings which are not physically accessible, and few disabled people qualify for the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program.
There are many disincentives to employment as well. Given that in most provinces a person loses social benefits when employed, many people just cannot afford to work.
The Government has a leading role to play in ensuring that disabled Canadians can and do participate in the mainstream of Canadian life. So far, the Government is not doing a very good job of that. A good place to start would be to straighten out the problems I have just outlined. Disabled people in Canada deserve better.



EXPANSION OF AUTO PARTS PLANT IN CONSTITUENCY OF DELTA

Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, on June 1 a new wave of investment hit the shores of British Columbia, bringing with it more jobs, new technology, and a bright future for auto parts manufacturing in British Columbia. Canadian Auto Parts Toyota Inc. or CAPTIN, is located



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent):: Mr. Speaker, in early April of this year, Frank Jackman, the Canadian High Commissioner to Guyana came out in strong support of the austerity measures proposed by the Government of that country. This amounts to the support of a regime that came to power through illegitimate means and has been constantly in violation of all international standards of human rights.
The Government of Guyana adopted the stringent conditions of the International Monetary Fund so that it would qualify for developmental assistance from countries such as Canada. But unfortunately this aid is not going to those that need it the most. This has resulted in a situation whereby the average Guyanese cannot afford the very basic necessities of life.
I urge the Canadian Government to insist that democracy return to Guyana before any further aid is sent and that the Government encourage the participation of the
people of Guyana in an equitable distribution of foreign development assistance.



THE BUDGET


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as stated by the president of Northern Telecom "the most important investment in the future of Canada in the long run is education". Without education, our children will be left on the sidelines as the so-called information age dawns. It is critical for Canada to increase the excellence and effectiveness of its higher education system. However, the Government believes that deficit reduction is more important than investing in our young people and in our future.
It has cut $1.8 billion from post-secondaiy education funding over the past four years and plans now to cut another $960 million over the next six years. The Government says that these are not cuts, but before it took a chain saw to education budgets, post-secondary education was to receive billions of dollars more. According to any definition in any dictionary, that is a cut.
We are seeing the consequences of this neglect. Canada's universities are forced to walk the streets with cap in hand, pleading with the public for $1.25 billion. Educating our youth is too important to leave up to philanthropists. The Government must restore fair funding for post-secondary education and cancel the further cuts proposed in the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Wilson) Budget.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Mr. Speaker, I think that Canadians have less and less confidence in this Government which misled them before and after the last election. They no longer trust a
June 7, 1989

government that does not keep its word. Today, we have a classic example from the Minister of Transport.
Yesterday, he refused to answer the questions he was asked in the House about the future of VIA Rail. Then, he left the House and told journalists that he could imagine simply eliminating rail passenger service.
How can the Minister go so far as to consider the total elimination of rail passenger service for Canadians throughout our great country?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no difference between what I said in the House yesterday and what I said outside the House. It is also what I said on May 3, 1989 in a press release, namely that VIA Rail, in preparing its new plan, should consider all possible options whereby it can operate within its budget.
What I said yesterday is exactly the same. All the options VIA Rail is to present to us must be within the new reference levels and, again, I do not presume what conclusions VIA Rail will come to, but I am prepared to examine those that will be presented to me.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister was much more frank outside the House than he was here in the House.
[English}


ELIMINATION OF ROUTES IN ATLANTIC CANADA
John Napier Turner: We all know that the President of VIA Rail quit because he would not go along with the Government's plan to suppress rail passenger service in Canada. Is it not true that those corporate plans include the destruction of all rail service in Atlantic Canada, particularly the elimination of the Halifax-Sydney route, Halifax-Saint John, Halifax-Yarmouth, Moncton-Edmundston, Moncton-Campbellton, Moncton-Charlottetown and Halifax-Montreal?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would expect the Leader of the Opposition to follow the normal procedure when we ask a corporation to provide some proposals in terms of the future of VIA Rail. What he is referring to, Mr. Speaker, is essentially something from a leaked document, which I have not
Oral Questions
received myself, which is not in the Department of Transport. I would expect that he would wait, as I do, for the proposal to be officially presented by VIA Rail before making a decision.


John Napier Turner: That answer does not fool anybody. The Minister better get on top of the job and find out what is going on in VIA Rail.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT BANK LOAN
John Napier Turner: According to the United States transportation journal, which is called Passenger Transport, the U.S. passenger rail service Amtrak is purchasing 100 passenger cars from Bombardier in Canada. This is what the magazine states, and I want to quote from the article. "The order is being financed through the Export Development Corporation of Canada."
We are all for export sales, but will the Minister of Transport explain how it is that the Canadian Government has enough money to finance the purchase by Amtrak of Canadian rail passenger cars for American passenger service, and yet has not got enough money to purchase railway passenger cars for Canadian passenger service?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I must understand, obviously- I am always glad when the Leader of the Opposition refers to the United States, because it depends on what is at issue, not on basic principles. Usually, we are told that anything done in the United States is not good for Canada. Now all of a sudden, the Leader of the Opposition uses a line of argument that is completely contrary to the principles he developed previously.
Mr. Speaker, it is very simple! Canadian companies have a right to do business and they do business with all companies that can provide work for Canadians, and I think that should be encouraged. However, Mr. Speaker, that has nothing to do with the reference level we set for VIA Rail. Once again, Canada can no longer afford to put $700 million a year in a corporation that transports 3 per cent of Canadians.
Again. I repeat what I said yesterday: Everyone is for the train, but no one takes it.

June 7, 1989
Oral Questions
[English)


CUT-BACKS IN VIA RAIL ROUTES
Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, Sir John A. Macdonald built the railway in this country, and now his own Conservative Party wants to tear it down.
Would the Minister answer the last question posed by my Leader? Canadians are very happy to help our Canadian companies develop exports. I have trouble today understanding why help cannot also be provided to our own Canadian VIA Rail.
Why is there Canadian money available for Amtrak at a time when 36 of the routes of our Canadian rail are being diminished and 22 of those routes are being eliminated, leaving only 14 routes in Canada? Why is that happening at this time?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to say that there is an increase in all modes of transportation in this country. In air transportation, deregulation has been well done by the Deputy Prime Minister. There is increased traffic in air transportation, and in rail transportation at the freight level. There is increased traffic in marine transportation. Canada has to deal, first of all, with all those modes of transport and they have to be considered as the future of transportation in Canada.
Once again, how can my friend explain putting that much money in VIA Rail, with the scarce resources we have to consider the future of transportation. This is what I am trying to do within this Government.


RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE
Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think what the Minister forgot to say is that there is also an increased load in our Canadian railway passenger service in this country.
The Minister cannot keep giving those answers. He alone fired the president of VIA Rail because the president of VIA Rail would not go along with his Government's plans. Does this Minister understand that the destruction of rail passenger service in this country will destroy or go a long way toward destroying most small communities in this country which are served by VIA Rail? Does he think that this is what Sir John A.
Macdonald had in mind when he started the passenger rail service in our country?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, my friend said that the ridership has increased on VIA Rail. It is the kind of financial operation I have been used to seeing with the Liberal Party. It is 13 per cent or $26 million more income for VIA Rail. Ninety-four million dollars, Mr. Speaker, and for $26 million. Once again-


An Hon. Member:: What about ridership?


Benoît Bouchard: The ridership is 13 per cent more. In 1981, the ridership was 21 per cent more than in 1989. This is not the way that we manage the country, to do what the Liberal Party did for 20 years.


CUT-BACKS IN VIA RAIL SERVICE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Transport about the report that VIA Rail was going to be either shutting down completely or making major reductions in passenger service in Atlantic Canada, in Quebec, in northern Ontario, in the Prairies and across British Columbia.
The Minister in his reply yesterday in the House suggested the possibility that he might go along with it. Outside the House, he was even more explicit, and said that he would be quite willing to contemplate the shutdown of the whole passenger service.
Does the Prime Minister accept this totally irresponsible attitude toward railway passenger service as demonstrated by his Minister of Transport?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, as usual, we will repeat for the benefit of the Leader of the NDP what we said to the Leader of the Liberal Party. On May 3,1 said that all options were to be considered by VIA Rail for conducting its operations within the budget it has been given. In a few weeks, VIA Rail will submit proposals to the Government, defining exactly how the Crown corporation should operate. At that time, the Government will make a choice, after examining VIA Rail's proposals, whatever they may be. This does not mean the proposals will be accepted. It means they will be considered, and that is what I said earlier, and it is what I now repeat to the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
June 7, 1989


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister's Office promised to increase VIA Rail services, not the Minister, but if he intends to answer my questions, I have another one.
If we look at all transport modes in Canada, there are subsidies for roads and federal subsidies totalling $700 million for airports, but yesterday the Minister, said that the federal Government's policy is that only the railways have to make a profit. The Minister wants to continue to subsidise cars, buses and airports and even exports by rail to the United States, but no subsidies at all for our railways here in Canada. Is that the federal Government's policy.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Leader of the NDP is making assumptions, because no decisions have been made so far. Second, there is something I think he should recall. When we look at the transport modes used in this country by passengers between municipalities, of course support is given to highway transportation, but this mode is used 85 per cent of the time while the railway mode is used only 3 per cent of the time. Mr. Speaker, we have to keep things in perspective. Regarding air transportation, the same Member of Parliament was condemning or deploring the situation at the airport in Toronto, where eventually, we will be announcing certain measures. Transport decisions made are on the basis of use by passengers, Mr. Speaker.


RAILWAYS-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my last question is directed to the same Minister. If no capital investment is put in and a system that does not function properly is created, of course it is not attractive and people will not go on it. If it is starved, that is what happens. People understand that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that in the private sector General Motors Corporation, which thinks not just five years ahead but ten years ahead, put $2 billion in my constituency alone to modernize equipment for the automotive sector, does the Minister not believe that in the public sector for railways the federal Government has an obligation to invest and to create a modern.
Oral Questions
efficient railway,just like they are doing with Amtrak in the United States?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to have that much money in my riding. It would be much easier.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Second, I would like to say seriously that the Government has put $5.4 billion into the rail transportation system which we have. That is $5.4 billion since 1978.


John Edward Broadbent: So what?


Benoît Bouchard: If General Motors were to put that much money into a system in which the ridership is 20 per cent less in 1989 than it was in 1981, it would not be where it is today.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It pertains to the crisis in China.
On Monday, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that Canada was considering as a member of the United Nations Security Council an initiative to put pressure on the Chinese leadership to stop the bloodshed.
On Tuesday, he said that the United Nations had no mandate in a country's internal affairs.
The conflict may well be within the walls of China. However, considering China's nuclear capability the general instability poses an imminent threat to global
security.
In light of this, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us what steps he has taken to convince the Assembly that the situation does pose a potential global threat and therefore does indeed fall within the United Nations mandate of ensuring global peace and security?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that I made the point yesterday that in a country of the power and size of China the disorder that is occurring cannot long remain an internal matter. However, I know that all Members of the House of Commons would want the United Nations to respect the letter of its charter, and

June 7, 1989
Oral Questions
that they would also want the Government of Canada to respect the charter.
Today, the Prime Minister has signed a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations which does two things. First, it conveys to the Secretary General the resolution adopted unanimously by the House of Commons on Monday night and the record of debate.
It also indicates to the Secretary General that Canada would support very strongly both his leadership and action that might be taken through ECOSOC and action that might be taken through the Human Rights Commission. It indicates that it is our view that in these circumstances the United Nations and the Secretary General should act in a way to have the fullest impact possible within the terms of the charter.


Jesse Philip Flis: I thank the Minister for that detailed answer.


EVACUATION PLANS FOR CANADIANS IN CHINA
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, in this morning's news reports we heard that an emergency evacuation of American Embassy staff and dependants was unsuccessful and that they were still trapped in the compound. We have also heard that the Army is getting ready to move against students on university campuses around China.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs how many Canadians are still trapped in Beijing. What is being done to evacuate those Canadians who are still in other Chinese cities and on other university campuses that are not in the vicinity of Beijing or Shanghai?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the House would be pleased to know that a chartered Canadian Airlines International DC-10 left Beijing with 251 Canadian passengers last night. It has arrived safely in Tokyo.
There would be in the neighbourhood of 30 to 40 Canadians remaining in Beijing. Some of those are Canadian Embassy officials. They will be remaining there for the foreseeable future to maintain Canadian activities there.
I have issued an advisory to Canadians elsewhere in China that it is the view of the Government that it would be wise for them to leave other parts of China. We are putting in place arrangements that will help them move out.
There are some complications that I should draw to the attention of the House. One is that some Canadians are in particularly remote parts of China. Jet aircraft cannot land in some of those locations. We are looking into the chartering of smaller aircraft that might be able to get into those more remote areas.
These are problems which are not faced by Canada alone. Other countries involved, such as the United States, as the Hon. Member mentioned, Australia, the U.K., and others are facing similar difficulties. We are pooling our resources.
For example, we have made an arrangement with Australia by which vacant spaces on one of its planes coming out of Beijing and Shanghai tomorrow will be made available to Canadians. In exchange we will make available to Australians and to others vacant spaces on another chartered Canadian Airlines flight that will be leaving Beijing and Shanghai on Friday.
We believe we have identified the location of Canadians throughout China. There are some technical problems in ensuring that we can get to all of them as quickly as we would like to, but in working with other countries we are doing our best.


NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In last month's issue of the Science and Government bulletin the Minister of Energy said that in his attempt to sell the CANDU reactor he was going to review all the regulations regarding the sale of nuclear elements out of Canada, including a review of Canada's position in the 1970 treaty of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. To quote the Minister, he said: "For instance, you take China. Some people are putting China forward as a potential area for sales. Obviously the NPT becomes an issue."
June 7, 1989

Will the Minister today renounce the dangerous policy review that he has undertaken, especially in light of the recent events in China? Does the Minister not recognize that Canada's participation in the non-proliferation treaty is crucial?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the article to which the Hon. Member referred and subsequent articles which have been written deal with the examination of AECL's work. The regulations refer to the joint partnerships that AECL at the present time has difficulty entering into, as well as the up-front loading of costs that AECL and the Government of Canada have had to bear. Those are the regulations to which I am referring.
At no time did I refer to the NPT to say that I am reviewing it, that we want to change it, or that we will lessen it.
When I referred to China and the NPT, obviously until China signs the NPT specifically for CANDU reactors or any other nuclear technology Canada could not co-operate.


SALE OF REACTOR TO CHINA
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the direct quote is still on tape. The Minister and nobody else but the Minister raised the issue of the sale of a nuclear reactor to China. He directly said: "For instance, you take China. Some people"-including AECL-"are putting China forward as a potential area for sales. Obviously the NPT becomes an issue."
Will the Minister not categorically reject any review of Canada's participation in the NPT? Does he not understand that the sale of nuclear reactors should obviously depend upon the economic and political stability of the countries involved? How could he make a statement like this? How can he justify, especially in light of the current turmoil in China, even discussing the possibility of the sale of a nuclear reactor to China?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is simply twisting again the words that I used.
With respect to when the article and the interview was done-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are on tape.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am glad I am on tape. That is where the truth is. I wish she would also express it.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Obviously, in view of what has happened in China, before there would be any decision taken on an AECL or CANDU reactor, whether it is the present situation or China's adherence to the NPT, China would have to adhere to the NPT. I raised the NPT for exactly that reason. Until the Chinese will conform to the NPT, obviously, Canada with its policy would not be able, and should not be able, to sell AECL or nuclear technology.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are reviewing your policy.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In terms of review, I said that it is with respect to the manner in which AECL functions, not a review of the NPT, Canada's adherence to the NPT, or that Canada will force anyone who buys nuclear technology from Canada to conform to the NPT.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In June, 1988 the Prime Minister said, and I quote: "We have established mechanisms to ensure that economic decisions take environmental impact into account". I am sure the Prime Minister will realize that any shift from use of rail to road and air will have a negative impact on the environment.
In light of the Prime Minister's policy statement-was it a commitment or a promise; I am not sure which- back in 1988, did the Government have an environmental impact study done on the budget decision to reduce the subsidy levels for VIA Rail?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker.


ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport said that his Department did not do any studies into the impact of VIA Rail on the subsidies. The Prime Minister said that there has been no environmental impact done.
In light of the Prime Minister's statement of June, 1988 in which he said there were mechanisms in place, will he now indicate to this House and to the people of Canada that before VIA's report is implemented in whatever form it is there will be a full environmental

June 7, 1989
Oral Questions
impact assessment done to ensure that whatever the changes are there is no detrimental impact to the environment?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has indicated many times that VIA Rail is in the process of producing some recommendations that will be brought forward for consideration by the Government, presumably some time in the month of June.
The reference levels to which allusion has been made are those brought forward by the Minister of Finance and budgetary provisions, the statement of numbers, usually do not involve environmental impact studies.


DAY CARE
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare.
There are 5,000 families on the approved waiting list for subsidy for day care in Metropolitan Toronto. This year, in spite of the fact that Metro Toronto residents pay the highest taxes in North America and confront the highest living costs in Canada, the provincial Government has authorized an increase in subsidy that will still leave property taxpayers footing a bill of $12 million for day care subsidy costs.
As Minister responsible for the Canada Assistance Plan which funds 50 per cent of these subsidies to low income families who are predominantly single parents, many of whom would otherwise be on welfare, will he request Premier David Peterson of the Province of Ontario to stop discriminating against residents of Metropolitan Toronto and provide the subsidies residents are eligible for under the Canada Assistance Plan?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the Hon. Member's concern. While the Province of Ontario has the jurisdiction to determine-


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is why you killed the day care issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a serious issue and Members of the House of Commons should listen. The Province of Ontario-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Apparently, Mr. Speaker, they are not interested.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: It was a serious question and it was a long one. I hope the Minister will keep that in mind.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I will indeed, Sir. I will give a very short answer. First, the Government of Canada is responsible for the allocation. Second, this year we expect to be transferring under CAP $114 million. Third, when I meet with the provincial Minister I will convey the Hon. Member's concern to him.
=k =k 5k


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
Would the Minister confirm to Members of this House that he is the owner of some 2,000 acres of land in Pictou County in Nova Scotia and that he is also the sole owner of Beaver Lumber Company Limited, a private investment company in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia?
Would he also confirm that $9.2 million in funds from the offshore development fund were used to build a road which the Auditor General says has nothing to do with offshore development but in point of fact benefits Beaver Lumber Company Limited?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I can inform my honourable colleague that I own some land in Pictou County. I do own Beaver Lumber Company. I own some land in Pictou County, and I am aware of this crock that has been peddled around for some months now that somehow the construction of this road has benefited me or some person close to me. I categorically deny that. As a matter of fact,
June 7. 1989

the construction of the road, if anything, has a detrimental effect on properties I happen to own beside the road.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: I thank the Minister for his frankness.


POSITION OF GOVERNMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister.
The Minister or the Prime Minister must be aware that the Auditor General referred to the Privy Council Office a letter which was delivered to the Auditor General raising some very serious questions with regard to this particular situation.
I would like the Prime Minister to stand in his place and to inform Members of the House on the nature of the discussions that took place between him and the Minister responsible for Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and whether or not there was any real or perceived conflict of interest in this entire matter. If not, would the Prime Minister table that report for benefit of Members of Parliament?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of some of the allegations to which my hon. friend makes reference. They apparently came forward in an unsigned, anonymous poison pen letter from an individual to an officer of Parliament, I think the Auditor General. It was referred to the Clerk of the Privy Council who with the appropriate-


Mr. Nunziata:: Another leak.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to answer and the Liberals apparently having asked the question refuse to-


Sergio Marchi: Get off that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the matter was referred to the Clerk of the Privy Council who with his officials met with me, then met with the Minister, reviewed all relevant documentation, and interviewed the appropriate people and the Minister. He concluded that there was no conflict of interest and that the Minister dis-
Oral Questions
charged his responsibilities at all times consistent with the finest traditions of this House.
It is true that funds were expended by the Government of Canada in co-operation with the Government of Nova Scotia to build a road through Pictou County, a road that had been overdue by some 50 or 60 years. It was one of the few areas in Canada deprived of this kind of infrastructure. The Government of Canada made the decision along with the Government of Nova Scotia, under appropriate arrangements, to build that road through Pictou County. It was a proper investment of public funds in the Province of Nova Scotia and in Pictou County.
The Member of Parliament from Pictou and his family are widely known in the area as having over many generations been involved in the wood lot business. This highway, as I understand it, was designed and the road bed chosen essentially by the provincial Government. There was no benefit, direct or indirect, to the Minister, and everything that he did was designed to enhance what my hon. friend speaks of in this House often, the well-being and the economic advancement of the people and the Province of Nova Scotia.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, who designated the Minister of Labour responsible for the Montreal region. We found out today that, according to the Minister, Montreal doesn't need federal programs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our unemployment rate is twice as high as in Toronto. The closing of Vickers, the east-end refineries and the railways clearly shows that we have been abandoned by the Conservatives. How can the Prime Minister justify his appointment of a Minister who has admitted giving up even before having fought for the interests of the people of Montreal?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Ville LaSalle has obviously failed to mention that, since this Government came to power, the unemployment rate in Montreal has been

June 7, 1989
Oral Questions
reduced from 11.3 per cent to 9.7 per cent and that
99,000	new jobs have been created in Montreal itself-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Also, 313,000 new jobs have been created in Quebec, a record level for the past few years. A $35 million industrial revitalization program for east-end Montreal has been announced, as well as $125 million in industrial loans and $115 million for the Canadian Jobs Strategy programs. In case my friend has forgotten, the Canadian Government, with the support of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, has recently established the Space Agency in Montreal.


An Hon. Member:: In Saint-Hubert.


REQUEST FOR CONCRETE MEASURES
Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister has not visited Montreal in a long time. As far as I know, Saint-Hubert is not located on Montreal Island.
Mr. Speaker, this answer makes clear that nobody is defending the interests of Montreal Island. My question is this: Is the Prime Minister ready to support concrete proposals in order, first of all, to provide the kind of funding needed in South-West Montreal, which, like the East side, is affected by economic decline and Conservative neglect?
Is the Prime Minister ready to support tax measures needed to further Montreal's international role? Is the Prime Minister ready to support a reversal of the RRAP program cuts, that senseless discrimination against the East side's poorest tenants?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to Montreal's international role. Where was he when the Liberals tried to kill Bill C-22, the effect of which was to attract $700 million in investment money into the drug industry in Montreal? Although it had the support of every research centre in Montreal's large universities, the Liberal Party attempted to kill Bill C-22 that was so urgently needed in Montreal.
In addition, the President of the Treasury Board has announced $100 million of investment money for Montreal's old harbour. There are a series of projects throughout that great area. But amazingly the Hon.
Member seems to believe that Saint-Hubert, as well as the North or East sides of Montreal, should not benefit from the same moves directed at downtown Montreal. In our view, all Montrealers are first-class citizens.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Thanscona):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has, in his answers to the Hon. Member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan, revealed surely the shallowness of his understanding of the concept of sustainable development by being so flip in his rejection of the notion that there may well indeed be an argument for an environmental assessment of the VIA Rail cutbacks.
The Prime Minister made a commitment that all economic decisions would be environmentally assessed. Does he not think that budgetary decisions are economic decisions?
Does he not think, therefore, that the cut-backs in VIA Rail will have an environmental impact with increased use of cars, buses and other emissions? Does he not think that that is an environmental issue? Why will he not order an environmental impact study of the VIA Rail cuts?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend will agree that we made a great deal of progress with the concept of sustainable development.


Lloyd Axworthy: Not in Winnipeg-


Martin Brian Mulroney: In fact, a centre for sustainable development will be established at Winnipeg. I think that will bring a great benefit to Canada. I know that my hon. friend, the representative from Winnipeg, will celebrate this very important occasion.
The concept of sustainable development is being progressively incorporated into the plans of the Government of Canada. The Minister of the Environment has made remarkable progress in a brief period of time. We
June 7, 1989

hope to make more. We will be able to do so with the ongoing co-operation of the Member for Winnipeg.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the point is that centres, as welcome as they may be, rhetoric, and awards in the United States from phoney environmental organizations as well-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -are not enough. Does the Prime Minister not see that there is an opportunity here for him to put his money where his mouth is with respect to the Brundtland Commission, sustainable development, et cetera, and to have an environmental impact assessment done of a major economic decision, the decision to cut back on subsidies for VIA Rail?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, he celebrates the name "Brundtland", the Prime Minister of Norway. Then he refers to a "phoney" award that Canada received in the United States. Prime Minister Brundtland was there to present me with the award.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC WORKS
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. One of the most prestigious federal properties anywhere in Canada is old Government House in Fredericton. It was once the residence of New Brunswick's Lieutenant-Governor.
It is my understanding that after several decades of occupation and ownership by the RCMP as its headquarters, this property has been conveyed to the Department of Public Works for future utilization planning or for disposition.
Has the Minister entered into negotiations with the Province of New Brunswick with a view to returning this priceless historical structure to its original use or to some comparable priority purpose?
Oral Questions


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that about two years ago the Department of Transport and Department of Public Works did in fact enter into negotiations with the Province of New Brunswick with the object of transferring, under proper circumstances, this historic property along with other assets to the province. However, it is my understanding that the negotiations have not yet been completed.


TRANSFER OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lack of progress in the comprehensive exchanges proposed, is the Minister prepared to negotiate the transfer of this property on its own merits with the Province of New Brunswick?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, subject to first offering this property to any federal Department that has a requirement for it at fair market value, I would be prepared to enter into negotiations if the Province of New Brunswick so desires to obtain it.


REVENUE CANADA
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister.
According to media reports today it was the Prime Minister's own office which initiated action to ban the novel The Satanic Verses. Given that the Prime Minister, on March 13, blamed the action on what he described as "Revenue Canada functionaries", why should we now believe the Prime Minister when he tries to blame public servants for keeping Cabinet in the dark for two hours on the second budget leak?
Given the Prime Minister's record, why should we believe him now?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister said earlier in the year was 100 per cent correct. What he said today is consistent and is 100 per cent correct.
What is totally incorrect is that the Prime Minister's office initiated in any way, shape or form The Satanic Verses action by Revenue Canada. The matter was carried out in a routine and standard procedure. Revenue Canada officials carried the matter forward in a

June 7, 1989
Business of the House
routine and standard procedure. In the end, it was determined that the book did not constitute hate literature, therefore, it was never banned at the border in the first place.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that's the sacred truth. My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance.


REQUEST FOR TRUTH
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance, in reply to a question, described Mr. Richard Remillard from his office as, and I quote, "a political assistant of my staff". Considering Mr. Remillard had been made aware of the budget leak even before the question period, on April 26, why does the Minister keep on explaining here he was unaware of the leak for two hours because of officials? Is it not about time to come clean once and for all?
[English ]


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I stated in the House that Mr. Remillard first heard of this matter around three o'clock on the Thursday. That is as much as I can say. The question has been discussed time and time again in the House. The answer is there and is very clear for people to see.


THE BUDGET
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
When the Governor of the Bank of Canada appeared before the Finance Committee on May 29, he stated that he had discussions with officials from the Minister of Finance's office on the evening of April 26 after the first budget leak. In fact, he stated to the committee that there were discussions with officials of the Ministry of Finance and the appropriate intervention program was put in place.
I would ask Minister of Finance whether one of the reasons for this appropriate intervention program was that there was a possibility of profit from the advance knowledge about the Budget, not whether there was any
profit, but was there any possibility of profit, and that was one of the reasons for the program of intervention?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Government of Canada on intervention in the foreign exchange markets has been the same for many years. We resist pressures going up or going down in the exchange markets. That is the appropriate intervention policy, and it is the intervention policy that I presume was followed then, as it has been followed many times before and will be followed many times after.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Jean Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, after discussions, the Government and opposition parties have agreed that Thursday, June 8, that is tomorrow, will be an allotted day.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Government Acting Leader. As is his right, he has designated tomorrow as an opposition day. Is it a fact that Friday will also be an opposition day?


Jean J. Charest: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. As of this moment, it has not yet been decided that Friday would be designated as an opposition day. But true to character, we would be ready to discuss it with representatives of both opposition parties.


M. Gray:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Deputy Government House Leader to discuss the matter with the House Leader as well as with the Minister of Justice? Indeed, information I have received from him lead me to believe that Friday will also be an opposition day.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that, as far as I know, Friday, June 9, has not been designated as an Opposition Day. Now, as my Hon. Colleague, the House Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, knows, we usually discuss it among ourselves and so will we discuss it with him and with the House Leader and the representatives of the NDP. He should be advised reasonnably in advance, as has always been the case, Mr. Speaker.

Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the annual reports of the Co-operative Energy Corporation and the Lower Churchill Development Corporation for the year ending December 31, 1988.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION BOARD
Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, the Western Grain Stabilization annual report for 1987-88. Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5) this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
^


CONFERENCE ON CO-OPERATION AND SECURITY IN EUROPE TABLING OF VIENNA CLOSING DOCUMENT
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of tabling in the House of Commons the Vienna closing document which was recently accepted by the 35 countries which took part in the Conference on Co-operation and Security in Europe.

In the Government's view, this Vienna concluding document represents an historic milestone in the process of the Conference on Co-operation and Security in Europe. The document contains new and expanded commitments in the fields of military security, human rights and contacts, and humanitarian and economic
co-operation. Taken together, these Vienna provisions, for which Canada negotiated hard, and to which Canada is firmly committed, will help to move the European and North American states toward greater levels of mutual security and co-operation.

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already presented the Vienna concluding document to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. By tabling this agreement in the House today, the Government reaffirms Canada's will to enlighten as many of its citizens as possible about the Conference's proceedings and the Vienna concluding document.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business dealing with Private Members' Business that will go to five hours and voting. One is dealing with the environment and one is dealing with the Grain Stabilization Act.


BILL C-6-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-6, an Act to amend the Radio Act and certain other Acts in consequence thereof, without amendment.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.[


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) move for leave to introduce Bill C-23, intituled "An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act" and to repeal certain enactments in consequence thereof.
[Stage Direction]
June 7, 1989
Routine Proceedings
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a number of petitions today. I will do them all at once.
They are from residents of Thunder Bay, Ontario, in my constituency but they also come from residents of Saskatoon, Medicine Hat, Victoria, Ingersol, Barrie, Cremona, Alberta, Calgary, Alberta, Toronto, Montreal, Ignace, Kenora, Winnipeg and a number of other communities throughout Canada. All the petitioners have one thought in mind and that is a repudiation of the budget component that reduces VIA Rail by $1.2 billion over the next five years.
They call upon the Government to live up to its original pledge to support VIA Rail, to abandon plans for further cuts to VIA's budget and to provide the necessary resources to allow VIA to operate as a modem, effective transportation company rather than a museum.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty according to the Standing Orders to present a petition from some 100 people in the city of Toronto who are concerned for the condition of people who have made refugee claims and are in the backlog prior to 1989, many of whom still do not have work permits.
They therefore request this House to direct that the Minister of Employment ensure that all refugee claimants who have notified Canada Immigration of their
intention to make a claim be considered eligible for immediate employment authorization and that a case by case review of their claims be made on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, taking into account the presence in Canada of relatives and the successful establishment of these people in Canada. They ask that special consideration be given to those fleeing war zones, oppressive governments and natural disasters.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the undersigned residents of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance to this House.
Whereas the cost of basic tax preparation by Canadian taxpayers is not deductible from taxable income, they are asking that we should have the cost of basic tax preparation deductible from taxable income for all Canadians.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty today to rise to present a petition on behalf of some residents of my riding in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and of some other residents in western Canada with respect to the future of VIA Rail.
They call upon the federal Government to ensure that rail passenger service in Canada be retained, modernized and expanded as an important part of our national transportation system.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour once again to stand in this House and present, on behalf of thousands of Londoners and people in the area, petitions asking and demanding that this Government rescind their action in the closure of CFB London.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, Members of Parliament from all across Canada are submitting petitions with respect to the extradition laws of Canada.
I have the honour today under provisions of Standing Order 36 to present hundreds of petitions containing over 4,200 signatures from Alberta in general, but more specifically from my riding of Calgary Southwest.
June 7, 1989

Routine Proceedings
These petitioners call for the Government of Canada to revise its extradition laws in order that we can prevent Canada from becoming a safe haven for dangerous individuals from other countries. I join with these petitioners who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to revise the laws of Canada relating to extradition to allow the Minister of Justice of Canada to order the extradition of alleged or convicted criminals at any time after their apprehension in Canada even during their period of incarceration for crimes committed in this country.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I again have the honour to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who wish the federal Government to maintain and improve VIA services across this country.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to maintain, improve and modernize VIA Rail services in those areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient, environmentally sound and energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to do this.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present several petitions signed by Canadian citizens, almost all of whom are resident in the astonishingly beautiful riding of Edmonton East, calling on the Government to live up to its original pledge to support VIA Rail, to abandon plans for further cuts to VIA's budget and to provide the necessary resources to allow VIA to operate as a modern, effective transportation company rather than as a museum.
I would just note that one gentleman in Edmonton has scrawled beside his signature the suggestion to restore the service to Banff.


Harry Chadwick: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to submit this petition to the House pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petition is certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions. There are some 2,500 names in respect to the Young Offender's Act whereupon the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to review the Young Offender's Act.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan - Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise under Standing Order 36 on behalf of residents right across Canada to present to this House a petition that asks the Government to provide the resources necessary to fulfil its promises of improved rail services.
These residents are concerned with the cut-backs and the budgetary restraints that have been imposed upon VIA Rail and have requested that the Government improve and modernize VIA Rail services in those areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient, environmentally sound and energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present today 13 petitions signed by a total of 323 people. What is interesting about the petitions is that each and every one of the 13 deal with the Toronto East letter processing plant alleging discrimination with respect to the treatment of part-time employees. These employees and their supporters pray that Parliament intervene on their behalf to ensure fair and equal work schedules and working conditions.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all the questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean J. Charest: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I was about to suggest that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

June 7, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 6, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall: That Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Allmand (p. 2685).
Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska -Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part, on behalf of the Government, in the debate on second reading of Bill C-21 amending the Unemployment Insurance Act.
This Bill is of great importance for the future of our country and for working men and women. It shows once again our Government's determination to help workers adjust to technological changes and meet competition in the next decade. While their prosperity depends on a healthy economy, it also depends on their ability and their productivity.
In the 1990s, working men and women will operate in a much more complex world where microelectronics, telecommunications, robotics and automation will impinge on all trades and professions. The pressures of competition, technological change and the demands of the market will thoroughly change the structure of the labour market in Canada and mean that there will be fewer and fewer positions for workers with little education and training.
Already, Mr. Speaker, more than a million workers have difficulty finding work because they lack skills. This trend is expected to increase because of certain demographic factors. In the 1970s, the labour force grew by about 300,000 annually, but the number of workers is expected to grow by only 180,000 (annually) in the 1990s. Statistics Canada reports that 14 per cent of Canadian
manufacturers already have production difficulties due to a lack of skilled labour.
Mr. Speaker, we must always keep in mind the background for this reform: workers want to work and to have steady jobs in which they can fulfill themselves as human beings.
Too many workers are still caught in the vicious circle of odd jobs, unemployment insurance or welfare, which we must break.
In Canada, Mr. Speaker, we spend $12 billion a year on unemployment insurance benefits and only $400 million on training for workers. Our countiy is falling behind other industrial powers with respect to worker training and retraining.
The strategy we are proposing to Canadians, Mr. Speaker, is to change the present use of unemployment insurance funds and reallocate them to train UI recipients, while of course preserving the income safety net unemployment insurance represents for all workers.
Mr. Speaker, the changes are intended to make the Unemployment Insurance Program an active program. Why spend $12 billion to keep people at home? In fact, one of Quebec's greatest poets, Felix Leclerc, said that the best way to kill a man was to pay him to do nothing.
Whatever our friends opposite seem to think, we are not saving any money. Twelve billion dollars will be spent, except that a larger part will go to training, to give additional tools to those who want to meet the challenges of the 1990s. The level of assistance has been definitely enhanced.
The reform would not be worth the paper it was written on if the Government cannot depend on the support of all its economic partners, especially the private sector, which will be asked to play a far more important role. Job training is above all the responsibility of employers and employees, and in the present situation, the private sector must be a more active force. It is in their own interests and those of their employees, whose skills and productivity are essential if businesses are to be competitive.
Today, Canadian businesses are not working hard enough on occupational training. This must improve, Mr. Speaker. It is true that we as a government intend to inject $230 million into increasing training activities in the private sector through co-operative programs. The private sector will be urged in turn to invest its share of funds in training. The National Skills Development Advisory Board which the Government intends to estab-
June 7, 1989

lish will provide the Government with guidance on the needs of the private sector.
The $230 million designated for the private sector breaks down as follows: $65 million will be spent on sectoral human resources planning; $100 million will be spent on developing the skills of young Canadians who do not have the qualifications for today's jobs and need help to make the transition from school to work; $15 million will be used to provide more assistance to businesses in adjusting their labour force when they are either expanding, shutting down or introducing technological change; $50 million will be used to help 200 designated communities whose economic situation has been affected by market developments. This amount is in addition to the $148 million already earmarked by the Government for job creation.
All these measures, Mr. Speaker, not only infuse our training programs with greater vigour, they are also adapted to the situation in disadvantaged regions.
The Unemployment Insurance Program will not only be more active, it will also play a development role. That is what I call making the most of our resources for the common good!
At this point, I think we should remember that having a job means a lot more than getting a pay cheque every week. It also means feeling that one is participating fully in the economic growth of our society. When someone is unemployed and finally gets a job, that very fact often means restored dignity and self-esteem and, especially, a chance to realize, to explore potential that would have been wasted.
In addition, the Government will be providing an additional $50 million to the $50 million already available under the Canada Assistance Plan, in order to help social assistance recipients acquire the skills and experience they need to get a job.
This particular group consists of a large number of young people between the ages of 18 and 25. As someone who has worked for many years in education and business, I find it particularly sad that one young person out of three is unable to finish high school. We must pay special attention to these young people who constitute a tremendous resource for our society. If we fail to act quickly to bring a large number of the 18 to 25 group into the labour force, we run the risk of excluding
Unemployment Insurance Act
them forever from the mainstream of society, with all the social costs that implies.
Together with provincial funds, more than $200 million more will be spent annually on re-employment of social assistance recipients. In concrete terms, 20,000 recipients will have a chance to upgrade their training. Considering the extent of the federal Government's contribution, it is obviously false to claim that the legislation's new provisions would have the effect of increasing the number of social assistance recipients, and thus increase the financial burden on the provinces. We must not forget that first of all, under the Canada Assistance Plan the federal Government is responsible for funding half the costs of social assistance, and second, that the training and re-employment programs proposed under the new strategy will reduce the number of welfare recipients.
The Government also believes that more must be done to improve the situation of unemployed older workers. One hundred million dollars will be provided to cover the costs of hiring and training workers laid off as a result of changes in technology and demand.
Other incentives for this kind of worker to find another job quickly are also planned. These will be in addition to those already provided by existing Jobs Strategy programs.
The Bill submitted for the approval of the House, Mr. Speaker, thoroughly changes the present special benefits plan.
In order to meet the requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our Government intends not only to guarantee parental benefits for natural and adoptive parents but also to make the special benefits provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act more flexible. Under the new provisions, both parents will be able to share 10 weeks of benefits after the birth or adoption of a child. The new plan will allow beneficiaries to combine sickness, maternity and parental benefits up to the maximum allowable, 30 weeks.
The combination of maternity and sickness benefits, now limited to 145 weeks, will therefore be eliminated. These new provisions will cost the Unemployment Insurance Plan another $450 million. This is, Mr. Speaker, a beautiful example of a Government that is concerned with the condition of women and young couples and that is not afraid to act in a tangible way to enable them to

June 7, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
reconcile their carreer objectives with their parental responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I consider that all forms of discrimination towards older people must disappear. I am happy that this bill allows people who are 65 years of age or more to be treated as full citizens. Older people will be able to contribute to the unemployment insurance system and to take advantage of all its benefits. These new provisions which will cost $40 million are not only in keeping with the Charter of Rights but they recognize the privilege of Canadian men and women who are 65 or more to retire later. We must recognize that senior citizens have the inalienable right to decide for themselves.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the Bill has other provisions whose goal is to eliminate some unfair restrictions on eligibility to benefits during work action.
Presently, Mr. Speaker, the legislation does not allow the paying of benefits for sickness or maternity during work action. We think that this an inequitable and retrograde provision that this House would like to do away with.
It would have certainly been easier to leave things the way they were by simply bringing in some minor amendments for window dressing and thus being seen as doing much while doing very little actually.
Bill C-21 and the Labour Force Development Strategy are not just a masking exercise. They go straight to the source of the problem, that is to give Canada a skilled labour force capable of facing up to the challenges that the 21st century will bring.
Our goal is to preserve the important role of Unemployment Insurance as an income maintenance program, while eliminating elements that encourage inactivity, especially in areas where the economy is strong.
To respect regional differences, we have also taken into account regions like mine, Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup, where the unemployment rate is high.
In addition to training programs, Mr. Speaker, these regions will get special assistance for community development as well as measures supporting local entrepreneurship.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, all that has been done while taking into account the differences between Canadian regions, despite those who would like us to treat all parts of Canada as one and the same.
In brief, in regions where there are more available jobs, people will have to work a greater number of weeks to be eligible for benefits and their benefit period will be shorter. Conversely, in regions with high unemployment rates, workers won't be affected by those measures, Mr. Speaker.
As a Government, we fully recognize the vital role played by the unemployment insurance system as a social safety net and we have no intention to undermine it. On the contrary! However, we are aware that the present system has shortcomings and doesn't offer any alternative. Bill C-21 proposes alternatives, Mr. Speaker. The risk was high but my Government has made a commitment to improve the lot of the unemployed, not to please unions, employers or the electorate but to assume its responsibilities, and that is what we have done.
All the changes proposed in Bill C-21 have essentially been designed to make that system more efficient and equitable and to meet the needs of workers. Like any Government measure, Mr. Speaker, this Bill imposes restrictions and obligations. As legislators, we have to look beyond the selective disadvantages which so often arise from the measures that we are taking. We must look at the potential long-term advantages of these measures, certainly for the people concerned, but also for the collectivity as a whole.
M. Speaker, Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, is a legislative measure which will be beneficial for workers as a whole. Once again, its purpose is to give additional tools and a hope for a better future to thousands of Canadiens presently unemployed. Having valued for a long time leisure, physical fitness or consumption, the time has come to value work. That is what this Bill does.
For all those reasons, M. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support this Bill.
June 7, 1989


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On questions or comments, the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity- Conception.


Mr. Mifflin:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the Hon. Member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup had to say and I did find it very interesting.
There are certain aspects of this proposed amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act which I would certainly like to bring to the attention of the House and on which I would certainly like to make some comments. I have spent the last couple of weeks dealing with an upset that one aspect of this amendment has caused in my riding.
I would like to read the press release of the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration dated June 1, 1989. In part it reads, and I am quoting verbatim:
The legislation, part of the government's recently announced Labour Force Development Strategy "Success in Works", strengthens the ability of the UI program to continue to act as an economic safety net by focusing on those in need.
There is an aspect of this legislation which has impinged on my riding in a very unsatisfactory, devastating, and disconcerting manner. I speak now of one particular aspect with which I am sure many Members certainly on this side of the House are very familiar. I am talking about the job development strategywhich has been put in place. I speak not only for my riding, but I am sure I speak for the other ridings in Newfoundland, and certainly for other parts of Atlantic Canada because it was discussed this morning at various meetings.
The whole problem with this business is that the job development strategy has been a benefit to my riding not only as a safety net for insurable earnings under UI but as part of the community development programs. I have ten rural development committees in my riding. They have all been absolutely devastated by the abruptness of this change.
It was quoted in the press release that this change will have the program continue to act as an economic safety net. I am in receipt of a letter to one of my constituents. I wish to quote from part of it. It involves a job development application. There are hundreds of these letters in
Unemployment Insurance Act
my riding right now. The contents of it have been sent without consultation with me, without consultation with the rural development associations and their committees, and without consultation with any of the leaders of the community. I am talking about 260 communities in my riding. Your Honour can imagine why my office and my constituency assistant are inundated with telephone calls. We do not have enough people to man the two lines that we have. The letter states in part:
Your application for funding under the Job Development Program has been assessed.
The Job Development Program is not designed to be a safety net which provides insurable employment, or a mechanism which provides community infrastructure and nothing else. The objective of Job Development is to assist long-term unemployed individuals by providing them with training and work experience in occupations with real potential for employment.
Your application is not being recommended as the training is for occupations that are either surplus to the labour market or are not in demand.
I live in a riding that is essentially a one industry riding. The transfer of $800 million for training does not make a lot of sense to me. That equates to $30 million that will not be used for unemployed people in Newfoundland. A great deal of it will pertain to my riding.
When people call me up, what do I explain to them? I say: "Yes, this was meant, I believe, for retraining programs." Retraining is fine in Toronto, Oshawa, or any other of the urban communities where there is not one industry but 50 or maybe 100 such as sheet metal works, fabricating companies, car factories, and ship building factories. There is no ship building in Bonavista, Newfoundland. There is no sheet metal works in Clarenville. None of these things exist. We have the potential for job training, but where are the jobs? I do not know what I can tell my constituents when they call. I do not know what I should say. Should I say: "Go back and submit a project where you have a strong element of job training"? They will ask me: "What kind of job training, trained to do what kind of jobs?"
I do not want to become repetitive, but I hope many of my constituents watching this debate. I hope that in the next three or four days or the next week or so, as long as we can talk about Bill C-21, that as a minimum they will have a better understanding for what the Government is trying to do. I do not understand it. I certainly cannot support it. I have to speak up for what might have been a well intentioned macro change for the country, but

June 7, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
which certainly does not pertain to my riding. I suggest that it does not pertain to many other rural ridings in Canada.
It grieves me to no end that on the one hand the Minister for International Trade says that Newfoundland is going to get $15 million moreand on the other hand the Minister of Employment and Immigration comes out with a document in which the result is that we are going to get $30 million less; $30 million minus and $15 million plus still gives me a minus $15 million.
I want to go on record to acknowledge that I am going to do as much in my power as I can to ensure that the Canadian public is aware of the inconsistencies. I will do my utmost to make the people of Canada aware that these letters have been going out to well intentioned people who are expecting something for their communities, something for their unemployment insurance, something to boost their earnings. They get nothing but a cold letter indicating that there has been an abrupt, terrible and disconcerting change.
As their Member of Parliament, unfortunately I have to say to them: "I have not been consulted. I have not been briefed. I have not been made aware of these changes for which I have to answer to you and to the people of my riding."
I suggest that there are many other people certainly on this side of the House, and I would suggest on the other side of the House although they may not want to admit it, who are in exactly the same position.
I beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to wrap up this by saying that I wish there were some other way that we could look at this.
I wish that the Minister of Employment and Immigration as a minimum would have a look at the concerns of Atlantic Canada and the rural ridings to see if there is something positive that can be done so that we can slow down this abruptness. I hope that there will and can be some amelioration of this job development program as a minimum to allow us more flexibility in those areas. It does not matter what we train people to do if there are no jobs for areas in which there can be no industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup would like to comment, I will recognize him.


André Plourde: First, Mr. Speaker, I did not get the impression that the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Mifflin) asked a question in the course of his remarks, but I do want to make a correction. The riding I represent is Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup. Still I should like to remind him that none of us has chosen the city, the province and the country where he or she was born. I too represent a remote riding, Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup, and we too have high unemployment. Mr. Speaker, this is precisely why this Bill was introduced in the House. Given the current unemployment rates, it will correct conditions which otherwise would have prompted a lot of people in the Province of Quebec or in Newfoundland to pack up and leave for Ontario to seek work. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell him that under the job development strategy we will earmark $775 million more for new labour-oriented programs to respond more adequately to the needs of the unemployed and to upgrade the skills of the Canadian labour force.
I fully appreciate the concern of my colleague from Newfoundland, what with their unemployment rate probably hovering around 20 per cent or more. And I understand very well when he refers to 24-week-or-more job development programs for high unemployment regions. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the corrective course we want to steer by launching new training programs with the co-operation of the provinces. I am sure the Province of Newfoundland, like all other provinces in Canada, will be convened to discuss job training, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question and comment period is over. The Hon. Member for Eglin-ton-Lawrence (Mr. Volpe) on debate.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton - Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most appropriate view of the proposed changes under this Bill has been most aptly expressed by a Quebec based labour group.
June 7, 1989

Unemployment Insurance Act

It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick. [English]
For it is clear that the less advantaged economic regions of our country and our fellow Canadians who fashion out their lives in these areas will have little cause to celebrate this Government's arcane approach to curing economic and labour ills, an approach with has as its motto: "Bleed them a little more." Those who were not sick, euphemistically speaking, before may well yearn for the days when the Minister had yet to launch her frontal attack on Canada's labour force.
This same Minister claimed on June 1 before the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration that she was ushering in "a new comprehensive labour force development strategy." As a strategy it would appear that it sweeps under the rug the social economic consequences of both the proposed changes of Bill C-21 and the negative impact of the Government record regarding labour and business.
The more we examine the actual results of the Government's rule, the more Canadians will ask themselves: "Why this punitive legislation?"

Why does the Conservative Government want to pervert the traditional role of the unemployment insurance system as financial support for the unemployed in hard times? Note that we could make those who quit their jobs wait an extra six weeks for a total of three months before they become eligible for benefits. And, depending on the region of residence, the benefit period could be even shorter for many of them, about nine weeks in some cases.

For their misfortune due to economic factors outside their control, workers will have to pay longer into an insurance plan from which they will derive fewer benefits. This unfairness will be compounded by a 15 per cent increase in premiums as well. Workers will, in effect, be subjected to an increased payroll tax at a time when officials in the Department project a UI fund surplus of $1.2 billion.
Even worse, Mr. Speaker, according to departmental officials eveiy year some 350,000 people who have occasion to leave their jobs do so without just cause as defined by the Department. By severely restricting access to benefits of some 70 per cent of those who feel the need to change their work-that is 35 per cent of all unemployed-the Minister is generating a substantial saving by reducing benefits pay out.
A cynic, and I hesitate to say that there are many in this House, might suggest that a further tightening up of the just cause definition would be appropriate and that the resulting penalties and the duration of benefits would encompass still more workers. This is not an unattractive outcome, mind you, if it is the Minister's objective to make labour more pliant, less mobile and more flexible in its negotiations with employers, and I read "willingness to take less".
My hon. colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace has already referred to analysts and critics in business and in the media who are calling this a crude and primitive effort aimed at increasing worker productivity. The mean spiritedness of this legislation will be felt everywhere as the effects of the restrictions inflict themselves upon all regions. While attention in this House has been centred on the negative consequences in the East, other parts of Canada are no less affected.
From eastern Ontario to Toronto, to southern Saskatchewan, and as far west as Vancouver, the period for which people must work to qualify for UI has increased by 40 per cent to 60 per cent, while the duration of UI benefits or qualifications for it has decreased by 15 per cent to 22 per cent.
I add that under Sections 51, 55(3) and 55(4) the Tories will ensure that Atlantic Canada appreciates the full meaning of its economic and labour strategy by withdrawing government involvement in regionally extended benefits and fishermen's benefits, a not altogether indifferent portion of the total of $2.9 billion government commitment now being withdrawn from UI.
What happens when local economies lose this injection of cash? Where will the unfortunate unemployed go to make up the resulting drop in personal and family income? The Minister has already indicated that the appropriate provincial welfare agencies should take up their dutiful responsibilities. The provincial taxpayers should bear the burden. That is a strange beast, this provincial taxpayer, because he shares the same wallet as the federal taxpayer. Moreover, the climate of concern

June 7, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
for deficits and public debts that the Government so conveniently and purposefully insinuated into the debate to justify its slashing of programs and its imposition of taxes is in turn imposing heavy repercussions upon the provinces.
Consequently, workers' needs may be rebuffed by shortage of funds statements and by their own sense of self worth and desire to avoid the dole and, as a result, accept whatever work is available. The weakest will be hurt the most. There will be 10,000 fewer participants in job development programs next year, and participants in those programs normally earn an average of less than $240 per week. Lest we lose the significance of that figure, let me refer you to the report of the National Council on Welfare, the 1989 version, Mr. Speaker. It estimates that the poverty level for a single person in this country rests at $245 per week and for a family of four at $573 per week.
The outlook for workers does not brighten with the knowledge that the increased premium rates imposed upon businesses during an anticipated economic slowdown-in fact, one predicted by the Minister of Finance-will spur employers to pass on the cost to employees by using either fewer workers or by opposing more vigorously employee demands for pay and benefits increases to meet the rising cost of living. For all these reasons and others this Bill is a very regressive social statement.
Canadians had become accustomed, and rightly so, to the concept of a society where a Government could be expected to contribute to the gradual betterment of its people if for no other reason than to give its citizens a sense of economic security during hard times. The UI system is an integral part of that concept, and the most widely used by Canadians to balance off disparities is being challenged and threatened by this Bill. Through this legislation the Tories are attacking Canadian's hard won gains to buttress collective advances over the decades. Our own Government is telling us that it will not participate in any plan to help Canadians on a rainy day. Then, it proceeds to limit the amount of help we can give ourselves with our own money. Having thus amended the legislation, the Government or the Minister would then have us still believe that it will backstop any deficit in times of need.
However, there is nothing in the proposed legislation that would legally bind the Government to cover the UI fund should it go into deficit after January 1, 1990. Moreover, the legislation gives the Department undue discretion to allow UI premiums to be funnelled into non-UI training programs in the CJS system, even though federal law specifically prohibits the use of UI funds for non-UI programs. The fund is for its participants. The Government should develop its own sources to satisfy its obligations to other Canadians rather than resort to deceptive measures to draw upon funds that have been entrusted to the Government for the administration of the unemployment insurance fund.
If I appear sceptical it is because this Government acts only when pressed and then, as my colleagues on this side of the House know, ever so reluctantly and ever so slowly even when constrained by Supreme Court decisions. I cite an example. The extended benefits for seniors, for parental and sick leave have only come about in the Minister's own words:

"To respect the equality provisions of the Charter and because recent court challenges to current provisions have brought to light the iniquities of the present system.''

This Bill is not only unfair. It is anything but honest. Last year 1.4 million Canadians worked for less than three months. Yet knowing this, the Government has embarked on a path to deprive these people of the meagre individual benefits to which they might otherwise be entitled, as it proceeds to retract previous contributions to regions through the UI system.
Does it make good economic sense to withdraw this injection of cash from local economies where the much missed consumer spending is likely to touch off further rounds of lay-offs and shutdowns?
The first half of the Government's two-pronged labour development plan seems to be saying that the onus, the burden, will be on the employee to find and keep a job. Any job. Worth noting is that 60 per cent of all new
June 7, 1989

jobs created since 1984 have been created in the lowest categories of work. It is important to keep this fact in mind as we look at the second of those prongs, the Labour Force Development Strategy. This is the complement to Bill C-21.
The Minister has said, both within and without this House, that her Government will be trying to develop a training ethic. On the surface at least, there are those who certainly agree that the co-existence of labour shortages and high rates of unemployment underscores a deep-rooted structural problem that cannot simply be resolved with further economic growth.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which the Minister is fond of quoting, says that 37 per cent of its members would hire additional employees to date if suitable workers were available. One would think that the Government would quickly and easily rise to that challenge. Yet, as we have noted, the Government is moving away from programs that provide long-term unemployed-those with few if any transferable skills- with the training opportunities and work experience activities that will help them fill those available jobs.
Instead, it prefers to invest more in further training of those people with proven employment skills. Those are the ones whose typical pretraining jobs earned them, on the average, better than $450 per week. For which industries and for whose benefit then is the Government developing this labour market?
I will be kind, colleagues, and say that the Minister probably does not know, although she is not nearly so gentle in admonishing Canadian businesses for their low rate of participation in employee training relative to their U.S. counterparts.


An Hon. Member:: Does she care?


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: No. I doubt it. Even the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, begs to differ with the Minister on the question of training ethic. It claims that 70 per cent of small and medium-sized businesses employ 80 per cent of all Canadians. These businesses already provide on-the-job training of the type that has the greatest impact on productivity. Of all businesses, 40 per cent to 50 per cent already provided at least two to three weeks of formal short-term training. As an example I might cite Toronto's largest industrial employer. It is adjacent to my riding. It provides a
Unemployment Insurance Act
three-week pre-work program to determine a person's employability before training begins. According to this firm, the skills required in today's factories are reliability, adaptability, and compatibility. This industrial employer joins the CFIB in slamming the Minister's training proposals as focusing "only on the tip of the training iceberg."
Clearly, the Government lacks credibility even among employers. Only one third of small and middle-sized businesses rate the service of the Canada Employment Centre offices as good. Little wonder. Small and medium-sized firms do not draw heavily on Government funding. While training policies of the Government focus on big business and big labour approaches, both are increasingly irrelevant because labour force growth is taking place almost exclusively in small and mid-sized firms.
If the Government were truly serious about its training objectives-and there is considerable doubt about its recent record as there is a 27 per cent reduction in training, a total of some $700 million over the course of the last four years in training without so much as a "how-do-you-do"-surely the Minister would have targeted the areas or industries where she could point to anticipated growth and then proceed to develop the labour skills required.
Instead, as she points out that 50 per cent of new jobs in the next ten years will require five years of post-secondary education and/or training, her Government cuts transfer to the provinces for education by $4 billion over the next six years. She casually ignores the provincial jurisdictions in a position to develop the strategies and programs to meet those needs.
She points to a national drop-out rate of some 30 to 35 per cent amongst high school students and an adult illiteracy rate of one in six. She dismisses this as a provincial problem and proceeds to then throw money at industries that will upgrade the skills of those already capable of working.
She looks at a failure rate of small business of approximately 50 per cent in the first five years of operation and forgets that a sound labour strategy might include financial support for business opportunity centres, like the York Business Opportunity Centre in my riding, whose programs are designed to ensure the

June 7, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
success of small and medium-sized businesses and therefore of prospective employers.
No, Mr. Speaker, that might make good economic sense as would, for example, the allocation of funds to the establishment of local industries. That might be classified as employment strategy. Instead, according to Finance Department projections, the Tories will make regional development cuts in 1990 of some 16 per cent in Western Canada, 18 per cent in Atlantic Canada, 30 per cent in Quebec and 32 per cent in Ontario.
In this context, Canadians might well ask for what jobs are the Minister's training projects planned? I know that the unemployed will ask how, in a bleaker job market, will they make ends meet with reduced benefits and longer qualifying periods. The Minister shrugs her shoulders and says it will be tough.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill has to be changed. It contains no employment or industrial strategy. In its benefit squeeze, it will force people to relocate and disrupt communities as people search for jobs. Moreover, it proposes to make those at the lower rung of the labour ladder pay for the high skills, high-tech training from which they will never be in a position to profit. Worst of all, the Government is abdicating its national responsibilities by withdrawing from its national socio-economic obligations.
Mr. Speaker, it is not too late for the Minister to effect changes to this Bill. She might begin by reviewing her Cabinet's decision and allow the committee that will be studying this Bill to travel throughout Canada to hear the voice of Canadians on the matter. Then let the Minister also use some of her much vaunted clout in Cabinet to make a case for an employment strategy that will actually create jobs and increase the security and well-being of all Canadians.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his brilliant insight into this legislation. He helped the House understand just how dreadful a job the Minister is doing with this particular piece of legislation which is so important to all working people in this country. It represents, perhaps better than anything else we are dealing with, an indication of just how miserable the Government can be when it wants to be.
I would like to direct my comments and question to my hon. colleague on the question of the impact of this legislation for new Canadians.
Canada has, from one generation to the other, very generously welcomed newcomers and helped them adjust to the labour market. Newcomers typically receive the lowest paying jobs and are the most vulnerable to changing conditions from one season to the other. They often work in the oldest factories and the most run-down parts of our economy. That is where they get started. That is where they make their best efforts.
For example, I know that in the City of Winnipeg, in my own constituency, there are many people who find it difficult to maintain jobs in our declining economy. As the Speaker knows and as people in this House know, the City of Winnipeg is having a difficult time since the Conservatives took office five years ago in maintaining a strong economy. We are very concerned that newcomers in particular are going to have a difficult time maintaining themselves in the job market.
It seems to me that when you add weeks onto the number of weeks per year that you have to work and add conditions onto the accessibility to the Unemployment Insurance Act you decrease the social security we provide for new Canadians. Although nobody raises this issue in those terms, it is something that we should take into account.
As new Canadians adjust to this country, we find that they often need language training and upgrading of their skills. We have used community colleges, and in some provinces private institutions, to assist new Canadians in receiving the skills necessary to survive in a very tough job market.
I know that my colleague took a great deal of interest in the problems of young new Canadians in his previous life before he became a Member of Parliament. He understands the training issues very well. Perhaps he would like to share with us some of his observations of the negative impact when young people cannot get access to training through UlC-sponsored programs, and how they begin to play labour against business when money is taken out of training, how the lack of government participation in this programming can make
June 7, 1989

everyone more selfish. When people become more selfish they turn on newcomers, whether it be a province, a city, or a country, and increase pressure on them to look after themselves because they cannot look after them.
This legislation has many side effects which are very negative. That is one of the reasons my Party is committed to fighting it to the bitter end and to proposing as many constructive changes as possible to the legislation. We think it is harmful not only to current workers but to the future workforce. The more we can do as a Parliament working together to create better legislation, the better off we will be. For example, the desire for parliamentarians to travel across the country to reach out to Canadians to discuss this more fully is a need that is not being met. The fact that some Canadians have had to get on a train themselves-one of the last trains in the country-to meet other Canadians to discuss this, is an example of how impoverished the attitude of the Government is toward the unemployed.
My succinct question to my colleague is the following: What impact does he imagine this will have on new Canadians?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: I thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Walker). It is a most insightful question, because it also included many of the impacts of the legislation before us today.
I want to point out to the Hon. Member and to the House that employers who are currently experiencing the greatest growth are those in the construction industry. Even in boom town areas of southern Ontario, those employers state that what they have proposed to the Government is legislation for training funds to be used for genuine employment opportunities. They see nothing in an area where there is a crying need, and that is in the apprenticeship training program. There is only an oblique reference, and that is it.
In answer to the other part of the question posed by my colleague, newer Canadians need the linguistic skills to be able to adapt the particular skills that they bring, together with their energy and desire to achieve, and put them into force in a productive fashion. In some areas of Toronto and in other major centres throughout the country, many of those people have to wait five or six
Unemployment Insurance Act
months before they can get into a program. How are those people going to be productive, not only toward Canadian society, but for their own personal well-being and the growth of their families if they are kept waiting for five to six months?
The only thing they can do is take up positions of labour that are obviously well below what we would classify as minimum wage. In fact, many of the jobs that newer Canadians and their children are forced to take are in the areas of minimum wage. One of the consequences in many downtown schools is that often the children of those Canadians are forced to supplement the family income by taking jobs which are initially part-time and turn out to be full-time and deprive them of an opportunity to continue their studies in school. Studies indicate that a very large portion of those who drop out of high schools in major centres are children of immigrants.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a question or comment the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: I would like to thank my colleague for a sensitive and clear explanation of this Bill. We know that there have been cuts in training indicated in the Bill. Could the Hon. Member give us an indication of where these cuts will take place?


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: I thank my colleague for the question. It gives us an opportunity to highlight the deceptive nature of this Bill and the reason why it must be brought to the attention of all Canadians in order that they, as well as Members of the House, can address it with the vigour it requires. It has to be changed.
According to the Estimates presented for 1989 in job development, the area my colleague the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Mifflin) referred to earlier, there will be a $53 million cut. This is a Government states that its two-pronged labour development strategy will include a new training ethic. It is taking away $53 million from job development programs where the long-term unemployed are given an opportunity to develop skills.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Walker), asks what happens to youth and to women who re-enter the market-place. There has been a $50-million cut. Does this sound like a sincere approach to developing a training ethic? Does it sound like

June 7, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
a serious approach to developing a market for labour in this country?
In the question of skills investment, the Government, which already made a very meagre contribution, is cutting a further $1 million.
My colleagues would probably be interested in knowing that in job development there was an average increase of 18.5 per cent in salaries for those people who were part of a job development program. Those individuals who were gaining $240 per week, as I cited in my presentation earlier, have an opportunity to increase their productivity and their remuneration. I am sure it will scandalize all Members of the House that in the area of job entry, where the Government has cut $50 million, youth and women who re-enter the market-place were capable of improving their remuneration by 45 per cent and 56 per cent on average.
Finally, in the area of skills shortages, the Government is cutting an additional $8 million. It is important to keep in mind that participants in the skill shortages program were capable of improving their remuneration on the average by 8.3 per cent per annum.
Obviously, on the questions of productivity, increased remuneration, and allowing people to contribute more productively in taxes, in consumer spending, and by withdrawing from government social programs, the Government is going in the opposite direction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the Hon. member for Burlington.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset, listening to the Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. Volpe), that I never heard a more poorly informed speaker since I have been in the House of Commons.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Did you listen to your own Minister?


William James Kempling: He talks about entry-level skills. An additional $100 million is being devoted to training, including a new program to meet the needs of growing industries especially those in the service sector. The Member does not know what he is talking about. He is
talking about cutting and we are talking about spending more money.
On this Bill, I want to talk about labour skills. I do not know whether the Hon. Member who just spoke ever worked a day in his life, or whether he ever had callouses on his hands, but he does not sound as if he did. I want to talk about labour skills and upgrading those labour skills and how that will help us to ensure that our industries remain on the leading edge of competition in the global market-place. That is the purpose of our labour force development strategy as set forth in Bill C-21. Within the programs in Employment and Immigration, there is one entitled Skill Shortages. In that program, every four months we list the skill shortages province by province. The gentleman from Newfoundland who asked a question earlier-the Hon. Member from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Mifflin)-after we have completed this, I will show him the list of skilled jobs that are crying out for employees in Newfoundland. I have two pages of them here. I think he will be surprised when he has a look at them.
That is the basis of how we are going about this. Canada today wants to do more than hold its own in an era of global competition. Canada wants to excel. To do that, we need to embrace technological change. We cannot afford to lag behind other countries when it comes to improving productivity through high technology product development and enhanced trading of our labour force. We realize today that many of the machines that are being used in industry are-


David James Walker: Where did you work?


William James Kempling: Do you want to know where I worked?


David James Walker: Yes, very much so.


William James Kempling: I was working long before you were born.
Many of the machines that we use today cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and require people to operate them. They are not just ordinary lathes, drills and shapers. They are very sophisticated, computer-controlled machines that are required in order that we can be productive and profitable in our business operations. Therefore, we cannot afford to lag behind other countries when it comes to improving productivity through
June 7, 1989

high technology product development and enhancing the training of our labour force.
The extent to which technology can be harnessed depends upon the skills of the people who direct, maintain and operate it. In this context, the development of a skilled work force will be a determining factor in our future prosperity.
A recent report of the Economic Council of Canada shows that 85 per cent of all companies surveyed expect to be using computer-based technology by 1990. That is only a year or so away. It also points out that those companies that adopt new technology are generally companies that are growing faster and becoming more efficient than their competitors. The result is clear. We have a responsibility to direct our resources into education and training so that we will have skilled people to make industry competitive. We are talking here about a shared responsibility involving the federal Government and the private sector; in fact, a shared responsibility that involves all Canadians.
The labour force development strategy is designed to put into practice these objectives, to rechannel our resources into improving the amount and quality of skills training. It is also encouraging industry to take a leadership role in training as their counterparts have done in Japan, the United States and other leading economic powers around the world. In addition to increased training for employed Canadians, we will also under this strategy use the unemployment insurance program for more constructive ends. Greater emphasis will be placed on actively developing workers rather than providing passive income support. What we are saying is that instead of giving them a cheque when they become unemployed, we will train them and give them a skill that will allow them to go into the market-place and maintain an active job.
Today in Canada we spend almost $12 billion on unemployment insurance and only $1.8 billion on employment programs designed to get people back to work. It is evident that if we want to prepare people for jobs in the 1990s, we must help them become equipped with the skills that the 1990s will require.
Bill C-21 therefore provides a major expansion of active employment programming within the unemploy-
Unemployment Insurance Act
ment insurance program. It commits the vital resources unemployed workers need to get back to work in productive long-term jobs. The current budget for development uses in the UI program is just over $400 million per year. The measures contained in Bill C-21 will see this grow by over three times to an expected full implementation budget of over $1.4 billion, not the cut-backs that the Members on the other side are talking about.
We are convinced that Canadians want to work. They want to be part of a productive and contributing force in the community. That is why we are proposing that UI claimants who have viable business plans in hand be able to capitalize on those benefits to help defray business start-up costs. We have many people working in a business for a number of years who have a desire to get out on their own. Perhaps the business environment has changed for them. Perhaps they have other interests and we are looking forward to interviewing those people to see if we can help them get into their own businesses.
The beneficiaries of such a plan go beyond the enterprising worker to include the entire community. Instead of workers sitting at home, or-let us admit it-participating in an underground economy, they will now breathe the same air as someone with a legitimate product or service to offer. We are also proposing that claimants be able to receive some portion of their UI payments in a lump sum as may be necessary to help finance their move if they wish to relocate to an area where job prospects are more plentiful.
We are not forgetting the displaced and older worker who is sidelined by a plant closure or a setback in the local economy but whose talents and experience this country cannot afford to lay aside. We propose a substantial increase in funding for educational upgrading, retraining and job-finding resources to help the older workers regain their place in the market-place. This is a fact of life in some of the more industrial areas of Canada where older workers on occasion find themselves taking early retirement. They then find early retirement rather boring and decide they would like to re-enter the labour force but find that their skills should be upgraded so they can take advantage of the new machinery and technologies being used today in industry.

June 7, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
Complementary to these training initiatives, we are also changing the UI Act to reflect the realities of today's work place. This means, in effect, respecting both the principle of equity and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why we have proposed the following major changes: Making 15 weeks of maternity benefits available during the period of a child's birth; making 10 weeks of parental benefits available to natural and adoptive parents to be shared by either mother or father; ensuring that claimants are able to draw a combination of maternity, paternal and sickness benefits up to a maximum of 30 weeks; making UI available to those who delay retirement past the age of 65.
This is another fact of life in this country. We have many people who reach the age of 65, who still have many years of productive life ahead of them, and who do not want to sit around. Many of us know neighbours and friends who reach the age of 65. Their company policy is that they must retire and they find themselves at loose ends with nothing to do. Some of them, of course, become consultants. In fact, I was watching a television program the other night in which a 92-year-old gentleman was being interviewed by a young lady. She said, "What do you at 92?'' He said, "I am a consultant''. She said, "Who would consult a 92-year-old man?" He named a list of companies that are all in the Fortune 500. She said, "What do you charge an hour?" He said he charged $1,500, and she said "You wouldn't have many takers at $1,500 an hour". He said, "My dear, I have enough work ahead of me to last me until I am 108". I stood up and cheered because that is the kind of experience that is out there that can still be productive in our society and we should not let these people go.
We have made these adjustments to the UI program because Canadian society has changed. Canadian men and women now want to be equal partners at home and at work. We have a responsibility, therefore, to make the UI program relevant to that reality. We also have a responsibility to Canadians to ensure that the unemployment insurance program is efficient and economical, and that it does not provide a disincentive to work. In part, we want to be able to finance some of these improvements by raising the qualifying period for unemployment insurance in areas of low unemployment, and we propose to increase penalties for those people who quit
their jobs without just cause or who fraudulently collect benefits. There is a substantial underground economy in this country and, in fact, in all the western countries. We want to see those people go back into the regular taxpaying community.
It should be noted that when New Zealand went to the value added tax, it found 225,000 more people in business than before the tax was put in. In order to get the advantage of the claim back on the tax, they had to be registered. There were 225,000 underground businesses operating in New Zealand that the Government knew nothing about.
I am not saying that there are that many here, but there is a substantial number, which we all know about but do not like to admit. Our goal is to strengthen the unemployment insurance program so that it truly serves as a safety net for those in need, especially in those areas that are not participating in the fast growing economy. To do nothing more in their interest would be an admission of defeat for thousands of unemployed Canadians who desperately want to work.
One of the largest groups in our economy who are disadvantaged are single mothers. They are caught in a welfare trap, living in subsidized housing and relying on that cheque once a month to keep themselves going.
Many single mothers have been to my office, and there is not one of them whom I met who does not want to work. They want a productive job and want to contribute to society but they do not have skills. They do not want to be a net recipient of welfare.
Many single mothers who are asked if they can go to school for a certain course will say they cannot do so because they have no transportation and cannot afford a baby-sitter. Our Government will provide funds for baby-sitting and transportation to see that those skills can be made available to them so they can find productive work in our society and enjoy some of the benefits we have in this country. They do not want to be left in that welfare trap and we have a responsibility to help them as much as we can. We have a responsibility to foster a training culture with the Government acting as a facilitator in encouraging the private sector to contribute to a greater share of the skills development.
June 7, 1989

I was in Washington some 10 days ago at a meeting of the American Iron and Steel Institute, where I learned that the American steel industry, on its own, is putting $200 million on the line to upgrade the present employees of the steel industry. Rather than providing people from the industry with skills to work somewhere else because it is downsizing, it is recognizing that the very useful and productive machinery it will be installing in the plants will require employees who can operate those machines. The industry is investing $200 million of its own money, just as a down payment. If we are going to be competitive we will have to do something similar to that.
The Elon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. Volpe) stated in his comments that businesses provide some two to three hours training per week.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Two to three weeks.


William James Kempling: A recent Statistics Canada study shows that Canadian businesses provide an average of only two hours of training per year. Is he suggesting that current levels of training by Canadian businesses are sufficient and that there is no room for improvement? That is nonsense. There is much room for improvement. If we are going to remain competitive in the global market, we will need a large supply of skilled workers.
Thirty per cent of our Gross National Product depends on our ability to export, we can only export if we are productive and competitive in the market-place. Part of the training culture means never giving up on the unemployed worker who needs timely assistance that will propel him or her back into the workforce. Bill C-21 provides an important shift in that direction. It is a Bill that dares to face up to the future and I am pleased with it.
I believe it is a timely Bill that will give us what we need. When one looks at the job lists at Canada Employment and Immigration offices throughout the country to see the job shortages in the market-place, one can see that there are not the people to fill them. I am sure all Hon. Members have people come to their offices asking if they can bring in skilled workers like tool and die makers from other countries because Canada is not training enough tool and die makers here.
Unemployment Insurance Act
Let me illustrate by referring to one job list for example. It lists such jobs as geological technician, prospector, landscape architect, marine surveyor and a job for claims staking.
Incidentally, these are jobs in Newfoundland. There are jobs for a systems software programmer, application programmer, mini-micro computer specialist, human services worker, mental retardation worker, day care worker, dispensing optician, dental technician, net assembler, logger, drilling machine operator, diamond driller, scoop tram operator, mining helper and the list goes on.
These jobs which are going begging in Newfoundland include ones for a dragging and flotation operator, leaching operator, first-line supervisor, quality control inspection, a machinist, sheet metal worker, welder-fitter, stone cutter, optician and the list goes on. There are two and a half pages of jobs just for Newfoundland alone. Every province has a list of jobs like that which are going begging because the labour force does not have the skills to fill those jobs. Our duty is to help fill those jobs. That is what Bill C-21 is all about.


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Speaker, I have three comments I want to make to my hon. friend, the Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling). First, let me suggest to him that it is not a question of whether Members on this side of the House or Members on that side of the House have a sense of the desperate need for training in this country. Certainly that is something to which the commitment on this side of the House is at least as strong as the commitment on the other side of the House. In fact, what we see in our constituencies is significant cut-backs by the Government in the kind of funding for training which has been possible for people who are out of work. I do not think training is the issue.
In considering the comments by the Member for Burlington, there is one clear point that I want him to pin down more carefully.
He talked about the importance of what he called an underground economy. Certainly my experience with what, as the Member said, all of us recognize as an existing underground economy, is that the people who are part of that underground economy are more often

June 7, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
people who are themselves employed and are doing part-time work and unregulated work.


An Hon. Member:: Moonlighting.


Steven W. Langdon: Call it moonlighting, if you like. They are people who in fact are taking the skills which they have got, often in the construction field but there is a wide section of other parts of our economy in which this is true also. They are working outside, in a kind of shadow economy for which they do not pay taxes. They do not make contributions to various benefit programs, et cetera.
The question which I would like to ask is what makes the Member think, and what evidence can he point to that in fact it is people who are facing unemployment and suffering the deprivation which the situation of unemployment has put them into and which this legislation is going to worsen, that in fact it is people who are unemployed who are part of that shadow economy or that underground economy? Certainly I do not see any evidence to that effect in the experiences that I have had with people who are, if you like, moonlighting.
I would like to raise a last point with the Member. As somebody who is concerned and has expressed his concern in the past about the arbitrary exercise of government power, I wonder how the Member would justify the parts of this Bill which, as the news release from the Minister put it, indicate that there will be people who will be excluded from some of their benefits in the future if they refuse, as it is put quite clearly here, a suitable job.
The question is, who decides what a suitable job is? The answer seems to be that a suitable job will be something which bureaucrats in a government bureaucracy will themselves decide is a suitable job. Is that in fact the kind of arbitrary power that we should be giving to the unemployment insurance authorities in this country? Is that not in fact quite a dangerous mechanism which puts far too much authority to act in quite an arbitrary way with respect to individuals who are searching for work in their field or searching for work which will support the family which they have to support, and yet are told in an arbitrary way that they have to accept a given job or else they are cut off benefits for a penalty period?
Is that really the direction that we should be taking to an increase in that kind of arbitrary government authority?


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, what the Member calls arbitrary government authority or bureaucratic authority has always been there. As long as the Unemployment Insurance Act has been in place, where jobs were available, if people were not taking the jobs, someone had to make a judgment call. Someone has to say: "Is that person capable of doing that job?" I will readily admit that there are errors. I have seen them, and I am sure the Hon. Member has experienced them in his constituency the same as I have. There are things like a 50-year old woman refused a job as a gas pump jockey. I do not blame her. I would not take it myself. We always get those distortions but by and large, I think they are fairly reasonable.
On one occasion I had a lady come to me and say that she was a comptometer operator and she could not find a job as a comptometer operator. I had to think because it has been so long since they have used comptometers in business. I think the last one I saw was in a museum. She was a comptometer operator and she would not take a job in an office doing any sort of clerical work unless she could operate a comptometer. To me, that was a very unusual decision on her part. She was subsequently told that if she did not take a job that her funding would be cut off. She subsequently took a job in an office. We run into that sort of thing.
I think the people in the Canada Employment Centre offices try to be sensitive to the individuals out there. If they get an individual who is not being altogether forthright with them and arbitrarily refusing employment, they bring them in and interview them and try and determine the reason why. The individual has a source of recourse to appeal and ultimately they can come to their Member of Parliament, which none of us really want, but they can ultimately do that and appeal the matter that way.
As far as the underground economy goes, I mentioned that because if anybody believes there is not an underground economy, he is not in the real world. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with it either. If a person wants to have two jobs or three jobs, there is nothing wrong with that, if they can do it, if they can and stand it. I recall when my son was going to college, I think he had three jobs beside going to school. He was pretty proud of it. He is proud of it today, and I was proud of him for taking that sort of initiative. However,
June 7, 1989

there are people who we know are unemployed who are drawing unemployment benefits and who are also working under the table. When they are found out then of course they are dealt with by the administration because that is not what they are supposed to do.
There is a fair little bit of it going on particularly in the large cities. There are all sorts of jobs. I walk up the main street of some of the towns and cities in this country and see day jobs offered, "cash at the end of the day." There is all kinds of it out there. There is nothing wrong with a person taking it but the point is, they have not declared their income and the Minister of National Revenue takes a dim view of that sort of thing.
The underground economy is something that all Governments are concerned about. I think by giving people skills that they can enter into a more productive job, that is one way of overcoming that problem.
The Acting Speaking (Mr. Paproski): Well, a very succinct question and an answer, the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence. The Hon. Member's time has expired.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Most assuredly, yes, Mr. Speaker. I really do not want to have a response to my comment. However, I do want to correct the record lest the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary get away with vilifying the unemployed, or conveying the impression that there is some connection between good social programs and the unwillingness of people to work.
Yesterday, my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace put on the table for the consideration of all Members of the House an indication that there are other countries in the world, countries such as Austria, Norway, Sweden and, I dare say, the United States in which the social programs and the level of insurable earnings much exceed that of Canada. I say that primarily in respect to the first three on the list. Sweden, for example, is at a rate of 95 per cent. Under this Bill we will be dropping our insurable earnings to 60 per cent. In fact, the unemployment rate in Sweden is half our own.
Unemployment Insurance Act
Second, I cannot let the Hon. Member perpetrate the old misconception that there are a great many cheaters out there. In fact, last year only .02 per cent of all UI participants or claimants were cheaters.
As a last comment, I would like to indicate to the Parliamentary Secretary that if he would like to match curriculum vitae in all sectors of employment, perhaps he will pale in comparison to my own. I speak without false modesty.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon.
Member does not want to say anything in rebuttal, then the time allotted for questions and comments has now terminated. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Hillsborough on debate.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today in debate on Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act.
On April 11, 1989, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) announced the federal Government's intention to reform the Unemployment Insurance Program. This position was directly opposite to promises made by the Government during the 1988 election campaign.
The Unemployment Insurance Act, as most people in this room at this time realize, was originally introduced in 1940 by the then Minister of Labour, the Hon. N. A. McLarty. The fundamental purpose of the Bill was to promote the economic and social security of Canadians by supporting workers from the time they leave one job until they get another.
Inherent in this legislation was the fact that unemployment insurance was to be protection against unemployment. It was a limited measure with the theme of giving income protection to those who lost their employment after having been employed for a period of time. This insurance benefit was to be a person's right as established by past contributions.
Throughout the 1940s and 1950s the unemployment insurance program was readjusted in response to myriad circumstances. However, coverage remains universal.

June 7, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
Two significant changes occurred in the principles inherent in the original Act. They were the coverage of self-employed fishermen and the introduction of supplementary benefits which later became seasonal benefits.
Throughout the 1960s and the 1970s the legislation continued to change in response to socio-economic conditions. As we head toward the 21st century and the end of five decades of UI as we know it, the Government is proposing sweeping changes to one of our social programs. They are changes that have been introduced in the wake of the serious inflation and relatively high unemployment of the early 1980s coupled with increased regional disparities.
The unemployed are now being told that they are obligated to contribute to the easing of the federal deficit. How much do the poor of the country have to pay to finance a deficit reduction plan? Employers and employees under the present Unemployment Insurance Program pay into the fund knowing that the money will come back to them in the form of benefits should they become unemployed, sick or pregnant. Under the new legislation they have no guarantee that the money they paid into the fund comes back to them.
It is highly probable that a worker in an economically depressed region of the country would contribute to the unemployment insurance program for a work period and then not be able to draw on this program if his or her weeks of employment fall short of the magic number of the Government's graphs and charts.
The Minister stated yesterday that it was foolish to believe that there would be a flow over to the provincial welfare systems of each province. I would like to know what these workers will do if this is not the case.
The Minister has claimed and even bragged about the Government's plan to retrain these people. Retrain for what? A job that could send them half way across the country? In my opinion the Government is hypocritically using the pretext of adjustment to finance its deficit reduction plan at the expense of unemployed Canadians. I cannot support this legislation for it is not an adjustment. It is no more than a massive cut by Government. How then will these Canadians pay their rent and buy their food?
The deficit and deficit reduction has been the Government's main target. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised to balance the budget within three years. Prior to the 1984 election the Prime Minister was quoted as saying that there would be no drastic reduction in the deficit until interest rates and unemployment levels were lower.
Soon after, the agenda for economic renewal was tabled. With it came a grave warning of the tough times ahead. However, the commitment to deficit reduction did not last long. It became no longer a political priority. Perhaps this was because of the prosperity of the central Canadian economy in 1987. Perhaps it was because Government had fallen into disfavour with Canadians. Regardless, the initial plan to trim the deficit was scrapped. Now, today, we are facing one of those results.
I am an Atlantic Canadian. It is with much anger that I sit in this House as the Government attempts to ravage Atlantic Canada, one of the poorest regions of the country. It is one of the poorest regions but a part of Canada none the less.
I have watched the Government attempt to kill a large segment of the Prince Edward Island economy with the impending closure of CFB Summerside. What will happen to the civilian employees who will lose their jobs, not to mention the indirect jobs that will be affected, such as the gas station attendant, the clothing store employee and the hardware employee?
The Government states that these people will be retrained and move on down the yellow brick road to future success. I contend that the retraining road to success will have many cracks and gullies and will soon be filled by the unemployed workers.
The Atlantic economy has been hammered. We have had our transfer payments reduced. Our ERDAs have been put on hold. We have had cut-backs to VIA Rail. We have lost control of our fishing rights. This is to name but a few examples.
It is inevitable that Atlantic Canadians as a result of the Government slashing will now need unemployment insurance more than ever just to survive. However, even now, that system of support is being crushed.
Canadians, in particular Atlantic Canadians, have been listening to the tune "jobs, jobs, jobs'' for over four years now. "Unemployment is down and employment is up." Unemployment has not gone down in Prince Edward Island. It is the only province in Canada that has
June 7, 1989

seen its unemployment rate go up since September of 1984. Where are all these jobs, jobs, jobs?
Over the course of the parliamentary session I have listened to statistics spewed forth by the Government. It is always careful not to mention the 14 per cent unemployment in Prince Edward Island. Given this statistic, the Government's actions are nothing short of astounding to Prince Edward Islanders and, indeed, to all Atlantic Canadians.
We all know that the national unemployment rate has been reduced to 7.8 per cent down from 11.7 per cent in September of 1984. That is good. However, it is important to note that the Canadian Government benefited at that time greatly from a buoyant U.S. economy. Prior to the recession and under a Liberal Government the national unemployment rate was 7.5 per cent. Thus we are really no better off today than we were six years ago.
Newfoundland's present unemployment rate is 14.5 per cent. Nova Scotia's unemployment rate is 10.4 per cent while New Brunswick's is 12.2 per cent. Although these rates have been reduced, they are still much higher than the national rate. Given the Government's newest agenda, these rates will surely go up.
The Government has had almost five years to bring the federal deficit under control. It slips in and out of its promises of reduction. Now the Government is back on to it again. Canadians are sick and tired of having to pay a continually increasing price for government mismanagement. This is quite evident as reported today in the national media. Consumer confidence has sunk to its lowest level in five years. If the results of the recent provincial elections in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island have not sent a clear message to the federal Government, then yesterday's Angus Reid poll should. Fifty-seven per cent of Canadians feel that the April Budget was unfair. They feel that their personal financial situation will be worse and that the provincial economy will suffer. It is obvious to most Canadians that the Government has gone too far.
Given that 50 per cent of Canadians feel that our economy is going to get worse, one would be correct in assuming that now is not the time to revamp the unemployment insurance program. What this legislation does in real terms is eliminate the Government's portion
Unemployment Insurance Act
of money formerly committed to the program. The Government is blatantly turning its back on the poor of this country. Based on current UIC spending, the elimination of federal financing will cut between $1.3 billion to $2 billion from the $13 billion program. Under the Government's proposed plan, there will be a reallocation of 10 per cent amounting to $1.3 billion. Of the $1.3 billion UI expenditures forecast for 1990, approximately $800 million will go toward human resource planning and skills upgrading of the labour force.
A strong labour force strategy depends on a sound, full employment policy that supports research and development, post-secondary education and literacy initiatives. The more basic an education a person has, the easier it is to retrain. Given that in the near future almost half of the new jobs will require more than five years of combined education and training beyond completion of high school, the Government should be developing a comprehensive full employment policy.
Various labour, business and community groups have expressed outrage toward the Government's proposed UI changes. They firmly believe that these changes will lead to a drastic reduction in the number of unemployed people becoming eligible to receive UI. At the same time, Canadians feel that the proposals fail to address the facts, that the number of unemployed is poised to increase as a result of the Free Trade Agreement, high interest rates, not to mention the multitude of Budget cuts. These groups feel that the federal Government should be concerned with the expansion of the unemployment insurance safety net.
In addition, they firmly believe that the Government's proposal to pay increased amounts of money for enhanced training is not the correct approach. This is based on the principle that current job creation is in the low-paying dead-end service sector. Privatized training that subsidizes companies does little more than train people to fill low-paying jobs. Regions of Canada, similar to Atlantic Canada, can expect to suffer the most. My province of Prince Edward Island has an economy that is based on three major industries, namely, farming, fishing and tourism. They are all seasonal industries. A significant percentage of our labour force is dependent upon these seasonal industries. Why then would UI be important to P.E.I.? The answer is simple. One cannot fish

June 7, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
lobster in winter, nor will tourists visit our beautiful province in the middle of winter.
The Government's proposal to increase the number of weeks needed to work to be eligible is based on the assumption that the work is available. In some regions of Canada and in some industries, this is correct. But it is not correct in Atlantic Canada. The Government believes that the work is out there but people do not want to work. That is also not very often the case.
With respect to P.E.I.'s industries, as previously mentioned, we have a short tourist season. Where are these Canadians supposed to get the number of weeks required if their employers can only operate in a ten-week season? Can the federal Government actually expect these businesses to stay open after the end of the tourist season so employees can get the required number of weeks to qualify? I doubt that they would, especially after having paid into the program at an increased cost. To Atlantic Canadians, the proposed changes will be devastating and the proposed programs to replace the reductions of benefits are equally devastating because the whole thrust of the Canadian Jobs Strategy is to involve the private sector in training, and the training is geared toward a growth economy that is providing short-term jobs for a large number of private sector employers and a significant number of skill shortage occupations.
Mr. Speaker, this does not describe Atlantic Canada's economy, and certainly not that of my own province. As I have explained, P.E.I. has a unique economy and the present unemployment insurance program recognizes this. P.E.I. and the rest of Atlantic Canada have many strengths, but they also have many weaknesses which the present system addresses. I am quite sure that all Canadians would agree that they do not wish to have to rely on unemployment insurance. But given the disparities within our country, unemployment insurance has become an inherent need and is most certainly not abused by Canadians.
It was stated here earlier that in 1987-88 only 0.2 per cent of all UI claimants were charged with cheating. That is 5,507 claimants out of a total of 2.4 million.
Canadians have reason to be proud of their social programs. While I know there is a spirit of fair-mindedness, tolerance and compassion among all Canadians, I believe the Government is turning its back on the needs of many Canadians. If that agenda proceeds unchallenged or unquestioned, I believe it will lead to a steady erosion of the kind of Canada which provides security and opportunity for all its citizens.
The federal Government will somehow realize that its policies threaten to undermine the economies of the have-not regions of this countiy. The Government has a duty and a commitment to protect and promote economic development and social justice throughout all areas of this country. It has a responsibility to the poor, the elderly and the disadvantaged. Since 1940 we have seen changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, changes aimed at improving assistance for workers and employers. We in the Liberal Party initiated many of these changes but we will not support such drastic measures aimed at increasing the difficulties of unemployed Canadians.


Mr. Thompson:: We want to put Canadians back to work. We don't want to keep them on welfare.


George Albert Proud: I join my Liberal colleagues in calling for the Government to withdraw this Bill, to listen to the average Canadian citizen and come back to the House for the last Draconian piece of legislation.


Mr. Crawford:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member several questions, mostly for clarification. I feel I am qualified. I still have callouses on my hands. Statements were made earlier by the Hon. Member from Burlington (Mr. Kempling) on unemployment insurance. In my riding unemployment insurance has been cut back. The number of days one must work has been raised. When a person cannot collect unemployment insurance he goes on welfare. Being a past warden of my riding, I know the welfare costs are directly on the people.
Let me speak about the benefits of retraining. I certainly believe in retraining programs. Unfortunately, in my riding the retraining programs have been cut back. They have been cut back and the people who suffer are those that the Hon. Member referred to, such as single parents. St. Clair College had its retraining programs cut back. What about the number of jobs available?
I believe the Hon. Member mentioned quality control. I was Chief Inspector for a company on quality control.
June 7, 1989

You do not retrain for quality control in five weeks or five months. It is now a high-tech college degree.
If you could answer the questions about unemployment, how this is going to benefit us when our training programs have been cut back, and the different jobs that are available.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the comments and questions. The first area he mentioned was people who are not eligible for unemployment insurance because they do not have the necessary number of weeks. This is an area that I mentioned during my remarks in the debate. It is an area that bothers me as a person from Atlantic Canada where we see the seasonal type of work. Granted, if we could enjoy some of the work in the industry that is prominent in certain parts of Canada, I could certainly see the concept of their program. But in those areas you are just painting everybody with the same brush. In those areas where seasonal work is part of the norm, concessions have to be made. I asked the Minister that question a couple of weeks ago. Concessions have to be made in this area until something takes its place, or the unemployed will be on the welfare roles of the provincial Governments.
As has been stated by some of the Premiers, this is a great worry to the provincial Governments.
The retraining programs. I have full support for retraining programs. There is a part that bothers me about them. I mentioned it at a committee meeting the other day. I think where Canada and North America has failed is in apprenticeship programs.
The exceptions are the areas that were mentioned: the steel industry, the auto industry, and the electric utility industry. They have ongoing training programs within their companies. The general training of apprentices in the high-tech industries have been failed.
As Canadians, we took the outlook that if you are not a university graduate and if you went to a trade school, you are a different class of citizen. That is unfortunate. I think most people agree that that is the mentality that has developed in North America in the last 150 years. It is unfortunate because this is not the mentality that has developed in Great Britain and other places where they have great apprenticeship programs.
Unemployment Insurance Act
The other question I have asked time and time again on retraining is that in certain areas of Canada, what do you retrain people for if there are no jobs for them to go to?
The Hon. Member from Burlington has lists there. I will ask him for one for my province. If there are areas to train these people for, yes, I can see the validity of it. In a lot of cases, I cannot see where these people are going to be trained unless they are prepared to move to another part of Canada.


Ms. Langan:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a couple of questions. I was most interested in the reply and in the speech just given by the Hon. Member. Tire speaker before him said that the UI program was going to address child care for those people who require it to return to the work force. However, he did not explain how indeed the program would do that. I would ask if the Hon. Member joins me in being quite concerned about the lack of definition of just how that will happen.
I would also like to ask the Hon. Member if he shares the views of many of us that it is wrong to be denigrating and condemning all unemployed people on the basis of a few who may in fact be abusing the system. I think it is a very serious concern that all of us have about that kind of statement. I would appreciate it if he would comment on it.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her questions. I, too, am concerned about the lack of a description as to how these things are going to take place, especially in the child care area.
The child care issue has been tossed around for a number of years. As yet, I see nothing coming forward that is concrete. It is the same with the Bill in general. We are going forward without the regions of the country in place before the Bill becomes law.
Child care today is a very important issue. The Hon. Member from Burlington (Mr. Kempling) talked about single mothers going to work. Until we have a definition of how this becomes a reality, I will remain very concerned about it.
In the area of condemning the unemployed, this is a great way out for a lot of individuals. You hear it from all across the country. They condemn these people on unemployment insurance.

June 7, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
I would suggest, as figures do indicate, that there are very few people in this country today who like to be on unemployment insurance. The majority of people want to get out there and work. I know that in the region I come from, they want to work 12 months of the year if they can. Unfortunately, it is not available to them in a lot of cases.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Hon. Member from Hillsborough that on Prince Edward Island today, the following jobs are available: biotechnology technologist; electro-mechanical technician; early childhood worker; licensed nursing assistant; resident care worker; dental hygienist; executive chef; hog farm worker; dairy farm worker; officer-fishing vessel over 40 tonnes; silviculture worker; machine tool set-up operator; machinist; truck body and trailer builder; industrial sewing machine operator; fibreglass laminator; automotive diagnostic technician; millwright; brick layer; tile setter; reinforcing iron worker; marine deck officer; marine engineer; typesetter; offset press operator; and stationery engineer. I would be pleased to give the Hon. Member a copy of it.


Andrew Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the Member from Hillsborough. I will follow up on what the Parliamentary Secretaiy just mentioned.
Currently in Canada, 55 per cent of all jobs require 12 years or less of education. We are going to find that that is going to change. They are telling us that between 1986 and the year 2000, it is projected that 64 per cent of all the work force will require more than 12 years of education and training.
What that tells us is that we must adjust to the future. That is what this program is doing. It will educate Canadians and upgrade their skills so that they will be able to meet the demands of the future.
To follow this through, I want to point out a couple of very interesting statistics. The number of people trained under the UI program presently is in the vicinity of 75,000, or about 2.5 per cent of all people on UI. We are going to approximately double it to a number in the vicinity of 140,000.
Our goal is very simple. We are going to give those people that are unemployed the skills to get out there and find a job in a very competitive workplace. Times have changed. They are changing very quickly.
Part and parcel of this unemployment insurance program Bill is the training necessary to put people out there in the workplace to meet the demands of the 20th century. That is exactly what we are going to do.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I have no problem with training programs. I am a great promoter of apprenticeship programs and programs in the high-tech industry. The problem I have with it, and he certainly knows as well as I, are the problems we face in Atlantic Canada.
One of the big problems I have is the Government getting out of funding the program and the private sector business and employees funding it. The employee who is working in a fish plant will be paying for training for someone who will have to move to a job somewhere else in Canada. If regional development programs are put in place, that will enable those industries to provide the full-time and high-tech jobs that we are looking for.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the Hon. Member for Fredericton.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate and to address myself to the benefits these changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act will bring to Atlantic Canada.
Since 1984 the Government to which I now belong has helped to engineer fundamental changes in the economies of the Atlantic Provinces. We have co-operated with business, industry and labour in creating employment programs and services that reach those workers most in need and those which yield the best long-term results. The Government has shown leadership in helping Atlantic Canadians prepare for the labour market of the future.
It is irrefutable that in the world we now live in people derive economic growth through brain power and skill power. Our future growth will depend increasingly on a highly skilled, flexible labour force.
In 1985 the Government radically changed the approach to employment programs. We replaced the mishmash of more than 40 ineffective programs with a co-ordinated regionally driven initiative called the Cana-
June 7, 1989

dian Jobs Strategy. Rather than making work, we set out to make permanent jobs.
This new approach focused on individual training needs. The Canadian Jobs Strategy also recognized that bureaucrats in Ottawa are not the people who should be determining local labour market needs. The Government brought in a flexible approach that recognized that the people who know best what is needed in a local economy are the people who live there.
Building on the philosophy and the success of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, last month the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) introduced an important national program that will lead to further improvements in the training and employment structure of the Canadian labour market. The new labour force development strategy will enlist the involvement of business, labour and Government in a unique co-operative effort to address the skill demands of today's labour market. The new labour force development strategy will continue to help those most in need in Atlantic Canada today.
We are seeing in our part of the world the economy transform from resource-based to service and skill-based employment. This means that education and training are extremely important for the future of workers in the Atlantic region.
Given the pressures to mobilize all human resources in new directions, under this strategy we have proposed important reforms to the Unemployment Insurance Act. These changes will allow the unemployment insurance program to help Atlantic Canadians find productive and more permanent places in the work force.
Providing Atlantic Canadians with the old unemployment insurance system is not good enough any more. Action is needed to help workers get the training and skills that match today's business needs.
The Opposition has been too quick to criticize us for lengthening the qualifying periods for unemployment insurance. Yes, it is true that some unemployment insurance claimants will have to work longer to qualify for benefits and the duration of their benefits will be shorter in many cases. Elowever, only in areas where there are more job opportunities will those conditions prevail. In areas of continuing high unemployment, including many places in Atlantic Canada, the number of
Unemployment Insurance Act
weeks of work needed to collect unemployment insurance will not change. In particular, self-employed workers in the fishing industry will not be affected. Seasonal workers will now benefit from the elimination of the repeater clause which previously forced them to find extra weeks of employment before qualifying for unemployment insurance benefits again.
This more flexible application of eligibility requirements, contrary to what our critics say, will not force unemployed workers to collect welfare. Past experience has shown that when entrance requirements have been increased, as happened during a Liberal Government in 1977, people actually adjusted successfully by either working the extra weeks necessary to qualify, or in many cases by finding permanent employment.
Atlantic Canadians are eager to work and to create prosperity in our region. Our Canadian Jobs Strategy under the new labour force program to extend the use of unemployment insurance funds for meaningful job training means that more Atlantic Canadians will have the skills needed for tomorrow's labour force.
For those people who are caught in the welfare trap, the labour force development strategy offers new alternatives. The federal Government is ready to commit an additional $100 million to train social assistance recipients for satisfying, steady jobs. If the provinces agree to match this money, together we will have an additional $200 million available to significantly improve employment prospects for 20,000 social assistance recipients across the country. This is in addition to $600 million already available in an existing jointly funded program which has already had an encouraging success rate and which was started by the Government in 1986.
As well, $350 million will be spent to provide job training under Section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, formerly Section 39, allowing workers to collect unemployment insurance while they learn up-to-date skills. This represents a doubling of funds under Section 26.
Unemployment insurance claimants with viable business plans will also be able to defray some business start-up costs under the new strategy. Claimants will be able to receive their unemployment insurance benefits in a lump sum in order to move to an area where they have

June 7, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
a better chance to find work. These are two innovations which are very significant.
For older unemployed workers we have earmarked $100 million for training. This reflects our labour market's increasing dependence on the human resources already in our work force.
Ours in Canada is a labour force in transition. The Government feels that it is essential to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to reflect the realities of today's work patterns and to respond to the equity provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These are important amendments because they recognize the need for greater equity and flexibility in our social programs.
Under this new strategy, 15 weeks of maternity benefits will be available during the period surrounding the birth of a child; 10 weeks of parental benefit will be available to natural and adoptive parents, either the mother or the father or shared between them. There will be fewer restrictions on women's ability to collect their entitlement of 15 weeks of sickness benefits.
The strategy proposes further equity measures. Claimants will have the flexibility to draw a combination of special benefits up to a maximum of 30 weeks. Claimants involved in labour disputes will be able to collect benefits, as will those who delay retirement past the age of 65. That is also a very significant development in today's world.
It is imperative that government programs reflect today's changing work patterns. In this regard, the labour force development strategy, as well as refocusing the Unemployment Insurance Program, will improve the training provided to employed as well as unemployed Canadians.
Under this strategy, $230 million will be directed toward human resources planning and training. The following is how the money will be divided. Almost half of those funds will be spent on entry level training to be provided by the private sector where we are significantly deficient in our training requirements and training programs relative to our compatriots and neighbours in the United States.
Co-operative education funds will be quadrupled. Human resource planning will be made available to industries in order that they can plan for the future job market. The industrial adjustment service will have its funds doubled. As all Members of the House know, the industrial adjustment service has become an international model for dealing with labour market adjustment. The service works with management and workers in finding solutions to such problems as obsolete skills, the need for new technology, and major lay-offs. The labour force development strategy addresses long-term need for a labour force that will demand more highly skilled workers. By facilitating training by the private sector as well as expanding training to the unemployed, this Government will help improve the employment and re-employment opportunities of Atlantic Canadians. These new measures will supplement continuing programs that have proven viable across the country and especially in Atlantic Canada.
Since 1986, the Canadian Jobs Strategy has provided funds for job training and work experience to those who are most in need: to women who want to work outside the home, to aboriginal people, to disabled persons, to the young and to unskilled workers. The recent employment figures are but one indication of the Government's commitment to helping this region prepare for tomorrow's labour force demands.
Clearly the labour force development strategy is following in the footsteps of programs which our Government has introduced in the past. It recognizes that assistance must be available for specific groups of people. It recognizes that specific skills and knowledge are needed. At the same time it incorporates the flexibility to allow regions and the private sector to use their initiative and energy to generate these skills and opportunities.
Four and a half years of experience by this Government has shown that this approach works in Atlantic Canada. It works because we have ensured that the training and job experience which participants receive is relevant to the modern workplace and will lead to meaningful long-term employment.
In closing, I would like to say that income support is at times important and necessary. But we must return to the principle that it is a temporary measure rather than a permanent remedy. Finally, the best income security is a job. The people of Atlantic Canada know this. They want to work and through economic growth and relevant
June 7, 1989

training, this Government will give them an increased opportunity.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the Hon. Member. I cannot believe some of the things he said. I noticed that he kept his head down which led me to believe that maybe he really did not want to say the things he was saying.
Whether he comes from the same area I do, I do not know. He made a statement that the economy of the Atlantic provinces is changing from resource base. There is something going on called a crisis in the fishery. I do not know what area he is talking about but in my area and in the areas most of us represent on this side of the House represent, there is a crisis in a resource-based industry called the fishery which is fundamental to the Atlantic area. This Government through its inaction is doing nothing but allowing foreign countries to rape the very stocks we depend on, the very resource we depend on. You can talk all you want about unemployment insurance but unless you give people fish to catch and something to process in the plants, it is useless to talk about unemployment insurance or training or any other program.
Then the Hon. Member said that bureaucrats in Ottawa should not be determining local market needs. This plan we have now is something that has leaped full blown from the fertile minds of central Canadian bureaucrats. Are we supposed to take a 40 year old fisherman in Ros Blanche or in Caitlin Cove and move him to Ottawa, train him as a high-tech operator so he can work for Mitel? Will the Hon. Member comment on what we are supposed to do for those people who have no skills except in the fishing industry, who are in the age bracket between 30 and 50 years old and who are out of work as a result of the inaction of this Government? What the Government says to them is:"We are not going to give you fish. We are going to give you is training." What kind of training are they going to give to those people? That is what I want to know and that is what they would like to know.
The Hon. Member said that the self-employed in the fishery will not be affected. I have just pointed out the only alternative now that the Government is offering to self-employed fishermen and plant workers is training. We can no longer offer them jobs, even part-time jobs, even jobs which can keep them in the system. We cannot offer them those jobs anymore. We are starting to get rejection slips from CEIC now. It has not fully hit the fan
Unemployment Insurance Act
yet, but it is going to very soon. CEIC is starting to reject applications from people who have work programs in communities where that is the only alternative. This training that the Government talks about is a figment of somebody's imagination.
The Hon. Member talks about matching money for the provinces. That is fine but we have gone through that decade after decade and we know that a province in a have-not area of this country cannot match funds. You can have all the offers you want, but if the province has to match the funds and it has not got the wherewithal to do it, that kind of program just does not work. If the Government wants to do something creative and imaginative, why does it not bite the bullet, why does it not bring in a guaranteed annual income? You would see all over this country where imagination is working, namely in some native communities.
Take the James Bay agreement as a model. In the James Bay agreement, one of the fundamental essentials of the land claims negotiations and agreement was an income support program and a guaranteed annual income for those people who wanted to be freed from trying to beat the system. What this Government has done is to put another layer on that we have to beat. We have been beating the system for years. Instead of showing imagination and creativity and instead of bringing in a timely idea which is being utilized in many rural parts of this country, what the Government has done is simply add on another layer that we have to beat in order to stay in the system.
I do not know if the Member wants to take some time to answer these points, Mr. Speaker, but this is a very serious matter for us. I think those of us from the Atlantic area, if we are going to do our job in this Chamber, no matter what Party we come from or what side of the House, we have to stand up and say to the Government, this is a sham, this is a charade, this is not good enough. Let us do something meaningful for the people of the Atlantic.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, first of all, when I hear the hon. gentleman talking about the guaranteed annual income, it seems to me he should be sitting on the far right over here. That is in my opinion a socialist concept that does nothing but perpetuate the unemployment psyche that we have experienced across this country for so long in so many areas. The crutch of guaranteeing people an income whether they want to work or not, removing any incentive to work, I certainly reject that and with my head held very high. It is another Liberal

June 7, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
socialist concept that will lead to nothing but deterioration of spirit and productivity and performance.
The Hon. Member says that what the people want us to give them is fish. The principle reason we are having a fishing crisis is that the fishing resource has become depleted. You cannot cause a God-given resource like fish to be recreated overnight. It has got to be managed. I think the decisions which have been made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) are responsible if not courageous decisions to protect the resources for future generations that should have been taken years ago. If there is anything that underlines the need for training, if there is any crisis that emphasizes the value of this significant shift to training in the Unemployment Insurance Act, it is the realization that a traditional resource upon which we depended for centuries is no longer abundant. Something else must be done.


Mr. Tobin:: Are you declaring the end of fishing?


John Williston (Bud) Bird: I am not saying that it is the end of the fisheiy at all, absolutely not. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has taken a management approach that will see that these fish stocks are preserved and managed and that we use them in the context of the harvest that we can afford. The stark reality is that for the foreseeable future the fishery will not be able to support the traditional numbers of people it has in the past. There will have to be a transition to new kinds of jobs, new kinds of industry. There is nothing that is growing faster in the Atlantic region or anywhere else than the service jobs-


Brian Vincent Tobin: A & W, McDonald's, Harvey's.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: I heard the other day that in McDonald's and Harvey's and places like that-you may laugh, my friend, but in those places today you have to know how to operate a computerized cash register.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, those gentlemen have been so long ensconced in the security of this House as their way of life that they do not realize what it takes to get a job today. I have worked in the private sector for a few years-longer than you, young man-and more recently
in it. I can tell you that you can sit there and shoot your yap off, as you do day after day, but you are about as ineffective as anything I have seen.
This unemployment insurance legislation will give more employment to your constituents than all the words you have ever uttered.
As my hon. colleague has suggested, the transition to aquaculture in the fishery will be significant.
I support this Bill. I support the training that it will provide. I support the concept and the direction it is going. I totally reject the crutch of a guaranteed annual income. If that is the best idea the Hon. Member for Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) can come up with, I think it speaks to his bankruptcy of ideas on this question.


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Speaker, what I just heard from a Member for New Brunswick is absolutely incredible! As if we should train people in the Atlantic region to work at McDonald's! Maybe he should have talked about A&W and all the other small stores that employ many people part-time. That is exactly what has happened in Atlantic Canada. I would like to ask him whether he agrees with his government when it cut funds for regional development programs in the last budget, when it cut the ACOA program, for which the Prime Minister had promised Atlantic Canadians $1.05 billion in new money, over and above all other programs. But now they are not singing the same tune. The period is being extended from five to seven years and we no longer have the money for development subagreements. So I ask him, with the changes that are being considered for the unemployment insurance program, whether he agrees with his government, with all these cuts that take needed job creation opportunities away from Atlantic Canadians.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, the regional development spending in Atlantic Canada in 1989-90 will be $500 million, which is the largest amount ever spent on record. It compares to an average of $182 million a year that that Government spent in the period 1978-1982.


Brian Vincent Tobin: False.
June 7, 1989


John Williston (Bud) Bird: That is a fact. The young people and older people of Atlantic Canada are not ashamed to work in McDonald's or wherever. They take jobs where there is work. The Hon. Member may not like to work at places like that, but let me tell him my constituents stand in line for things like that.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, having listened to some of the debate and having watched other parts of it, I am sure the unemployed people in my riding only wish some of the things Members opposite said actually had something to do with what takes place.
The Government's approach is a further illustration of its Conservative business oriented agenda of privatization and reducing government responsibility for the economy and social programs. I can use my Province of Saskatchewan as an example, along with most of the United Kingdom and large parts of the United States. In my province, following a similar agenda to that of the federal Government, but having started it a little earlier, there are now extremely high levels of unemployment. Saskatoon has the third highest level of unemployment in the country. We have higher income and sales taxes than before, a deficit where none existed before, lower quality and higher priced social services with long hospital waiting lists which we never experience before, and we have the highest rates of people leaving the province than ever before.
We are facing major battles over privatization of our important utilities. All this has led to a Conservative Government that will lose the next election to a New Democratic Party in Saskatchewan that is committed to a people-oriented full employment strategy and cares about the regions of Canada, and which says what it thinks and does what it says.
The agenda which the federal Government is following, and which is exhibited clearly within the changes it is suggesting to unemployment insurance, includes the notion which we have seen only too clearly in the states immediately south of the province in which I live. That notion is: Don't take jobs to the people, take people to the jobs. As a result we will have provinces that will look like North Dakota, which is basically a wasteland with huge areas of space because the residents have been sucked to some other part of the country with no effort
Unemployment Insurance Act
made to provide for the communities in which they grew up and no effort made to ensure that they can earn a living in their own communities.
The Government's economic and political motto has always been: Never accept responsibility for problems that with a little imagination you can blame on somebody else. That is clearly exhibited in the overhaul of the funding and administration of the unemployment insurance program, which is the subject of Bill C-21.
During the course of my remarks I will touch on several topics which clearly indicate that the Government is not nearly as concerned about the well-being of the unemployed as it is about the perceived need to harmonize Canadian society and Canadian social programs with those south of the border. Bill C-21 represents some of the first shots in this harmonization process.
I want to assure Canadians from coast to coast that New Democrats are ready to fight this fight to the end. The country is beginning to find out just what is in the Government's soul, given the fact that the unemployed are one of its very first targets. One would think that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), a self-styled friend of the people, would take on a group with greater capacity to protect itself and fight back, such as the profitable corporations which do not pay any income tax, rather than attack the unemployed.
Clearly what Bill C-21 does, as if anyone needed to be made aware of it, is signal the end of the myth that there is anything progressive about these Conservatives.
I want to begin in dealing with the specifics of unemployment insurance by reminding the House about the purpose of unemployment insurance and about the social contract that Canadian workers thought they had with the Government as to the uses of the money collected through their premium deductions. Unemployment insurance is, at its core, an income replacement program. It is meant to give Canadian workers for a time when they might be without a job the security of knowing that during personally difficult times the bills will continue to be paid and their children will continue to be fed. It provides Canadians with the dignity of knowing that of the money they receive much of that they contributed themselves. It is not all a hand-out, it was money that was contributed largely from their employers and from

June 7, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
themselves as employees. This is how workers perceive the deductions made from their cheques.
Bill C-21 changes all of that. The Government is in reality telling Canadians that the responsibility for the unemployed rests with the unemployed, and that the money that working people had put aside for that time when they might be unemployed is not necessarily available to them anymore.
In the process it is telling food banks, service agencies and the churches that they had better get ready because they are going to have more work to do in the future, as we turn thousands, perhaps 300,000 people off the unemployment rolls, not to work, Mr. Speaker, because in a city like my own, we have 12 per cent unemployment. They would be just turned off the rolls and left to presumably collect welfare or do as best they can. We are asking those service and welfare agencies to pick up the slack even more than they have before.
The Government uses two main reasons for forcing these changes on Canadian workers and their families. The first well warn reason is deficit reduction. We did not hear very much about cuts to Government spending during the federal election. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the rest of the Conservative candidates focused on the deficit reduction only after the votes had been counted and they were back in Ottawa.
In fact, Tory promises during that election campaign totalled billions of dollars. I cannot help but think that a responsible Government would have been up-front with Canadians during that process. I cannot help but think that it would have made its intentions about the deficit known at that time.
One also is to wonder why, even if it was legitimately concerned about over-all government spending, why it chose to pull out of the unemployment insurance program in the way it has, when other initiatives could have been taken, and when it would not have been necessary to attack one of the most vulnerable groups in our society.
After all, of the $13 billion budget last year that the federal Government utilized, only about $2.9 billion of
that was in the unemployment insurance fund, the rest being covered by employee and employer contributions.
Some other initiatives could have been taken. Just let me mention one. If the Government, instead of attacking the UI fund to the tune of $2.9 billion in Bill C-21 had suggested collecting interest even at a reasonable rate of 10 per cent on corporate deferred taxes, that would have raised $3.6 billion, much more than it has taken off the backs of the unemployed. That is just one example of something which could have been done without attacking the most vulnerable group in our society.
Instead, though, the Government chose to attack the unemployed, perhaps because the unemployed lacked the resources to fight back. I would remind Members opposite that during the attempt to deindex seniors' pensions, another group which perhaps the Government might have thought was not going to fight back, that group fought back most effectively and changed the Government's mind. I want to say that the New Democratic Party will be involved in this fight to change the Government's mind on unemployment insurance, just as it was involved in the fight on the part of the seniors just a short while ago.
Second, the Government is telling us that it wants to prepare Canadian workers for the next century. In fact, the Government's policy statement suggests and I quote: "This effort is designed to ensure that the Canadian labour force of the 1990s will be highly skilled and capable of adapting to an evolving work environment brought on by technological and demographic change."
This gives the impression that what the Government is trying to do is present a far-reaching, forward looking and innovative approach to a skills development problem. However, a closer look reveals something quite different. The Government has slashed the number of weeks for which claimants can receive unemployment insurance. It has made it harder to get unemployment insurance in the first place. It has dropped its commitment to funding unemployment insurance for necessary programs like maternity, sickness and regionally extended benefits.
Only a Conservative Government would have the nerve to suggest that those kind of changes better prepare Canadian workers for the future. It just makes it more unpleasant to be on unemployment. What the Government should have been looking at were ways to
June 7, 1989

create more real jobs for people, not the vast majority of low paid, low quality jobs which have been created over the last four or five years, still leaving the unemployment rate in my city at 12 per cent.
The Bill and its companion policy paper are nothing more than rehashing of old Toiy programs, programs which do nothing more than provide people with short term employment in order to relieve public pressure to create long term jobs, programs designed to hide the fact that this Government really does not have any idea what to do, having put all of its eggs in the free trade basket, leaving everything to be decided by the market-place.
We can see that this is the case because the money that has been freed up by cutting benefits to the unemployed has simply been ploughed back into existing programs. These are training programs which are inadequate to take on the challenges of the 1990s, and programs which do nothing to look into the future to see what the workplace will be like in 10 or 20 years' time. Such initiatives are a sad testament to the lack of vision and imagination in dealing with this situation of unemployment which we face today.
Additionally, the Government has suggested that it wants to create a training ethic in Canadian business with these changes. Quite properly, it identifies that the private sector spends far too little on training and retraining its employees. The Department itself suggests that only 25 per cent of Canadian businesses institute such training, at a value of about $1.4 billion a year. This is about half of the per capita spending in the American private sector. Accordingly, the Government's policy paper states that it seeks to achieve a substantial increase in the private sector's role in training workers and in ensuring that training is more responsive to labour market needs.
It is also worth pointing out that a recent report by the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre identifies a critical problem with the way business approaches training that the Government has done nothing to address.
It states that those firms which do engage in training do so primarily to meet their own short term needs that are particular to their tasks at hand. This is a critical point because those businesses' sole concern is with the maximization of their own profit, not with the welfare of
Unemployment Insurance Act
the worker, not with the strength of the local community and not with the long term skill needs of any worker. They care about saving money and that is why they do it. They do not do it to intensify and increase the skills of their employees so that those employees can be better trained for the future.
What exactly leads the Minister to believe that because extra money has been made available to train workers that suddenly businesses will be interested in the development of skills with broad long term application? Does she have some facts to back up her claim that businesses will get involved in some meaningful way, or does she just have a gut feeling about it all?
We were hoping on this side of the House to get a look at the impact studies which have been done by the Department before this legislation was run through the House, so that we could be sure of what in fact the Minister is basing her assumptions on. We were told by the Minister on more than one occasion that she sees no reason to consult with labour and other interested groups on matters dealing with unemploynment insurance and that we will not have those impact studies until after this legislation is passed, when of course it will be too late.
On a further point, dealing with training, one would have thought if the Government is going to make these assertions that business is going to pick up on some of the training needs, that it also would feel committed to do the same thing. The Government lacks credibility here also. Spending on job creation and job training in this country has decreased by 32 per cent since this Government came into power.
Using 1984 dollars, federal spending is down from $2.2 billion in 1984 to $1.7 billion in 1988. We have seen cut-backs in programs to fund apprenticeship schemes in colleges, and we have seen major funding cut-backs in post-secondary education and transfers to the provinces also. This Government totally lacks credibility in terms of its training commitments.
The proposals which are being presented in Bill C-21 do not offer any new or innovative training options for Canadian workers, who are rightly apprehensive about their future under free trade. It is just money ploughed back into the same-

June 7, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call it six o'clock, the Hon. Member will have five minutes in his debate, plus 10 minutes questions and comments the next time the Bill comes up.

It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 8, 1989