1989-11-06

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government responses to several petitions.



ORDER IN COUNCIL


Albert Glen Cooper: I am pleased to table in both official languages a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-271, an act to amend the Criminal Code.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the purpose of the amendments to the Criminal Code subtitled facsimile advertising is to prohibit the sending of unrequested advertisements by facsimile transmission to individuals or companies.
The bill specifically indicates that it is a facsimile communication advertising for sale any goods or services and anyone found guilty of that is punishable on summary conviction and is liable to a fine not exceeding $200.


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


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-272, an act respecting the recycling of refillable containers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require that manufacturers and distributors of soft drinks and beer charge a deposit on the containers in which those products are marketed, which deposit will be refunded upon return of the containers.
The purpose of the bill is to ensure a cleaner environment in Canada by trying to make it more likely that consumers of these products will return the used receptacles to the place of purchase and get the money back rather than throwing them on roadsides and into garbage disposal dumps across our country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
November 6, 1989
Routine Proceedings

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to table some 20 petitions this morning, most of them from my constituents in Ottawa-Vanier, but also from others, who came here during the summer. These people would like to express their opinion on the goods and services tax, this 9 per cent tax that the Government wants to impose or would like to impose in January 1991. These people not only find this tax unfair and regressive but they also find that it imposes an unjustifiable additional burden on small business and in this petition, Mr. Speaker, they say that in their opinion, the House should refuse to implement such a bad tax.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present to the House today a petition concerning the Rouge Valley in metro Toronto. This is 5,000 acres of beautiful wilderness that the Speaker toured on Saturday to see first hand the beauty of this Rouge River Valley.
The petitioners state that protecting the Rouge, the endangered wildlife and the wilderness area is in the national interest. The interim report of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, which is headed by the Hon. David Crombie, has also recommended that the Rouge valley be protected as a natural heritage park. The mayor of the city of Scarborough and the federal Minister of the Environment are supporting this endeavour, as well as the Save the Rouge Valley Organization and thousands of volunteers.
The petitioners call upon the government to work with the province of Ontario to establish the Rouge River valley as a Canadian heritage land or a provincial park.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present 14 petitions from comer store owners in my riding who strongly object to the imposition of the goods and services tax because it will create a costly burden for small businesses.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions that I would like to table this morning. The first petition is signed by 838 residents of northwestern Ontario. They signed this petition while they were attending the Hymers Fall Fair on the Labour Day weekend.
The petitioners discuss the proposed goods and services tax and because of its lack of regard for taxpayers' ability to pay. They go on to point out that they want Parliament to reject the current proposal and to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by 201 residents of northwestern Ontario who are primarily native students. They are recording their concerns about the government's approach to native post-secondary education.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to exercise its rightful obligation and duty by withdrawing the draft policy and begin a process of consultation with First Nations and First Nations students who will be most affected by the said policy.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition from 30 residents of Thunder Bay, primarily regarding the proposed changes to the unemployment insurance system. The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject these cuts in the unemployment insurance system, to propose more meaningful reforms and to concentrate on a labour force development strategy combined with a full employment policy, and an effective regional development policy.
November 6, 1989


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by 266 residents of Thunder Bay who are petitioning Parliament with regard to the future of rail passenger services in this country. They call upon Parliament to maintain VIA Rail, Canada's present national network, to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment and to give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.


Iain Francis Angus: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 209 residents of Thunder Bay, men and women, who point out that no new restrictive abortion law is needed, that a new abortion law will not stop ex-boyfriends from seeking injunctions under civil law.
They point out that the provinces continue to receive transfer payments to provide necessary health services but do not provide universal access to abortion, thereby contravening the Canada Health Act. They call upon Parliament to reject any proposed restrictive abortion law and to enforce the Canada Health Act by withholding transfer payments to provinces that do not provide universal access to abortion services.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to present 10 petitions representing signatures from various communities within my riding including Port Hope, Campbellford and Co-bourg. These people wish this government to repeal its proposed goods and services tax.
The people in my riding represent farmers and small businessmen for the most part, people whose businesses operate on a very low margin of profit. They feel that the proposed goods and services tax will bankrupt them and they ask the government to repeal the proposed goods and services tax.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with two petitions brought forward from people in my riding, Mission-Coquitlam, as well as people from Vancouver, Burnaby, Cranbrook, Delta, North Vancouver and a petition from Thunder Bay, Ontario. The petitioners are calling on the government to abandon its ill-conceived goods and services tax. They
Routine Proceedings
are outraged at a tax that would tax haircuts, diapers, coffins and home heating fuels. I table this petition in compliance with Standing Order 36.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by over 100 people, objecting to the undue burden that will be placed on Canadians by the proposed goods and services tax and calling upon Parliament to reject this tax.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by 485 of my constituents. This petition has been duly signed and authorized by the Clerk. It is from an area in Bonavista-Trinity-Conception which we can call the Isthmus area. This is the area that joins the Avalon Peninsula to the mainland of Newfoundland. It is kind of caught in the sense of identification. It does not really identify with the urban areas of St. John's, and it is a bit different from the rest of the mainland of Newfoundland. These residents sometimes feel that they are neglected.
Unemployment is probably the highest in this area of Newfoundland than in any other place. They are concerned about Bill C-21 which we will be discussing today. They are concerned that unemployment insurance is vital to their well-being. They are concerned that the government is taking away all their contributions, going to make qualifying time more difficult and going to cut down part of the period in which they will receive benefits.
They call on the government to reject these cuts in unemployment insurance and to propose a more meaningful reform, concentrate on the labour force development strategy that will keep them in mind and combine a better employment policy with an effective, regional development policy.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at the request of the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petition is signed by some 33 residents of the province of Saskatchewan, particularly of the communities of Trossachs, Weybum, Assiniboia, Zenon Park and Burstall.

November 6, 1989
Business of the House
The petitioners point out that the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party promised during the election campaign to maintain and protect the Canadian Wheat Board, and they call upon Parliament to instruct the government not to remove oats from the marketing jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and to place oats and barley under the Canadian Wheat Board Act so that in the future, farmers and their organizations must be consulted before changes are made in the marketing of these products.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, like Canadians across Canada, my constituents in Kingston and the Islands are appalled by the proposal of the government to introduce a goods and services tax and hundreds of them have signed a petition that I am tabling today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, expressing their opposition to this tax and calling on Parliament to reject the goods and services tax.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of, I suspect, the constituents of the Conservative whip. They are definitely residents of Calgary, Alberta who express their opposition to the proposed goods and services tax and they call upon the government to come up with a fair taxation system rather than the proposal that is before the House now.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, signed by a number of residents of Surrey North. In fact, there are seven pages of signatures. They are saying that they object to the government's reduction in support for VIA Rail and call upon the government to continue this vital service.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, question No. 141 will be answered today. I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Kaplan: Are there strong sanctions in place to prevent any unauthorized use
of Social Insurance Numbers and, if so, what are they?


Hon. Barbara Jean McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: The U.I. Act provides for sanctions against a person who knowingly makes an application to be assigned a second Social Insurance Number (SIN) when he/she already has one, or to a person who, with intent to defraud or deceive any person, uses another person's SIN, or who, without the authority of the Commission, manufactures or duplicates a SIN card other than a photocopy for record purposes. A person who contravenes any of the above provisions is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine up to $1,000.00 or to imprisonment for up to one year or to both. (Ref. Sec. 110 of the U.I. Act.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the three parties. Members will know that at 4.45 p.m. today, the bells will ring for a vote at five o'clock. The standing orders also require some deferred votes to take place at six o'clock, with a bell to ring at six o'clock.
From the nature of those discussions, I think you will find unanimous consent in the House to hold, first of all, the scheduled vote at five o'clock but immediately thereafter the votes on Bill C-16, and in case an hour is required for private members' hour, we would all be agreed to start the private members' hour after the votes and for it to go on for the normal one hour if it is so required.
If you were to seek unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, I think you would have it for that reality.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 6, 1989



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, November 2, consideration of the motion of the Mrs. MacDougall that Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, be read a third time and passed, and the amendment of Mr. Volpe (p. 5480).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.
The last speaker was from the Liberal Party. Therefore, I must recognize a speaker from the NDP and the hon. member for Surrey North has the floor.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I think there is an understanding in the House that the New Democratic Party will get two 10-minute speeches and then we will allow the Liberal spokesman a 20-minute speech.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but say we agree. I would prefer that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace be heard first because he has a doctor's appointment and he just told me that he would prefer to get away before twelve o'clock to attend that appointment. It will not affect the rotation.


Rodney Edward Murphy: We are certainly willing to fit in the doctor's appointment, as long as it is understood that we do not lose our place in the rotation and that we would get a third speaker before the vote comes this evening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will see what we can do about it. How can the Chair project at this time whether the last speaker will be from the NDP or from the Liberal party?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, we are working on the basis of unanimous consent right now. I think there is an understanding among the three parties that we will get a third speaker before the vote at 4.45 p.m.
Government Orders


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we will make sure that the NDP get an additional speaker. I thank them for their co-operation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I thank all members for their co-operation.


Hon. Warren AUmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the members of the New Democratic Party for their co-operation. I apologize for having to make the request that I did.
Once again, we are debating Bill C-21, a bill which savagely cuts back on our unemployment insurance system. This bill, and this is according to the government's own estimates, will reduce or cut back unemployment insurance benefits by approximately $1.5 billion, and those moneys will be redirected to employment development and training.
Government members and the minister justified this bill on those grounds. They say that employment development and training are absolutely essential and consequently we must put more money into that particular area. We in the Liberal party totally agree that more money should be spent on employment development and training. However, we are totally opposed to paying for that employment development and training with unemployment insurance moneys.
The unemployment insurance fund and the unemployment insurance system were set up in 1940 following the Great Depression to provide moneys to people who were unemployed against their will so that they could take care of themselves when they were unemployed. The moneys in the unemployment insurance fund are meant to provide unemployed Canadians with enough money to pay for their rent, to buy their groceries, to send their children to school; to pay for the essential necessities of life. That is the purpose of the fund and that is the purpose of the system. It is totally wrong to take money from that fund, moneys that are to be used for that purpose, and spend those moneys on employment development and training, no matter how important those things are.
It is interesting to note that this same government reduced the the budgets for employment development and training by 32 per cent since 1984. When they came to office in 1984, the budget for employment development and training was $2.2 billion. Last year, that was reduced to $1.5 billion, a reduction of $700 million over a four and a half year period.

Government Orders
Suddenly, the government is under attack for not putting enough money into training and employment development. What does the government do? It looks around for a place to find money to pay for training. They want to get back into the training business. They look at the unemployment insurance fund and they decide to take the money from there. It is difficult to take the government seriously when after four years, it has been reducing moneys for employment and for training and then it attacks the unemployment insurance fund to get those moneys.
We are saying yes, more money for training, more money for employment development, but pay for it the way Canadians always paid for it, out of general tax revenues.
We do not ask parents with children to be the sole supporters of education in this country. When we pay for education through taxation, everybody pays. It comes out of general tax revenue. We do not simply say to parents with children going to school: "You must pay for education and others won't". That is because education benefits the whole of society, and training benefits the whole of society. There can be no rationale for saying that just workers and employers should pay for training. Everybody should pay for training, as has always been done, out of general tax revenues.
With respect to reducing the benefits to the unemployed in order to pay for training, let us look at what those benefits are right now. Right now the law says that the unemployment insurance benefits should be 60 per cent of your recent salary-I won't go into the details- up to a maximum of $363 a week in 1989. The maximum anybody could receive, no matter what their salary, was $363 a week, but at 60 per cent it could be less.
The average unemployment insurance benefit in 1988 was $202 a week. It was $202 a week and we are going to cut it back. What can you buy for $202 a week? That is less than $1,000 a month. Most people have to pay $600 or $700 a month in rent. What if you are supporting a family and you are getting this average benefit? That is the average benefit, it is not the lowest benefit.
What about a man or a woman with a family to support? They have to pay their rent. They have to buy their groceries. If they have to go to work in a car, they have to pay for their gasoline and the maintenance of their car. They have to pay for their clothing and they have to send their children to school. It is ridiculous to want to cut these benefits. We should be trying to improve them, make them better so that people will be able to pay their bills with their unemployment insurance benefits.
How is the government cutting this? Where is it finding this $1.5 billion that it is going to take out of the system, out of regular benefits, and put into training? It is going to find that money by first of all making it more difficult to qualify. It is extending the qualification period that you must work in order to be eligible for unemployment insurance, so fewer people will qualify. It is also going to shorten the benefit period. Even if you qualify you will not get benefits as long as you do now, even though you are still unemployed. It is possible that your benefits will run out before you find a job and you will be without benefits.
The government is also increasing the penalties for people who quit their work. Then we get into the problem of whether you quit for just cause or not just cause, but the government is going to get a large sum of money by not providing benefits to people who quit, and the penalty period will be increased up to 12 weeks.
The government is saying that it wants to put more money into training and into employment development. It is going to take it away from the unemployment insurance system, so people will have fewer benefits and it will be more difficult to quality. At the same time the government is going to terminate its statutory contribution to the unemployment insurance fund. For years and years the unemployment insurance fund, which by the way last year was approximately $13 billion, has been contributed to by workers who pay so much into the unemployment insurance fund each week that they work, by employers who pay each week into the fund and by the government.
Suddenly the government decides it should spend more money on training. It does not want to take that money out of general revenues and is going to take it out
November 6, 1989

of the unemployment insurance fund, but it also decides that it is not going to put any more money on a regular basis into the fund out of general tax revenue.
It is hard to take the government seriously when it says it wants to do more for training but is going to put the burden on employers and employees and stop its regular contribution from its own resources. By the way, last year that contribution was $2.8 billion. As a result of the cut-backs that are set out in this bill, 155,000 Canadians who would have qualified for unemployment insurance will not qualify at all or will lose all their benefits.
That is according to the Global Economic Study. I know that the government thinks that that is a tainted study. We do not. It was commissioned by the Liberal party and the Canadian Labour Congress. We feel it was carried out on a scientific basis.
If you look at any of the impact studies, even the government's own impact studies, they indicate that people who got unemployment insurance before will not get it and those who do will get less.
I gave the figures for those who will totally lose their claims. There will be 775,000 Canadians who will have their benefits reduced. One hundred and fifty-five thousand will totally lose their benefits and 775,000 will have their benefits reduced.
In addition, by cutting the benefits as a result of this bill the moneys that were available to the poorer regions of Canada and to the less well-off provinces will be reduced as well. For example, Newfoundland will lose $83 million because of the cut-back in benefits to Newfoundlanders who are unemployed. Prince Edward Island will lose $16 million; Nova Scotia, $43 million; New Brunswick, $65 million; Quebec, $507 million; and British Columbia, $175 million. The government, by its own admission, is reducing regular benefits to the unemployed in this country. The money that would have gone to an unemployed Canadian in Corner Brook, in Bathurst, New Brunswick, or in Chicoutimi will not be going into those areas as it is now.
The government says it is going to use those moneys for development and training, but that is on a discretionary basis. There is no assurance that that money will go back into New Brunswick, Newfoundland or Quebec to pay for job development and training. We asked the minister about this in committee and she said: "You can
Government Orders
rely on me. We will distribute this money for training in an equitable way."
Right now it is in the statute. If you are unemployed and you live in New Brunswick, the money goes to you in New Brunswick. You can use that money to pay for your groceries and help the community in which you live. Under this bill, taking out the $1.5 billion and leaving it to the discretion of the minister, we do not know where that money will be spent. It could very well be spent in Toronto. I have nothing against Toronto but Toronto has a full employment economy. It could be used for high-tech training, for administrative training, and not in the areas where they really need money for development.
I put forward an amendment at the report stage of this bill to ensure that those moneys that were being taken away from regular benefits would go back to the same regions and provinces, but the amendment was turned down.
We have further objections to the provisions in this bill whereby unemployment insurance moneys will be used for training. In many cases, if you retrain workers in certain parts of Canada, there are no jobs for them to go to in those regions. When we were in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island people said: "I am a fish plant worker. I cannot get work. You are going to retrain me, for what? You are not making any provision for new types of work or new types of employment in my community. So you are going to retrain me as a high-tech electronics tradesperson. What am I going to do in my community?" Many of those people believe that this is a bill to relocate them to Toronto, Calgary, Montreal or Vancouver, away from the communities where they have always lived. If you retrain people, they need a job to go to once they are retrained in that new area.
Others said to us: "I am unemployed. I am trained. I am a skilled plumber. I am a skilled electrician. I do not have work now. I want work. I do not want to be retrained. I spent five years in apprenticeship. I spent many years as a journeyman. I am skilled. I do not want to be retrained. I want work."
Again, people are objecting to using their unemployment insurance moneys to retrain them for jobs that do not exist or to retrain them when they are already trained as skilled workers. We all admit that there is a great need for training in certain areas of this country to improve our skilled workforce but, once again, it should

November 6, 1989
Government Orders
not be done with moneys from the unemployment insurance fund.
This leads me to the real philosophy and purpose of this bill, which is not to put more money into training because, as I pointed out, the government cut the training budget by 32 per cent since 1984. The real philosophy and purpose of this bill is to help the government deal with the deficit. That is one of its priorities. It wants to deal with the deficit. After cutting training since 1984 by 32 per cent, the government then realized it had to return to the training area and said: "Where can we find the money?" The government did not want to take it out of general revenues, so it took it out of the unemployment insurance fund. By the way, the unemployment insurance fund had a current surplus last year of $2.8 billion. While the government has a deficit, the unemployment insurance fund had a current surplus of $2.8 billion. The government says: "There is a good place to get the money, we will take it from there and also cut our statutory contribution to the fund".
The other philosophy underlying this bill is that the government really believes that the unemployed are lazy people and if you partially starve them and make it very tough for them, they will find work. How can you really believe in something like that in this country? Admittedly, there is a small percentage of people who might be like that. Our figures show that there are less than 2 per cent in Canada who have that attitude toward work. How can you really believe that when Canada is basically a country that relies on resource industries and a lot of seasonal work.
For example, I return to Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Islanders are involved in fishing, farming, potatoes and the tourism industry. When November comes, those industries close. You cannot fish through the ice and you cannot harvest potatoes in the middle of winter. Processing them can only last so long. Unless you can rely on conventions, the tourism industry closes down as well.


Mr. Hockin:: It doesn't close down.


Mr. Allmand:: Here is somebody from Ontario talking. It does not close down altogether but it closes down in substantial terms. The buses that come across the ferry into Prince Edward Island do not come in the same
numbers in the winter. It is no fun on the beach in Prince Edward Island in the winter.


Thomas Hockin: There's great skiing.


William Warren Allmand: Here is somebody from Ontario talking. I do not know if the hon. member is trying to maintain that Canada is not plagued by seasonal work. We are plagued by seasonal work. That is one of the things we have to look at. Many of these people want to work but cannot work. There is no work in the winter, even in the construction industry. Everybody admits the construction industry slows down in the winter. What are you going to do? Leave these people without income in the winter?
That is just one point about Canada. Because we rely on resource industries which sell in a world market, we are dependent on world prices and world market conditions. When the legislative committee on this bill went to Sudbury, it was very well pointed out to us that in 1982, when world nickel prices declined, Inco and Falcon-bridge in Sudbury laid off approximately 7,000 workers because they could not sell their nickel on the world market. The price was too low for the costs that they had. They laid off 7,000 workers and there were approximately another 3,000 workers in related industries who were laid off. So Sudbury had 10,000 people out of work, not because they did not want to work or their employers did not want to put them to work but because of world market conditions. Those people were out of work for almost a year.
Witness after witness told us that if it had not been for the unemployment insurance system the community would have been in very serious trouble but, because we had a sound unemployment insurance system, these unemployed nickel workers and related workers were getting their benefits, were paying for their rent, their groceries and the basic necessities of life, even though the benefits were only 60 per cent of their income. They were still able to keep that money circulating in that community and many small businesses were able to survive.
It was not like the Great Depression of the thirties. One of the problems of the Great Depression was that we had no unemployment insurance. When certain firms closed and the workers had no money to spend, it affected the balance of the community. It had a cumula-
November 6, 1989

tive effect in the communities, a snowball effect, and that is what unemployment insurance prevents.
This philosophy that if you really hurt people and cut back their benefits they will find work may be true for a very small percentage. But the great majority of Canadians want to work and they are often prevented from doing so.
If you cut back benefits through this bill and make it more difficult for people to qualify for unemployment insurance, if you cut them off sooner, what are they going to do if they still do not have a job? They are still unemployed but have no unemployment insurance. They will have to go to the welfare system. We are not going to let them starve. They will have to go to the soup kitchens, of which we have many more now than we used to have. Every community has soup kitchens.
We heard from the mayor of Vancouver and the regional municipalities of Halifax, Ottawa and Toronto. The welfare budgets in all these cities will go up if this bill passes because somebody has to take care of the unemployed if there is no unemployment insurance.
I want to again refer very briefly to the committee. In the committee we heard from 202 groups of which 157 opposed this bill. Most of the them felt that the bill should be sent back to the drawing board. There were 53 amendments presented to this House at report stage. A number of them were ruled out of order and many others were defeated. The Liberal party had presented 19 amendments to the bill. I think they were all defeated except maybe one or two.
I want to say about the process that the government imposed closure at second reading after one day and we ended up with only two half-days and one full day of debate at second reading. In the committee stage the date of October 10 was imposed, at which date the committee had to report, but we did our best in the circumstances.
At the report stage and third reading, after one day of debate the government has also imposed closure so that we got only two days at report stage and two days at third reading. Many of the amendments that I referred to, the
Government Orders
19 Liberal amendments and many from the New Democratic Party, were not really discussed.
I am trying to interpret how many seconds or minutes I have left.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Five seconds.


William Warren Allmand: Five seconds. That is the problem. It is very difficult to discuss all the very important points in this bill.
Let me say, in conclusion, that during the election campaign of 1988, the minister from Newfoundland, the Minister for International Trade, said that the government had no intention of touching the unemployment insurance system, that there would be no cut-backs, no amendments. He said he even confirmed this with the Prime Minister. Here is another case of broken promises by the government. It said it would not touch the unemployment insurance and now it is.
This is a savage, cruel bill. It will not solve the problems of the unemployed. It may solve the problem of the government with respect to the deficit, but it is a savage, cruel bill cutting back on benefits to the unemployed. The bill should be sent back to the drawing board in accordance with the amendment put forward by my colleague from Eglinton.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I only have 10 minutes and it is impossible to outline all of the problems in this piece of legislation in 10 minutes. I want to make a few general comments that seem to be pertinent about the bill.
One thing that we heard about on the free trade deal during last fall's election campaign was that the free trade deal would not cause an attack on our social programs. No sooner was the free trade deal implemented than we had nothing but a continual attack on social programs in Canada. The government withdrew its day care legislation. It brought in bills that have done away with the universality of old age pensions and family allowances. It started reducing our standard of health care by cutting back on transfer payments for health care.
It made a very specific promise that not only would no social programs be cut but, as the minister from Newfoundland specifically said, unemployment insurance would not be changed. Of course, we now have a bill that is gutting and eroding our unemployment insurance program. It is not coincidental. This bill is before this

November 6, 1989
Government Orders
House because of free trade. This government is determined to bring in what it calls a level playing field to harmonize with the United States. As we know, the United States does not have a program comparable to our national unemployment insurance program.
What is behind this? I think the government hopes that it can force workers into a position of having to take low paying jobs because those are the jobs that are being created under free trade. Industry after industry is coming to its employees and saying: "Look, unless you renegotiate your contract, roll back your wages and working conditions, we will simply close our plants and move to the United States". If employees at least have the buffer of unemployment insurance, they may decide to take their chances on unemployment insurance until they can find another job. So the government has to attack the unemployment insurance program also.
There is a tremendous reduction in benefits. One point five billion dollars is being cut from benefits. The government says that 30,000 people will totally lose their benefits. All reliable studies show there will be at least 130,000. In British Columbia there are going to be at least 16,000. In the Fraser Valley there will be 5,200 people. This is going to have a devastating impact on those kinds of regions. The buying power of consumers will go down. Where do people get the money to pay their rent, buy their groceries, purchase clothing for school children?
In a region like Surrey North, where we have a high number of seasonal employees, it is particularly devastating when entrance qualifications are increased from 10 to 14 weeks to 10 to 20 weeks. Twenty weeks is a long time for seasonal workers to be able to qualify. In Surrey we have a lot of people who work in the farming industry, particularly in the berry industry, and in market gardening. To get in 20 weeks is almost impossible and they will simply not qualify for unemployment insurance.
This is compounded by the way the government calculates the rate of unemployment. The city of Vancouver, downtown Vancouver, has been lumped in with the total lower mainland region which includes not only rural agriculture areas like Langley or Abbotsford but parts of Surrey which has a mixed economy. While in downtown Vancouver the unemployment rate may be 6
per cent or 7 per cent, in Surrey it is up around 10 per cent or 12 per cent. The government has averaged it out and is saying the unemployment rate is 8.1 per cent. This means that people would have to work 17 weeks. There has to be a method of more accurately calculating the unemployment insurance rate.
There are other areas in which the government has reduced the benefits, some of which are just nit-picky and vindictive. Benefits for adoptive parents have been reduced from 15 weeks to 10 weeks. What money is that going to save? The government says it is doing it for the deficit. Not enough money is being saved to make it worth attacking adoptive parents. There seems to be nothing but vindictiveness in this piece of legislation.
There are many other spin-offs which are devastated by this. One is the impact on local governments. Local governments are major employers and $3 billion has been shifted from federal government expenditures to that of employers and employees. This means that an employer is going to have to pay $181 more for his unemployment insurance premiums next year. In Surrey, between the school board and the municipality, there are 4,500 workers. That means that Surrey has to raise $814,000 more. The only place they can do so is to raise property taxes. They do not have large industries so it is going to be mainly from residential property taxes. Is this government trying to tax people out of their homes? The city of Vancouver is going to have to raise $2.3 million. The city of Toronto, not counting suburbs, will have to raise $3.4 million.
Small business people are going to be hit hard because they are going to have to absorb the increased cost of unemployment insurance. I would like to remind government members that when they talk about job creation, between 1984 and 1988 small businesses, those with under 100 employees, created 890,000 jobs in this country. Large businesses, those with over 100 employees, cost us 50,000 jobs. There was a reduction of 50,000 employees in large businesses. The government is attacking the very people who are creating employment in this country. The employees who are unable to obtain unemployment insurance are going to have to go onto welfare, which is a transfer to the provinces of federal responsibility. The provinces pay 50 per cent of the cost of income assistance and welfare programs. Many of the
November 6, 1989

provinces are simply going to have less money to pass on in per capita grants to their municipalities.
I want to briefly touch on one other area and that is the whole issue of training. Training, retraining and job development is the responsibility of the federal government. It should not be placed on the backs of workers and employers. This government has, by sleight of hand, withdrawn from its responsibility and is simply saying: "Look, the unemployed are going to be deprived of benefits in order to finance retraining." That is no way in which to get a skilled workforce.
Fifteen per cent of the unemployment fund is going to go into job creation, moving costs, work sharing and even business start-up. This, of course, means that there are less funds available for what the unemployment insurance fund was designed for. We have to remember that Canada has an unemployment insurance program, an insurance program to protect workers against a period of unemployment. It is not a slush fund out of which the federal government may draw money for its schemes of job creation or its schemes of retraining.
The workers in Canada need not only retraining but a whole series of training programs. Instead, the federal government has cut back from $2.2 billion in 1984 to $1.5 billion in training. Now it is trying to find some method of making up for it by putting this responsibility on the employers and employees.
I see the Speaker is indicating that I am running out of time. In summary I want to say that this piece of legislation, in my opinion, flows directly out of the free trade deal. I am frightened that, unfortunately, this is not the last piece of legislation that we are going to see that erodes our social programs in order to harmonize us with the United States.


Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from Surrey North who always speaks so sincerely and passionately about issues in his riding and a number of the items that we have to debate here in Parliament, in particular this legislation which impacts on a lot of people, many of whom do not have a voice. The member has had some experience in government at the local level. I would be interested in hearing his comments on how we can make a difference on issues such as unemployment and unemployment insurance. What can members do in co-operation with local govem-
Govemment Orders
ment and business to ensure that we can give those people who need a voice the voice that that they so desperately need.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems, of course, in this type of legislation is trying to give a voice to the people who are going to be most adversely affected by it. There are a number of things that I have tried to do to see if I could reach out to the people in my riding and in some of the adjacent ridings because some of the adjacent ridings are represented by Conservative members who do everything they can to prevent the public from reaching out to them and telling them what the impact is of their legislation.
There are a number of organizations that I have talked with. I have talked to people on the local school boards and municipal councils who are desperately frightened by this legislation, particularly in Surrey. This fall in Surrey, because of the fast growth, we have 9,000 children in portable schools. They are having difficulty developing recreation centres and health centres because they do not have a municipal tax base. All of a sudden along comes the federal government which says that instead of developing a recreational centre for seniors, they are going to have to come up with $814,000 in order to pay for the federal government's responsibility for unemployment insurance and job retraining. Sixty per cent of all housing starts in the lower mainland are in my municipality. They are behind in providing services for people.
How do we reach out to them? We have a group of unemployed people who are experiencing increased difficulty in finding employment. This bill does not state that if you do not qualify for UI, you do not qualify for the training. The very people who need the training the most, the ones who cannot get in 20 weeks of work or who have already exhausted their UI, do not qualify. So what good is the training?
We have to start a whole different concept of training, including being able to train people who are already employed. This is to provide them with greater skills because at the high end of the skill market we are always short of workers. What we have to be able to do is provide the backyard welder with the opportunity to upgrade and become a construction welder. Then we can take an unemployed person and train him to be a

November 6, 1989
Government Orders
backyard welder. That is the way the Scandinavian countries do it. The democratic socialist countries such as Sweden, Denmark and Norway allow anybody to obtain training regardless of whether the person is employed. That is why those countries have such a highly skilled workforce. When I was in Sweden, it was evident that the Swedish people were horrified because their unemployment rate had gone up to 1.9 per cent.
Other people who I have tried to work with in my community are members of some of the farm labour organizations. Some of our farm industry is dependent on having a pool of farm labour available at various crop times. In order to stabilize that we have had to provide unemployment insurance during winter months. Seasonal work is a fact of life in Canada. I have tried to meet with farm labour organizations to ask, "Are there things that I can say to impress upon this government that if you do not qualify for UI you are either going to have to rely on unemployment insurance or you are going to have to simply move to different areas?"
One of the things that I am beginning to wonder about is whether this government is txying to drive everybody into southern Ontario. Is the government trying to collapse the Atlantic provinces, forcing people out of the Atlantic provinces, out of the prairie provinces and out of central British Columbia into southern Ontario?


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice yet again to the debate on the government's changes to the unemployment insurance system in this country. I do so for two reasons. The first is because I share with my caucus colleagues, and other members on this side of the House, a repugnance for what this government is attempting to do in this bill. The second and most important reason is that thousands of Canadians have been left without a voice with which to tell this government that what it proposes is mean-spirited, ill-intentioned and very unjust.
We travelled this country from coast to coast and heard a great many groups and individuals voice their opposition to this bill. In fact, a vast majority of the briefs received spoke in opposition to this bill, but the government chose not to listen. Even more disgraceful, however, is the fact that a great many groups, representing those who will be hardest hit by this bill, did not receive a hearing. While we sat in luxury hotels, they were lining up at food banks. The reality of this bill is that those food bank lines will be longer and the poverty of many will deepen.
What this bill seeks to do is to readjust the labour market. It seeks to modify the behaviour-I am using government terms-of the unemployed. At its most Draconian, it seeks to destroy communities, families and break the spirit of the already disadvantaged.
This bill redirects moneys away from income support to training programs.
While no one will argue that the training in and of itself is not a good thing, we must look beyond the rhetoric to the substance of the training programs in this countiy. Training is not a panacea. It is not the sole solution to unemployment.
If we look at what has happened to our economy over the past 10 years since the UI system was last overhauled, we see an increased polarization in the labour market. At one end are the highly paid, high-skilled jobs, and at the other end are the low-paid, low-skilled jobs.
High unemployment throughout the 1980s in both relative and absolute terms has resulted in the proliferation of temporary and part-time jobs. Employment in the relatively low-paying service sector has grown dramatically. This has not happened independent of government action. It has happened because of the failure of government to implement a full employment policy and to redirect the restructuring of the Canadian economy.
The Hon. Member opposite who finds what I am saying so repugnant has an opportunity to get up and say so when I am finished speaking.
The problem we face is not so much one of lack of skills for the jobs available, but the lack of high-skill, high-wage jobs. We have one of the most skilled workforces in the world. What we need to do is to put it to work.
We can see that while training is a necessary component to any full employment policy, it is not enough.
November 6, 1989

This Bill redirects some $800 million from the benefit fund to training programs. But we need to look at who is being trained, who is doing the training, and for what are they being trained. The focus is not on the low-wage earner or the new entrant to the workforce. It is not on improving basic literacy skills. It is not even on improving the general level of skills in the workforce. The programs have simply prepared people for temporary unemployment, have trained them not for future needs but to fill short-term, low paying jobs.
Over the past few years moneys for training have been cut back. Our colleges and vocational institutes have been demoralized as more and more government funding is directed to private firms which offer not skill development or basic education but rather narrow the skills of workers to fit certain predetermined job criteria. Visible minorities, women, older workers and the handicapped have not seen their over-all position in the workplace improved as the stereotypical assumptions which continue to pervade the workplace deny them access to on-the-job training or see them funnelled into the so-called traditional job tracks.
Bill C-21 does nothing to address these inequities, and, in fact, will only make them worse as the present system is continued with more funds directed to private training facilities. This money will be taken directly from the income support component of the UI system. Workers will be punished, will remain underskilled and remain under the constant threat of imminent poverty.
This Bill does not recognize that those who could benefit most from a comprehensive skill development policy will be excluded from training programs. The increase in the numbers of weeks required to qualify for training programs will only perpetuate an underclass of unskilled and marginal workers.
The discrimination which this bill continues between major and minor attachment claimants ensures that for many there is no hope of breaking out of the vicious cycle of poverty that sees them moving from brief periods of low-paid employment to possibly some UI benefits to social assistance. This is the reality of Bill C-21.1 would like to turn for a moment to the experience faced by workers in my own riding. Their experience is indicative of the problem which this government has failed to address in Bill C-21, the lack of a full employment strategy coupled with a regional industrial policy that has
Government Orders
taken a toll on those workers in my riding. Not too many months ago, Fiberglas Canada closed its insulation plant in Mission, laying off some 200 workers. The impact of this closure on a relatively small community like Mission, British Columbia, has been hit very hard. What is most disheartening is the fact that now we are beginning to hear of shortages in the availability of insulation from building contractors and building supply firms in my riding. Now they are looking to the U.S. to fill this void in the market.
My point is simply this. Would it not be more cost effective and efficient if the government directed its efforts to providing a comprehensive full employment strategy and a regional economic development plan rather than let the market forces dictate? I know I am not going to get an immediate answer, but the question has been begged on several occasions.
Would not the government's and workers' money be more wisely spent on assuring continued employment rather than on benefits and retraining of an already skilled workforce. Why punish those who through no fault of their own are now unemployed? Why threaten the stability of a viable community when real planning and a concern for economic growth would forgo such hardships?
A second industry in my riding is also suffering from government neglect and short-sightedness. The shake and shingle manufacturers in the Fraser Valley are facing massive loss of market for their product if a decision of the Los Angeles city council to ban the use of cedar shingles is not reversed through the courts. Thirty-five hundred jobs are at stake because this government has come too late to support this $350 million industry.
Should these workers lose their jobs, they will need to call on the support of the UI system to feed their families and to pay their rent or their mortgages. The workforce is a skilled one. The workers produce a valuable, safe product, yet their jobs are threatened. This government would rather spend money to punish the unemployed and to train workers for jobs that have no future.
The most repugnant aspect of this bill is what it will do to the working poor of this country. I have already noted that their voices were not heard during the hearings. They do not have many advocates in this chamber to

November 6, 1989
Government Orders
voice the anger and frustration they feel, but their voices must be heard. It is the working poor who will lose most by this legislation. They will see their benefits cut by $1,500, money needed to feed their children, to keep them from the welfare rolls, to keep what remains of their dignity.
This government knows only too well the effects of poverty. It knows that undernourished children learn at a slower rate than those who are well fed. It knows that the poverty trap exists, that parents cannot find affordable day care so as to take on full time work. It knows that one in four Canadians are functionally illiterate. Most of them are poor. It knows that the two-income family is a necessity just to stay above the poverty line. It knows that 60 per cent of those who will see their benefits reduced by Bill C-21 earn less than $15,000 a year.
The government knows it is punishing the poor in this country. The government is well informed about its ill-intentioned bill. It is the poor of this country who are not being heard by this government. But we know who is being heard. It is the business council.
I would like to conclude my remarks by again pleading with the government. I know at this point that the plea is going to fall on deaf ears. I plead with this government to not pass Bill C-21, to look at bringing in an unemployment insurance amendment that will enhance the situation for workers in this country, not punish the workers.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member for Mission-Coquitlam on Bill C-21. I would like to give her an example of a situation that we had in B.C. in my riding and ask for a comment from her. It had to do with a recent announcement by the provincial government, that crazy and confused government in Victoria, that some time ago said it was going to require people who were on social assistance to be sure to find a job otherwise they would be cut off from their benefits.
I had the opportunity the day after to visit the CEIC office in Vanderhoof. It is just an hour's drive west of Prince George. I asked the local manager, "What about this announcement yesterday? Has that had any impact on you?" The manager smiled and said it had because already that morning people had come in to his office
asking that he or members of his staff sign a form to say that that they had come in to ask for work.
Of course, this local manager made it clear it was not working for the federal government with any of the jobs that were listed there. He said that he was not aware if any co-ordination had taken place between the B.C. government and the federal government on that announcement. The impact was that the human resources department in the province of B.C. would have one criterion for being employable and then CEIC would have yet another. His comment was, "Fair enough, they are going to have to come in and they may or may not fit our criteria".
I would be interested in the member's comments on that kind of federal-provincial co-operation, if there is any, and how these kinds of problems exist and how they can be resolved.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising the question. We have two territories and 10 provinces in this country. As the news will portray, seldom do we agree on much.
I think the key point of this is that there are 10 provinces and two territories with 12 sets of rules, plus the federal criteria. I am quite alarmed at what this is going to mean to British Columbians, for example. I had a constituent who was unemployed, who did not have a telephone and who came to my office during the summer and used the telephone. This person wrote endless letters of application in longhand and went to endless interviews. Tins person happened to be a very articulate and skilled person who documented every move she had made. When she went to the social assistance officer-I might add it is a woman who was not recalled after a protracted labour dispute-and presented her list and her copies of her letters, etc., she was refused and told to go home and fill out the government form because the office was not interested in that material, that it was not relevant and had to be on the form. She was so humiliated that she returned to my office in tears and said, "I'm so disgraced, I'm so humiliated. I really, honestly, Ms. Langan, have tried". That is the kind of situation.
In speaking to the worker after that we found out she had been inundated by people that day-this was following the same announcement to which the hon. member referred-and was having to force people to follow the rules. That worker was at her wits' end. We had a

situation where there was an over-stressed worker and an anguished unemployed person at the welfare office. This was like mixing oil and gas. I am very, very fearful, Mr. Speaker, at what this is going to mean to people.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on Bill C-21. What this bill represents is the natural evolution of a social program, an essential part of this country's compassionate ability to provide income security for those who are out of work and in need.
When the Unemployment Insurance Act came into being in the 1940s only 50 per cent of the labour force was entitled to receive benefits. Those who were ill or who were unable to work were ineligible, as were employees in occupations generally susceptible to unemployment, such as construction.
Today, 95 per cent of the working population is covered by UI, and more than $10 billion of benefits are distributed annually throughout Canada.
Dozens of alterations and changes over the past 49 years have attempted to bring this program in line with the social and economic times. Today, UI not only protects those who lose their jobs, it also covers seasonal workers, those who are sick, and those on maternity leave.
In the last decade, Mr. Speaker, our labour force has seen some stunning changes faster than anyone can contemplate. The world market is demanding a new breed of worker who can provide technological skills and products. As our knowledge base expands so do global trade links.
While some people in Canada would have us cling to the past of logging, fishing and mining, the world beyond is rushing ahead to learn the technologies needed to compete on a global scale.
At the same time, we have realized that our unemployment insurance system has not progressed fast enough for new labour market needs. It was established in an era when unemployed Canadians would simply have to wait for a mine to open again. In today's economy, based on a diverse array of industry, an unemployed person has more choices. Even in areas of high unemployment
Government Orders
skilled workers are in demand, but Canadian workers cannot fill the needs.
With this bill we intend to offer Canadians an alternative so that they can take advantage of current and future labour market opportunities. Canadians realize that they need new skills and training to keep up with the labour market demands. But they are not getting very much help.
Surveys by the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre show that 41 per cent of full-time employees have received no training over the past two years, another 18 per cent have received less than one week's training while 53 per cent of unskilled workers received no training at all.
It is difficult to overestimate the importance of training in our changing labour market. In terms of economic success we only have to look to countries like Japan to see what a little training input can yield in greater economic output.
In the past this government has occasionally felt like the mouse behind the obstinate elephant. The participation of both business and labour is essential for the development of our labour force. Yet traditionally rivalries have until recently prevented these groups from co-operating in any national effort to keep the supply of labour competitive and job ready.
When the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced the Labour Force Development Strategy in April, she called upon labour and business to head up five task forces on training. The result of their work will shape the way for the strategy and new training opportunities. Rather than being the instigator and the implementor, the government has taken on the role of facilitator. Clearly, the challenges we face are too great for the government to tackle this alone.
The bill before us calls for a co-ordinated approach to solving many of our labour market difficulties. It overhauls UI so that more claimants can receive employment training and experience through the active involvement of our private sector partners. By eliminating some of the disincentives to work, it encourages people to be productive participants in the labour market.
Canadians strongly favour these kinds of changes. An April Decima poll showed that 61 per cent of the people support remodeling UI so that funding is available for more skills development; 92 per cent would change UI to

November 6, 1989
Government Orders
encourage job seeking; and 85 per cent would make alterations in order to produce a more skilled workforce.
In 1988 the UI Act allowed more than 105,000 claimants to get skills training. We propose now to reallocate $350 million of UI funds to further increase training opportunities for claimants. With the help of the private sector sponsors an additional 60,000 claimants will be prepared for a lifetime of labour force participation.
As well, we intend to offer even more assistance to the unemployed. Early in their claims they will be referred to job search information counselling services and job training programs on an individual basis. This is the extra help Canadians are asking for.
The reallocation of UI money will also boost entrepreneurship by allowing claimants to use their benefits to start their own businesses. To enhance re-employment prospects we will also provide financial aid to claimants who choose to move to find jobs.
In addition, this bill adds another chapter in the evolution of UI as a fair and just income security program. In line with some human rights concerns changes are being made that will benefit older workers and enhance parental benefits. Currently, the UI benefits cease after a person reaches age 65. This bill will extend regular benefits to all workers regardless of age.
In addition, the current inflexible sickness and maternity benefits are being improved. A new multi-tiered system will allow 15 weeks of maternity benefits, 10 weeks of parental and 15 weeks sickness. All together 30 weeks of special benefits will be available to eligible workers. For parents such progressive income protection allows flexibility in making the arrangements to care for children. For those workers who become sick while claiming UI this bill will provide greater income security.
This fall I travelled across the country with the committee to look at the implications of this legislation. Media coverage, I am afraid, has unduly focused on the negative and inaccurate comments. The changes we are proposing are not intended to take away benefits from certain regions or deny assistance to unemployed people. This bill, in fact, will allow more individualized and increased assistance for claimants in addition to channeling more income security in most of the disadvantaged regions.
Most importantly the changes proposed by this bill are not intended to save money for the government. The employment development measures will be funded by re-allocating up to 15 per cent of the funds used for UI benefits. That money will become available under new measures that will shorten the benefit period and increase the entrance requirements in regions that are economically more buoyant. However, if the unemployed rate rises the entrance requirements and benefit period may be modified accordingly.
For example, in a region such as Toronto where unemployment is below 6 per cent, the new program will require 20 weeks of work to qualify instead of 14 weeks under the old system. Toronto claimants who had worked the minimum amount to qualify for benefits would receive a maximum of 17 weeks of benefits under the new system. For the same amount of work they would receive 20 weeks of benefits under the former system.
By contrast, in parts of Newfoundland where the unemployment rate is 15 per cent and over, qualifying requirements will not change. As before, the claimant will need 10 weeks of work to qualify for a maximum of 50 weeks of benefits. In regions that are economically disadvantaged the unemployed will continue to be covered by UI. They will be able to take advantage of the new training programs we are developing.
Bill C-21 is part of the solution to a labour market problem that has great implications for Canada. Without developing the skills of our workers the standard of living Canadians enjoy now is doomed to dimmish. Our UI program cannot continue just to provide income security to unemployed Canadians; it must also help them learn how to survive in the competitive market our country is now developing.
This government has called upon business and labour to co-operate in this challenge. Canadians have told us that they want the UI program to reflect current market trends. With our partners we are now making it possible for unemployed Canadians to break away from the cycle
November 6, 1989

of dependency and to partake in the building of a successful Canada in the next century.


Mr. Pagtakhan:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question in view of the government's decision to withdraw the funds that it used to contribute to the unemployment insurance fund. This withdrawal of government funds necessarily would result in increased premiums both on the part of workers and employers. I would like to ask the hon. member for the government whether he can reassure the House that the government would not allow increased premiums to occur.
Second, I would like to indicate that the Liberal party supports training and programs for the unemployed but would like the Government, if it is truly committed to the philosophy of training and programs for the unemployed, to fund these programs directly rather than take the funds out of the unemployment insurance benefits. We should get money by increasing efficiency in government, in response to another hon. member for the government trying to ask me a side question.
My question to the hon. member is whether he would lobby the government not to cut the unemployment insurance benefits but rather secure a separate source of funds for training and development for the unemployed.


William James Kempling: The premium rate in the bill is set for three years. Therefore there will be no change as far as the employee or the employer is concerned for three years. We will look at it after that and see where we are. The rates go up and down. Traditionally they are set yearly, but in this bill, with the consent of the commission, we have agreed to set them at a limit that will be established for three years.
As far as training is concerned there is a great deal of controversy over what we do about training. Members of the Opposition tend to say to us that we cannot use premiums that are paid into the unemployment insurance fund for training. That is not right. We have sought and received legal advice on this matter. Benefits under the unemployment insurance system need not only be money.
I think it is quite proper, if a person is unemployed and lacking in skills, that we provide training for him. There
Government Orders
is nothing in the law to say that we cannot remove some of those funds from the premiums that are being paid. We quite rightly have done that. We have said that the people who will receive training under the UI system will be those who contribute to the fund.
On the other hand, we have set up parallel funds under the Canadian Jobs Strategy to take care of people who have not paid premiums into the fund or who have been long-term unemployed. We think that it is a good effort. Every survey that we have seen across the country from small business, from labour groups, and from provincial authorities indicates to us that the workforce of the 1990s will have to be more skilled than it is right now.
Technology is changing. Capital investment in industry is increasing dramatically and will continue to increase as far as the projections are concerned. Therefore we think it is quite proper that we take this step and train people to be prepared for the work period ahead of us in the 1990s.


Mr. Anawak:: I have a couple of questions or concerns with regard to the comments expressed by the hon. member. There is a tendency to talk about taking trips "across" the country. I wish people would take trips "around" the country so that they would include our area of the north, the Arctic. I would hope that other members will heed this in the future.
With regard to mobility rights or mobility in the UI bill, it states that we should probably move to other parts of this country. My concern is that we have been here for several thousands of years. We are not just ready to pick up and move anywhere just because the UI bill will now make us look for jobs elsewhere in the country.
I would like to assure the hon. member that with other parts of the country wanting to retain their distinctiveness we should also have the right to remain distinct in our part of the country.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question raised by the hon. gentleman regarding going "around" the country instead of "across" the country.
I might advise you, Sir, that we did discuss this matter at our committee. In fact at one stage we intended to fly to the north. We talked about having a subcommittee go to the north. We did not have too many inquiries back

November 6, 1989
Government Orders
from the north. We put advertisements in the paper, we contacted several organizations, and when it came down to the hearings it turned out it would be more economical to bring those who wished to appear before us to Vancouver or Edmonton. In the final analysis none of them turned up. We offered but they did not turn up.
Upon reflection I think we should have gone to the north. There was some reluctance on their part, even though we agreed to pay expenses for them to fly down and stay in a hotel while they were in Vancouver or Edmonton. They were obviously reluctant to do that. I would think that another time we would be well advised to go to the north.
Let me say something about mobility. This matter has been raised several times during our meetings, during the hearings that we had, and also in the House in various speeches. We are a very mobile society.
It may be in your community that they are not very mobile, but generally speaking, Canadians are very mobile. You can go to Alberta and find many people from Ontario. I can recall during the energy crisis that some of my constituents went from Burlington to Alberta and were coming back home for Christmas and telling me I could freeze in the dark. They became westerners or Albertans pretty fast, and so it is with our society. Two of my sons are on the west coast in British Columbia. I can remember moving to three or four different cities because there was work there.
The general opinion of most Canadians is that if work is available they are going to go and find it somewhere, not stand there and let the government bring it to them. There are others who for a variety of reasons prefer the lifestyle they have in the community in which they live. Perhaps that is their choice; it is a free country. Where mobility is available and people want to work in another location either for more experience or better wages they should be allowed to do so. We will see that they are made mobile, to the best of our ability.
In my own business or my own shop at one time almost everybody on the floor came from the maritimes. They were dam good workers and we were glad to get them. We paid them well to stay there. I do not think there is anything in the bill that is going to disrupt communities. If someone wishes to leave it is their free choice to leave.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: I have a very short question. I would like the member to inform me, and through me my municipality, where they are going to get the $814,000 that they have to raise in order to pay the increased unemployment insurance premiums?


William James Kempling: First of all I do not accept the $814,000. I would have to look at it to see how it is calculated.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: It's accurate.


William James Kempling: I listened to you; kindly listen to me. I would have to see how that was calculated to see whether it is right or not.
If you look at the premiums you will find they are below the 10-year average. There have been times in the last decade when the premiums were much higher than the premium today. The premium today is lower than the 10-year average.
The member's question is a little off base. Wages have increased in the last decade; disposable income has increased dramatically in the last decade. Since 1984 disposal income broadly across the country has been about $1,400 per capita. I do not think there is any problem paying the premiums, and I do not think your question is well founded.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak today on Bill C-21, tabled in the House and brought to the attention of the Canadian people some seven months ago, on April 11, and again in the budget on April 26.
There are a number of things that concern this side of the House about this deplorable initiative that in my province affects roughly 150,000 Newfoundlanders. Above all, speaking as the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, it is the negative synergism of this bill that really concerns me. I have a number of concerns, and I hope to be able to get through them in the limited time that I have.
The point I would like to make at the outset is that in this case one and one and one concern does not add up to three. It adds up to more like 15 or 20. The effect is not linear; it is exponential.
November 6, 1989

In the 1988 election campaign in which everybody sitting in this House participated-it has been said many times, but it is a necessary prelude to what I have to say-the St. John's Evening Telegram on October 14, 1988 quoted the hon. Minister for International Trade as stating: "No one is planning any changes in the unemployment insurance program. There has not been any change proposed to us since we dealt with the Forget Commission and we are not contemplating any changes now".
Almost six months to the day after this promise was made, in disbelief I sat in this very seat and watched as the Minister of Employment and Immigration made proposals for a drastic overhaul of the unemployment insurance system. I had assured my people that a promise had been made, and I did not expect any changes. You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, my disappointment, surprise, and disbelief as I watched this being unfolded.
We were again surprised and disappointed at what we heard. We heard that $1.3 billion would be cut from unemployment insurance benefits. This represents about 10 per cent of the $13 billion annual unemployment insurance payments that the report stated would cut off around 30,000 Canadians of the 3 million Canadians who are receiving unemployment insurance benefits and represented, according to the studies that were done by the government, around $30 million to Newfoundland.
I think I am quoting Benjamin Disraeli who said there are three kinds of lies: "lies, damn lies, and statistics". The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace mentioned statistics in the vicinity of $83 million for Newfoundland.
I am in possession of a report from the Government of Newfoundland which had a separate study done, and it reckoned that the total impact is going to be $112 million. That is quite different. What the impact is going to be will depend on what assumptions are made. Mr. Speaker, you can appreciate that I have to take the worst case not for political reasons but to concern myself with what could happen.
The hon. member for Burlington in a statement dismissed the impact it would have. In fact government stated that the impact would be marginal in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador owing to the high rate of unemployment.
Government Orders
Let me quote the impact it is going to have, and I have not made these up in my mind. A statistical survey was done using the social policy simulation data base, which is a microcomputer based model developed by Statistics Canada. The indications are that up to 11,000 in Newfoundland may be impacted by the new entrance requirements alone; up to 30,000 by the change in duration; and up to 6,000 by the voluntary quit measures. If that is a marginal impact, I am not standing on the floor of the House of Commons today giving a presentation on Bill C-21.
The government will say: "But you do not understand". It will argue that $800 million of these benefits will be redirected into job training programs. I think this is unfair to rural Canada for two reasons: first, it is paying for job development programs out of the unemployment insurance pool.
This point has already been made by one of my colleagues, and it is unfair to the people who can least afford it. Right now, of the $13 billion annual cost of unemployment insurance, 43 per cent is funded by employers, 31 per cent by worker contribution, and 26 per cent by the government.
Then I look at the job training. Yes, I am in favour of job training, but how does it apply to my riding? Let me give you some examples, Mr. Speaker.
I have analysed with my staff and with members of my riding the designated skill shortages in Newfoundland. There are 50 job titles, and right now around 1,200 jobs. I am not going to bore the House with a great dissertation on this point, but I have to look at some of the titles.
This title is "fish plant manager", maximum training volume 50. Every fish plant in my riding has a manager as far as I know and to my knowledge the government is closing them down, not opening them up. The ones that are open are still only operating at a 55 per cent capacity.
I will give another example. This title is "claims staker soil sampler", 30.1 do not have many mines in my riding, but there is a project in my riding to get a mine under way in an area where employment is desperately needed. The entrepreneurial skill is there. The professional and the organizational expertise are there. The whole thing has been staffed, the business plan is available, but ACOA says no.

November 6, 1989
Government Orders
The recent change in the ACOA action program that affects all existing and potential applications trot out new ground rules that preclude this action program from going through. So, no money, no mines, no jobs.
I would remind the House of the de Grandpre report about which there was great publicity in this House. The government paid $1.5 million to have this report done. If I remember correctly it consisted mostly of businessmen. There was one representation from labour. They were unanimous in agreeing that there should be a change made to training, and there should also be a safety net of unemployment. I think they called the safety net unemployment insurance and the training program was the trampoline, but they made a very important recommendation. They recommended that training be paid for separately, not taken out of unemployment insurance as it is now happening.
I felt the purpose of the task force was not to produce a report that was not followed by the government but was to get things done. If you pay $1.5 million and get a recommendation but do not follow it, I am not quite sure what to make that of that.
Another aspect that concerns us is the over-all business of the government not making downstream its over-all contribution to the UIC. Now, what sort of a backdrop have we got here? You may recall that in the budget the Minister of Finance admitted that unemployment would probably rise at the national average of 7.7 per cent to 8.5 per cent-that is a 10 per cent increase- as a result of the budget.
Let us have a look at the proposed goods and services tax. There is another coffin nail. The finance minister predicts between 2.5 per cent and 3 per cent rise in inflation will result from the GST. This is not a very bright picture at all.
Let me quickly review some of the concerns one more time. First of all, Bill C-21 represents a breach of trust. It breaks a promise that was solemnly made by the government last fall. It redirects money for the unemployed into training jobs that do and will not exist in rural Canada. It provides the level playing field insisted on in the free trade agreement, as was suggested earlier here this morning, for the benefit of the United States.
It hurts the people it was meant to protect. It was done without warning and consultation. It was sudden and abrupt. I know the province of Newfoundland was not consulted. It attacks the very heart of the Canadian social security system. It is a program which Canadians care deeply about. It runs contrary to the expectations of Canadians, all at a time when we are going to have a 10 per cent rise in the unemployment rate and we are going to have a 3 per cent rise in inflation. In Newfoundland we do not know what the quotas are for the fish allocations, but there are other indications that the economic future for the next few years in Newfoundland is going to be very dismal.
This is a constitutional right of Canadians, and the government has attempted to privatize it. That is not on. Like every other member in this House I could go on because there are an awful lot of people listening to what is being said in this House today, and there are 8,000 people who signed a petition telling me to make sure that their voices are heard. I hope they believe their voices are being heard. Of the 80 per cent of the submissions that were made out of the 200-odd submissions-and I sat on the committee-90 per cent were against it, 80 per cent were vehemently against it, and only 10 per cent had some support.
In closing, there is a somewhat sombre thought. In my previous incarnation I was a mariner. Mariners will tell you that of all the flag hoists raised there is one they watch very carefully. It is the phonetic, alphabet flag uniform. When uniform is close up the international meaning of that is you are standing in danger. People pay attention to that. A mariner believes that somebody is trying to tell him something so he checks his navigational position, his sounding, the water under his keel, his course and his speed to make sure that he is not going to get into irretrievable trouble.
I have some advice for the Prime Minister. Mr. Prime Minister, rural Canada has hoisted a flag and its flag uniform close up, be aware.


Mr. McCreath:: I listened with great interest to my hon. friend for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception who has had a very distinguished naval career. I must say I am well aware of the fact that sailors are well known for their stories. It seems to me he has been telling a few here today, and I suspect from what he just said that he may
November 6, 1989

have told a few back home in his constituency. Therefore I must ask him one or two questions.
He talks about what he perceives to be the negative impact of this for his constituency, indeed for Newfoundlanders, and yet I did not hear him mention, as I will in my own speech, how pleased we are that fishermen's benefits are not in anyway being impacted by this. Is he not in support of maintaining fishermen's benefits?
Second, he talked about access to the unemployment insurance scheme. If he looks at the proposal before Parliament he will note that there is no increase in the qualification period for the constituents of Bonavista- Trinity-Conception. Yet, at the same time there are benefits to those people because of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, the programs that will flow as a result of that, and the additional funding available for things like Community Futures, the Industrial Adjustment Services and so on.
I think my hon. friend has certainly done an excellent job in toeing the party line in opposing the progressive measures that have been brought forward by the government in trying to bring the unemployment insurance scheme into the 21st century. I wonder if he might not take this opportunity while there is still a moment to recant to his constituents and tell them what excellent stories he has told us .


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, there are times I am sure that all members stand on their feet and they are not really sure of what they are going to say when they get up. This is one occasion that I am delighted to rise and respond to my friend, the hon. member for South Shore.
It is safe to say that as mariners we share a lot of interests. I found it very interesting that the hon. member said that I was toeing the party line. I have come here as a Liberal, as a member of the Official Opposition, but when I was on my feet this morning speaking about unemployment insurance I was not only speaking for the 8,000 people who took the time to tell me and this House that they are not very happy with the changes in unemployment insurance but for Canadians who are concerned about their future and about putting bread and butter on the table. Those are the same Canadians that this House should be concerned with. I can tell you
Government Orders
that this side of the House is very concerned for those Canadians and will continue to be so.
I also want to say to the hon. member that I happened to read The Chronicle Herald coming back from my riding. The same member who criticized me and asked me why I was toeing the party line and not looking at the great benefits of unemployment insurance has a problem with fisheries, as we all know, and I think he would agree with that. He was quoted in the paper yesterday as admonishing his own government because he wants to get Community Futures in his own riding to look out for some of the problems that have been created by the policies of this government. I am delighted to respond to those types of questions. I am delighted to say that at least I can talk and toe the party line and still represent Canadians without having to worry about where I am coming from.
I would also like to add that he mentioned the job development strategy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for South Shore.


Peter L. McCreath: I know it was not my hon. friend's intention to mislead the House. He may not have been aware of the fact that on Thursday it was my great pleasure to announce that the Minister Employment and Immigration had indeed brought forward-


Some Hon. Members:: That is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is debate. Questions and comments are now terminated. The hon. member for Nunatsiaq on debate.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. The amendments to the act as contained in this bill will have negative consequences on northern workers. Last April, when the government announced its labour force development strategy and the proposed changes to the unemployment insurance program, I expressed my concerns over the effects these changes would have on northerners. These concerns remain and have in fact been reinforced.
Across the country the government is increasing the minimum period of work required to qualify for benefits and is reducing the maximum duration of those benefits. In the north the minimum number of weeks an individual must work in order to qualify for unemployment

November 6, 1989
insurance benefits remains the same at 10 weeks. However the duration of the benefits is reduced.
Under the current system an individual in the north who works 10 weeks can qualify for unemployment insurance benefits over a 42-week period. The changes in this bill will reduce that benefit period to 39 weeks. Under the current system, an individual in the north who works 18 weeks can qualify for unemployment insurance benefits over a 50-week period. This bill will reduce the benefit period for this worker to 47 weeks.
These changes will have serious consequences for seasonal workers in the northern regions of this country. Seasonal work in the north, unlike the south, is very often short term, project oriented, and has specific termination dates. Workers do not have a lot of other projects to go to.
The north has the highest rate of unemployment in the country. The unemployment rate for the northern region, which comprises the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, is between 20 and 25 per cent. The over-all rate, however, is misleading.
There are wide variations in this rate between the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and between the regions within the Northwest Territories itself. The Baffin, Keewatin and Kitikmeot regions have the highest unemployment rates within the Northwest Territories.
In some communities unemployment rates approach 50 per cent. These high unemployment rates dramatically illustrate the need for substantial economic development initiatives for the north. Cuts to the unemployment insurance program in areas which suffer from economic underdevelopment, without any plans or programs to increase employment opportunities in a significant way, is only going to make these poor regions poorer.
The number of groups in this country opposed to this bill is significant. All the aboriginal and northern groups that appeared before the legislative committee studying the bill were opposed to it. The reasons for their opposition are similar.
Aboriginal communities in the northern parts of the provinces have much in common with northern remote communities. Their economies are largely underdeveloped. In the Northwest Territories there are two economies. One is developed and comprises a very small number of communities. The other economy is underdeveloped and a vast majority of communities, about 46, fall into this category. Most of them are in my constituency in the central and eastern Arctic.
When the Northwest Territories Federation of Labour appeared before the legislative committee examining Bill C-21, it had two messages for the committee: leave the system alone and at least attempt to recognize the uniqueness of the northern economy before making any changes to the benefits structure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call it one o'clock, the hon. member will have six minutes remaining in his debate plus five minutes for questions and comments.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave this 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.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has finally brought forward legislation regarding abortion. However, this legislation does not address the rights of the unborn child, despite the recommendation of the Supreme Court of Canada. More than 60 petitions bearing the signatures of more than 2,000 Prince Edward Islanders were presented to me calling upon this government to protect foetal rights.
These petitions were not deemed presentable by the clerk of petitions. How can an average Canadian be aware of the strict guidelines for certifying these petitions? My constituents invested a huge effort in collecting these signatures only to discover that their voice will not be heard in this House through petition's tabling. Guidelines for accepting petitions for presentation in
November 6, 1989

this House are clear and concise. The problem is that ordinary Canadians are not familiar with the rules.
I ask this government to not only develop a public awareness program to assist petitioners in this area, but to seriously consider revising the archaic rules that determine the acceptance or the rejection of petitions.


ROUGE RIVER VALLEY
Pauline Browes: 
PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to point out yet another negative consequence of the proposed GST. There are 120 border crossings between Canada and the United States.
It is well known that commercial interests on the Canadian side of the border are adversely affected by Canadians crossing the border into the United States on a single day and weekend visits, spending millions of dollars, a situation which has become worse under the free trade agreement. We cannot be critical of Canadians seeking lower American prices, but we must express serious concerns about the long-term implications of the situation, which will be further aggravated by the 9 per cent GST.
I offer the following examples from my own constituency as a graphic illustration of this situation. One service station has suffered a 400,000 litre loss in the past year; $250,000 is spent on groceries each week in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan; single-day visits number 840,000 for the first nine months of this year. How many more examples does the government need? I call upon the government to scrap the GST.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Brian O'Kurley (Elk Island):: Mr. Speaker, in Elk Island and across western Canada agriculture is an important part of our economy. Successful agriculture means more than just successful farmers. Successful agriculture means jobs in fertilizer plants and farm implement dealerships. It means successful small town businesses and thriving world communities.
We all depend on a healthy farm economy. When our farmers were faced with falling international grain prices, our government responded by injecting almost $12 billion into our farm economy. When the west was faced with a killing drought, the Government of Canada responded to keep our farmers in business.
Yes, the Government of Canada is committed to our farmers, but the fight is not over. More work has to be done. Let us work together to development of a longterm plan to manage our farm economy. The Minister of Agriculture must take the lead in developing a vision for Canadian agriculture in the future. Let us all work together to build a stronger farm economy. Let us all work together for a better Canada.
* He *


SAFETY REGULATIONS
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, the imposed safety regulations drawn up by the Coast Guard division for vessels under 15 tonnes are highly impractical and expensive for Prince Edward Island fishermen. These safety devices could cost the fishermen in excess of $15,000 and would take up so much room on the vessel there would be no room to fish.
The regulations have obviously been drawn up by people unfamiliar with the P.E.I. inshore fishery. The new regulations will require P.E.I. fishermen to have a different vessel for every different species fished. In spite of a series of meetings between the Coast Guard and fishermen, the regulations have not yet been

changed to reflect the needs of the P.E.I. inshore fishermen.
Instead of wasting time and money discussing new regulations, the government should enforce the current regulations more efficiently.
Furthermore, if the government truly has the safety of P.E.I. inshore fishermen in mind, why not allocate the funds for dredging harbours and repairing of wharves that are the greatest menace to our fishermen?


PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, during the last few days I have talked with management and staff at the Springhill Institution in Springhill, Nova Scotia, the officials at Treasury Board, and members of the union representing the groups on strike at that institution. It appears to me that the differences between them could be resolved by earnest negotiation on both sides. I urge the Treasury Board to do everything possible and reasonable to bring this situation to a satisfactory conclusion.
Although it is the union's prerogative to strike, many of those on picket lines are already experiencing emotional stress and a great deal of pressure. There is no question that sooner or later the strike will be settled. I just respectfully request that all parties involved get back to the bargaining table and make a settlement sooner instead of later.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege to rise today in this House to pay tribute to the many Canadian athletes who make a contribution to sports in this country. Sporting events are an excellent way of providing our youth with interpersonal skills and leadership qualities which are needed to succeed in life.
In my riding the Fort Frances Muskies demonstrated that hard work and determination pay off. They won the northwestern Ontario regional football championships by defeating the Westgate Tigers of Thunder Bay with a score of 27 to 13. The Fort Frances High School's football team is one of the best in northwestern Ontario
and while it has not held the regional championship for many years, it has held an impressive record of achievement.
This bitter-sweet victory will be long remembered. For the first time in 36 years the Fort Frances Muskies have been able wrestle the championships from the Westgate Tigers of Thunder Bay.
Under the leadership of Coach Dave Montgomery, the Fort Frances Muskies have made football in northwestern Ontario an exciting sport.. I am sure that my colleagues from the Thunder Bay area and members from all sides of the House will join me in offering our sincere congratulations to the Fort Frances Muskies football team and Coach Montgomery.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EAST GERMANY
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, the world is currently witnessing a migration of dramatic proportions as tens of thousands of East Germans continue to leave their homeland in search of freedom and democracy. These East German citizens are willingly and anxiously uprooting their families and quickly leaving their friends, their jobs, their homes and their relatives to gain the freedom that we Canadians have enjoyed since Confederation.
The urgency of the East German situation is a testament to the desire of humankind to be free. Canadians from all regions join with those East Germans in a united desire to help them attain their objective. I urge this government to take all steps possible to allow the new East German immigrants to resettle in Canada should they so choose. Canada must open its doors to people who have so openly demonstrated their desire to obtain freedom in an open and a democratic society.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, members of this House, both in this Chamber and in committee, have spent many hours over the past month debating the government's proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. We continue to do so, but as we are engaged in this debate with the government, the Department of Employment and Immigration
November 6, 1989

is already training its staff in employment centres across this country on the implementation and administration of the changes.
These changes are proposals for our consideration. They are not yet law. This government has demonstrated its total lack of respect for the democratic process over the past few months. It limited debate at second reading. It refuses to listen to the thousands of Canadians who will be hurt most by this bill. Then it once again brought in time constraints on debate in this House. Now we see it undermining the rights of Parliament to decide the fate of this bill. When is this government going to acknowledge that it was elected to govern in the interests of all, not to dictate in the interests of the few.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, independent sawmill operators have been hurting in northern Ontario. They have been hurting for a number of reasons, but the one factor rarely mentioned is the 15 per cent tax on softwood lumber exports. The problem is not with the tax, but the fact is that the industry does not see the money being returned to forestry activity.
Since the softwood lumber export charge was implemented, the Ontario government has received $63 million in revenue. Last year, the province collected over $21 million and to date this year, it has taken in over $12 million from the forestry exporters.
In the last Ontario budget, the premier committed the province to an increase in spending of $18 million in forestry, but that falls far short of the over $63 million that the province has received from the federal government.
When will the province give the forestry workers of Ontario their fair share? When will the premier begin to think about northern Ontario and the independent sawmill operators and employees?


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on February 27, 1986, Mr. Jean Chretien resigned as a federal Member of Parliament, and now he says the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) has done nothing about Meech Lake for two years.
Mr. Speaker, why didn't Mr. Chretien stay in Ottawa where he could have argued his position directly with the Prime Minister of Canada?


PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, parole and case management officers have been on strike for a week now. In response to a question from my colleague from Victoria last week, the Solicitor General stated everything was going well with respect to the way the government was handling this strike. Everything is not going well, Mr. Speaker.
In Kingston, one person is handling the work ordinarily done by 35. Last week, the Quebec police were called in against the strikers. In Toronto alone, 12 parolees have been arrested for breaking the conditions of their parole. Tensions are rising within the institutions as parole board hearings and applications for parole are being delayed. Members of the WP group are on strike because they have serious grievances that have not been addressed by this government in months of negotiations. These employees are seeking pay equity with their provincial counterparts and a reasonable workload. For those who are on the front line in the administration of our criminal justice system, I call upon this government to stop delaying and recommence negotiations now.


VISIT OF PHILIPPINE PRESIDENT
Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, President Corazon C. Aquino arrives in Ottawa today. I am honoured to salute Her Excellency on her state visit to Canada, the first by a Philippine president.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Oral Questions
Mr. Pagtakhan Indeed, her visit is an historic one. Truly concerned for the well-being of the Filipino people, Her Excellency brings their aspirations to all Canadians.
There is hardly a need to remind Canadians about the seriousness of her purpose. The Philippines needs Canada for investment and trade as the Philippines reconstructs itself from the economic ruin caused by past authoritarian rule. In turn, Canada benefits from such economic partnership.
I urge the Prime Minister to reaffirm Canada's commitment to assist the Philippines not only through international aid programs, but also through enhanced trade and investment, and thereby assist her in cementing the pillars of democracy and human dignity in the Philippines, in improving the living conditions of the poorest of the Filipino people, and in bringing peace to them.
I invite my colleagues to join me in welcoming President Corazon Aquino to Canada.


MINISTER OF FINANCE
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, as of today, Monday, November 6, the Hon. Michael Wilson has served as Minister of Finance for 61 months and 20 days.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Nesbitt Horner: This makes Michael Wilson the longest serving Minister of Finance in over 35 years. He has now surpassed the time in office of Donald Fleming, who served as Minister of Finance in the Diefenbaker government for 61 months and 18 days, buffs, it is a reflection of his outstanding abilities.
Canadians know that while Michael Wilson is the Minister of Finance, the effort to balance the books will be unrelenting. The competence, consistency and tenacity of the Minister of Finance, not just over a short time but over the long haul, deserves our respect. Let's give him a standing ovation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, the fact that Michael Wilson has served as
long as he has as finance minister means only one thing, that the government does not care at all what the people of Canada think.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has done for the finances of this country what the Boston Strangler did for Avon ladies.
Today I received a petition, signed by 228 citizens of my constituency, protesting the government's introduction of the GST, the gouge and squeeze tax to the people of my riding. It is most interesting to note that this particular petition was organized by none other than the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, an old ally of this government.
Recently Sydney, Nova Scotia, ranked one hundred and seventeenth levels in a survey done by Statistics Canada into the income of urban areas. With an average income of under $17,000 a year, the people of my riding are in no position to withstand the savage attack on their spending power which will result with the introduction of this tax. The government has taken away the trains, it has taken away the regional development assistance, it has wrecked the fishing industry. Will the government please, at least, relent and do away with this terrible tax.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most precious traditions of our Canadian democracy is that the RCMP has the independent responsibility to decide whether and when to lay charges, especially in cases of political interest. It appears from sworn evidence, given by an RCMP officer this morning in a criminal trial, that this tradition has been violated. In the budget leak affair on May 30, I asked the Solicitor General for an assurance that the-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I will hear the question, I do not want any more preamble. I will hear the question and then I am going to decide whether we can proceed with it. I would ask the hon. member's co-operation.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, on May 30, 1989, the Solicitor General assured the House, and I quote from page 2324 of Hansard:
The RCMP has conducted its investigation. It has consulted with members of the Attorney General's Department of the province of Ontario. It has concluded that charges should be laid.
I ask the Solicitor General to explain his behaviour and the behaviour of the government in the light of the evidence adduced this morning under sworn testimony by an RCMP officer.


Mr. Speaker:: The question creates very considerable difficulty for the Chair, and I would ask that all hon. members bear with the Chair for a moment because the matter is a very serious one. I want to be sure that all hon. members understand why I feel that I must intervene at this time, and I want to be sure that the public understands.
In Beauchesne's fifth edition, page 118, I read paragraph 335 under the heading, "The Sub-Judice Convention":
Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record. The purpose of this sub-judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry.
I ask hon. members to listen carefully to the next words.
It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play.
The next paragraph is 336(1) which reads:
The sub-judice convention has been applied consistently in criminal cases.
The case referred to is clearly a criminal case. And, there are some references to Debates. I do not have those references in front of me, yet.
Paragraph (2) reads:
The precedents in criminal cases are consistent in preventing reference to court cases before a judgment is rendered-
It goes on to say:
- however, the convention ceases to apply after the judgment is given.
There is no question, I think, at the moment that this is just the commencement of a criminal trial and judgment has not been given.
Oral Questions
Those are the immediate references which I must bring to the attention of the House.
The hon. member for York Centre out of courtesy to the Chair, and I advise hon. members of this, indicated to the Chair that he would seek to ask a question along these lines. I know he will put some arguments at an appropriate occasion as to why those references in themselves and as read to the House ought to be the subject of some examination. What I am going to do at the moment, and I hope the hon. member for York Centre will accept this in the best spirit of this place, is indicate to the hon. member that I will not take any further questions on this point, but I will hear the hon. member at an appropriate time and as quickly as possible after Question Period. I will listen to his arguments.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I came prepared earlier today to ask questions on the subject of the government's abortion legislation. I propose to do that, but may I just say in passing, as you indicated yourself, the sub judice rule is a convention which is imposed voluntarily on the House and I intend to argue at three o'clock that there are higher values.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. member for York Centre very well, and I expect that he will bring some very cogent arguments to his case, but we will hear it after Question Period.
Again I thank the hon. member for indicating to the Chair that this difficult matter was going to be raised. I would ask the hon. member to proceed with his other questions.


ABORTION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
Friday, the Government tabled its bill on abortion. My question is based on this legislation.
On all sides, doubts have been expressed about the constitutionality of the Bill. I would ask the Minister, in order to prevent a false start and a long, drawn out debate that might take years, and to avoid the inevitable court challenges which, in each case, will be linked to the fate of women like Dodd and Daigle, and he demands

November 6, 1989
Oral Questions
for urgent review by the Supreme Court of Canada, whether he is willing to take the step which, obviously, only he can take, namely enhance the status and even the legitimacy of the Bill by submitting it now to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise my hon. friend that this course of action was considered. We felt it was our responsibility as legislators to grapple with this very difficult problem. We spent some time doing it and have come up with what we think is a reasonable solution to a very sensitive issue. We feel that it is up to Parliament to debate and decide on this matter and not, at this time, the Supreme Court of Canada.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Could the minister explain what is lost by taking the time now to refer it to the Supreme Court of Canada, before all of the debate and controversy and litigation which will inevitably occur and which in every case will be tied around the fate of a particular pregnant woman with a demand for urgent review by courts of appeal in the land? Why put the country through that when this step which would add legitimacy and would add stature to the government's draft legislation could be considered now?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think what is at stake here is the authority of Parliament to legislate vis-a-vis the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret. We feel it is important that the legislation go forward with the imprimatur of Parliament on it. We believe that there was a request for leadership from the public. We have given that leadership. The legislation we are bringing forward has considerable thought put into it, considerable consultation. We believe that it should be debated here in the House of Commons.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, that will be one of the subjects of discussion and as I indicated to the minister, a whole range of issues is avoided by proceeding now to have the constitutionality of the matter reviewed.
I want to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare about the issue of access. Is not the responsibility of the Government of Canada, which pays half of the cost of medicare and which is very proud of having developed a national standard health care service across
the country, to assure that there is equal access in all parts of the country, whatever the abortion law of the country, and that women have the same system and the same opportunities available to them.
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, in taking the initiative that we have, the federal government spells out a context in which provincial governments can take decisions in areas which fall under provincial jurisdiction.
The Canada Health Act in no area spells out the specific procedures that must be provided in specific areas or in specific ways. For example, in the case of life threatening situations such as those involving cancer or involving heart disease, there is no requirement in the Canada Health Act that a province provide a specific service in a specific place.
This principle was well acknowledged by the then minister of justice of the day back in 1969 when abortion was last considered by this Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition, who was then minister of justice said this:
The relationships and civil law between the patient and the doctor, between the patient and the nurse, between the doctor and the hospital, the nurse and the hospital, are relationships falling within the operation of provincial law, the civil law and the constitutional responsibility of the provinces-the subject of statutes which regulate hospitals and the professions. These are properly provincial matters-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Given that the courts have before struck down a bill of this Parliament, why does he want to put the country through months of agonizing debate, this House through months of agonizing debate, only to have the ultimate constitutionality of the law decided, with the details of some poor woman's personal life being dragged through the courts for months on end?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would repeat the comment that I made. There has been a demand from the public and from the opposition for leadership in this matter. We have applied ourselves to the question. We have drafted a bill which we think is a reasonable solution which defines entitlement to abortion. It is based on health grounds. We do not say it is perfect. We say that it is the best that we can do. It is not your bill, it is not my bill, but
November 6, 1989

it is a bill for the people of Canada. We have shown the leadership.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. A woman's decision to seek an abortion is always a painful and agonizing one. Often it is based on the lack of support in society to value and support women and their children. Where is the legislation that establishes a sound family policy for Canada? Where is the legislation to give women access to counselling, to child care, to contraception, to training, to equal economic opportunities and to support, when they do have children? In fact, where is the legislation to allow women to choose to be mothers as well as to choose not to be?


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, I fully share the feeling that I think the hon. member expresses, that abortion should be a last resort and not a first resort. One of the challenges for all of us as parliamentarians is to ensure that we have an infrastructure in place that makes it possible for mothers to carry their children to term.
A number of those provisions are in place today in terms of assistance for counselling, for example, and in terms of assistance to people who are in need of financial assistance. When I speak in the debate later during the debate, I hope to be able to add to that and to announce other initiatives we may be taking in order to provide assistance in giving mothers the sort of help that they need to take positive decisions.
The hon. member asked specifically about the question of child care. Indeed, as was indicated by the Prime Minister, the government is determined to put in place a national child care program during this Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


HEALTH CARE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is either for the Minister of National Health and Welfare or for the Minister of Justice.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare certainly knows that the Canada Health Act requires provinces, in order to be eligible for funding coming from the federal
Oral Questions
government, to meet five criteria. High amongst these are the questions of comprehensiveness and accessibility.
Both ministers also know that there are certain regions in this country which deny to women the right, confirmed by the Supreme Court, to have access to an abortion. With the proposed legislation that has been introduced, entailing as it does the possibility of Criminal Code sanctions, women in Canada are now concerned that this unfair access across Canada is going to become even more unfair.
Therefore, I want to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, why does he not use the authority that the federal government does have under the Canada Health Act to make sure that all Canadian women have fully equal access to their rights in this domain right across Canada?
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the Canada Health Act in front of me. As the hon. member will know, in the preamble of the Canada Health Act, Parliament made it abundantly clear that the Canada Health Act was in no way designed to derogate the constitutional responsibilities of either level of government. The provisions of health services is constitutionally the primary responsibility of the provinces. In the Canada Health Act-


John Edward Broadbent: Primarily?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman asked a question, and I am trying to answer it. As the hon. gentleman will know, in the Canada Health Act no mention is made whatsoever of any specific procedure having to be provided in a specific way. For example, there is no requirement under the Canada Health Act that procedures which could help to save lives such as procedures dealing with cancer or with heart disease must be provided in a specific way by any of the provinces.
Is the hon. gentleman proposing that the federal government should invade an area of provincial constitutional jurisdiction and specify that in the case of specific services, provinces must provide those services in a specific way or the federal government will refuse to fund medicare?

November 6, 1989
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am proposing now, as I always would propose, that the federal government use only the authority that it has. Both the federal government and the provincial governments have jurisdictional authority in this domain. It is in the federal act that the words "comprehensiveness" and "accessibility" are used. Specific words could have been included to make particular operations included if the federal government had wanted to do so. I am not even asking the minister to do that.
The minister has alluded to the fact that operations for cancer, for example, are not put in the act. Certain hospitals across Canada have not said on principle that they will exclude cancer operations, but have specifically said that they will exclude abortions. They have made the decision to deny comprehensiveness and accessibility, going against what I would argue is the federal authority in terms of legislation.
Will the government show true leadership in this debate instead of hiding behind a past act, interpreted the way the minister wants? Either give it a broader interpretation or amend that act to provide the accessibility that all Canadian women ought to have.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is asking that we violate the Constitution of Canada to do what he would like us to do. Our obligation is to respect the Constitution of Canada-


John Edward Broadbent: No, I'm not. Didn't you hear the question?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The hon. gentleman asked his question. Surely I am entitled to answer it Mr. Speaker. We have an obligation to respect the Constitution of Canada which gives the primary responsibility for the delivery of health services to the provinces. The hon. gentleman concedes the fact that nowhere in the Canada Health Act is any procedure, including life-saving procedures, required to be provided in a specific way by any province. What the hon. gentleman proposes is that we throw constitutionality to the wind-


John Edward Broadbent: Nonsense!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. gentleman should listen to the response. He asked that we ignore the constitutional responsibility of the provinces and of Ottawa, that we engage in an invasion of provincial jurisdiction. Doing so could threaten the very constitutionality of the Canada Health Act.


John Edward Broadbent: I will leave that minister's rhetoric aside. He knows I did not propose violating the Constitution. I say to the minister, refer my proposal to the Supreme Court. I will accept its decision if the minister will accept its decision.

Mr. Speaker, my last question is directed to the Minister of Justice. According to the Supreme Court, Canadian women are entitled to unqualified access to abortion in all regions of this country. However, there are regions in this country that do not give Canadian women that right.
My question is, simply, why the government did not table amendments to the Canada Health Act, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision to give all Canadian women the same rights in all regions.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asked the same question in English and in French. The answer is the same. We must all respect the Canadian Constitution.


MEMBER OF THE SENATE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Federal Business Development Bank and is about the issue that will not go away. On Friday, the minister for small business, on his kamikaze mission, said in the House of Commons that the Cogger-FBDB bills were quite small and would not necessarily be brought to the president's attention.
Apart from the fact that those bills totalled some $104,000, a relatively nice small amount, how can the minister then explain the internal memo of the Federal Business Development Bank which I have in hand, part of which says about Lapointe Rosenstein bills that this bill was signed by the president, the president approved payment of same, invoices were signed by the president and so on? How about that for information that was kept away from the president? How can the minister explain the actions of his colleague last Friday? Could he give us the latest version of the truth in this affair?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the president of the Federal
November 6, 1989

Business Development Bank on Friday afternoon issued a statement which I am sure the hon. member must have received. This statement says: "The Federal Business Development Bank has thoroughly reviewed its records once again. These records do not indicate that Senator Michel Cogger did any work on mandates assigned to the Lapointe Rosenstein law firm after his appointment to the Senate". I think that takes care of the issue.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Minister also read the statement. And since he read it, as he claims he did, he must know that the statement says: "These records do not indicate that Senator Michel Cogger did any work on mandates assigned to the Lapointe Rosenstein law firm after his appointment to the Senate". What about the contract awarded before his appointment to the Senate and completed afterwards? Did the senator work on those cases, yes or no? Could we have a straight answer, once and for all?

MnAndre: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member is asking because I think the Senator said in his statement to the House that before he was a Senator, as a member of a law firm, in fact he did do work on the file. But, as indicated by the president of the Federal Business Development Bank, he has no record of Senator Cogger doing any work on behalf of Lapointe Rosenstein after he became a Senator.


Don Boudria: Read it, that' not what it says.


Harvie Andre: That's exactly what it says. I will quote it again. "The Federal Business Development Bank has thoroughly reviewed its records once again. The records do not indicate that Senator Michel Cogger did any work on mandates assigned to the Lapointe Rosenstein law firm after his appointment to the Senate." That is pretty clear to anybody. I realize that if you have an appetite for spicy scandal, the bland truth is disappointing, but you are going to have to accept it.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, if the truth is bland, that is really all I think we are looking for here.
Oral Questions
Last week, we were informed by the Solicitor General that the RCMP had begun looking into the recent allegations regarding Senator Cogger. My question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Has the minister provided to the RCMP the complete list of lawyers authorized to do legal work for the Federal Business Development Bank? If he has not, will he do so immediately, and table that list in the House at the same time?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member will put that question on the Order Paper, I am sure we will try to find an answer.
I think the hon. member would have to admit he is engaging on what would constitute a witch hunt here and he is looking for-pardon me for mixing the metaphors-some further skeletons. I will co-operate in answering any questions he puts on the Order Paper, but I cannot be expected to have that information at question period.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question has to do with the same thing. This is a very ordinary list, an administratively used list in every FBDB office across the country.
On Friday we asked whether Senator Cogger or his firm have had any dealings with any government agency or department. We did not get an answer. Therefore, I ask again, and this time I direct my question to the Prime Minister, does the government have any knowledge now of Senator Cogger or his firm doing work for any other government agencies or departments after his being appointed to the Senate in May 1986?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all colleagues in the House will know that by the very nature of that question, it can only be answered on the Order Paper.


INCOME TAX
Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the honourable and distinguished Minister of National Revenue. Canadians are becoming more and more alarmed with their general tax guides. The 1988 general tax guide was more like a

November 6, 1989
Oral Questions
22-page scavenger hunt to determine Canadians' abilities and federal and provincial tax payable. I want to ask the minister what he proposes to do to change the tax guide so that it is more simple for Canadians to fill out as they have done in the past and are unable, it seems, to do in the present. Is the 1989 tax guide going to be far easier to handle than the past one?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, with friends like that, who needs enemies?
It is true that over the last 20 years the tax guide and the system have become quite complex. This sounds like a set-up question and I was not aware my honourable friend was putting it. Since he did put it, I can assure the member that from last year to next year, we will be reducing the number of pages in the tax guide by some 15 per cent.
We have looked at every conventional method of simplifying the system, and I am happy to announce again that we are moving into the electronic age. Next year, for the first time in the history of this country, we are going to electronic filing which will lead us toward a paperless society within the next decade.
I can assure my hon. friend, all members of the House of Commons and Canadians as a whole that every effort is being made in consultation with interested groups and individuals to make the system even less complex, particularly compared to the one we inherited five years ago from the Liberals.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HEALTH CARE
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is about the direction his government is taking on the abortion issue.
Every rational thinking person in this country knows that the key to reducing the number of abortions in this country is to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. Why does this government not take positive action?
First, the Family Planning Division at National Health and Welfare was disbanded, leaving only one full-time
person in all of National Health and Welfare to work on family planning issues. Why did this government cut funding to Planned Parenthood by $61,000 in its first mandate? If it is really so concerned with the number of abortions, why does it not approach the issue by working toward preventing unplanned pregnancies?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the hon. member's information is out of date. We have increased funding for Planned Parenthood. Indeed, the goal of this government is to provide positive alternatives to abortion. We believe that abortion should be a last resort and not a substitute for birth control. As a consequence, we will take any measure we can appropriately take to reduce the causes of abortion in Canada.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, over all in the mandate of this government, the funding to planned parenthood has been reduced significantly, even though there has been a very slight increase this year.
Family planning, like family violence, is not solely a provincial responsibility. National Health and Welfare has a national clearing house on family violence. Why does it not have a national clearing house on family planning? Why is the federal government not playing the role that it could play in family planning education and have adequate funding for educational programs so that all people in Canada could work together to reduce in a positive way the unwanted pregnancies in this country?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, our approach is to do precisely that, to give Canadians a positive alternative to abortion and to ensure that information about contraception is widely available in Canada. The hon. member is wrong. We substantially increased funding for Planned Parenthood to disseminate this information. That is important. It should not be simply dismissed by the hon. member.
I think the onus is on all of us in the House of Commons, if we believe that we should be finding alternatives to abortion, to look for ways to disseminate information, to look for ways to give support to mothers, to look for ways to ensure that women are not driven into a situation where they believe that abortion is the only recourse that is open to them.
November 6, 1989


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Gallery of a parliamentary delegation from Australia, led by the hon. Barry Cohen, member of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Vladimir Bulatov, Deputy of the Peoples' Congress of the U.S.S.R.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. At a recent meeting Canadian food processors indicated that the so-called level playing field established by the free trade agreement cannot and will not work under the present farm product marketing system. These people are experts with hands-on experience in the food processing and food industries. With this statement and all other recent happenings, does the Minister still say that the free trade agreement protects our farmers and then-existing marketing system?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think the free trade agreement speaks for itself. Clearly supply-management systems were in fact preserved under the free trade agreement, as the hon. member knows.
If things are so bad in the processing industry, I would like to ask the hon. member how come the processing industry has agreed to invest a further 15 per cent over last year in the processing and manufacturing of food products in Canada? It looks as if that tendency is going to be maintained over the next four or five years. I think that is a pretty positive signal.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The president of the Ontario Food Processors Association has spoken to us recently, and he disagrees with the statement that the minister has made. He speaks on behalf of 46 processors in the province of Ontario alone. His federal association
Oral Questions
has in the past had audiences with the minister and has presented briefs to the minister.
Has the minister reviewed those briefs? After reviewing them and those presentations, how does he say that the free trade agreement will continue to protect the food processing industry and Canadian farmers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I think the best vote of confidence is the fact that processors are indeed investing in more equipment and capital to the tune of 15 per cent more this year than last year. As a matter of fact, I quote the headline in the Financial Post of October 18, 1989. "Canada is reaping benefits from the trade deal, U.S. figures show". That applies to agriculture. That applies to the energy sector. That applies to the manufacturing sector. That applies to almost every sector across the country. That is why we are the leaders in the world in terms of economic growth, development and job creation.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration who, on Friday afternoon, announced $2 million as the special response to the crisis in the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery, where by her own admission, 3,400 fishermen and plant workers are affected.
I remind her that last year $6 million was available to 1,500 fishermen who were affected. In other words, this year the crisis is worse, the amount is less.
Does the minister not realize that if she holds to this course, there will be fishermen and plant workers on the Labrador coast who will be forced into bartering this year in order to survive? Will she give us a commitment now, if the government and unions can show that the need is greater than she has anticipated, that she will increase the amount in order to meet the need?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that this is only one part of what we are doing in the fishery in Newfoundland. As the hon. member knows, we have a cabinet committee working on some of the problems of the fishery. I recognize the significance of the problem

November 6, 1989
Oral Questions
within Newfoundland. We will continue to come up with solutions as they are required.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the minister that the need is now. It is now November and it is getting pretty cold. People must have enough to survive for this winter. The Minister has created a catch-22 situation in the qualifying because in order to qualify, you must have 10 weeks of benefit period in the fishery only last year. The only way people qualified last year was through the special response feature that she had announced. That amounts to a catch-22 situation for fishermen and plant workers who want to qualify.
Will the minister modify the qualifications for her program this year and build in the flexibility that includes a long-term attachment to the fishery rather than simply insisting that people have 10 weeks of qualifying only in the fishery last year, because that creates a catch-22?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, what we have done is design the program this year with the flexibility in it that we have always had so that it will define it directly for people who have an attachment to the fishery.
My officials in Newfoundland are working very closely with the workers and with the industries around the definitions and their interpretation. I will be in touch with them on a regular basis to ensure that the programs we have established meet the goals that they were intended to meet.


MEMBER OF THE SENATE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He read the press release which indicated that the records of the FBDB did not show that Senator Cogger did any work. Since the cheques were sent to Senator Cogger and since Senator Cogger did the billing, has FBDB checked to make sure that Senator Cogger did not do the work?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the FBDB would have no way of knowing who in the firm did the work and it is not its responsibility. As I interpret the hon. member, and perhaps he might correct me if I am wrong, is the hon.
member suggesting it is the responsibility of FBDB to ensure that in fact the funds paid in terms of legal work was not for work done by anybody who might be prohibited from doing so under Section 14? If that responsibility is evident in the act, perhaps he could point out the language that would impose this responsibility on the FBDB.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the bill was sent July 5 from the senator to FBDB. The file indicates that the president of FBDB himself authorized the payment to the senator's firm. The letter was sent back to the senator. Is it not quite obvious and is it not a concern of this minister that his agency did not check to see whether or not Senator Cogger was indeed breaking the law of Canada?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the continuous repetition of these questions is probably good reason why these should be reserved to the Senate where the senator has asked for a special committee to be struck to look into it and those kinds of matters to be pursued.
I remind the hon. member that the invoice came from the law firm of Lapointe Rosenstein. The cheque from FBDB was paid to Lapointe Rosenstein. The comptroller checked with the officer in the company that had requested the legal service to see whether in fact it had been done. The president said yes, it had been done, the bill should be paid. The president has checked his records thoroughly and can find no evidence, as he said in a press release on Friday, that Senator Cogger undertook any of the legal work. I realize again that in this desperate search for a scandal, you leave no rock unturned, but I am afraid this happens to be the truth.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In the riding of Elk Island, a well known music producer has told me that the existing manufacturers' sales tax is crippling the music industry in western Canada. He informed me that under the present system, the federal government collects the sales tax before his products are sold. This seems unfair. He claims that the new GST may help. Is this in fact true and, if so, how will the proposed new GST system help the music industiy, especially at a time
November 6, 1989

when we are trying to diversify our economy in western Canada?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a very astute observation about the importance of the change from the existing sales tax to the proposed sales tax. There is no question, and there is widespread agreement that the existing tax is a bad tax, that it does hinder industry. It does hinder the diversification of industry and, as the hon. member has pointed out, it does so in western Canada and in his own riding of Elk Island.
What the new tax does do is remove all tax on inventory almost as soon as it is paid so that the taxpayers are now able to carry inventory free of the burden of sales tax. That is different from the existing tax where the sales tax is paid immediately by the individual company and that tax is carried right until the final sale is made by that company of its product. So there is a very major improvement in the operations of the sales tax system.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Employment. My riding is in the highest unemployment zone in Canada and it is primarily in the north, a fishing constituency?.
In answering questions from the member for Labrador, the Minister of Employment either did not understand the nature of the questions being put by my friend or, more frightening, may have understood and chose to answer the way she did in any case.
I make a plea to the minister on behalf of the people in northern Newfoundland and in rural Newfoundland who have had three successive failures in the fishery. That fact can be substantiated by the Minister of Fisheries. It can be substantiated by many members who represent fishing constituencies throughout Atlantic Canada.
Does the minister realize that the regulations this year for qualifications under the special response program in fact say to fishermen that if you have had two disastrous years in a row, you do not qualify. The bottom line says to
Oral Questions
fishermen if you, as a result of natural consequences, not your fault, have two bad years in a row, the Government of Canada no longer considers you a fisherman. Sell your boat, destroy your gear, go on welfare or go into a forced resettlement program somewhere else in this country. Will the minister take a look at that program, for God's sake, and help people maintain a traditional way of life.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had read the announcement, he would see that we announced that there are specific criteria to determine who qualifies. The criteria are intended to provide assistance to bona fide fishing industry workers. Individuals unable to receive these special benefits but with proven attachment to the fishing industry will be able to request a review. We are doing everything we can to be flexible for the people with an attachment to the fishing industry.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the point. Does a farmer stop being a bona fide farmer because he has had two bad years in a row for reasons that have nothing to do with the farmer? No. The Government of Canada rightly assists the farmer and we applaud that. We are asking for the same consideration for fishermen.
The current rules say to a fisherman who had a disaster last year and a disaster again this year, you are no longer a fisherman, we cannot help you. I am saying, if you do not change those rules, you will force the resettlement of thousands of fishermen out of rural Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: That is more of a statement than a question. The minister may want to rise.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have been in constant touch with the provincial fishing industry and fishermen in Newfoundland. We have been helping people in the fishing industry every year when there has been a special need and we will continue to do so. I do not think that shouting around this Chamber is going to help them a whole lot either.


Mr. Speaker:: I will take a single question from the hon. member for Brant and a single question from the hon. member for Gloucester.

November 6, 1989
Business of the House LOW LEVEL FLIGHTS


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The Department of National Defence is currently actively soliciting the NATO Alliance to locate a low level flight training centre at Goose Bay, Labrador.
At a time when a major effort is being made in Europe to reduce east-west tensions and when both alliances are undertaking confidence-building measures, as indeed are the two superpowers, does the minister actually believe that this is the time for Canada to be pushing for an expansion of NATO's military activities?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the member and the government disagree on even the membership in that alliance, so therefore I do not find it at all strange that the spokesman for defence in the New Democratic Party would say that we should not take part in training NATO pilots so that they are better able to defend not only their countries, but Canada.
We all welcome the actions and the discussions that are taking place in Europe. I say to the hon. member that there are more flights undertaken by Canadians in Germany than there are by other nations in Canada. It is an opportunity for Canada to add assistance to the alliance in which we both seek security. If we do as the hon. member suggests and not train pilots at low level, we will be putting those pilots, Canadians and others, at risk. The training is necessary.
The member is talking about NATO. Canada, as long as this Party happens to be the government, will be a member of NATO and will seek security in NATO.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of Finance. It is really a question on which Canadians need some clarification.
The minister, in his technical documents and in statements made by government members, indicates that the goods and services tax, on the one hand, is revenue-neutral. But the gospel is being spread that the goods
and services tax would also address the deficit problem in this country and reduce the debt.
The minister cannot have it both ways. I think Canadians deserve to know from the minister very directly if the goods and services tax is revenue-neutral, replacing the existing manufacturers' sales tax, or if the goods and services tax is going to reduce the deficit and pay down the debt.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that requires a two-part answer. The first part is that in the actual process of tax reform we established a principle in the White Paper of June, 1987, whereby we would not try to bring in extra tax revenues through the back door under the over-all umbrella of tax reform. In that sense, the GST does not contribute to an immediate reduction of the deficit.
However, in the last budget, as an example, we raised the sales taxes by about $2 billion, or close to 1 per cent in rate on the proposed tax. Those additional revenues are there in the 9 per cent proposed rate and those revenues will directly contribute to getting the deficit down.
In addition, as I pointed out on a number of occasions, the existing tax is subject to a good deal of tax avoidance. If we do not make a change in the tax about $2 billion is at risk. One of the reasons we are proceeding with the sales tax reform is to plug that loophole, a loophole which the Auditor General himself pointed out was there. That is another way we can contribute to deficit reduction by the introduction of the GST.


Mr. Speaker:: That concludes Question Period.


WAYS AND MEANS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give notice of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Thx Act, and I ask that an Order of the Day be designated.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I wish to advise the House that the business to be debated tomorrow will be C-43, an act respecting abortion.
November 6, 1989


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I indicated earlier in Question Period that I would hear argument on the point that the hon. member for York Centre raised. I would ask him, in arguing, to stay away from whatever evidence may or may not have been presented in the court room and to stay on the main issue, of which I think I have a pretty good picture in any event, but I certainly will hear the hon. member.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rose during Question Period to ask a question based on evidence, as you have noted, which arose this morning and was adduced under oath from a staff sergeant of the RCMP in the course of a criminal trial. I confess, I was not surprised to see Your Honour on your feet with some concern about the applicability of the sub judice rule. I am rising now to address the relevance of the sub judice rule and the place of it in our rules of procedure in the House in the hope and expectation that, since the Solicitor General is still in the House, if a finding is made by Your Honour in favour of the submission which I have to make I might be given an opportunity to ask my question and, equally important as you will see, that the Solicitor General be given an opportunity to answer the question.
In connection with the sub judice rule, I want to make two alternative arguments. In the first place I think there is a tendency which we can all understand for the pressure to exist in the House to distort the sub judice rule itself, and obviously unintentionally. I think on the government side there is always a tendency to attempt to stretch the sub judice rule to protect or cover the government from having to give explanations or answers about matters on which it would have to answer. I confess on the side of the opposition there is certainly a tendency to want to shrink the sub judice rule so that the government will be exposed to more areas in which questions can be asked than it otherwise would.
I would ask Your Honour to reconsider the specific questions that I asked this afternoon from that point of view. I want to make the submission to you, Your Honour, that properly applied the sub judice rule does not really protect or cover the government from any
Privilege
responsibility to answer the kinds of questions that I was asking.
It is true that the evidence to which I was referring was adduced from a staff sergeant of the RCMP at a criminal trial. But, Your Honour, the evidence which was adduced in the submission that I made to you is not material to the issues before the criminal court and, at the same time, it is extremely material to issues which are the proper subject of debate and discussion in this House. It is material to the question of whether the Solicitor General was truthful to the House when he said that the RCMP had laid the charges completely on their own. It is material to the proper functioning of the Government of Canada in relation to the RCMP, to the long-established tradition of independence of the RCMP. It is material to the responsibilities of the Minister of Justice, to whom I would have also directed questions, as to the obligation of the Government of Canada to operate in conformity with the laws of our country.
The charge, however it was obtained-and that was what the evidence of the staff sergeant was about-is there before the court. The material evidence about the conduct of the accused, the conduct of other witnesses and their responsibilities will be adduced, will be supported and will be challenged, and a determination will be made.
My first submission to you, Your Honour, and this is the closing of this point, is that the question of from where the charges came from, which is so material to us, so much our responsibility in this House of Commons to deal with, has less to so, or little to do, or little material do with the actual criminal case. Second, Your Honour-


Mr. Speaker:: In order to assist the Chair, I take it the point you are making is that the question you want to ask has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of any person or persons presently before that criminal court. It has to do with something else which is related to the administration of government. Is that your point?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, that is correct. But I have an additional submission which I want to make because while I submit that and while I firmly believe it, as you have eloquently and directly put it yourself, I think there

November 6, 1989
Privilege
is a limit to the sub judice rule and I think we ought to frankly, on an occasion like this, discuss that limit.
If you were to determine, in spite of the submissions that I have just made and the summary which you have just given, that the issue of the process by which these charges were laid is somehow material to the criminal case now proceeding, I submit, Sir, that the sub judice rule has its own limits. And while I do not think it applies if Your Honour were to find that it does apply I want to argue that it should be suspended, and I will do that very briefly.
I would argue, in that event, that the rule should be suspended for the simple reason that there are higher values than a particular criminal case and in the event that we were to enter into the discussion which I am urging upon you and it affected the criminal case unfolding now, a judge might well have to find that an acquittal has to be entered.
I can recall in my own experience as a Solicitor General that there were statements made in the legislature of the province of Quebec during a court process, a criminal trial, in which an RCMP officer was the accused. Because of those statements, which the defence council for the RCMP officer raised, the trial judge decided, in the circumstances of what had happened in the legislature, to direct an acquittal.
I submit even if that were to happen as a result of the discussions which I am inviting you to permit-the questions and the answers-that it would be worth it because we are dealing in this case with the most fundamental questions for which a government is accountable. We are dealing here with a tradition of the RCMP. We are dealing here with a contradiction, a statement by the minister which could not have been clearer. I asked the question myself and the minister was categorical in the answer that he gave, and that answer is now contradicted under oath.
Think of what we do in this place. We are asking questions about whether a senator, Senator Cogger, should or should not be charged. That question is affected by the possibility of manipulation of the RCMP. If it were merely because a criminal case were ongoing or a number of criminal cases were ongoing that a government was prevented or protected month after month from having to answer a very fundamental questions, our
democracy would be abused. That is the reason the sub judice rule is stated as it is, why it is a voluntary restraint, why there are times when it should be suspended and, Your Honour, I submit that, were you to find that it applied to the question I wanted to ask, this is such a case.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the argument that has just been made and, like the member who has just spoken, I understand and appreciate why Your Honour intervened during the Question Period today before making a judgment about the acceptability of a certain line of questioning. Because when it comes to a question of fundamental justice as it affects the rights of Canadians outside of this House all of us in this Chamber, although it is the law-making Chamber of the land, have to be careful to a very extreme degree in terms of what we do here. I just say that by way of preamble to my comments on the issue before us and any comments that I now make should also be seen in that light. My own concern is with those outside of this House who are involved in criminal proceedings particularly.
It seems to me that the sub judice convention to which you have referred does not apply in the particular case for the following reasons: the Canadian in question, who has now been charged with a criminal offence, Mr. Doug Small, is, without being precise about the wording of the law in question, being charged with the violation of the Criminal Code as it pertains to certain documents related to the budget leak.
The questions that I intended to raise, speaking for myself, and I presume which the member who has just spoken had planned to raise, had nothing to do strictly with that issue, nothing to do with whether or not Mr. Small was guilty of what he has been charged. What I was interested in raising today was another matter, namely, whether the testimony of Staff Sergeant Richard Jordan was accurate with reference to the responsibilities of the Solicitor General in the House of Commons, whether he was or was not doing his job in the proper fashion. Staff Sergeant Jordan, according to the Canadian Press reports coming out of the court proceedings, said that he had been pressured into delaying charges "to please elected officials".
As you will know, Mr. Speaker, if that turns out to be true, that is an extremely serious matter going to the root of the administration of justice in Canada. With that
November 6, 1989

statement I do not think anyone in this House, on either side, would be in disagreement.
So the matter is one of considerable importance. I would argue that our raising questions about the ongoing application of the principles of justice and the administration of law in terms of the minister exercising or not exercising his responsibilities correctly is not pertinent to whether Mr. Small was guilty or innocent of the charges that have been brought against him.
That, in essence, is my point. I think the matter is extremely serious. There were many of us in the House at the time this budget leak took place who thought the government was acting in an inappropriate way and said so at that time. Questions were raised, answers were provided that, on the surface, one had to accept in accordance with one of the rules in the House. Now we have testimony in a court of law that is extremely damaging to the government in the sense that if it is accurate it should concern all Canadians. The implications are that the administration of justice in Canada is taking place in a partisan way, not to ensure that the law of Canada is applied in an equitable way but to ensure that the political agenda of the government of the day is adhered to.
That is extremely serious and if it continues for some period of time before the courts then the administration of justice in the country is at stake. It seems to me that we on the opposition side have a fundamental obligation to pursue this matter, not as to whether Mr. Small is guilty or innocent-the courts are looking after that- but to determine as soon as possible if there is political interference in the application of justice in this country. That to me seems to be the issue.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into this discussion, however briefly, in view of the nature of the question before the House. I think we would all do well, as was referred to in Question Period, to briefly look at Citations 335 and 336 of Beauchesne which, under the heading, Sub Judice Convention, states:
Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record. The purpose of this sub juice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome
Privilege
of a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play.
Section 336(1) states:
The sub judice convention has been applied consistently in criminal
cases.
Citation 336(2) says:
The precedents in criminal cases are consistent in preventing reference to court cases before a judgment is rendered; however, the convention ceases to apply after the judgment is given.
It goes on to say:
Nevertheless, the convention is applied again when an appeal is launched.
Reference has been made by my friend from York Centre to "the question of higher values", I believe he said. I say to the House, to my honourable friends who have argued this, that there can be no higher value at this time when the case is before the courts as we speak than the right of the individual who is being charged, and all those involved in the trial, to a fair trial. I do not think that we can in any way suggest that this very important convention be waived at this time because we have no way of knowing how anything said by anyone, either the questioner or the person being questioned, may affect the outcome of that trial.
I appreciate that the government is here to be held accountable, and we do not shirk from that. I appreciate it is the job of the members opposite to hold the government accountable. But I believe it is for the courts to decide what weight should be given to any evidence and any comments. Testimony, after all, before the courts, in any case, is sworn testimony. There will be a time and there will be a day when this matter can be pursued and at that time it may very well be that my hon. friends will find that that is the issue of the day.
The issue of the day for the defendants and the witnesses, all those involved in a trial, is the trial before the court at this time. I am sorry, I stand to be corrected, but to me the ability of a person to have a fair trial supersedes the right of any member of this House to endanger, within or outside the walls of this House, that fair trial.
I would submit to you that the rule has grown up under those circumstances. I think it is a very fair rule. I do not think that we should in any way tamper with it at this time because the right of an individual to a fair trial

Privilege
before the courts and not to have it affected by things said in this House is to me and to the government paramount.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has read into the record Citation 335 of Beauchesne which says:
Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record. The purpose of this sub judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry.
I think we should ask what is the fundamental purpose of this convention? The citation gives us the answer. It is to protect the parties to the proceeding. We are dealing here with a criminal proceeding. Who are the parties in a criminal proceeding? Certainly, there is a party in the person of the accused, but is there another party in the person of the Crown. Certainly in the British and Canadian system of justice there is the convention that the Crown never wins and the Crown never loses. The duty of the Crown is to put forward before the court all the evidence that is relevant to the case.
So I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in reality in a criminal proceeding there is essentially only one party, and that is the accused. And if that is the case, then I submit that the kinds of questions intended to be asked by the member for York Centre could not, and were not intended, to prejudice in any way the ability of the accused in the case in question to get a fair trial. Instead they related directly to the administration of justice, to the responsibility of the government in that important area of government activity, in particular, the relationships between the relevant ministers, their senior advisers and the RCMP.
Now, if that is the case, then I submit that the questions intended to be asked by the member for York Centre were not the kinds of things intended to be covered by the precedent read into the record by the Minister of Justice because they were not intended to, in any way, affect the party to a criminal proceeding, namely, the accused. They are not intended, in any way, to prejudice, to in any way harm the ability of the accused to have a fair trial.
So I ask you, Sir, to make a distinction in applying the sub judice convention in criminal matters with respect to whether or not the questions relate to the accused, the conduct of the accused and so on, or whether they relate to collateral matters of the kind intended to be raised by the member for York Centre. I say to you if the latter is the case then the questions that the member for York Centre intended to ask certainly should be ruled in order.
Certainly there is no disagreement on either side of the House that questions should not be allowed that would prejudice the ability of the accused in a criminal case to get a fair trial. But, if it could be found that questions were not intended for that purpose and would not have that purpose, then I submit they should be permitted.
I respectfully submit that if the intention of the convention with respect to sub judice is to protect the accused, then there are certainly grounds for you to accept the questions intended to be asked by the member for York Centre and make the kind of distinction that I have placed in argument before you. I submit, therefore, that even accepting the various rulings on this matter as summarized by the citation in Beauchesne, it is certainly open to you to exercise your discretion and accept the questions which the member for York Centre wishes to ask about this very important matter.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on this matter. It was my intention in Question Period also to ask questions on this matter.
If I can refer to another place and another time, I was the vice chairperson of the Manitoba Police Commission in the seventies. We recognized that we had to make a distinction between matters that were before the courts and our obligations to investigate the actions, decisionmaking and policies of the various police forces in the province of Manitoba. Even when a matter was before the court, we decided that we could look into the actions of the police forces in the province of Manitoba.
I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that we are in exactly that same situation today. As my colleagues in the opposition and my Leader, the hon. member for Oshawa, have indicated, we are not looking at the specifics of the court case in regard to Mr. Small. What
November 6, 1989

we want to ask questions about are the decision-making processes within the RCMP, and whether or not there was political interference with relation to that.
In addition, the line of questions that we had today, if we were allowed to pursue them, dealt with the answers that members of cabinet gave to this House. Again, I believe that that is the proper role of this House. We must have the ability to confront the contradictory statements made by ministers in this House. We must have the ability in a democracy to make ministers responsible to this House.
We also have to be in a position to be able to ask questions with regard to whether or not the RCMP is making its decision whether or not to charge an individual based on "the intention of pleasing elected officials". That is something completely separate from the court case. I believe that we must have that ability. We must be able to ask those questions, otherwise justice will not be served.


Albert Glen Cooper: I want to take a couple of moments to comment on this question of privilege before you, Mr. Speaker, because it is an important one.
Obviously, if we look back in parliamentary tradition and history, we can see that this issue is one that has been before all Commonwealth Parliaments. It is one that has always presented some difficulty for the Chair and for the House.
The reason for that is that we are dealing with an issue that goes to the fundamental rights and justice process that we want exercised in this country and in other countries as well. It has always been a very difficult issue.
If you look at the quotations in Beauchesne's that have already been referred to it would seem to be fairly straightforward, but we know by looking at precedents that there is always some discussion and debate around this issue.
If you go to Erskine May you find there are a lot of different ways in which the sub judice questions are looked at. There are some real distinctions made through there. At page 378 of Erskine May there are references stating that Parliament must always be allowed to proceed on legislation.
Privilege
Therefore Parliament should be able to legislate on an issue that is before the courts. Otherwise, Parliament's hands would be tied by any issues that may be before the courts, and Parliament would not be able to act. Therefore Erskine May argues that in fact the sub judice provisions should not apply to legislation before the House.
It states the same sort of thing at page 429 of Erskine May as well.
One of the things that seems to come out quite regularly, if a person starts to read up on this subject, is that there are clear distinctions made concerning issues that are the subject of legislation, issues that are the subject of a civil court action, and issues that are part of a criminal court action. What we are dealing with here today is an issue that is before a criminal court.
I refer to page 214 of The Parliamentarian. It is an article by Philip Laundy who has long served this House and who recently took some time to work on a book which was recently published. At page 214 of that particular issue it states: "On the following day the Speaker ruled that no restriction ought to exist on the right of any member to put questions respecting any matter before the courts, particularly those relating to a civil matter unless and until that matter is at trial".
There is a distinct difference drawn in much of the discussion on this subject between an issue that is before the courts in the process of trial and an issue that is not in the courts in the process of trial. I would argue that in this case we have, first, a criminal case which is very much delineated in the various arguments on this issue. It is also before the courts at the moment and therefore comes under the jurisdiction of this particular sub judice convention.
I listened carefully to the arguments of the members who have spoken in favour of allowing those questions. As I look back to them the hon. member for York Centre said that the questions he wants to address are questions, not material to the court case, but rather material to the House and to the ministers.
The leader of the NDP argued much the same thing, saying that the real question they want to get at in the House of Commons is the question of whether or not there was political interference but not wanting in any

November 6, 1989
Privilege
way to prejudice the right of the accused to a fair and unbiased trial.
The House leader of the Liberal party made very similar arguments, that it would not affect the accused and that the purpose of the sub judice convention was to protect the accused.
I think in looking at that we have to take a couple of tracks. We first of all have to look at the rules and conventions that apply.
First, this is a case in a criminal court that is on trial at the moment. Therefore it receives very special attention in both Erskine May and Beauchesne's.
Second, it is criminal; it is not civil.
Third, we have to ask ourselves: Would these questions in any way impact on the trial before this court? I would like to argue that in fact it would. What is going to be happening through these questions is: in essence we will be questioning the integrity, honesty and veracity of the statements of a witness before this court. What could be more germane? What could have more impact on a trial than to have the credibility of a witness before a trial questioned?
This I believe would prejudice that trial and would have an impact on that trial in some way that would result in making a difference to that court case.
I would argue, as the government House leader has said, that the questions themselves are important, not ones that we as the government want to shirk away from in any way. But we do not want to be seen in any way influencing or having an impact on a criminal trial that is presently in process before a court. We believe that the answers to these questions were they to be put before this House would well impact on the credibility of a witness, would well impact possibly on that trial, and could make a significant difference.
We would argue, as has been argued previously, that the sub judice convention should apply here. We would be quite happy to deal with these questions because they are in some sense of a philosophical nature, as was described by the member for Churchill. We are prepared to deal with those questions at a time when they would not in any way impact on a criminal trial that is presently under way.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to arguments which arise from a question that was put by the
hon. member for York Centre during Question Period. Those who were in the chamber at that time and those who were watching will remember that I intervened reading certain procedural precedents which set out the general rule that there should not be reference in this chamber to criminal proceedings that are in process, as is the case in this particular matter.
I think it was appropriate-and I hope members will agree-to adjourn the matter until now. I have now listened to argument from a number of members and from both sides of the House.
Hon. members on both sides have said that this is a serious matter and does create difficulty, not just for Speakers but for the chamber.
I am going to ask the hon. member for York Centre if as quickly as he can he would bring to my chambers, perhaps later on today but certainly not later than tomorrow morning, a complete transcript of this morning's proceedings in the court room, or at least a transcript that covers on both sides the particular statement to which the hon. member for York Centre referred.
I will examine the precedents and the rulings of other Speakers very carefully. I shall report back to the House at the very earliest convenience.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, may I just ask a question for a point of clarification. I am wondering if the documents that you have asked for from the member for York Centre will have a bearing on your ruling. I am wondering if we on this side of the House may not also have access to those documents and possibly a chance to make some arguments if it is necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: The documents I am referring to would be the transcript of evidence in the criminal proceedings today. It is an open court proceeding and is available to any citizen. I am sure that hon. members can arrange to get me a copy. I would expect the hon. member for York Centre, of course, to supply his friends on the other side with a copy.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, we tend to be spoiled in this House by the immediacy with which transcripts are available. I know in court cases where I have been counsel it is difficult to have transcripts for the next day, but I will do my best and furnish the House with whatever I can by tomorrow morning.
November 6, 1989


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize that there can be difficulties. It might be appropriate if the hon. member for York Centre could extend my compliments to the court reporters and ask if they would give the Speaker of the House of Commons some assistance in this case.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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 third time and passed; and the amendment of Mr. Volpe (p. 5571).
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock the hon. member for Nunatsiaq had the floor. He has six minutes remaining, plus five minutes for questions and comments.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, statistics obtained from the Canada Employment Centre in Yellowknife by the federation suggested that 15 per cent of all UI claimants in the north had fewer than 20 weeks of insurable employment. Most northern claimants with fewer than 20 weeks of insurable employment were located in the predominantly aboriginal communities of the Northwest Territories.
Construction, a seasonal activity, is negatively affected. In the north construction is a very compressed season. Construction workers make up the single largest occupation group collecting unemployment insurance in the Northwest Territories. Close to 25 per cent of all the UI claimants are construction workers.
The change which increases the penalty for voluntary job leavers is going to penalize unfairly many people who are forced to leave jobs for family reasons that are beyond their control.
Many people in the north who are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits do not receive them. This is certainly true for many Inuit in the eastern Arctic. People do not even bother to apply because the forms
Government Orders
are complex; they are written only in English or French; mail service is poor; and the system is difficult to understand. Inuktitut is the majority language in the central and eastern Arctic, but the forms are not available in that language. Many women working in arts and crafts, the carvers, and the hunters and trappers generally do not get on the unemployment insurance rolls.
Northerners, particularly in my constituency, also do not have access to the full service employment centres that southern Canadians take for granted. The Kitik-meot region, for example, has no Canada Employment and Immigration officer. At the recent fall general meeting of the Kitikmeot regional council, a resolution was passed requesting such a position. The resolution states that the Kitikmeot regional council requires this position to assist in the development of training and employment opportunities and to enhance the region's capabilities of getting resources allocated to these programs. I urge the government to respond positively to this resolution.
As I mentioned earlier, unemployment rates vary throughout the Northwest Territories, reflecting the fact that there are two economies within the Northwest Territories. In the more developed economies the wage economy is established and the rates of unemployment are relatively low. Yellowknife, for example, has an unemployment rate of about 5 per cent.
In the underdeveloped economies the situation is vastly and tragically different. These are the mainly aboriginal communities, some 46 of them, the smaller and more isolated ones. In the communities unemployment rates are high. They can be as much as 50 per cent or higher.
Half of the population of the Northwest Territories lives in these underdeveloped communities. Every year more than 500 young people reach the labour force age.
In the winter of 1989 the aboriginal unemployment rate was six times higher than the non-aboriginal rate. Unemployment was highest for young people aged 15 to 24. Regionally youth unemployment was 49 per cent in the Kitikmeot region, 34 per cent in the Baffin, 31 per cent in the Keewatin region, 28 per cent in the Inuvik, and 20 per cent in the Fort Smith region. These unemployment rates are staggering. They would never be permitted to go as high in southern Canada, yet they are

November 6, 1989
Government Orders
a reality in the north and have been for some time. The government does not seem to be concerned at all.
The northern economy is not producing enough jobs to meet the demands of the number of people entering the wage economy. Communities do not have a base for employment.
In the underdeveloped communities education and skill levels are low and correspondingly so are average incomes. The dilemma facing aboriginal people in these communities, however, is that even if education and skill levels were developed higher, there is a lack of viable employment opportunities in their communities. We need economic development. We need more and better education, more and better training, educational training that is appropriate for the north, and training that supports the mixed economies of the underdeveloped communities that still rely a great deal on the traditional hunting and trapping activities.
Programs developed in the south by southerners most often do not work in the north. This view was recently echoed in the report last month of the Special Committee on the Northern Economy, a committee of the legislative assembly for the Northwest Territories. As this report points out, the north needs programs and policies that are tailor-made to the north's unique requirements. Many federal programs and transfer agreements do not respond to northern needs, either because they are poorly targeted, designed for other areas of the country and then adapted to the north, or because they contain too many strings.
The report states that in terms of economic development these federal programs and transfer agreements are often counterproductive. The report recommends that the federal transfer agreements and the programs be reviewed so that they support rather than work against economic development initiatives.
Canada employment programs are included on the list of programs requiring review. All adult education and training programs are recommended for review. A major restructuring is required.
Rather than finding ways to remove northerners from the unemployment insurance rolls, the government should be directing its efforts toward increasing employment opportunities and economic development in the north. Assistance in alleviating the northern housing
crisis and providing more affordable day care would go a long way toward assisting people who are willing to work but cannot because of circumstances beyond their control.
Unemployment insurance is an important income support for many communities in the north. It puts food on the table. It helps people buy the equipment and supplies they need to hunt, trap, and fish which supplement their wages and provides additional food for their families.
In conclusion, the changes to the unemployment insurance system contained in this bill will force more people on to welfare and social assistance. The territorial and provincial governments will have this additional burden. The territorial government will have to absorb this burden at a time when the federal government is threatening to reduce the formula funding to the territorial government.
We have no assurance that significant training dollars will go to the north. It is very possible that the dollars saved by the government in reducing our northern workers' benefit entitlement period will be used to train southern workers who will subsequently come north to work.
This bill hurts the north and northern workers. For this reason I oppose it.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to stand and speak on third reading of this bill, a debate that seems to have been going on now for several months.
It is my view that Bill C-21 and the new approach to unemployment insurance that is part of this bill are going to be good for Canada. They are going to be good for Nova Scotia. In my opinion they are going to be good for the people of the South Shore whom I have the honour to represent in this House.
I find it amazing and have found it amazing during the short year that I have been a member of this House how there seems to be an approach frequently taken that if an idea emanates from the government in the opinion of those opposite it is automatically deemed to be a bad idea and an unacceptable one. I never understand why we cannot have a more constructive approach, not only to legislation but to the government of this country.
November 6, 1989

It seems that when a measure is brought forward that is the result of many years of study and deliberation, a measure that is long overdue in terms of updating Canada's unemployment insurance system, we hear nothing but doom and gloom and negativism from members on the other side or specious arguments such as the one I heard this morning from my hon. friend for Surrey North who said that this bill represents nothing but an attempt to harmonize Canada's unemployment insurance system with that of the United States. Of course that is nothing but balderdash and nonsense inasmuch as our systems are totally different and we in this country or at least on this side of the House believe it is the job of government to design, plan and implement programs that are in the interests of Canadians. That is what I believe this bill does.
I support this bill because I believe that what it does is move our system toward the 21st century in providing an active rather than a passive approach to unemployment. Our goal is to prepare people for jobs, to assist them in finding those jobs, and to make sure that those jobs exist when people are seeking them.
I must say that although job creation directly is not the purpose of Bill C-21, it is something that this government has a most enviable record at, having created over a million and a half jobs during the five years that we have been in power. We can look backward or we can suggest, as seems to be the aspirations of members opposite, that we should have a system that pays people to sit home. I do not think that is what Canadians want. It is certainly not what people in my part of Nova Scotia want.
What people in our area want is an opportunity to have meaningful, full-time employment that will not only provide them with the resources they need, the money they need to support their families and to maintain their lifestyle but which indeed will give them some personal satisfaction as well.
An unemployment insurance system is-and I think it is very well recognized in this bill-a safety net for people who find themselves in a circumstance of unemployment. Perhaps it is a temporary thing. Perhaps it is because we have a changing economy and a changing society and people have to be prepared to cope with the implications of those changes.
Government Orders
Change, after all, is a part of history. Change has been with us forever and will to be with us forever. What we need is the courage to face the challenge that comes with that change. I think this bill, in seeking to maintain that safety net while at the same time discouraging use of the funds by those who do not necessarily need it, is unquestionably a step in the right direction.
We are all aware of the economic and fiscal difficulties faced by the country and by the government. People say every day that the place to start in bringing down the deficit is for the government to restrain its own expenditures. One way the government can do that is by making sure that we use those funds, that we do that efficiently, effectively, and to the benefit of Canadians. That is one of the purposes of this bill which is a part of the economic program of the government.
I want to speak briefly in the time that remains on what I see as the impact of this legislation for the people of the South Shore of Nova Scotia. First and foremost I think they will benefit because of the additional funding that is going to be made available through programs of the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
We were delighted last Thursday when the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced that she had designated Shelburne County, Nova Scotia for a Community Futures Program. There have been people working in that area on the consultative committee in Shelburne to bring this day to fruition. Of course the victory that is represented by that designation is theirs as much as it is the minister's, but it is to the minister's credit that she recognized that need and responded to it.
One of the reasons that she is able to respond positively to that, as well as to the request for Inverness and Richmond counties in Nova Scotia for a Community Futures Program, is that the funding is going to be available to enhance community futures. That is one of the direct benefits that is resulting from this bill. Similarly, additional funding will go into the industrial adjustment service from which we on the South Shore have benefited so significantly through programs now being put in place in Port Mouton and in Lockeport.
I might say that I have found during my short stint as a member of Parliament to date that nothing serves the people better than a good working relationship between members of Parliament and public servants working in their area. We are extremely fortunate in the South Shore of Nova Scotia in that we have a man like Jim

November 6, 1989
Government Orders
Brown heading up our CEIC office in Bridgewater who is now working to put together very effective industrial adjustment service programs which benefit our people. I deem it an honour and a privilege to work with people like Jim Brown. The result is to the benefit of the people in our area.
Second, I want to say that I am very pleased that this bill recognizes the unique situation of fishermen and preserves fishermen's benefits as they exist. I think that quite often people do not understand why fishermen are treated differently. Fishermen are the only self-employed individuals who participate in the unemployment insurance plan. It is because their resource is managed directly by government. It is the only resource that is, and fishermen find themselves from time to time having the fishery closed. They are not allowed to go to work as a direct result of a government decision. As a consequence since 1957 government has recognized this and fishermen have been participants within the plan.
People have often asked: "Why can't plant workers be a part of that as well?" After all, the employment opportunities of plant workers are directly related to whether or not the fishery is in operation. Of course, plant workers are employees; they are not self-employed. Therefore to open the door of opportunity to plant workers not to participate in the plan in the same way as all other employed workers in Canada would be inconsistent with the unemployment insurance system. Under Section 15(1) of the Charter it would open the door for all employed Canadians to want to be participants in the same way. Fishermen are in a unique circumstance and have to be recognized in that way.
Plant workers and other seasonal workers in the South Shore will also benefit from this bill. There is some concern that the increased entrance requirements may negatively impact people working in the fishing industry. This will not be the case in the South Shore because given the unemployment rates in our area there will be an increased entrance requirement of six weeks throughout the area.
The repeater clause is being removed. For members who may not be aware of it the repeater clause states that if you have drawn in the last year you have a penalty of six weeks applied to you should you wish to enter another claim. In fact we end up with a circumstance whereby although the entrance requirement is increased by six weeks, the six weeks is then taken away again by
the removal of the repeater clause that would have put an additional six weeks in. The net result ends up being the same.
We will also benefit from the announcement the minister made last Friday with respect to the $3 million being made available under the job creation fund to assist Atlantic Canadians who are being impacted by the current fisheries downturn. In Nova Scotia, $400,000 of that fund is being targeted for our province.
Indeed should plant workers in our area find that they are caught by the downturn, those funds will be made available as they have in previous years in Newfoundland and New Brunswick. We very much welcome that announcement and thank the minister for it. I am sure that should those funds not prove to be satisfactory we can again look to the minister to recognize our need, as she has done so well to date.
In conclusion, I would just like to say that I think Bill C-21 is a long overdue step in the right direction of overhauling our unemployment insurance. I think all Canadians will ultimately benefit, particularly if we look at the change within the context of other excellent work being done by the government in terms of the growth of our economy and fiscal restraint. I believe Canadians will benefit. I believe Nova Scotians will benefit. I encourage all members of the House to support this excellent measure.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to add my comments to the debate on Bill C-21. This bill has demanded an awful lot of attention and an awful lot of time by members in this House and by various groups and individual Canadians across the country.
Our committee travelled across Canada visiting all 10 provinces, listening to groups and to individual Canadians. The input we received was good. As has been pointed out, it was not always complimentary to the government and not all people agreed with us.
Something that I felt was very, very positive was the input by members opposite, members of our committee and the groups that did make presentations. I felt that all of us on the committee benefited. We all learned. We were all challenged to think about our positions, and I think we all came out of it richer for the experience. There was a common element in every presentation we received in all of the debate. All presenters wanted the same thing. They wanted what is best for the Canadian people. We perhaps disagree as to how we can best
November 6, 1989

achieve what is best, but we all have the interests of the Canadian people at heart.
We heard from many groups coast to coast. A personal disappointment I had was that we had very few representations from individuals. The reason I found this disappointing was that we had statistics and projections based on those statistics.
We had those projections done nationally, provincially, and regionally. But for the person who, through no fault of their own is unemployed, statistics are meaningless, for the individual unemployment means 100 per cent and the projections do not mean a thing.
The basis of all productivity in Canada is the individual Canadian. Our people are the most valuable resources that we have available to us. The changes represented in this bill are, in my opinion, part of a nation-wide drive that is going to achieve a vital economic objective, better and wiser use of our human resources.
The drive for this improvement officially got under way last April with the announcement of outlines of the new Canadian labour force development strategy, a package of specific measures designed to make this country more competitive by improving our use of human skills and energy.
For some reason, Canadian business has not developed a climate of training that exists in many other industrialized countries. The Canadian labour market has simply not been putting enough effort into its own human resource development. In that sense, this strategy amounts to a war against waste, and to help win that war we are mobilizing, through Bill C-21, the potential of our unemployment insurance program to be a positive tool for training and for skill development.
Waste is happening at just about every stage in our labour market, starting with the job entry level itself. An unacceptable percentage of young Canadians lack the basic skills they need to fulfil their first jobs. The average high school dropout rate across this nation is 30 per cent, an unacceptable level. All this is on the eve of the 1990s,
Government Orders
a decade in which every forecast tells us that most new jobs will require a minimum of 12 years of education.
Education and training issues are of course very complex. They are involving provincial jurisdictions and regional labour market needs and fast-changing skills. Ten years ago, who would have thought how important computer skills would be in a modem office.
The federal government is not solely responsible for developing a highly skilled and educated workforce. What we can do is to act as a facilitator. Through the labour force development strategy we have established a co-operative framework that will involve educators, the provinces, unions, employers, and individual Canadians as never before.
Under this strategy, we are putting $100 million of additional funding into basic entry level training, above and beyond the $484.4 million that we are spending in that area today.
These and other measures, many with the private sector in the lead role, are geared to increasing our ability to compete globally. But we will never completely succeed as long as there are unemployed Canadians who can't find work because they lack the right skills.
Section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act presently allows us to train people who are out of work. Today we are spending some $350 million out of a total $13 billion budget in unemployment insurance in exercising that option. We are going to double that allotment to $700 million. Here too, the plan calls for direct involvement by business and labour as sponsors and as actual operators of training programs. We will support and facilitate their initiatives.
We are also putting another $150 million into programs for people who face special difficulties getting back into the work force, and people who are on social assistance. Although I resent the implication that 45 makes you an older worker, Mr. Speaker, there are measures for older workers. That is another fact that is coming up and is very important. Any program, any institutionalized practice which discourages a capable Canadian from working simply because of a birth date is wasteful and discriminatory. The unemployment insurance program does that right now. As soon as Canadians turn 65, regardless of their ability or their ambition, it is as if they drop through a trap door. They cannot

November 6, 1989
Government Orders
contribute and they cannot be covered. The proposed amendments will enable these older Canadians to remain eligible for unemployment insurance coverage as long as they choose to continue to work.
This and other measures proposed in Bill C-21 represent a new and intelligent application of this country's unemployment insurance system, an application that will give the system greater relevance and a long overdue developmental orientation. Let there be no doubt, unemployment insurance remains a vital stabilizing force in Canadian society. It will still be there when the mainstream of earnings is interrupted, helping individuals and communities ride out tough times. But it should now do more than pay someone not to work. It will also serve as a bridge back to employment and the creation of a more skilled workforce.
The problem with unemployment insurance in Canada is that it has almost become a disincentive to work, and has not done enough to help workers gain skills necessary to succeed. The features of the program which act as a disincentive to re-employment make the system far more costly than it needs to be. We are changing the system to correct these flaws and to unlock significant sums of money for more constructive use.
Unemployment insurance programs in every nation have a qualifying period, the number of weeks one must work in order to qualify for benefits. The Canadian qualifying period is dramatically shorter than that of West Germany, Japan, or most other industrialized countries. It now ranges from 10 to 14 weeks depending on the unemployment rate in the claimant's region. We are changing that to range from 10 to 20 weeks. As in the past, the actual rate that applies will depend on the employment conditions in the region in which the applicant lives. We are also reducing the duration of benefits in this bill. Again, it is not across the board, but in a pattern that is linked to the level of unemployment in each area.
Through Bill C-21 we also intend to change the way the system relates to people who quit their jobs voluntarily, without just cause, and with no other job to go to. I would like to be clear about the reasoning behind that. It is every Canadian's God-given right to tell the boss to go
fly a kite on any day of the week. Perhaps that is an exaggeration. It is not a divine right, but it is certainly the right of any Canadian to exercise the option to work or not to work for whomever they want. Where the employee has a just cause for quitting that job he or she should have the ability to resort to unemployment insurance. Very few Canadians contributing to the unemployment insurance program would agree that they should pay for such a gesture where there is no just cause for quitting.
All members of our committee, and I am sure that all members of this House would agree that unsafe working conditions or sexual harassment are just cause. However, there are still others who have walked away without that cause. It is a small percentage, as has been pointed out, but it is still not a minor problem. Payments to people in this category are around the $1 billion level and climbing. Under the changes we propose, people in this category will henceforth face a delay in benefits of 7 to 12 weeks. We are stiffening the penalties for fraudulent use of the program. These changes are going to liberate about $1.3 billion which can be redeployed. This money will be used in constructive employment-oriented initiatives, initiatives which will involve all players in our labour market in a co-ordinated effort to mobilize and upgrade our human resources.
In the past, unemployment insurance has been compared to a web where claimants would get caught up, could not disentangle themselves and would become involved in a recurring cycle. I would like to suggest that UI is still going to provide an essential safety net for Canadians, but it will no longer be a web. The proposed changes to Bill C-21, in the context of the labour force development strategy, can go far beyond that. It can become a bridge to help individual Canadians and our labour market as a whole meet the competitive challenges that lie ahead. That is what we are proposing.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is another blow to the people of Atlantic Canada, New Brunswick, and particularly to the people of my riding. The Mulroney government has already created a very negative economic situation in Canada and in our area.
November 6, 1989

The Mulroney policy of raising interest rates, according to most experts, is leading our country towards a recession. The raising of taxes lowers disposable income and makes it more difficult for people to make ends meet. The cutting of VIA Rail is a disaster by any judgment. The loss of jobs in a deal in which the Prime Minister was stripped of his pants by a laughing Ronald Reagan. The threat to transfer payments to the provinces, which the provinces have an absolute right to rely on. That is another broken social contract.
The government is making it increasingly difficult for the people of Canada and the people of Miramichi to find and hold jobs, and at the same time it is reducing the protection that the government of Canada has offered to them during times of unemployment.
This is totally insensitive, cruel, and a betrayal. The effect on many people from Miramichi, and elsewhere in Canada, is that their purchasing power becomes less and less. They are going to have a harder time to make ends meet, to get ahead in life, to buy a house, to rear their children, to fulfil their dreams. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this government seems intent on destroying as many dreams as possible.
The Mulroney government is now cutting $1.3 billion from the unemployment insurance program to reallocate about $800 million to training programs and another $500 million to correct some inequities that the courts advised the government to correct. But in the process, it is also getting out of the UI program and leaving it to the workers and the employers. This is very scary because it is probably going to lead to the end of the UI program, especially in view of the free trade context. There could be pressure put on companies to sacrifice their contributions to the social contract that we have always had in this country.
The big argument that we heard from the government in favour of this savage bill is that it wants to put people to work and this is the reason it is going to put more money into training programs. Once again the Prime Minister says one thing and does another. I want to make it clear, and everybody knows it anyway, that we Liberals have been pushing the government for more training, agree with the principle of training. We cannot agree, however, that the government should take money that
Government Orders
has been allocated to the unemployment insurance scheme, a social contract, and unilaterally break that contract to divert the money to other programs.
The UI program is for the purpose of training. The money should come from somewhere else for this new program, because here the Mulroney government is in fact picking the pockets of those most in need in order to improve its training programs. It is wrong. The Mulroney government is choosing with this bill to unilaterally break this contract and direct this money somewhere else. If it were done by a private company or by an individual, it would be called fraud. The Mulroney government is actually ready to perpetrate fraud over the UI fund, a fraud of $800 million from the pockets of Canadian workers. We have grown accustomed to this type of behaviour from the government.
If people want to benefit from those training programs, most of them will have to move to big centres like Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, or the Prime Minister's favourite country, the U.S. A. For some people this is just fine. They will be happy with that. For others, parents with young families, single mothers or fathers, older workers, people who represent the majority in this country, it will not be easy. This is not what Canada is about. Every region and everyone in this beautiful country love their region because that is where they make their living and is, in most case, where their roots are.
Not all people in Canada are obsessed with material possessions, money, and so-called power and glory, as the Prime Minister seems to be. Many people in my area have much higher values, and this is part of the reason why they chose to make their living in New Brunswick.
The government's obsession with materialism is in fact going to lead just about all Canadians to live in big centres and fight like crazy for the so-called competitive edge. In the end, if no one stops the government, it is going to destroy the country.
Those who will be affected by this legislation will have to eat, in many cases, they will need help from somewhere. The provincial governments have to pick up the shortfall from the folly of this federal government. Where is the money going to come from? It has to come from the same pockets of the same taxpayers as the federal government gets its money from. Therefore, this

November 6, 1989
Government Orders
government is simply shifting the burden from the national government to the individual provincial governments which are in no way equivalent to a federal government, do not have the resources, and the poorer the province, obviously the poorer the benefits the people are going to get.
The government has also devastated the benefits of fishermen and of other seasonal workers like lumbermen. There is no way that this can be called an equitable program because it is not based on equity. You have to understand, Mr. Speaker, that in a riding like mine, for instance, the main industries are seasonal. This is why we have an unemployment rate which is around 13 per cent officially. In reality, the unemployment rate is around 20 to 30 per cent in many communities, and this pertains all year round, but it goes as high as 40 and 50 per cent in the wintertime.
This is where the legislation does not make any sense. These people where real unemployment is so high will have to work longer periods to receive UI benefits. Where are they going to go to get that work? While the government thinks it is saving by gutting social programs, what it is actually doing is increasing costs of medical care, of lost production, of depression of the national spirit, and dissolving the will of people to fulfil their ambitions, to improve their lot, to make progress, and to contribute to the growth of the nation.
This country is rich in resources, both natural and human. This government has a great opportunity to develop these resources. Instead it is looking for ways and means to let others develop our country and its resources at the expense of our most precious resource, our people.
It is not too late for the government to take a different tack, to reorient itself to become a government of the people for the people and by the people. There is still time. There is still an opportunity to have this country achieve its full potential. Let us pursue that course rather than finding ways to turn back the hands of time to a bygone and discredited era of Toryism. We must vote against this very reactionary Tory bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On questions or comments, the Hon. Member for Northumberland.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the comments of my colleague and the effects that this proposed bill that we are voting on today is going to have on his region of the country. I think everybody on this side of the House is extremely sympathetic to that. However, in fact it does affect every area of the country including my riding of Northumberland. I have had presentations made to me by many people and groups in the area.
I wanted to ask the member what his experience has been, because one of the groups that is particularly concerned in my riding is the municipal officials group. It is suggested, through statistics, that it is 2 per cent of the population that perhaps abuses the unemployment insurance system as it now exists.
Municipal officials in my riding are very concerned that the cuts proposed are going to raise the number of welfare cases in their municipalities by 50 per cent. For example, in Trenton, unemployment insurance now covers an average of 1,696 persons per year. That municipality feels it cannot support a 50 per cent rise in its welfare programs to pick up the slack from the unemployment cases.
Their other concern is that of the bulk of the recipients of unemployment insurance claims. Sixty-four per cent are in the 25 to 44 year age group, which is not the age group abusing the system. They are family people. They are people who very often live on wages below $25,000 a year. The disparity between men and women who will be affected in our area is as follows: 64 per cent are women versus 36 per cent male. I am wondering if the hon. member is hearing from municipal officials in his area on concerns about having to pick up the social safety net that the government is dumping on them through this bill.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. In the riding I represent we do not have any large cities. Large cities are generators of economic activity. The best we can do is two towns and a number of incorporated villages, and the rest of the riding is unincorporated area.
Those people who are going to be savaged by this government's attempt to rape the unemployment insurance scheme will find themselves in very dire straits when this bill is passed. The benefits are not going to be
November 6, 1989

there. Of course, it is a great canard that the majority of people on welfare rip off the system. They do not. If the government is serious about having honesty and integrity in the system, there are better ways to do it than to try to gut the system itself.
In answer to the hon. member's question, the municipalities will have much more difficulty in providing welfare payments to people who have run out of unemployment insurance. They will have much more expense in caring for people who are suffering from depression, attempted suicides and all the rest that goes with that kind of Tory government.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I feel that only a short time is left in the debate on third reading of this bill, but I really must rise and state my strong opposition, and that of the people of my community, to what this bill intends to do, and that is to seriously damage and undermine our unemployment insurance system.
The government says that there has been ample time to debate this measure. The facts are quite to the contrary. There were only three days of debate on second reading. Second reading debate was cut off by government-imposed closure. The committee hearings lasted only four weeks. It is interesting that of the groups appearing before the committee 157 of 202 groups totally opposed Bill C-21. Report stage lasted only two days, and only two days have been allowed for third reading. This is again because of government-forced closure on the proceedings of the House with respect to Bill C-21.
If the government really believed that this bill was a good bill, if it really believed this bill was good for Canada, it would not have acted in this heartless and peremptory way to close off debate. The government is really trying to make it hard for Canadians to have their say through Parliament about just what this bill will do to them. The more Canadians look at this bill, the more it is clear why so many of them think that it is wrong our country.
What does this bill do? Basically, it forces working men and women in this country to pay more for unemployment insurance, but at the same time to get less. The bill lengthens waiting periods, it cuts benefit periods, and because the government contribution is going to be
Government Orders
withdrawn, it will mean that workers and employers for that matter are going to pay higher premiums.
Why is the government operating in this way? It may be that the government has the idea that people on unemployment insurance are not really in trouble, and that if they really tried harder they could find jobs. The facts I think are quite the opposite. The experience in my own community, and the experience across Canada, is that people are on unemployment insurance because they do not have any meaningful alternative. If the jobs were there, they would be glad to go to work to support themselves and their families.
There might be another explanation, and that is linked with the government's free trade agreement with the United States. It is very interesting how this measure would bring our unemployment insurance system closer to that which is in existence in so many parts of the United States. The government talked about harmonization, the government talked about a level playing field, but I do not think Canadians expected or intended that this free trade agreement would result in pulling Canadian working men and women down to the lowest common denominator, down to the lowest level of benefit that is found in a number of the American states.
The government may well be trying to head off in this measure what could be challenges through the U.S. Trade Commission, what could well be very tough negotiations under the subsidy provisions of the free trade agreement which remain to be discussed. Surely this government should not be giving in before the battle has even started. This government should be willing to stand up for basic social programs in this country. In spite of American pressure it should be willing to stand up for the meaningful parts of the social contract, the fabric of this country.
What will be the result of this measure going into law? If we look at my own community, we will see that large numbers of people, perhaps thousands, will not have the protection they need when the key industry, the auto industry, in my community of Windsor goes into what is bound to be some sort of cyclical decline. The auto industry has been doing rather well for the past several years, but there are already signs of a downturn in that industry and this has been the experience over the years. There are periods of prosperity, of upward movement in the industry with higher of at least stable employment. This is followed by periods of downturn, of lower sales of

November 6, 1989
Government Orders
automobiles, with resulting extensive layoffs of working men and women in my community and communities like it across this country.
The people who will be laid off when the auto industry goes into a downturn will not have any alternatives. It will not do the government any good to say there will be training programs available. There is no guarantee under this bill that there will be additional training programs available in my city of Windsor or any particular city, and no guarantee that people taking any added training programs will have jobs available to them as a result. In fact, in the city of Windsor, if the automobile industry and related industries are in a severe downturn, there simply are not any alternatives. Because of this cruel and heartless bill, when the auto industry enters into the downturn which many fear is very close, there will not be any alternative but food banks or municipal welfare. This will increase the burden on municipalities, provincial governments and the taxpayers who support them, basically all of us in this country. If this measure is in some way linked to the free trade agreement then certainly instead of using it to cut back benefits under the unemployment insurance program and lengthening periods required to be spent before qualifying for unemployment insurance, this bill should have provided what the Prime Minister promised. He promised a generous adjustment program for workers who would be losing their jobs because of the free trade agreement.
Not only does this measure contain nothing of the kind, it cuts back, undermines and takes away the kinds of benefits that we have already and which people will need increasingly as the negative effects of the government's free trade deal with the United States are felt in communities across this country, especially communities with some kind of industrial base.
The government through this bill has not only broken another promise in not providing a generous adjustment program, it has also broken its promise that it would not undermine but would instead strengthen basic social programs. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is typical of what this government has done, especially since being returned to office last fall. It has brought forward a measure to claw back, to cut the old age pension and family allowance for large numbers of Canadians. This is something that I predict will affect even larger numbers in years to come. It will cut back our basic rail passenger transportation
service in its measures to cut VIA Rail. Now it is bringing forward this measure to seriously undermine our unemployment insurance system.
Lurking on the horizon is the horrendous goods and services tax, that grief and suffering tax, which will make every one of us in this country pay more for just about everything we buy, whether it is manufactured goods or services. Here we see the glimmerings of a less than secret agenda to drastically change this country and to drastically undermine the basic social fabric which has made us proud to be Canadians. Until now, our country has been one where individual initiative has had its place, where the market system has had its place, but also we have had a basic foundation of measures like our unemployment insurance program to make sure that no matter what happens people have the basis for a decent existence for themselves and their families.
As I have said, the secret agenda is becoming more and more evident. The agenda of this Conservative government is one of callousness, heartlessness, it is one of less and less concern for working people in this country.
I call upon all members of this House to defeat this bill when it comes up for final third reading vote in a very few minutes. If this bill is not defeated, if the Conservative majority listens to the demands and orders of its leadership, then there is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada will not forget what is being done to them through this secret Conservative agenda which is becoming more and more evident and this Conservative government will be soundly defeated in the next election. But until that time, if this bill passes, then hundreds of thousands of Canadians who will lose their unemployment insurance benefits or have them severely cut back will have to go through a period of totally unnecessary suffering for themselves and their families.
This is wrong, Mr. Speaker, and I call upon this House to defeat this bill.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member who preceded me for his very impassioned plea that the government listen to this last minute effort to stop this piece of legislation which is going to be
November 6, 1989

harmful to so many Canadians and particularly the people in Winnipeg.
Would my colleague comment on a situation, for example, where the unemployment rate in Winnipeg now stands at 8.5 per cent, up from 7.9 per cent last year. Winnipeg is now fourth out of eleven major Canadian cities as far as this unfortunate statistic is concerned.
In rural and northern Manitoba unemployment rates are even higher. Unemployment rates run from 27 per cent in villages in the Interlake area of Manitoba to 90 per cent on reserves and northern communities. Thousands of people are not even counted in the government's figures because they are chronically unemployed or have never had an opportunity to get a job.
When I listen to the government side speak I am reminded of what John Kenneth Galbraith said about Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan's economic strategy was based on the fact that he thought the rich did not work because they pay too many taxes and the poor did not work because they made too much money, so he stopped taxing the rich and started taxing the poor.
This bill is a variation of this thesis. The government has taken the strategy that the way to improve the condition of working people across the country is to give them less security, less assistance and to put them up against the wall.
If you take a vulnerable economy, Manitoba's, where so many people are hurt, it is hard to believe that this government thinks this strategy is going to be helpful in any way, shape or form.
Does he think Manitoba is going to be spared this awful legislation, or will they be hurt like people in his part of the country?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will give a very brief reply because I am very interested in hearing what the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester says about this matter.
I regret to say that the province of Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg in particular will not be spared the harmful effects of this very backward piece of legislation. It will be damaged just like the rest of the country and I hope the people of Manitoba will remember this when they next come to pass judgment on the Conservatives. Certainly if they remember it, and the effects of this
Government Orders
legislation will be before them every day, then this government will not survive the next election.


Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, in 1984, the national unemployment rate was 11.6 per cent. In August 1989, unemployment had dropped to 7.4 per cent. Since 1984, this government has created 1,500,000 jobs. Ninety-six per cent or 1,300,000 were full-time jobs, while 200,000 were part-time jobs. Mr. Speaker, of these 1,500,000 jobs, 677,000 were filled by men and
878,000	by women.
Mr. Speaker, the new labour force development strategy involves reallocating $1.3 billion of the unemployment insurance budget to upgrading the labour force. A total of $1.8 billion will be allocated to the Canadian job strategy and training, to upgrade skill levels of workers across the country. In 1990, the government wants the labour force to be highly qualified in order to be competitive on international markets. In the past, our strength was derived from our natural resources, which were our only resource. Today, being competitive depends more on the skills of our workers.
Mr. Speaker, our competitors are improving productivity in the fields of technology, innovation, education and occupational training. Between 1990 and the year 2000, our workers will need a knowledge of and expertise in data processing, communications and robotics, as well as analytic skills. Canada's labour force must have the highest possible level of education. More Canadians are graduating from high school and more and more are becoming professionals. Unfortunately, an average of 30 per cent still drop out of high school.
Basic skills are a prerequisite for acquiring the most sophisticated professional skills. By the year 2000, 50 per cent of Canadian jobs will require more than five years of education and professional training beyond the secondary level. Every year, more than one million Canadians have trouble finding jobs because of their lack of skills.
Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to implementing a broad strategy to keep pace with developing markets in the 1990s. It intends to maintain the principal functions of our social security and income-support system. Mr. Speaker, the government intends to increase active measures to assist employment, as opposed to passive income maintenance. Changes in the unemploy-

November 6, 1989
Government Orders
ment insurance system's entrance criteria should also reduce work disincentives.
By 1994, the government intends to attract additional investment of $1.5 billion annually in training. It expects to reach that goal through private sector training and skills upgrading programs.
The labour force development strategy will be a catalyst for economic activity. An expanded community futures program and increased support for entrepreneurs and the Canadian job strategy are all factors that will help increase employment opportunities.
Of the $1.3 billion that will be reallocated, $500 million will be used to enhance unemployment insurance coverage for new parents and workers over 65, while $775 million will be spent on skills upgrading.
Mr. Speaker, the government has allocated $100 million to support training for newcomers to the labour force. These resources should help provide training for between 40,000 and 50,000 new arrivals on the labour market. Employers, especially small businesses, will be able to use this opportunity to meet their employment needs. Nearly 25 per cent of our businesses offer structured training. The private sector spends about $1.4 billion on this type of training. A recent survey by Statistics Canada revealed that 14 per cent of Canadian manufacturers were experiencing production problems because of a lack of skilled workers. The Canadian Manufacturers Association indicates that 36 per cent of its members are faced with a shortage of skilled labour, while the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has pointed out that 43 per cent of its members are unable to hire workers with the requisite skills.
In Canada, unemployment insurance benefits as a percentage of our gross domestic product are about 285 per cent of what they are in the United States. On the other hand, they are about 70 per cent below the level of spending on that item in Belgium. Since the scope of the Canadian system comes closer to that of the Belgian system, would it not be more accurate to say that we are
harmonizing our unemployment system with the Belgian system, which is more generous?
As for harmonizing our system with the unemployment insurance system in the United States, that is out of the question, because the system would be far less generous and its overall impact would remain the same after the reform. Canada's unemployment insurance system is and will continue to be vastly superior to that of the United States. The changes proposed as part of the labour force development strategy constitute a policy that is made in Canada. It considers aspects that are typical of our country, including the seasonal nature of employment in certain regions.
Canada's unemployment insurance system is much broader and more comprehensive than the American system. The Canadian system provides income protection during maternity and sick leave. That is not the case under the American system. The Canadian system provides income protection for seasonal workers, which is not the case in the United States. The benefit period provided under the Canadian system is much longer than that provided in any American state.
Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, weekly benefits are higher in Canada than in the United States: 60 per cent of previous remuneration in Canada, as compared to 50 per cent in the United States. Extended benefits based on the regional unemployment rate are much higher in Canada than in the United States.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has now expired. It being 4.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) on Tbesday, October 24, 1989, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
November 6, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, as is the custom in this House, to save time I think you could apply the vote on the next question in the same way as it was taken on this one. Unless there have been additions, I think there will be no change.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the main motion. Shall I apply the results in reverse?


Mr. Hopkins:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to have my name added to those of the Opposition on the vote we have just discussed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke will have his vote applied.

Government Orders
[Translation]	NAYS


Mr. Guilbault:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to have my name recorded on the government side, for the second division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on the main motion.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 3, consideration of Bill C-16, an act to establish the Canadian Space Agency and to provide for other matters in relation to space, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to the taking of deferred divisions at report stage of Bill C-16, an act to establish the Canadian Space Agency and to provide for other matters in relation to space.
Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?
November 6, 1989

Government Orders


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Accordingly the first question is on Motion No. 1.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is unanimous consent for applying the results of this division to Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa West


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 2.
++NAYS
The House divided on the motion (Mrs. Catterall), which was negatived on the following division.
Andre	Members		(Division No. 126)
	Beatty		
Bernier Bjomson	Bertrand Blackburn (Jonquiere)	YEASBlais	Bourgault	MembersBoyer	Brightwell	Browes	Cadieux	Allmand	AlthouseCampbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff	Anawak	AngusCasey	Champagne (Champlain)	Barrett	BellemareChartrand	Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Benjamin	BergerCole	Collins	Bevilacqua	BlackCooper	Corbeil	Blackburn (Brant)	BoudriaCrosby (Halifax West)	Darling	Broadbent	Butlandde Cotret	Della Noce	Callbeck	CatterallDomm	Edwards	Crawford	DingwallEpp	Fee	Dionne	DuhamelFerland	Fontaine	Fisher	FontanaFretz	Friesen	Foster	GardinerGerin	Gibeau	Gauthier	Gray (Windsor West)Greene	Guilbault	Harb	HarvardGustafson	Halliday	Harvey (Edmonton East)	HeapHawkes	Hicks	Hopkins	Hovdebo
November 6, 1989
Private Members' Business
Hunter	Kaplan
Karpoff	Karygiannis
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)	Kristiansen
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)	Laporte
Lee	MacAulay
MacLellan	MacWilliam
Maheu	Manley
Marchi	McLaughlin
Mifflin	Mills
Mitchell	Murphy
Ouellet	Parent
Parker	Proud
Prud'homme	Riis
Robinson	Rompkey
Stewart	Taylor
Tobin	Vanclief
Volpe	Waddell
Walker	Young (Gloucester)
Young (Beaches - Woodbine)-69 Andre	NAYS Members Beatty
Bernier	Bertrand
Bjomson	Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Blais	Bourgault
Boyer	Brightwell
Browes	Cadieux
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Casey	Champagne (Champlain)
Chartrand	Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cole	Collins
Cooper	Corbeil
Crosby (Halifax West)	Darling
de Cotret	Della Noce
Domm	Edwards
Epp	Fee
Ferland	Fontaine
Fretz	Friesen
Germ	Gibeau
Greene	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Hawkes	Hicks
Hockin	Hogue
Holtmann	Horner
Horning	Hudon
Jacques	James
Jelinek	Johnson
Kempling	Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Koury	Landry
Layton	Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lewis	Littlechild
Loiselle	Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	Mazankowski
McCreath	McDermid
McDougall (St. Paul's)	McKnight
Mitges	Monteith
Moore	Nicholson
Oberle	O'Kurley
Plourde	Porter
Reid	Reimer
Ricard	Robitaille
Roy-Arcelin	St-Julien
Schneider	Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields	Sparrow
Stevenson	Tardif
Tetreault	Thacker
Tremblay (Rosemont)	Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
TUmer (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Van de Walle	Vankoughnet
Venne	Vezina
Vien	Vincent
Weiner	Wenman
White	Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Worthy-109


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


Harvie Andre: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Harvie Andre: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I am just seeking clarification. You are asking if we are now voting on third reading stage of this bill? If that is the case, you do not have unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: At the next sitting of the House, then.
It being 5.25 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   THE SAFEGUARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY   AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE CONTINUATION AS A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-5, an act to authorize the Safeguard Life Assurance Company to be continued as a corporation under the laws of the Province of Quebec, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
November 6, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Gabriel Fontaine: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Private Members' Business


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.25 p.m., this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
TUesday, November 7, 1989