1989-10-24

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



ORDER IN COUNCIL


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That, in relation to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted
to the consideration of the report stage, and two sitting days to the
consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address this very serious motion which will be welcomed by members from all sides of the House. I would not be surprised if, when the recorded vote is taken, it is a unanimous vote.
I think it is fair to say that the House will know that this particular bill has had a great deal of debate. It is one of the few legislative bills on which the members of the committee had an opportunity to travel throughout the country. The country is still talking about those travels, and just how welcome this news was. I specifically refer to my friend from Burlington who was so well received in the maritimes.
These changes, as the House and the country will know, are made to enable the government to use unemployment insurance funds for training. In the past the Liberal way of using unemployment insurance funds was just to send people a cheque. We have been training people with unemployment insurance funds for years now.
The Liberals object to this fundamental change. They would rather send people a cheque and have them kept on the unemployment insurance rolls. The way we have done it is to take them off the unemployment insurance rolls, and we have created 1.5 million jobs. Those people are now paying unemployment insurance premiums. We are going to drag the Liberal party, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.
We think there has been ample debate in committee, and I think you will find that the amount of time required at report stage, which is a further day, is ample. There are a lot of repetitive speeches. I know my friends opposite do not like repeating themselves, but they have been. Really, we are simply saving them from themselves, from further regurgitation of Hansard.
There will be one further day at report stage, two at third reading, and this bill will go down to the Senate. I would not be surprised if it is back from the Senate in a day because that place will see it as progressive legislation, legislation which the Liberals never had the nerve to pass when they were in government. Had they done so they would have been a little better off; there would not
October 24, 1989

be so many of those Liberal hacks and flacks sitting in the Senate as appointees.
I do not intend to speak for very long today. As I sit down, let me say that the Opposition will probably want to vote on this bill immediately so I will not use up all of my 10 minutes.


Mr. Milliken:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Justice knows that it is contrary to the rules of the House to refer to the other place in derogatory terms. We have just heard him use words that I would not repeat and that I submit are unparliamentary. I ask that he withdraw them because they are contrary to the rules and practices of this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sure that the hon. minister has forgotten what he had said, and I am sure he will rectify it. We do respect the other place, and I am sure the hon. minister realizes that.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for the other place. I would want to know whether my friend objected to me calling them Liberal hacks or Liberal flacks. Which word should I withdraw first, the flack or the hack? Are there more flacks than hacks?
I will withdraw them both, Mr. Speaker, and I would not in any way want to cast any aspersions on the eminence of the appointees made over the period from 1967 to 1984. I would simple assure my hon. friend that for the next 20 years they are going to be better.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I just listened to the intervention made by the Minister of Justice with respect to this closure motion. I expected at least that the minister would make some attempt to justify this motion after one day of debate. All we heard was flippant, arrogant rhetoric which is the usual thing we have come to expect from this government.
Here we are once again faced with a closure motion on an extremely important bill after one day of debate. This is a measure which affects millions of Canadians. The unemployment insurance system last year paid out benefits to 2.2 million Canadians, Canadians who were obliged to claim under this program because they were put out of work against their will and needed that money
Government Orders
to pay for their groceries and rent, to send their children to school, and so on.
This is the largest social program in Canada, a $13 billion program, and the government, in this bill, is cutting and slashing at this particular program. It is cutting off debate after one day by putting in a closure motion. On October 16, a week yesterday, we spent less than four hours debating 53 amendments at the report stage. Yet, the government saw fit today to bring in this motion.
Traditionally motions of this kind were only brought in when there was evident obstruction. I challenge the government or anybody who is associated with the government to show any kind of obstruction. The Speaker himself had organized those 53 amendments into 12 groupings. In the less than four hours that we have already debated this bill we have only been able to debate the first grouping of the 12 groupings that you yourself, Mr. Speaker, had organized for debate.
I want to point out that this type of action is the action of the most cynical, the most totalitarian government that I believe we have had in this country since Confederation. This government, since 1984, has introduced closure more times than all governments since the Second World War put together.
I am willing to bet that the number of times closure has been used by this government is more than that used by all governments since Confederation. In the 23 years that I have been here, from 1965 to 1984,1 would say that closure was used maybe once or twice a year. This government uses it on almost every bill and it does it in a cynical and manipulative way. Conservatives try to make sure that Canadians do not know what is being done to them by this repressive legislation.
They put three or four very complex measures to Parliament, we carry on debate for one or two days, and then they impose closure.
This government totally misunderstands the role of Parliament in a democratic system. I venture to guess that it totally misunderstands democracy. The Conservatives believe, because they won a majority of seats in the 1988 election, that they have the right to ram through Parliament any type of measure that they please.
What they forget is that although they won the majority of seats in 1988, they did not win the majority of votes in this country. They won about 47 per cent of the votes. The combined opposition parties, the Liberals and the New Democrats, won approximately 53 per cent of

October 24, 1989
Government Orders
the votes and the government party only won a majority in two of the ten provinces of Canada. It won a majority of votes in Quebec and it won a majority of votes in Alberta. It did not win a majority in any other province. It did not win a majority on an over-all basis in terms of popular vote.
Even more important, this bill was not part of the program that the Conservatives put to the people in 1988. As a matter of fact, in the election campaign of 1988 they said exactly the opposite to what they are doing now. Time and again we have quoted the words of the hon. Minister for International Trade in St. John's, Newfoundland, who said during the election campaign in response to a question that they would not touch the unemployment insurance system, that they would not cut the unemployment insurance system, and he said that he had that confirmed from the Prime Minister.
Here we have a bill which seriously slashes the unemployment insurance system. The government itself admits that it is reducing regular benefits by $1.3 billion and that it is recirculating that money for development and for training. I will deal with that in a second. It did not put that measure to the people in 1988.
Here the Conservatives are, on this bill which does exactly the opposite of what they said in the election, imposing closure after one day of debate at the report stage. That is bad enough, but I want to recall to you, to the House and to the Canadian people that in the debate on second reading in the month of June, they imposed closure after two half-days of debate on second reading. We had one half-day of debate on Tuesday, June 6; then we had another half-day of debate on June 7; and then on June 21, they imposed closure and we had one full day of debate. At second reading, we had really two full days of debate spread over three days. That is all. Again, that was on a most important bill such as this one.
With respect to the committee, after a lot of hard driving and pushing by the opposition, we managed to get certain hearings of a legislative committee with respect to this bill. The hearings, unfortunately, were organized during the summer when a lot of private groups and a lot of voluntary organizations were on holidays, when they
found it very difficult to respond to the advertisements that were in the newspapers.
Nevertheless, the hearings went ahead after a period of organization during the summer and some briefing sessions in the early weeks of September and we had three weeks of hearings throughout the country. We had one week of hearings in Ottawa. There were four weeks of hearings. We heard from a lot of groups. We heard from 202 groups, not as many as wanted to be heard, and we did not hear a lot of expert testimony, and 157 of those 202 groups opposed the bill.
The hon. parliamentary secretary says that we should dismiss the fact that 157 groups opposed the bill because a lot of them were trade unions and they all rehashed the same brief as the Canadian Labour Congress. That is extremely misleading and once again arrogant because the different labour congresses in the different parts of the country really represent the feelings of workers in those provinces, whether it is Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, or Ontario.
While of course there is something in common with the brief of the Canadian Labour Congress, there were also very specific references to the type of labour force, the type of work being done, the seasonal nature of that work, and the resource base of that work from province to province. In northern Ontario, it is mining and forestry; in the west, it is resource industries again, oil, gas and so on. There was not a rehashing of the same brief over and over. They were the same basic principles, yes, but not a rehashing.
Why does this bill deserve a lot more debate? To begin with, I do not think we on this side expect that by debating this bill we are going to convince those members on the other side because they are deaf to the problems of Canadians. They do not want to hear about the problems of Canadians.
Again, I repeat, the purpose of debate in this House, particularly through the media and through television, is to inform Canadians of what is being done to them by this very harsh and cruel legislation. That is the purpose of the debate. The government is cutting off debate so that Canadians will not know what is happening to them.

They will only know maybe next year when they make a claim on unemployment insurance and find that they do not qualify. That is the purpose of the debate.
This bill cuts back and makes it more difficult to qualify for unemployment insurance. It cuts back the benefit periods. It increases the penalties without solving some of the problems that lead to quitting and unemployment insurance.
The government is totally withdrawing its contribution to the unemployment insurance fund which has been traditional, which has been in the law up until now. Last year it was $2.9 billion. The government is withdrawing that contribution and is leaving the payment of unemployment insurance totally in the hands of the workers and employers.
As a result of this bill, people will be unemployed with no unemployment insurance and they will be forced to go to the welfare systems.
In addition, by withdrawing large sums of money, a total of $1.3 billion from the fund and benefits, the government is going to be taking a lot of money out of provinces that do not have much money; for instance, Atlantic Canada and some of the western provinces. This is money that went back into those communities to help the basic economies stay alive. The government is taking that money out and we do not know where it is going.
This, Sir, will be my final remark. The government justifies the bill, as the Minister of Justice did, on the basis that it is going to shift a lot of this money into training. We on this side are 100 per cent in favour of more training, but this government cut the training budget in Canada from $2.2 billion to $1.3 billion, by 32 per cent, since it came to office in 1984. The training budget has been slashed year after year. Now the government is putting that money back into training but taking it away from unemployed workers, money that should be there to help workers pay for their groceries and their rent when they are unemployed. The government is putting that money into training and we do not know in which areas of the country.
I believe my time is up but let me repeat that this is a dictatorial, arrogant measure being imposed after one day of debate. There has been no obstruction on this bill and this is totally intolerable in a democracy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Government Orders


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate what the last speaker just said. This is one of the most totalitarian, dictatorial things that this government has ever done. When some of the members opposite were in opposition they knew what obstruction was. They are the ones who invented obstruction in this House. For 14 days they rang the bells. When they got into power, what did they do? They limited the ability of the opposition to do the very same thing they had done. Now the opposition can ring the bells for 30 minutes. I do not know what the multiplication factor is from 14 days to 30 minutes, but I would suspect that it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 80, 90 or 100 to 1, and for the government to even imply that there has been any kind of obstruction on the part of the opposition on BUI C-21 is absolutely ridiculous and indefensible from its point of view.
What we have here is just another one of a series of cuts. The government is cutting financing for post-secondary education, cutting financing for health care and cutting VIA Rail. This is just another in a series of cuts and this time it is cutting time. I would suggest that when a government comes to a point where the only way it can defend an action-and this action is indefensible anyway-is to cut time, it shows how absolutely deprived of any kind of originality or any kind of defence it has in so far as the legislation it is proposing is concerned.
This legislation was introduced in the most glowing of terms. I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, that the government did not change the colours in the Commons to red from green, irrespective of what the colours of the other House are. It is a wonder the government members did not put out the red carpet is what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, because this legislation was introduced with some of the most glowing terms that you could imagine of any legislation introduced into this House.
The Minister of Justice indicated in his opening remarks that this legislation would "drag the opposition screaming and hollering into the 20th century".


An Hon. Member:: You mean the 21st century.


Ron Fisher: No, no, I think I was right. It may have been a Freudian slip but it was still right. We are getting dragged into the 20th century by this legislation, by this government. This certainly is not going to be a credit to

October 24, 1989
Government Orders
Canada or the 20th century in so far as working people anywhere in the world are concerned. This is the most devastating piece of legislation that has ever come to this House affecting Canadian workers. It has devastated a program which has been an absolute necessity to many parts of this country. In the last depression, it was able to save this country from the kind of devastation which we had experienced at the hands of another Tory government in the thirties, the Great Depression. It is because of the experience of that Great Depression that we have unemployment insurance, and it has been of immeasurable value to working people and all levels of society in Canada. There is not a merchant in this country who has not benefited since the introduction of unemployment insurance in Canada.
In many of the briefs which the committee heard as we travelled across the country, references were made to how important unemployment insurance was. The city of Sudbury was quick to point out how, when the nickel mining industry was so badly devastated because of the low sales of nickel world wide a few years ago, the unemployment insurance system was able to come to the rescue of the whole community. That is the kind of effect which the unemployment insurance has had. When the government introduced this legislation we were left with the impression that it was going to be-I do not like to use cliches but I suppose I must-the best thing since sliced bread.
To get back to what I was saying earlier, I cannot imagine why this government did not introduced it on a red carpet. But things change. The government did an impact study on what the effects of Bill C-21 would be. The government knew what the impact of Bill C-21 would be before it was introduced.
When we tried to get information on what the impact study had to say, the government would not give it to us. We went through the Access to Information Act to try to get information on what the impacts would be and we were refused access to information by this government under the law of the land through a loophole that says that if information is going to be made public within 90 days, the government does not have to release it. I don't suppose it would come as a surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, or anyone else in this country, to learn that information
was not released within 90 days. It was a couple of weeks later than that.
The impact study on Bill C-21, which was introduced in such glowing terms, was released in the middle of the summer, the deadest, dullest time, the time when Canadians have the least interest in what is going on with regard to politics, a very safe time for the government to reveal to the country what the impacts of its devastating legislation would be.
The government did not roll out a red carpet to introduce the impacts of Bill C-21. I would suggest that what the government actually did was to sweep them underneath the rug, and I do not blame the government. I do not even blame it for introducing closure on this thing. The effects of this we heard when the committee went across this land, is so bad that if I were the government I would want to get this legislation out of the public eye just as quickly as possible because it is indefensible and indescribably bad.
What are some of the effects? Let us just look at a few comparisons. The government says, even in its own impact study, that 30,000 Canadians will no longer be able to avail themselves of unemployment insurance payments after Bill C-21 goes into effect. But, as is common with this government, it has a tendency, shall we say, to underestimate the negative effects of its actions. Other studies on the number of people who will be excluded totally range from the 30,000 that the government has suggested to as high as 150,000. The people in the Avalon Peninsula, because of longer working requirements, will have to work 11 weeks to qualify rather than the 10 now required. In that area alone, 10,000 people will be completely excluded from the ability to avail themselves of unemployment insurance which, of course, certainly puts in doubt the government's total number of 30,000.
I see my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Your time is up right now.
The hon. member for Burlington.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saskatoon-Dundum for his words of encouragement and support when he said
October 24, 1989

that he is pleased that we are bringing this bill forward and putting time allocation on it.
At the outset, I want to say a couple of things to perhaps put the record straight, if I may. I have heard members on the opposite side talk about this bill not being discussed during the 1988 election or not being mentioned at all. The inference is left that before you pass any legislation, you somehow or other must have it in your election platform and that is all that you do. Well I can remember when the 1980 peekaboo election was called and Trudeau just went across this country, bobbed and waved and weaved and said nothing, and yet brought in legislation. So let's stop the nonsense.
We have moved time allocation, the minister has stated, because agreement could not be reached with the opposition parties.


William Warren Allmand: After one day of debate.


William James Kempling: We have, Sir, endeavoured to reach agreement and have been open and accommodating from the beginning. When we had our organizational meeting in June we agreed with the member from Notre-Dame-de-Grace on the cities that we should visit in each province. We agreed on how to deal with the Northwest Territories. We agreed on the number of witnesses we would have each day, 16 in number, and we agreed on the amount of time that we would allocate to each witness. We agreed to hear a wide variety of witnesses from many walks of life. In fact, Sir, we heard some briefs over and over and over again from national groups which have local affiliates across the country. We thought that we would hear the local version, but in most cases we just heard the national brief over and over, time and time again.


Mr. Fontana:: You are saying the people across the countiy don't have a right to speak.


William James Kempling: All you have to do is read the record. Don't holler at me. You were not there so you would not know.


Mr. Keyes:: We read the record about P.E.I. I read about you in the papers.


William James Kempling: What is in the papers? You have not read the record. You were not there and you should just close your lips.
Government Orders


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I read all about it.


Ms. Clancy:: Trying to muzzle the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Burlington has the floor.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, each witness was given 30 minutes to present his or her brief. Some used the time to present a brief, others accepted questions from the committee.
The committee on Bill C-21 was under a House Order to report by October 10. The House of Commons, of course, as we can see here today, is a debating forum and the opposition put forward motions to extend the committee hearings beyond October 10 which is its right.
Throughout the hearings, and particularly during the clause-by-clause considerations, members of the opposition used stalling tactics and time-wasting manoeuvres to slow down the process.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William James Kempling: In spite of all that, we persevered and we did report on October 10, as required in the House Order.
I approached members of the opposition-and I know they love me dearly-to see what sort of debate they wanted on report stage and third reading. I asked what sort of debate they were looking for. After all, we have had second reading, the committee has travelled across the country as agreed to by all parties, and we have heard more than 200 witnesses. We have heard from the minister and departmental officials for several hours. My questions was, more or less, "What do you want from here on?" All I got back was, "Well, I don't know, we'll have to see".
We offered at that time to extend debate during the lunch hour, if that would allow the opposition more members to express their views. Of course, there was no response. We looked at our very full agenda and the calendar and concluded that there would be little or no co-operation to conclude the debate, so we used the perfectly correct parliamentary procedure of time allocation to indicate that we intend to bring the debate on Bill C-21 at report stage and third reading to a conclusion.
In the course of debate we must make progress. If we cannot reach an agreement with the opposition parties, we have two options; we can either conclude the debate or put the bill aside for some time. We are the government and we have put forward, through the Throne Speech and other policy announcements, our intention to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. There was consultation with labour and various business groups.

October 24, 1989
Government Orders
The bill was drafted and passed by cabinet, introduced in debate, and then subjected to Canada-wide hearings, clause by clause, with the minister and her officials. The bill was finally, as I say, reported, as ordered, by October 10. Amendments were received and ruled upon by the Speaker, they were grouped for debate, and the report stage debate began.
Our task is to conclude the debate, after a reasonable amount of time. If we cannot reach an accommodation with the opposition, then we must use the rules of the House to complete each stage of debate and pass the bill along to the Senate for its consideration.
In order to show to the members that our heart is really in the right place, I move:
That the House continue to sit through the lunch hour for the
purpose of continuing consideration of the motion for time allocation
on Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Those members who oppose the motion will please rise.
And more than 15 members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since more than 15 members have risen, the motion is deemed to be withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in a spirit of disappointment and sorrow at the action of this government. It is an understatement to say that this bill is unfortunate. It is unfortunate for Canadian workers, it is unfortunate for Canadian women, and it is unfortunate for Atlantic Canada. This bill is an undermining of the beliefs and sentiments that led to the creation of an employment insurance scheme in Canada.
It is a complete reversal of policy upon which Canadian workers have depended for nearly 50 years.
Mind you, Mr. Speaker, I suppose one has to commend the government for the provisions to bring the act in line with the principles of non-discrimination as set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Call me a cynic, but this government's recognition of such principles comes after arduous battles before the courts for the inclusion of persons, the majority of whom are women, working for companies owned completely or largely by their spouses, and for the end of discrimination based on age. Once the courts beat them up, maybe now and again the government will act on principle.
I would also like to commend those motions before us that seek to recognize the importance of adoptive parenting, but I am proud to say also that these motions were authored by or inspired by my colleagues in the opposition.
We are limited to one day's debate-one day. What an insult to the women of Canada. This government acknowledges that the budget will increase Canada's unemployment rate. Women, as we all know, have higher rates of unemployment than men. The 1988 annual averages of unemployment were 8.3 per cent for women, as opposed to 7.4 per cent for men. Women fill over 70 per cent of part-time jobs. The majority of seasonal workers are women and immigrants. Women still face the "last hired, first fired" phenomenon.
But this government wants to limit debate on this bill to one day. Many women will no longer qualify for UI benefits. At present over 70 per cent of UI benefits are received by claimants with less than 50 weeks of work and 25 per cent by those who cannot get more than 20 weeks of work.
Women will also face, more than any other group, the brunt of the proposed double penalty for workers who quit their jobs without just cause or who decline an offer of "suitable employment". Women face more difficulties in finding jobs than many men. They change jobs more often than men because women still face a lack of opportunity for advancement, because mothers must perform the fine balancing act of matching job hours to child care hours and because sexual advances by employers may make for an impossible work situation.
October 24, 1989

The penalties are seven to twelve weeks of disqualification, rather than the current one to six, followed by benefits amounting to 50 per cent of average earnings, rather than the current 60 per cent. It is a nice message for the women and children of this country. That 50 per cent is the same rate paid in the United States. Here we go! Here comes our level playing field once again.
The government has acknowledged that it is justifiable to quit a job because of harassment, and believe me the women of Canada say thank you veiy much for this recognition of a universal fact. But it is time consuming and very difficult to prove. Although disqualification can be appealed, few women in this country have the time and the money to forgo all of their benefits and wait what could be months for a decision.
Women are often in the poorest paying jobs. They often work part time because they cannot find full-time work. Should they be trapped in poverty wages forever? I guess that is the theory of the government, to one day prevent the people of Canada from finding out exactly what is going on here, one day to prevent the people of Canada from remembering the false promises of the Minister for International Trade during the 1988 election campaign.
A recent article in the magazine, Women's Education, states: "The privatization of training as a systemic trend is detrimental to women in particular. A radical shift to funding the immediate training needs of business using taxpayers' money will not overcome the occupational segregation of women. Indeed, it may well reinforce it. Social and economic equality for women can best be promoted by the public and non-profit sectors which are concerned with the needs of the trainees and of society, not simply tomorrow's balance sheet".
That is what we have here; a bill that is concerned with tomorrow's balance sheet and probably a balance sheet that is drawn in the United States of America.
The policy and planning branch of Employment and Immigration published a study last August. It identifies the 10 occupations that will contribute most to employment growth in the 1990s; sales people, food services, secretaries, cooks, cleaners and cashiers. Need I say more?
Government Orders
The government is funnelling money from the UI account into private sector training. A study by the Canadian Association of Adult Education shows that private programs assign only 25 per cent of training programs to women-25 per cent for 52 per cent of the population.
The government failed to develop a comprehensive job strategy so it is training workers for jobs that do not exist and ghettoizing women through punitive UI measures into accepting the low pay, low skill jobs. The more things change, the more they are the same, and the less and less the cries of women in economic exigencies are heard by our friends on the other side of the House.
In its 1987 report, the sub-committee on training and employment of the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology wrote: "The Canadian Jobs Strategy should moderate its emphasis on private sector training in regions with a poorly developed private sector".
This government is proposing the federal pull-out of the unemployment insurance system. This government is backing out and taking $2.8 billion with it. Who will take up the slack? Employees and employers will contribute more to the fund and the unemployed will pay by finding themselves ineligible for UI benefits or facing a drastic reduction in their benefits. Eight hundred million dollars will be redirected to private sector training. Will that help Lockeport, Nova Scotia? For what jobs will that workforce be trained?
I find the government's suggestion deeply offensive to Canadian workers and an affront to the principles upon which our UI system is based, principles, by the way, to which Canada is a signatory in the International Labour Organization.
When our UI system was created in 1940, it was seen as essential that the federal government should finance its share of the cost so that the system would be a national one and the federal government would assume its responsibility for economic stability and the maintenance of low levels of unemployment. Given this government's performance to date, I can see that that commitment no longer exists.
This government is wreaking havoc in the lives of Canadians. The proposed dismantling of our UI system is consistent with this government's dismantling of the

Government Orders
financial well-being of lower and middle income Canadians and the economies of the regions of Canada.
It is not the unemployment insurance system but rather the high level of unemployment which constitutes a fundamental economic problem in Canada. But maybe that truth is a little too difficult for this government to comprehend.
Hundreds of workers in my city of Halifax are facing unemployment at the hands of this government. Now it is telling them that even their UI benefits are to be cut.
This government's decision to end the At and East rail subsidy has put the Halifax grain elevator in immediate peril. Estimates by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission put the loss to Halifax by the closure of the elevator at $14.4 million. The spin-off from such a closure will further devastate the economies of Halifax and Nova Scotia.
The Maritime Farmers Council estimates that two-thirds of hog producers and one-third to one-half of the egg producers in the region will be out of business if the elevator closes. A 1988 impact study on the port of Halifax prepared for Ports Canada shows that more than 450 jobs and $13 million could be lost in the city if the elevator closes.
We are talking about the unemployment of longshoremen, stevedores, truckers, rail workers, terminal operators and all those other people who are facing the loss of their livelihood when this government begins its domino theory in the economic system of Halifax.
This government has cut vital portions of VIA Rail service. They put the maintenance centre in peril. When those Haligonians who used to have a job go to the unemployment centre, this government will be responsible. When these workers want to collect their benefits, they will be told that their eligibility has been raised from 12 to 18 weeks. So they are not eligible; or if they are they will be told they are now only eligible for 21 weeks of benefits when they used to be eligible for 28 weeks.
The government is asking the workers of Halifax to pay more for UI, to pay longer for UI and to accept less from UI should they lose their jobs. The government has
mismanaged the economy of Nova Scotia to the verge of extinction. It has mismanaged the inshore fishery by imposing drastic quotas putting hundreds of workers in the fishery out of jobs. How does it choose to make up for its own mismanagement? It imposed drastic tax measures while cutting vital subsidies such as rail service, transfer payments and now it is pulling out of UI.
The government says the onus is on private sector training, and they want the workers to pay for it. The question in Halifax and in Nova Scotia generally is: training for what jobs?
There has been a failure to develop a comprehensive job strategy. Now it plans to train workers for jobs that do not exist. I sat in on the UI hearings in Halifax. I heard a colleague from the other side of the House, who is present here today, tell the Acadian Federation to move or starve. This is not something that we appreciate in the maritimes and we will remember it for a long time.
The government has given the unemployed and soon-to-be unemployed of Halifax two options. One is to go on the over-strained social assistance. Well, we will not accept it, Mr. Speaker. The Halifax social assistance problem is facing a huge shortfall. The people of Halifax know this. The workers of Halifax know this, and they know who did it to them.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this morning to take part in the debate. A few minutes ago, I saw opposition Members objecting to a suggestion that the House continue sitting during lunch hour and that while this morning, they were criticizing the government for trying to limit- for making arrangements to have the debate go on for a few days more and then ending the debate so that we can proceed with other business. I find this attitude hard to understand. On one hand, they don't want the additional time we are giving them, but on the other hand, they object to our terminating the debate at a given time.
Mr. Speaker, during the hearings we held across this country on Bill C-21, the proposed unemployment insurance reform, we heard 202 groups during nearly four weeks of hearings. It is true that many groups
October 24, 1989

showed, if we can call it that, their opposition to the present bill.
However, Mr. Speaker, what the opposition did not say is that there was a kind of report, something you could call a work-plan, that was circulated across this country, and many groups, many unions, for all practical purposes, biased the debate by keeping the same text and only changing the figures according to local circumstances, and all this to be able to object to the bill.
We have heard all kinds of arguments, Mr. Speaker, in this debate on unemployment insurance reform. Some groups, people representing workers and unions, said it was all because of the free trade agreement and that we wanted to copy the United States. That is absolutely untrue, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing in this bill that is anything like what is happening in the United States with respect to unemployment insurance. The United States has 50 different unemployment insurance systems, while in Canada, we have one system for the whole country. In the United States, the unemployment insurance fund is about $22 billion in Canadian dollars. In Canada, the annual amount in the unemployment insurance fund is $12 billion. Considering they have 10 times our population, it should be $120 billion in the United States instead of only $22 billion.
So the two situations are entirely diffrent. We also have a number of social benefits that do not exist in the United States. Furthermore, our weekly benefits are much higher than in most American states, where benefits are much lower.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, as a result of the present unemployment insurance reform, there will be some very significant changes. Of the $1.3 billion we want to reallocate under this reform, $660 million will go to new benefits and supplementary benefits, including maternity and parental leave, which will now be far more substantial.
From now on, maternity leave will be 15 weeks, plus 10 weeks parental leave, which makes 25 weeks. This means new benefits and more maternity and parental leave.
There will also be an amendment at the report stage, Mr. Speaker, under which our government will provide five additional weeks for adoption. For instance, if the
Government Orders
child is over six months of age when he enters the home, the spouse or one of the spouses will be entitled to five additional weeks, and the same number of weeks will be added to maternity leaves when the child enters the home, after an additional period of 6 months.
So I think this is a substantial improvement that deserves to be mentioned and that will benefit Canadian families.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the $600 million for new benefits, $800 million will be spent on training. Initially, the unions, workers, and representatives of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal party didn't want this. They didn't want us to spend $800 million on training. Gradually, however, they started to change their minds. They said: It makes sense to spend $800 million on training. We can go along with that. But this is what they want us to do, Mr. Speaker: Go ahead, add $800 million, but take it out of taxpayer's pockets. Take it out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That is what they wanted us to do. And that, Mr. Speaker, is something Canadians cannot afford to do indefinitely. There comes a time when we have to call a halt to spending.
Canadians know that our total debt has now reached $324 billion. It costs us $100 million in daily interest. That is why today, the government is trying to act responsibly by taking the money we have and making it more productive by reallocating those funds and directing them to budget envelopes or programs that reflect our needs. And that is what we are doing under the present unemployment insurance reform.
Eight hundred million dollars will be used to train our workers. The opposition knows that, Mr. Speaker. Today, 30 per cent of Canadians drop out of high school before graduating. But what do we do with these kids? You know what happens. One or two or three years later, they are unemployed. We cannot deal with the problem, by leaving them on unemployment insurance, for weeks or even years. We have to train them, Mr. Speaker.
That is the difference between education and training. I would urge the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn to listen to what I am saying. I think it is important. There is a difference between education and training. Education is when you are a full-time student at the CEGEP or university, and so forth.

October 24, 1989
Government Orders
When someone enters the labour market and then becomes unemployed because he doesn't have enough training, it is our responsibility as this country's elected representatives to try and use the money in the fund and train these workers to get them back into the labour force as soon as possible.
Look at the statistics of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. You are familiar with those statistics. In 1985, 30 per cent of the business sector said they had trouble finding qualified workers. Three years later, in 1988, we are up to 50 per cent. These figures are significant, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we want to take $1.3 billion from the fund and reallocate it to meet the current needs of a society where these people must be trained.
Regarding the new system under which people will have to work 10 to 20 weeks to be eligible for unemployment insurance, all I can say is that in Toronto, where the unemployment rate is from 3.5 to 3.7 per cent, it is a lot easier to find jobs, and it makes sense that people there should have to work longer to be eligible, compared with the situation in the maritimes, for instance, or the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, where we see unem-ployement rates of up to 12, 13 or even 14 per cent.
I believe our reform reflects the Canadian reality, the problems in some regions and the opportunities offered in others. I think this is very sensible.
Finally, remember when in 1977, under the Liberal Government, we went from 10 to 14 weeks for a person to be eligible for unemployment insurance. That year, in the maritimes more than 70 per cent of claimants submitted new claims for unemployment insurance benefits based on the new benefit period they needed. They needed two extra weeks, and more than 70 per cent were able to produce those extra weeks! I think these figures are quite interesting and need no further comment. We are doing the same thing today. We are trying to take money that is in the fund and reallocate it to programs that better reflect our needs.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I was planning to have a rather pleasant lunch with an
old friend of mine at one o'clock today, but after listening to that diatribe from the hon. member opposite I am not too sure whether it will be possible to have a pleasant lunch.
As usual, that member and others on his side of the House do not address the major issue. The major issue at hand right now is what they call time allocation. It is a kind of euphemism for closure. They maintain that there is a big difference between time allocation and closure. I would submit that there is not.
When it comes to closure, what are we talking about? We are talking about chopping off a debate, lopping off your head, clapping a guillotine on your neck.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Jonquiere, on a point of order.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: I may remind the hon. member who referred to the guillotine that only a few minutes ago, the opposition refused to extend the sitting of the House during lunch hour!


John Harvard: I cannot imagine, Mr. Speaker, what the man was talking about. But let us get to the issue at hand.
No, it is true that this is not closure, not an instantaneous chopping off of debate. It is not like dropping the guillotine on your neck. But I would submit to you that there is really no difference because what really is time allocation? It is a limitation of debate. What is a limitation of debate? They choke you slowly. They strangle you slowly. They squeeze the air out of you. When it is all said and done, you are dead on the floor. So let us not talk about any subtle differences here. What they want to do is cut off debate.
What they have said to the Canadian people, particularly to the unemployed and the poor is: "Be damned, you do not count. We are not going to listen to you. We are not interested in your talk".
I remember a rather famous gentleman, who lived perhaps a little bit more than 100 years ago. His name was Vanderbilt. He said: "The public be damned!" It did
October 24, 1989

not play well then, and it is not going to play well hearing it from this bunch in this particular century.
What are they afraid of after a measly three days of debate? Is this obstruction? Hardly. So what are they afraid of? Are they afraid of a little bit of democracy wafting into the House of Commons? It would be a terrible tragedy if we heard from the people. Would it not be terrible if the public representatives could stand up and speak on their behalf? No, they do not want that. They do not want debate. They do not want consultation. What it smacks of is repression. It is totalitarianism. It is dictatorial.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, Pinochet would be proud of them. Honecker would be proud of them. There are all kinds of infamous people who would be proud. Another name that comes to mind is Noriega. You know these people have new champions, and they are over there. They do more than try to spoil lunch, they are trying to interfere with the business of the nation.
How many times have they invoked closure? In my opinion there is no difference between closure and time allocation. On this particular bill alone they have used closure twice-a dastardly action and they should be ashamed of themselves. In the free trade debate last December, they used it not once, not twice, not three, not four but five times. They used closure five times on the same bill. Is that an example of parliamentary democracy? Is that an example of responsible government? Not on your life!
I pulled the record having to do with closure. It is interesting, very interesting. In this century up until this government was elected, how many times was closure used? Was it 50 or 100 or a couple of hundred? If you measure the use of closure by this government, you probably would guess in the hundreds. But not true. According to my count, it is 23 times. Here you have a government using closure five times on one bill and twice on another. If you look through the record, you will see that in the Seventh Session of the Twelfth Parliament, 1917, it was not used one time. You can go through the list. In 1918 there was no closure, nor was there any in 1919, 1920, 1921, 1923, 1924, 1925, so it goes on.
Government Orders
Is this is a responsible government? Not on your life. The fact of the matter is though, and perhaps what is most troubling about it, is that we are not talking about some little picayune matter.
We are talking about a fundamental social program that has served Canadians well for over 40 years. We are talking about unemployment insurance. We are talking about a government that is going to decimate the program. We are talking about a government that is going to take close to $2 billion out of the fund. We are talking about a government that is going to privatize unemployment insurance. The government of the day is turning its back on the unemployment insurance program. It is turning its back on unemployed Canadians. It is turning its back on the poor of this nation. Those are the facts of the matter.
What do Canadians want? In the face of this major assault on this fundamental social program, what do Canadians want? They want to be heard. They want to be listened to. Do you think it is enough to put the committee on the road and visit 13 locations? All they received was 202 briefs. Of the 202 briefs, 157 were against it.
I met with a group just yesterday. That group pleaded with me and with the Official Opposition to give them more time and to give them a chance to explain to the country what this government is trying to do to this fundamental social program.
Is the government listening? Not at all. It is following the typical, right wing, oppressive agenda. It is all part of a pattern, part of privatization. You shut down VIA Rail. You shut down the post office. You shut down Air Canada. It all fits. Even this time allocation, this chopping off of debate, this approach of no debate and no consultation, fits as well.
For example, the government is intending to close down 14 military basis in the country. Did it consult? Did it approach anybody? Did it ask anybody? No, no, that would be beneath the government.
In closing, all I want to say is that we have a major program here which has been assaulted by the government. The government wants to cut it up and Canadians want to talk about it. They have not had the time. The government has to listen. Canadians have a long, long memory. This government thinks that a few more days of

October 24, 1989
Government Orders
debate is going to be a high price. Wait until the next election; the price will be much, much higher.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of this motion. Every three or four years we have an election in this country. The purpose of that election is so that the Canadian people can decide who is best suited to govern them. For the second election in a row of a majority government the people of Canada said they liked the approach, the sound economic management approach being taken by this government. They elected this government to govern. That is precisely what this government and this party are going to do.
We have heard a lot of rhetoric from the other side of this House today about the guillotine, about closure, and about cutting off debate. It seems to me it was some six months ago that these proposals were first tabled in this House. We have had six months of discussion, six months of debate and talk from all sides of this House and, indeed, from one end of this country to the other. My friends talk about the lack of an opportunity to discuss this bill. I remind them that in an unusual step we went to a legislative committee which went across the country to locations suggested, I might say, by members opposite.
We have heard at tedious length what people had to say about this bill. As my hon. friend from Burlington has pointed out, time and again, we had exactly the same brief presented to us. Now we are told that there is no opportunity to speak and to discuss this bill. It seems to me that what the people of Canada want to happen is that they want to see the government govern.
We could do as my friends opposite would like. We could discuss this bill for many, many more months and then the people of Canada would say: "We elected you to govern. Are you going to govern, or are you going to talk all day?" Then members opposite would say: "Hey, look at this government. This government does not govern. It sits around and talks all day."
This government governs. This government provides an opportunity for debate. When it is clear that members opposite are not interested in getting on with the nation's business, it uses the rules that were put in place,
I might say, by the previous government which the hon. member who spoke previously now supports.
Why is it so important that we get on with this bill? It is because this bill is important to Canadians. It is part of a strategy, a strategy for the future of Canada that looks to the interest of Canadians; not one that looks back.
This government does not believe in paying people to sit home and do nothing. This government believes that Canadians are self-reliant, industrious individuals who want to prepare themselves for the 21st century. They are people who want full-time, meaningful, satisfying employment. That is why this bill is here, along with the other measures that this government has introduced.
We look to the future. We look to developing trade because through trade we have an opportunity to sell Canadian products. Through selling Canadian products, we generate wealth, economic activity and, indeed, we generate jobs for Canadians. This government does not look back. This government does not believe in building walls around the country and protecting ourselves from the world. This government believes in going out into the world and competing in the world because this government believes that Canadians are as good as any other people in this world, and we want to be a part of that.
We have confidence in Canadians. We are not afraid of Canadians and their limited ability. That is why we have put in place the Canadian Jobs Strategy along with the trade policies and the other economic policies of this government that are going to provide so much work to the benefit of this country.
That is why Canadians support this government. It is because of our sound approach to economic management. We believe that we have to have an effective unemployment insurance program as a safety net for Canadians, that the funds of that program need to be used for the benefit of Canadians.
Yet we have heard rhetoric from across the floor that Canadians are going to be disadvantaged by some of these new measures. We have heard, for example, that we should not have stiffer penalties for quitters, that this is a terrible thing. I wonder if members opposite are aware that in 1987, for example, there were over 375,000
October 24, 1989

claimants who were voluntary quitters and that this drew $1.2 billion from the unemployment insurance fund.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this government believes those funds can be more effectively utilized for the benefit of Canadians, to prepare them for the many high-tech jobs and other kinds of employment which are being created on a daily basis by this government. Over the last five years, 1.5 million new jobs have been created in Canada. That is an impressive record.
It is interesting to note, for example, that when the voluntary quitter provision was reduced from six to three weeks in 1971, within a year, two and a half times was the increase in the number of voluntary quitters. In 1976, when it was put back up again, the number of voluntary quitters dropped by one-third. The records and the facts speak for themselves.
Similarly we have heard a lot of talk about entrance requirements being increased. It is interesting to note that the experience of the previous government-and they have short memories over there, it seems-was that with the increased entrance requirements in 1977 they discovered a few years later that in fact, for example, in my own Atlantic region, 87 per cent of the people found the additional two weeks that were required to qualify.
We hear about the problem of seasonal workers, which ignores a very important provision that is in this bill. It is the removal of the repeater clause. Let us take my own constituency which has had difficulties because of the flagrant mismanagement of the fishery carried out by the previous government for 15 years that created-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call it one o'clock, the hon. member will have six minutes remaining in his debate after three o'clock.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, today, October 24, marks the anniversary of the founding of the United Nations.
Some 44 years ago today, the United Nations charter was signed, launching an organization that reflects mankind's desire to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, to establish conditions under which justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties -and international law can be maintained" and "to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom."
Since its inception, Canada has played an important role in the activities of the United Nations, including peacekeeping, membership expansion, and financial support of the many affiliated UN organizations such as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, UNICEF, and the United Nations Environmental Program of which our distinguished Canadian, Maurice Strong, was the first executive director.
This year Canada attracts special international attention at the United Nations, having been voted to a two-year term on the United Nations Security Council.
We realize that the lessening of east-west tensions in our world is significant, but we cannot let this situation dull our UN initiatives to bring about total world peace and good order. We expect Canada to continue to be involved in peacekeeping efforts around the world and, complementary to this initiative, we encourage our government to take the historic opportunity and approve a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty at a UN conference on this matter to be held in 1990.


Mr. Speaker:: I advise members that I have to interrupt statements for a moment.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to table the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Elouse of Commons for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


THE LATE TREVOR MORGAN
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to pay tribute to Mr. Trevor Morgan who served as member of Parliament for St. Catharines from 1972 to 1974. Mr. Morgan passed away last week.
Active in public life for over 30 years, Trevor Morgan served as a member of Port Dalhousie Town Council, St. Catharines City Council, and the Niagara Regional Council in addition to his tenure as member of Parliament.
Trevor was always a passionate advocate for his constituents' interests. A degenerative eye disease claimed his eyesight in the 1960s but Mr. Morgan continued his career despite his disability. He was a lawyer who was a fierce adversary in the courtroom. This is a fact to which I can personally attest.
The people of St. Catharines will miss Trevor Morgan. I wish to express their deepest sympathies to his wife, Linda, and son, Graham Trevor.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising under the provisions of Standing Order 31 to express my outrage that another major Canadian plant has become a victim of the infamous free trade agreement.
This morning Fibreglas Canada announced reductions in its Canadian operations over the next several months. The majority of the 371 employees at the Sarnia plant will be affected by the plan and will leave the company in the second quarter of 1990. This is the second announced
lay-off in the Samia-Lambton region that will impact on these dedicated employees, many of whom have lived in my constituency for many years and face a bleak winter of uncertainty.
The so-called rationalization of industry, brought about by the free trade agreement, has resulted in a host of mergers and a continuing exodus of jobs to the United States.
I ask the government today to intercede and stop this merger mania, re-examine the free trade agreement, and bring in a fair trade agreement which will protect Canadian workers, Canadian farmers, and stop the plundering of our resources.


CHAMBLY RIDING
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the Conservative Government has not lost its bad habits. We learned from our candidate in the by-election to be held in Chambly, Phil Edmonston, that the Minister of the Environment is getting read to go to the riding of Chambly next Saturday to announce another election goody, a big subsidy for the local community television station, a subsidy which the New Democratic candidate has been requesting for a long time now.
The Conservatives are not looking after the people in the riding of Chambly. They have not yet replaced their corrupt, convicted Member and they are still delaying keeping their promise to Saint-Basile to compensate for the damage caused by the PCB fire.
Mr. Speaker, when will they announce another subsidy for the Desjardins Movement to compensate for the $20 million that institution says it will lose with the GST? Mr. Speaker, it is high time for Chambly to have a real member of Parliament and that should be Phil Edmonston, an honest New Democrat of integrity!


SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to salute the men and women of Canada who have embraced the spirit of entrepreneurship and have started some 750 small busi-
October 24, 1989

nesses across the country since 1984. With this in mind, two important addenda are worth mentioning.
First, these businesses have proven to be resilient. Over the past decade, more than three-quarters of all new businesses survived the crucial first year of operation. Second, between 1980 and 1985, female entrepreneurs represented more than half of these owner operated business start-ups.
We as a government recognize without hesitation that small business is the backbone of our economy. It is the greatest source of new ideas, new opportunities, new wealth, and new employment. Between 1978 and 1987, the small business sector accounted for more 80 per cent of all the net new jobs created in Canada.
Nowhere has the contribution of small business been more evident than in my riding of Sarnia-Lambton. We have been a community very reliant upon the cyclical nature of one industry, the petrochemical refining industry. Yet today, primarily through the initiatives of local men and women, small businesses have diversified the local economic base and effectively lowered the unemployment rate from an historical high in 1984 to one that is lower today than the provincial average.
In the spirit of Small Business Week, I pay tribute to both the present and the future entrepreneurs of Sarnia-Lambton and across this country.


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, after months of lobbying the Bourassa government, the efforts of Quebec's prospectors have finally paid off. The Minister of Finance of Quebec has just announced that the flow-through shares program will be improved.
Since last year, half the deduction for mining exploration expenses is allowed in calculating the cumulative net investment loss (CNIL).
Quebec Mines Minister Raymond Savoie had to make an extra effort to convince his leader Robert Bourassa and his finance minister.
For two years, Quebec's mining regions like Abitibi-Temiscamingue have been very concerned about their economy. Many junior mines have had to close while
they wait for better days. In Abitibi-Temiscamingue, unemployment has risen significantly.
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada must follow Quebec's example and also agree to eliminate CNIL on half the federal deduction for the purchase of flowthrough shares.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-41 is about telecommunications. It implements the approach of the Supreme Court confirming that we have one national telecommunication telephone network that crosses provincial boundaries and clearly falls under federal authority. Its aim is to resolve the jurisdictional confusion which presently exists and to allow for a simplified regulatory framework. It is not a bill that is to set local or long distance rates. That is the mandate of the CRTC, the regulator.
The Supreme Court's ruling does not mean that western and other provincial voices will be ignored.
The minister could have deposited a more comprehensive bill, avoided the serious concerns being raised, recognized the history of social responsibility by provinces, and included the means for provincial participation on local questions of telephone service.
To alleviate concerns, first, the minister must go on record in support of universal affordable telephone service. Second, he should assure Canadians that the current situation with regard to independent telephone companies is not intended to favour any one region of Canada over any other. Third, he should reaffirm the federal jurisdiction and that it does not mean higher local telephone rates.


SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, in light of this being Small Business Week, I want to congratulate the Colchester, Truro, Stewiacke regional economic development task force for its initiative in planning an intermodal transport terminal and lifestyle business park for Debert, Nova Scotia.

October 24, 1989
To bring this project to a successful conclusion will require co-operation from all levels of government and industry including several federal departments and CN.
I urge all ministers involved to assist in all manner possible to ensure completion of this much needed intermodal park to service the area and encourage much needed employment.


CANADA POST
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, next week the House of Commons Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs begins public hearings into the operations of Canada Post. The committee will, among other things, learn how Canada Post management decisions are affecting the delivery of postal services to rural Canada.
In the meantime, Canada Post is continuing to convert and close post offices in small and medium sized communities despite public opposition.
A report from the previous standing committee called the actions of Canada Post heavy-handed but was ignored by both the corporation and the minister.
I call upon the minister responsible for Canada Post to show respect for the people of rural Canada and place a moratorium on all post office conversions and closures until the standing committee has completed its hearings, issued its report, and Parliament has had time to respond to its recommendations.


CANADIAN-SOVIET ARCTIC CO-OPERATION
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton -Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, under the auspices of the Arms Control Centre, Canadians are hosting the Canada-Soviet Conference on Canadian-Soviet Arctic Co-operation. Discussions and panellists so far have driven home the absence of Canadian policy with respect to the Arctic and to Arctic issues.
That is bad enough, but what is worse is the government's spokesmen have poured cold water on initiatives presented in a report by the panel on Arctic arms control that recommended among other things the establishment of a central Arctic demilitarized zone, a conference
on Arctic security and co-operation, and the creation of an ambassador for circumpolar regions.
The government do-nothing vacillation is not a viable response to Soviet invitations for discussion and reciprocal co-operation in the region, nor is it a serious response to initiatives by expertise in the field.
I call on the government to examine thoroughly, thoughtfully, and with openness, the recommendations made by the panel on Arctic arms control and then to respond positively to invitations for peace.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the essence of the tabling of the annual Report of the Auditor General, the subsequent public scrutiny, and the follow up work has improved accountability to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent prudently.
This year the Auditor General tells us of real progress made in following up recommendations of previous years. His report indicates a notable improvement in accountability.
In regard to the control and accountability of Crown corporations, the Auditor General notes that our own observations support the view that vigilance and stability have characterized the Crown corporation sector in recent years. He continues:
-the framework set out in legislation is not solely responsible for the
demonstrated improvements. Strong and sustained attention by all
concerned has played an important part in making this system work.
We have not yet reached perfection, but there is no question that government today is more open and more accountable than at any time before in our history.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, nearly 60,000 men and women who have lost their jobs due to the free trade deal are asking who benefited from the deal. As a matter of fact, most Canadians are asking who benefited from this free trade deal. Today we find out.
October 24, 1989

Mr. Allan Gotlieb, Canada's ambassador to the United States for the past seven years, is becoming an adviser to the Philadelphia law firm of Pepper, Hamilton and Scheetz. Since he helped negotiate the free trade deal and knows all of the elements of the free trade deal, his job will be to advise the Americans on how to take advantage of the free trade deal, probably at the expense of Canada.
When Canadians are wondering who benefited from the free trade deal, Allan Gotlieb can say: "I personally have benefited".


UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, today, on October 24, United Nations Day, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the anniversary of the founding of the United Nations Organization which is now 44 years old.
The UN officially became an organization on Octob-ber 24, 1945, a successor to the League of Nations created by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. That day marked the beginnings of an organization that reflected the hopes of the peoples of this world and their determination to maintain international peace and security; to achieve international co-operation in solving problems of an economic, social and cultural nature; to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war; to affirm their faith in fundamental human rights; and to promote social progress and better standards of living in larger freedom. That is the ultimate goal of the UN.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the recipient of the 1989 Pearson Medal for Peace, Maurice Strong, who received the award for his personal and volunteer efforts.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, the number one concern in Canada at the
moment is the environment. Although the government has repeatedly claimed that this issue is at the top of its list of priorities, it has done very little to back up these claims.
The government is now being given the opportunity to do something positive about the environment by providing the expertise and financial commitment needed to extend a natural gas pipeline into the province of New Brunswick.

This project will enable the province to stop using coal, a source of acid rain, which is now being used in the thermal power stations that produce the province's electric power. Natural gas could also be used by large plants such as pulp and paper mills.
Mr. Speaker, if the federal Government is really serious about the environment, it should take steps as soon as possible to give the province and the companies concerned all the help they need to bring this project to fruition.


WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a unique process now being developed by a local company named B.C. Chemicals, in Prince George, British Columbia.
With the assistance of both federal and provincial governments, pulp and industry waste tall oil, which is now being burnt, will be recycled to produce value added products such as resins, adhesives and stains. It can also be used to reprocess asphalt. Indeed, I am proud to say that this product is now being tested near Quesnel in my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin. This is a good example of environmental awareness combined with good business sense.
My hat is off to western economic diversification, the Department of Forestry, the Province of British Columbia, and especially B. C. Chemicals for a fine example of western initiative.

October 24, 1989
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my questions relate to the Auditor General's report which was tabled today. Indeed it was made public about 15 minutes ago.
I want to begin by asking the Minister of National Defence, or in his absence the Deputy Prime Minister, what exactly was the minister of defence doing in his role as minister responsible for emergency preparedness, when the Auditor General has stated that total confusion will reign in this country in the first hours following any natural disaster including an earthquake.
God forbid, but if there should be a major earthquake in this country, there is no agency of the government, according to the Auditor General, prepared to co-ordinate an emergency response or emergency relief measures.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister, or whomever he designates to respond, explain to the country why the minister of defence has failed to do his job?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to respond to the question of the Leader of the Opposition.
In fact, I am sure that if he read the Auditor General's report, he will have noticed that the Auditor General has said how well things have improved over the past few years in the field of emergency preparedness planning.
Indeed, with the establishment of the new legislative base and the establishment of our new agency, we are working very assiduously toward ensuring that we are well prepared for emergencies.
He specifically cites the development of a national earthquake preparedness plan as a good example of the kinds of plans that could be prepared for a variety and range of disasters which we hope would not befall us, but it is an example where we are working very closely with my home province of British Columbia. That planning is proceeding extremely well. Later this week I will be in Vancouver and will be discussing it at a workshop on emergency planning.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to the minister, who is also the member for Capilano in British Columbia-Mr. Speaker, you and I will share this interest-that indeed I have read the Auditor General's report, and here is what it states on page 587. British Columbia has been identified as a high risk region and area. "Goals and deadlines for national emergency planning by departments remain inadequately specified. We found the process for designating lead agencies for planning for emergencies to be inadequate." There has been progress but much remains to be done in the area of planning for national emergencies.
The Auditor General is saying that we do not have an immediate, adequate, co-ordinated response to an earthquake potential in British Columbia or anywhere else in the country, and that is what the report says.

My next question is directed to the Minister of Transport, since he was also mentioned in the Auditor General's Report.


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, since the answer given by the Minister of National Defence was quite elaborate, I believe that the Standing Orders allow me to respond.
My question is now for the Minister of Transport. Vessels carrying all kinds of goods make a total of 12,000 visits each year at Canadian ports, and more than 80 per cent of these vessels operate under foreign flags.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report tells us that 93 per cent of these vessels are not inspected by the Canadian authorities, and this applies to seaworthiness, safety and transportation of dangerous goods.
Mr. Speaker, could the Minister explain to the House why the government has failed to put in place an inspection system to protect our waterways, port facilities and millions of Canadians against a potential marine
disaster?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is correct when he says that the vast majority of commercial shipping activities in Canada are carried out under foreign flags and therefore not necessarily subject to the Canada
October 24, 1989

Shipping Act, and we must therefore operate according to international rules.
However, I think the Leader of the Official Opposition is also aware that in the case of oil tankers, both Canadian and foreign vessels are monitored, foreign tankers on their first trip to Canada and Canadian tankers on an ongoing basis. As for other vessels, according to present international regulations we are aiming for 25 per cent. Canada has agreed to this proposal, and we are working toward that goal.
There have been enormous improvements in this respect. I agree there is still room for improvement, but once again, this is being done within the framework of international agreements, and I believe Canada has met its commitments in this respect.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General thinks we are poorly protected in an area that is clearly under federal jurisdiction.

My final question is for the Minister of the Environment. Despite repeated requests from the opposition, the minister has refused to have a public examination of the government's ability or inability to deal with chemical spills or spills of toxic substances in Canadian waters. The minister told the House that he did not need any public consultation because he was working on a plan of his own. The Auditor General has stated today that our country is in no way equipped to deal with chemical spills.
Why is it that after five years in power, when this government's priority is supposed to be the environment, when this minister was appointed to that portfolio with that priority, there is no plan in place according to the Auditor General to deal with toxic spills on either the west coast or the Atlantic coast or the Arctic coast?
Why has the Minister of the Environment failed to do his job on behalf of the people of Canada?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the main aspect of the danger signalled by the Leader of the Opposition is certainly the fact that oil spills are threatening Canada. We are all aware of this. This government is very concerned with that question. That is why we have set up two operations to provide us
Oral Questions
with recommendations to strengthen the capacity to control possible disasters.
We have an internal committee, which has been reporting to three ministers, with new rules. We have also set up a public panel review which has recently tabled an interim report and which will, in a few months, provide the government with a comprehensive report on the way to control the movement of oil through Canadian waters.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in answer to one of my questions in this House, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that he would receive any suggestions from me regarding expenditure of public funds "with a great deal of interest and gratitude" and that he would co-operate with the Auditor General.
Today, we learned that the Auditor General tried to do an audit on ministerial travel, but he could not perform it because he could not get any receipts from any ministers in this government and therefore could not do an audit of the cabinet of this country. Surely the Deputy Prime Minister does not consider this to be co-operation.
Why is the government hiding this information not only from the Auditor General but from the people of Canada? Does he not realize that this government and the cabinet ministers in the front benches are the ones who should be setting an example for all Canadians?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had read carefully the report of the Auditor General, he would find that the Auditor General is really getting to the point of accountability and openness in government.
I can assure you that this government is totally committed to accountability and openness. We have taken steps well along the lines that the Auditor General has recommended to ensure not only that the existing information is already available to members and the general public but that that existing information be enhanced and made available on a very regular basis.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I have read this section of the Auditor General's report and I sense that the Auditor General of Canada is very frustrated because this government is not forthcoming.

October 24, 1989
Oral Questions
The Auditor General tried to get access to the letters that ministers sent to the Minister of National Defence requesting use of VIP Challenger aircraft. The letters would state where the flights would be going, the reason for the flights, and who was on board.
The act of Parliament setting up the office of the Auditor General of Canada gives the Auditor General the right to audit such government spending.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member will recognize the Chair has been very generous in terms of time. I ask him to put his question.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Why has the Government of Canada set itself up as being beyond the law, beyond all Canadians, that it does not have to abide by the law at a time when it expects the people of Canada to be law-abiding citizens? Where is the information?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would only like to note that the practices of this government follow a cabinet decision of 1963, a cabinet decision that was-


Mr. Kaplan:: 1963, you can't go on living in the past.


Robert René de Cotret: Yes, a practice that was followed by every previous government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister has the floor.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, to answer the question, after reading that part of the report from the Auditor General, I asked the Comptroller General to ensure that he was in a position to make available a number of facts, on a periodic basis, dealing with ministers' expenditures. I would just like briefly to read out the list.
First of all, the total travel expenses of each minister; second, the number of times that each minister used the government aircraft; third, the date, the itinerary, and the names of all passengers on each trip in a government aircraft; fourth, the reason for use of a government aircraft; fifth, the cost of the use of the government aircraft. The Comptroller General is putting that in place.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I might point out to the President of the Treasury Board that Canadians voted for change. They did not vote to carry on the same lousy Liberal practices.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put his question.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, now I have their attention. I will take out the two-by-four. My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
When the people of Canada voted in the present government, the government promised open and honest government. In the recent past we have seen a commitment to the opposite, a commitment to secrecy. The Information Commissioner has had to take the government to court to get information on budget documents. We are still waiting for the GST impact studies on the provinces. Now we find that the Auditor General is being denied the statutory right to audit ministerial travel expenses paid for out of departmental expenditures.
What does this government have to hide with respect to the minister's travel expenses? Why will the government not turn over to the Auditor General the information he required to do his job?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have already replied to that question. After reading the document from the Auditor General, we have moved in a very fast and direct manner with the Comptroller General to ensure that there is no secrecy and that all the pertinent information is made available to this House as well as to the Canadian public, both on travel and on the use of aircraft as was mentioned in the report. I believe we have done our job.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General, on page 18, had this to say: "In a time of restraint, those who spend taxpayers' dollars must be more than ever aware that they are answerable for how they spend them." This government, in times of restraint which it says we are in, is asking Canadians to tighten their belts.
Why has it failed to come clean with the Auditor General and deliver to him those receipts from ministerial travel which are paid out of departmental expenditures? Why has this government refused to do that? What is it that you have to hide? Is it that you are afraid that Canadians are going to be outraged when they see what you have spent?
October 24, 1989


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we are not refusing to provide information to this House or to Canadians in general. We are prepared, as a matter of fact, to go much further than the guidelines that were set back in 1963. We are prepared to be very accountable and very open about the expenses that this ministry is incurring.
The total travel expenses of each minister, the number of times that each minister uses the government aircraft, the date, the itinerary and the names of the passengers on each trip, the reason for the use and the cost of the government aircraft are included. I think, meets with the criteria of accountability and openness.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Auditor General was very clear in what he requested. He requested access to receipts where ministers have followed Treasury Board's advice to retain them. The government told us that even if receipts existed, they would not be made available to us.
Canadians have not forgotten the Blais-Grenier "April in Paris" episode. Is that what this government is afraid will come out when these receipts are turned over? Will the Deputy Prime Minister take responsibility for turning over those receipts requested by the Auditor General so that we can turn on the lights on the collective Phineas Foggs over there?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a well known fact in this House that the ministers are accountable. They are accountable to Parliament. They are accountable to the people. We are providing all the information that is required for parliamentarians or the general public to make a judgment on how we are dealing with the affairs of state.
We want to be open, we want to be accountable and we have taken the steps to do just that.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the government's refusal to provide information to the Auditor General concerning ministers' travel expenditures.
Given that in May, 1985, the government provided to Southam News information regarding the travel escapades of one Suzanne Blais-Grenier in great detail and
Oral Questions
given that in October, 1986, the government provided information to The Globe and Mail concerning the travels of the Prime Minister to Asia, why is the government refusing to provide to the Auditor General now what it provided to others in the past? Is it because those previous travels have so much embarrassed the government that it now refuses to provide that information to the public? Is that the real reason?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we are saying that we will provide on a regular basis the total travel expenses of each minister, the number of times he takes an aircraft, where he is going, who he is going with, his itinerary, the reason for the use of the aircraft and the cost of the government aircraft. I ask my hon. colleague what more does he want? All the information will be there.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the President of the Treasury Board who just asked me, what more did I want. I will tell him what I want. The Auditor General of Canada says in his report: The government wrote to me, stating that even where receipts had been kept, they would not be provided to my office. What I want to know from the Prime Minister and the Minister is this: Is he prepared to table these receipts in the House in the next ten days? Yes or no?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, my answer is simply that we are prepared, with the help of the Comptroller General, to table in the House or make available to anyone who so requests, the travel expenses of all ministers, minister by minister. This information will be available on a regular basis. It will be up to my colleagues opposite and to the Canadian people to judge what the government's ministers are doing. The situation is entirely normal and can be checked.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Hie Auditor General's report tabled today outlines a crisis of confidence in the safety of Canada's marine industry. Given that of the 41,000 vessels that ply Canadian waters, only 4,000 undergo regular inspections and in the case of our thousands of fishing vessels "usually only following a reported accident", quoting the document, I ask the

Oral Questions
minister how could he allow this dangerous situation to develop? What action is he prepared to take today to correct this incredible blunder?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I answered the same question earlier when it was put by the Leader of the Opposition. Once again, the vast majority of vessels operating in Canadian waters do so under foreign flags and are, as a result, subject to international agreements signed by Canada. As for vessels operating under the Canadian flag, I repeat that all oil tankers are monitored: 25 per cent, which is an objective that has been set internationally. We are striving towards that goal at the present time. The necessary steps have been taken. But once again, the Canadian Coast Guard and Transport Canada's Marine Group are constantly trying to improve the situation, concentrating on both the technological and the operational aspects. Once again, the Auditor General has mentioned a number of potential situations to which the Government is trying to respond, and it will continue to do so.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the minister may not care about his fishermen and his men and women who serve in the merchant marine, but surely to goodness he cares about the 20 million Canadians who rely on ferry service on our east and west coasts.
In his report today, the Auditor General expressed genuine concern for the safety of these vessels and specifically, the lack of detailed risk management plans and the incredible practice of pre-arranged annual safety inspections. Will the minister allocate today the resources necessary to correct this terrible situation, or is he prepared to sit idly by until there is a disaster and a real loss of life?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I believe the concerns of my friend are real in the sense that there is a potential. At the same time, I would like to say to my friend that the Department of Transport, through the marine sector and the coast guard, is constantly looking at the regulations. We improve the regulations and we always provide the necessaiy resources to achieve the goals we have. But that will be done in light of the report of the Auditor General.
I am really delighted to say that the Canadian coast guard has a very good reputation in terms of the way it deals with regulations and it will continue to do so.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On page 473 of the Auditor General's report he notes that a foreign vessel carrying dangerous goods could enter Canadian waters in the maritimes, not call at any Canadian port, and proceed all the way through the St. Lawrence Seaway into the Great Lakes with little chance of being subjected to an inspection to ensure that it met international ship safety requirements. Earlier on the previous page it points out that about 7 to 8 per cent of foreign vessels were, in fact, inspected.
Is the government prepared to provide the necessary people and dollars to ensure that foreign ships that may be carrying dangerous cargoes, not necessarily petroleum, but dangerous cargoes, can be inspected prior to proceeding into and through Canadian waters? Will the Minister give us that assurance?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question twice. I said that under the international transportation rules, we are trying to determine a target of 25 per cent. It is true that at the present time it is about 7 or 8 per cent. But we signed the agreement, we accept the rule, and we are moving toward that direction. I can give the guarantee that that is exactly what we are doing. It is not a question of resources. It is a question of international agreement, and that is what we respect.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the members' attention the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the United Kingdom, led by Marion Roe, Member of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
c *	*


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, in response to the minister's comments, I should point out that on the same page, the Auditor General states that the coast guard does not have an over-all plan for meeting the goal of the
October 24, 1989

European Port State Control Agreement to inspect 25 per cent of foreign vessels.
So the minister is saying one thing, the Auditor General is saying another. I want to know when the government will finally put its money where its mouth has been for a number of years and really do something to protect the Canadian environment, to protect that very important ecological system in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I repeat again, it has already been done. We are on the way to try to reach that goal of 25 per cent. Of course, we want to do so. We will provide the resources to reach that goal. But, once again, I said we are trying to determine exactly what resources we need to reach that purpose. It cannot be done in one day. We understand the report of the Auditor General.
Once again I repeat that Canada has one of the best records in terms of environmental protection.

[Translation\


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment.
First I would like to congratulate the Minister of the Environment on the leadership he has shown at the conference in Charlottetown with his provincial counterparts, where we introduced some major environmental initiatives for this country.
My question concerns the agreement reached by the Minister and his provincial counterparts on $200 million to be spent on the clean-up of abandoned contaminated sites across the country.
First of all, I would like to ask the Minister who is going to decide which sites in Quebec will benefit under this agreement. Second, I want to ask the Minister whether I can count on his support for a region like Abitibi-Temiscamingue, which has a record number of abandoned contaminated sites because of its mine tail-
Oral Questions
ings, a major source of pollution, - for having our region considered when the sites are selected.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say we concluded an agreement with the provincial governments for setting up a clean-up fund for contaminated sites in Canada.
As for the Hon. Member's question, a number of criteria are now being defined for selecting the sites where clean-up operations will take place.
These criteria will be established jointly with the provinces and will subsequently be applied in such a way as to achieve a fair apportionment of clean-up funds. I will certainly bear in mind the Hon. Member's concerns.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton - Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, according to the Auditor General's Report which has just been tabled, 93 per cent of merchant vessels are not subject to safety inspections, nor is their cargo.
A vessel that is not inspected, that is unsafe and carrying toxic products or even nuclear waste, for instance, might cause an accident of catastrophic proportions in the locks of the St. Lawrence.
How can the Minister of Transport justify his failure to take action, thereby exposing the environment and especially Canadian lives to potentially catastrophic accidents on the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will have to repeat in French what I said in English.
I said earlier that most goods are carried by vessels operating under foreign flags which are not subject to the Canada Shipping Act. We therefore have an international agreement under which we are committed to reaching a goal of 25 per cent. I am committed not only to following the recommendations of the Auditor General but also to applying international regulations.
That is exactly what we are doing. I disagree with the hon. member when he refers to a potential accident, since we probably have one of the best records in the

Oral Questions
world on environmental protection, especially when we realize, Mr. Speaker, that 100 per cent of all oil tankers are inspected on their first visit to Canada every year.
In this perspective, I think that Canada is doing its job, and especially the Department of Transport.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I find the minister's answer unacceptable. Seven per cent or even 25 per cent inspected is not enough.
Of the 7 or 8 per cent of the vessels that are inspected, too many have been judged to be unsafe. How can the Minister allow Canadian lives to be endangered by failing to increase the number of inspections of merchant ships?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member answered his own question, since we have said many times that the Government's objective was to achieve a goal of 25 per cent, considering, once again, that we are subject to international laws and international agreements in this respect, and that the agreement provides that 25 per cent of vessels carrying goods other than oil-since in the case of oil, we monitor 100 per cent of the tankers.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, whatever the language and whoever is asking the question, the answer is the same.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The Auditor General has estimated that the number of taxpayers under GST will increase thirteenfold from 75,000 to well over one million. He also said this morning that he felt the government would be incapable of handling the increased workload in administration of the GST in a way that is fair to small business.
Will the minister acknowledge the Auditor General's statements that the government will be unable to administer the tax and will he not agree to scrap this tax proposal and come back with a more fair and workable tax?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the reason that this government is moving to a more efficient and fair tax is precisely for the reasons described by the Auditor General. As the hon. member knows, the existing federal sales tax has some 22,000 different provisions and exemptions which are just totally unacceptable and cannot be dealt with effectively.
That is why we are moving to more a effective, more efficient and fairer tax system.
I can assure the hon. member that through new technology, through innovative methods, new systems and consultation with the public sector, particularly the small business community, this is going to improve not only the administration but the tax system as a whole for all Canadians.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that you do not replace a bad tax with a worse tax. The minister has stated that he thinks that the tax will work. He thinks he can hire more tax investigators; he thinks he can train them and he thinks he can train small business to understand the tax. Is the minister not aware that if he is wrong it is small businesses in Canada that will bear the brunt of his mistakes? Will the minister assure Canadians and assure small business that they will not be stuck holding the bag for this government's lack of planning on this issue?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that we are not re-inventing the wheel. There are some 48 countries around the world with a value added tax in the form of a GST which has been working effectively and fairly for the populations of those countries and which has given those producers and manufacturers a greater competitive edge over ours.
That is the reason why we are moving to a better system, to create more competitive opportunities for small, medium and large businesses in this country and to make the system fair in working toward deficit reduction. All of the consulting, the advice, the assistance, the help and the planning that we are undertaking is to help small businesses in all industries prepare for a smooth launch and a smooth transition for their benefit and for the benefit of all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, today the Canada Assistance Program was also reviewed in the Auditor General's report, and I quote from Chapter 15 of the report: "Although our audit focused on the federal administration of CAP, we did become aware of some instances of apparent non-compliance by provinces with the CAP Act. We found nothing to indicate how these instances were considered to be in compliance

with the act and the stated federal objectives of the CAP".
The Auditor General also pointed out the insufficient information available regarding this program.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to paraphrase what the Auditor General said and put her question.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister tell the House why there has been no annual report for this program, as required by law, since this government came to power in 1984? Is that what the government considers to be open?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the Auditor General for his findings and for the advice that he has given us with regard to CAP.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Crosbie:: Three cheers for the Auditor General.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, from my perspective in Health and Welfare, we welcome any suggestions made by the Auditor General, or even from hon. members opposite if they have suggestions for improvement to CAP and for any other program.
It is our determination to make sure that all expenditures under CAP are fully documented, fully audited by the federal government and we will ensure as well that all annual reports which are due are tabled in Parliament.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, does that mean that maybe by 1995, we will get the 1984 report?
If the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare were interested in the kind of suggestions that the opposition have regarding CAP, then he would indeed lift his finger when we ask him to provide us with the information we require regarding CAP and the provinces. When will the minister do that?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the opposition just cannot live with good news. That is the difficulty here.
As I have indicated, we are determined in National Health and Welfare to ensure that we can take every possible measure to ensure that every dollar transferred under CAP is properly audited and accounted for by
Oral Questions
provinces. Second, we will ensure that Parliament has made available to it all information to which it is entitled. We will do so on a timely basis too, Mr. Speaker.


TOBACCO PRODUCTS
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Now that he has the report from the Royal Society of Canada that does confirm what every smoker has said, that cigarette smoking is addictive, could he tell us just when we might expect the Government of Canada to look for these tougher laws regarding the advertising of tobacco products, specifically, that they are a hazard to health and, second, the addictive nature of tobacco products?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the government has indicated that we are anticipating having another round of regulations with regard to warnings on tobacco packages soon. The Royal Society's report has been closely studied within my department. It is a very, very helpful report for us. It strengthens our hand significantly with regard to giving these warnings to the public. The recommendations that we will make will draw heavily upon that report.


PAY EQUITY
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in 1987, a Human Rights Tribunal awarded federal hospital workers $28 million, the largest pay equity settlement in the history of the public service. Twenty-seven months later, 1,400 employees, mostly women, are still not getting the pay they deserve. They already live on wages at or below the poverty line and cannot afford to do without the extra $3,000 a year they are entitled to.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. What is the minister doing to correct this deplorable situation to give these workers the fair pay they are earning?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, retroactive pay adjustments totalling $28 million for the period September, 1980, to July, 1987, have already been implemented. For the retroactive period of adjustment, from September, 1980, to July, 1987, the Treasury Board Secretariat has re-evaluated positions at level one and those of seamstresses and

October 24, 1989
Oral Questions
community health representatives. It has issued a personnel management bulletin.
There is still yet some work to be done on some of the outstanding issues, but I believe that we have already made significant progress in implementing that decision.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, excuses and words do not put food on the table or shoes on children's feet.
I can only quote the annual report of the Human Rights Commission which said: "Either the government means business on equal pay or it does not". Obviously it does not.
Will the minister live up to his words, or does the Human Rights Commission have to order the Government of Canada to set a good example to other Canadian employers?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to assure my hon. colleague opposite that we do mean business on equal pay for work of equal value and that is why we set up the joint union management initiative to try to get to the crux of this matter.
Now the hon. member says that we do not mean business. I have just said that phase one of the order was already completed and $28 million is quite a bit of money.
The second phase, I must say, is already completed but the second phase is also subject to final approval by the tribunal and that is where we are at.
The third phase is well in progress, well in hand, and we are advancing with it very quickly.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE DRESS CODE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the issue of the RCMP dress code.
Over a year and a half ago the commissioner of the RCMP, Mr. Norman Inkster, recommended that the dress code be amended to allow Sikh members to wear their turbans and ceremonial daggers. For some inexplicable reason, the government has dithered over the last 20 months on this issue.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he is prepared to show some progressive leadership today and adopt the recommendation of the commissioner of the RCMP to ensure full equality for all Canadians?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is reviewing this matter with the RCMP and expects to be able to review the matter fully and come up with a solution in the very near future.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. The RCMP has already made a recommendation.
This issue is the true test of tolerance, understanding, and this government's commitment to the issue of equality for all Canadians. By delaying the decision, this government is fanning the flames of intolerance and discrimination.
So I put the question to the government again. Will it show some leadership, if it is truly committed to the issue of equality, and adopt the recommendation of the commissioner of the RCMP to allow Sikhs to join the
force?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that the Solicitor General is reviewing this matter and that he will be coming down with a final decision in the very near future.


An Hon. Member:: What's the problem?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Well, the problem is in that party where that particular member cannot get together with the rest of his members on multiculturalism.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the public accounts were tabled in the House. On page 115 of the public accounts, third edition, dealing with Canada Post Corporation, it indicates that the leasing requirements for Canada Post over the next four years will decrease by about 65 per cent. Those leases by Canada Post are primarily for rural post offices in Public Works buildings.

October 24, 1989

My question is perhaps directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of both the Minister of Public Works and the minister responsible for the post office. Is Public Works doing the dirty work for Canada Post and conspiring with Canada Post to get out of rural Canada?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, absolutely not.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Given that rural post offices are continuing to close across Canada, and given that the standing committee of this House is presently looking at the operations of Canada Post, in particular those dealing with rural Canada, I am wondering if the Deputy Prime Minister will make a commitment on behalf of the government to put a moratorium on the closing and conversions of small post offices until this committee has reported to the house.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, they are a talented bunch. I can tell the hon. member that the buildings that he refers to are ones that are extremely antiquated and are not serving any useful purpose at the present time. Public Works has given notice to vacate a number of those buildings, but will not do anything with those buildings until it has consulted with the local communities and interested groups in those communities.


PRIVILEGE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from the report of the Auditor General and questions which I raised in the House today.
It is quite clear that the Auditor General, under Section 5 of the Auditor General Act, has the statutory right to audit departmental expenditures and ministerial travel expenses that are part of the departmental expenditures. The point of my privilege is that the government is not providing information about departmental expenses. In fact, the Auditor General points out on page 136, chapter 6.16:
Privilege
We also pointed out in Guidelines Treasury Board had advised that "Even though Ministers do not have to provide receipts and supporting documentation, it would be prudent to maintain such information in Ministers' offices for audit purposes."
The government wrote back to the Auditor General on August 17, 1989 and it stated:
Minister's offices have indeed been advised that it would be prudent to maintain their receipts for travel expenses. The rationale for that advice is based on the fact that Ministers are accountable to the House of Commons and would want to be in a position to respond, in the event that questions were raised in the House.
The Auditor General is an officer of Parliament and parliamentarians depend on the analysis and audit that he does of departmental expenditures which are part and parcel of the Financial Administration Act. Those are all out of general revenues. Therefore, if members of Parliament are going to be able to ask the proper questions as they relate to ministerial expenditures from the department, then we have to have the proper information.
The government has refused to provide the Auditor General, an officer of Parliament, with the appropriate receipts, so that we as members of Parliament can do our job.
I am proposing, Sir, that my privileges and the privileges of all members in this House are abrogated when the minister and the government refuse to turn over to the Auditor General that very important and vital information for us to do our jobs here. I am prepared, Mr. Speaker, if you find that there isprima facie evidence of privilege, to move the appropriate motion.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in support of the question of privilege just raised by my hon. friend. Indeed the privileges of all the members of the House are affected by this issue. The Auditor General is an officer of Parliament. He has a statutory duty to perform the auditing function. Anyone knows that auditing cannot be done without full access by the auditor to all receipts that are in question.
In this case, the ministers of the Crown have a duty to comply with the law. They have a duty to provide for the Auditor General documents and material within then-possession which he requires to perform his statutory function. Members in this place have a responsibility to inquire into the performance by the ministers of the Crown of their duties. The ministers are preventing the

October 24, 1989
Government Orders
Auditor General from doing his function by withholding receipts.
I hear my hon. friends rely on a practice which they allege existed back in 1963. I do not think that that is relevant. I think that we are entitled to have the ministers comply with the law, whatever practices they may allege have existed in the past. I do not concede the arguments that they have made.
It may well be that the point has never been raised before, but that should not deter you, Mr. Speaker, from finding within the duties of this chamber a responsibility by ministers to comply with the law, so that the Auditor General, an officer of this place, can perform his full duties.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nickel Belt has raised a matter of which he complains. The hon. member for York Centre has supported him in that complaint. I have listened carefully to the arguments. There may well be another place in which the argument can be continued. It may be inside this chamber or it maybe outside, but I find that certainly there is not a question of privilege.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That, in relation to Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage, and two sitting days to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Business on the day allotted to report stage consideration and on the second day allotted to the third reading stage consideration of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House rose at one o'clock, the hon. member for South Shore had the floor and he has three minutes remaining in his time for debate.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, in that case, I will speak twice as fast and get in all my remarks.
I do have two or three further comments that I wish to make in support of this very important motion which is intended to enable the Government of Canada to get on with the business of Canadians in facilitating opportunities for unemployed Canadians.
I was making the point that there has been a lot of discussion about the impact of these changes on, for example, fish plant workers in Atlantic Canada. Some suggestions have been made that the increase in the entrance requirements may negatively impact seasonal workers such as fish plant workers.
I think it is important for all members of the House to study the bill carefully. For example, my own constituency falls in two unemployment regions, the Yarmouth region and the Kings region. In the Yarmouth region at the current unemployment rate, there would in fact be an increase of six weeks in the qualification period. Similarly, there would be in the area of Kings. However, what my hon. friends neglect to mention or have overlooked is that the removal of the repeater clause means that the six-week penalty that is now applied to those plant workers will come away, and the amount of time required to qualify for UI will be precisely the same. In areas where the rate is lower, in fact, people will benefit even more so.
Once again, what we have is a clear illustration that what this government seeks to do is to protect people who may be unemployed while at the same time investing Canadian tax dollars effectively to the benefit of Canadians. The labour force development strategy is going to be the basis whereby $1.2 billion will be invested in Canadians, in creating opportunities for unemployed Canadians to find themselves full-time, permanent employment in the Canadian workplace.
Let me give two brief illustrations. This morning, one of the members opposite made reference to the town of Lockeport. Under this proposal, an additional $15 million will go into the industrial adjustment service, which means that towns like Lockeport are benefiting from that service and towns like Port Mouton will hopefully
October 24, 1989

soon benefit from that service when they can get themselves an agreement.
The Government of Canada has already been there working with them to put an agreement into place to enable those one industry towns to adjust to the changes that are the result of the fishing situation in Atlantic Canada. Similarly, $50 million in additional money will go into the Community Futures Program. I look forward to those $50 million making it possible for the county of Shelburne which has had such a difficult time with the downturn in the fishing industry to get into the Community Futures Program. That is why these changes are important.
Beyond that, we are going to see the human resource development planning, $65 million in additional money, entry level skills development-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh,oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Gentlemen, Question Period is over, this is debate. I recognize the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence on a point of order.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hear the hon. member mention all these fabulous programs that are going to take place in the nether-nether land and I thought it would be instructive for this House to understand exactly what has happened in that regard, because I have before me statistics given by-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate. The hon. member has 30 seconds left.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend can get in line if he wishes to speak. The important point to be made, and I will conclude on this point, is that Canadians want us to get on with the business of Canada. That is what this government is going to do. That is why it is important that we support this time allocation motion wherein we take advantage of the rules put in place by the previous government.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, it is going to be very difficult to be heard properly after the volume of the previous speaker.
I will start my remarks by saying that this morning, the Minister of Justice opened his remarks on the government's railroading of the UI bill with smirks and sad attempts at humour. There is nothing humorous about putting off legitimate debate, or worse, shutting down debate on Bill C-21. He said he was going to drag the
Government Orders
Liberals, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. Well, I would like to suggest to this House that if this is what is in store for us in the 21st century, I fear for Canada.
The government has displayed once again that it has total contempt for the parliamentary process. It has already invoked closure on the second reading of this legislation. The government rushed into public hearings. It gave one month's notice in the middle of summer to community groups, unions and employers groups to prepare for and present briefs to the legislative committee. Had the opposition members on the committee not fought over this and fought for the people who were going to put submissions forward, the government was only prepared initially to give two weeks notice to people who were being asked to present briefs.
The hon. member for Burlington, when he was criticizing the speeches on this side of the House today, said: "You were not there and you did not read the transcripts". Well, Mr. Speaker, I was there; I read the transcripts and I know, indeed, that all the way through the process, the government side pushed, cut us off and was rude to people who presented briefs. We have documented letters outlining that rudeness. The transcripts show that rudeness. I would suggest that today is another example of absolute, total contempt for Parliament.
The minister who attended the committee hearings gave us one hour to voice our concerns about the legislation. When she agreed, because we felt that we had more questions than we were able to cover in an hour, to extend her time, the government members voted against it and said no, we could not have extra time with the minister even though she was willing to spend the time with us. Now I have to say that we have not seen a lot of her since in terms of her interest in this legislation or this debate. I would suggest that Canadians deserve better than this.
The members across the way have made reference to the presentations from unions and from other national bodies. I think one hon. member, before lunch, referred to it as a blueprint from across the country. I do not know if it has ever occurred to the government side of the House or to that hon. member that people across this land were telling the committee the same things because the legislation is equally bad no matter where you go in this country. Whether you go to a city, a rural communi-

October 24, 1989
Government Orders
ty, a small town or the workplace, this legislation is not good for Canadians.
Conversely, I heard very little comment about the few briefs we heard in favour of the legislation. In fact, those few briefs were all over the map because they could not seem to agree about what was good about the legislation. At least people who opposed it understood and were agreed as to what was wrong with it.
I would like to make some references as to why it is so important that Canadians have the opportunity to have this legislation thoroughly debated in the House. In British Columbia, the province I come from, 48,000 people will see benefits reduced at an average of five and a half weeks; 3,000 will not qualify to receive benefits. Training programs will not be available to those who have not spent a long time in the workforce.
In Canada, independent studies show 130,000 Canadians will be cut off benefits. The government says only 30,000 will be affected. Well, 157 of 202 groups told us that many, many more people than those suggested by the government figures would be cut off.
We had in this House 48 hours of debate on the refugee bill. We had 53 hours of debate on the drug patent act. This government suggests that 30 hours of debate on unemployment insurance amendments is enough. Yet this legislation will directly or indirectly affect every man, woman and child who works in this country.
Still, with all of this evidence that was presented to us and all of the evidence that has been presented today in the House, we find the media has paid very little attention to this legislation. I suggest that the government should not be lulled by this. Every Canadian who is directly affected, and even those not directly affected, knows how bad this legislation is and they will remember. What will make them remember is when this legislation goes in effect, they will feel it every time their workplaces are threatened, every time their jobs are threatened and every time their families' jobs are threatened.
I would like to suggest that first the government attempted to muzzle Canadians and now it is muzzling Parliament. I say again that this government is showing absolute and total contempt for Parliament.
Because I am so outraged at that, and maybe it is because I have been here just under a year, I would like to move an amendment.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "two sitting days to the consideration of the third reading stage" and replacing them with "200 sitting days to the consideration of the third reading stage".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will verify the motion. We will go on with debate with the hon. member for Laurentides.


Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the opposition of a few facts. The labour force development strategy tabled in April, 1989, made clear that the UI system was going to be improved. Back in April, 1989, people were already talking about these, changes. The leaders of the opposition were asking questions about it in the House as far back April, 1989.
Then there was the production of Bill C-21 in June, 1989, which led to more questions in the House. The bill was debated at second reading and approved in principle. The next stage was the legislative committee.
As all members know, it is normal for a legislative committee to be small and to do its business in Ottawa. This legislative committee on Bill C-21 which was formed at the end of June, 1989, travelled and was increased in size. I was a member of that legislative committee.
We travelled from Vancouver, British Columbia, to St. John's, Newfoundland. We stopped in every province of Canada. We heard witnesses in every province. We heard witness for three weeks in Vancouver, British Columbia; Edmonton, Alberta; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and Winnipeg, Manitoba. In Ontario the committee held hearings in Toronto and Sudbury. In Quebec, the same committee held hearings in Montreal and Jonquiere. In New Brunswick, the committee sat in Moncton. In Prince Edward Island, the committee sat in Charlottetown; in Nova Scotia, in Halifax; in Newfoundland, in St. John's, plus a week in Ottawa after these travels.
October 24, 1989

Because we were not able to go to the territories, representatives of the territories were invited to come to some of the provinces. We heard the minister and her officials. We studied the bill clause by clause. Last week, we began the report stage.
We are debating a motion to allocate time for further consideration of Bill C-21. Members opposite say they were not given enough time for consideration of this bill. As I have just explained, this bill has been under consideration since June, 1989, and the policies underlying it two months before that.
What is the opposition doing now? Today opposition members turned down the opportunity to sit through lunch. Last week, on the first day of report stage, they turned down the opportunity to sit through lunch. They wanted nothing to do with the idea of extended hours.
Recently, one of the senior members of the New Democratic Party was quoted in a Toronto newspaper as saying that his party would refuse to agree to the scheduling of House time for the remaining stages of Bill C-21. It could not be more evident that opposition claims of shutting off debate are unfounded.

Mr. Speaker, we are in the first stages of a national plan to achieve a fundamental economic goal, which is to use our human resources more wisely. This plan became official last April, when the Minister of Employment and Immigration outlined the new labour force development strategy, a set of measures to make our country more competitive by improving the way it uses the skills and energies of Canadians.
So far, the Canadian labour market has failed to deploy sufficient efforts to upgrade human resources. The new strategy is therefore a battle against waste, and to wage this battle, we intend to use, through Bill C-21, the resources of our unemployment insurance system and make it a tool for training and development.
Waste occurs at practically all levels in the labour market, including entrance levels. Too many young Canadians lack the necessary basic skills to obtain their first job, while the national average drop out rate is 30 per cent. We are about to enter the 90s, a decade during which, according to all the forecasts, most new jobs will require a grade 12 education.
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the areas of education and training are complex and are dependent on provincial governments, regional labour market requirements and constantly changing qualifications. The government is not the sole agency responsible for training a highly qualified and educated labour force, but it can act as a catalyst. Thanks to the labour force development strategy, we now have a framework for co-operation that will be able to draw on the contributions of educators, the provinces, unions, employers and all Canadians, as never before.
Within the framework of this strategy, we are adding $100 million for training new workers, to the $485.4 million we are already spending in this area at the present time.
These measures, and others in which the private sector will play a major role, are aimed at improving our competitive position generally, but we will not succeed as long as Canadians are unable to find work because they lack the requisite skills.
Under Section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, we can provide training for people who are unemployed. At the present time, we are spending only $350 million of the $13 billion in the UI fund on this option. We intend to raise this amount to $700 million. In this case, plans provide for direct participation by business and unions in promoting and managing training programs. We intend to support and facilitate their activities in this respect.
We also intend to spend $150 million on programs for people who find it particularly difficult to re-enter the labour market, including welfare recipients and older workers who are 45 or over.
Mr. Speaker, speaking of older workers, I would like to address another measure that seems particularly relevant in Canada today. Any program or practice aimed at preventing a Canadian who is able to work from doing so only because of his age is a waste of manpower. And that is the case with our system present UI system.
As soon as Canadians reach the age of 65, whatever their skills or ambitions may be, they fall into a trap: they no longer have the right to contribute to the unemployment insurance plan or receive benefits. The changes we

Government Orders
are proposing will also entitle older Canadians to unemployment insurance benefits as long as they wish to work.
This measure, Mr. Speaker, and other measures provided under Bill C-21 will make it possible to take a new and intelligent approach to unemployment insurance, an approach that will make the system more relevant and will provide for an increased focus on training, a focus that is well overdue.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I want to express at the outset, my revulsion at the procedure that this government has adopted in proceeding with closure at this stage on this bill. Frankly, it is one of the most shocking-the minister laughs. All this government has done is sit around and laugh while it throttles the rights of Parliament. I say this is another example of that throttling, of that improper activity. I want to point out some of the shortcomings of the government in its dealings in this respect, because they have been legion since the election last November.
The statement I would like to read first is one of the government's former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Erik Nielsen. I have his book here, in case members want to hear from that. The hon. member for Yukon, as he then was, on December 11, 1964, at page 11059 of Hansard, said:
The procedure of closure has been repugnant to the sense of fair play of the Canadian people. My own personal view is that never in parliamentary debate should there be a muzzling of free debate.
He went on, at page 11061, on the same date, to say:
There is something else I will vote against when the time comes to do so, and that is the imposition of closure in the House of Commons. I will vote against the gagging and throttling of parliamentary debate, because that is what is happening.
Those are the words of the government's former Deputy Prime Minister, a former colleague. He would be ashamed, thoroughly ashamed, to witness the spectacle that is going on on the other side of this House today. His book, that great litany of delight, which has such a wonderful appendix in it, is something I would commend for reading to hon. members opposite. They might find it helpful, as they review their future careers in this House, to look at their past record as assessed by the former Deputy Prime Minister.
Having looked at what he said, how can this government square what it is doing today with the example set by Mr. Nielsen and, indeed, by all their leaders in the past? The use of closure by this government has exceeded all past known records. Never has a Parliament in Canadian history had closure applied as frequently as this Parliament has done already, and we have only been sitting for 10 or 11 months, in theory, but in practice the sittings have been much less than that.
Let us review the number of times it has been used. Last December the government used it to suspend the rules of the House so it could ram through the free trade bill. Then the Tories used it three times on the free trade bill, the first time since 1956 that closure had been so abused. It is a shocking example. Three times it was used on that bill. They got it through in the minimum amount of time in this House by using closure at every stage at the earliest possible opportunity.
You would think that having done it once, the Conservative members would give up and say: "Okay, we have abused our position, perhaps, once. We had some justification in the previous Parliament." But let us look at the record.
The government called us back after three months off; January, February and March. We were called back for April, May and June, and by June the government was using closure again, because it said we were not passing its bills quickly enough.
If the bills are not going through fast enough to satisfy this bunch, I suggest they should have had us here in January, February and March when we could have discussed them. But government members said, "No, we don't need Parliament around. Parliament is something we don't want to hear from. Parliament damages our reputation. Parliament tarnishes the reputation of this government in the eyes of the public because they see how bad we are." That is their attitude and they should think that way because they are dreadful. This bill is dreadful and I will deal with its merits in a moment.
That is not all. We had closure applied three times in June; on the bill on plant breeders' rights, on this bill at second reading and on the excise tax amendment. Then we had notice given on Bill C-36 in October. We had notice given on the income tax bill, Bill C-28, the other day. Now we have a gagging order, under a different rule admittedly, but a gagging order. This is the first time this has been used in our Parliament but it is the same
October 24, 1989

principle. It is an attempt to gag debate, to throttle the rights of this House to have open and free discussion of the government's legislative proposals. I say to the ministers opposite that they should be ashamed.
Let's look at the record of this bill itself. The bill was read for the first time on June 1 of this year. It was debated at second reading on June 6, and again on June 7 and June 21. Let's see how long it was discussed on each of those occasions. On June 6 it was discussed one hour and 40 minutes. On June 7, two hours and 40 minutes; and on June 21, the day the government applied closure at the second reading stage, nine hours and one minute.
That is the total length of time spent on second reading. The Tories rammed the bill through at second reading and then they adjourned the House for the summer. That is how urgent they regarded this thing. They said, "Oh well, we can adjourn the House for an extra two weeks in September because we don't need to have everybody back on this. It is not urgent." Now, all of a sudden it is urgent, they have to have this bill through tomorrow.
We have had only one day of debate at report stage. Look at the Order Paper. There are 43 amendments set down to discuss at report stage on this bill. Obviously it is highly contentious. As well are a lot of problems with this bill. Every speaker has said so. The government closes its ears and says, "We are not going to listen to that. We don't want the Canadian people to hear that. We are going to cut off debate in this House so they can't hear it." It is a disgraceful way to run a Parliament.
The responsibility for running this House rests over there. It is the government that controls the agenda in here. Everyone knows that, and it is ramming the bill through this House and not giving the members of the opposition a decent opportunity to make the points that they should be making against this dreadful bill.
Let me turn to some of the comments that have been made about Bill C-21. This Unemployment Insurance Act affects one of the premier social programs in Canada. It is a huge expense, about $13 billion as I
Government Orders
understand it. That is a very significant social program in Canada and these changes are significant. They are major changes. They have been denounced by almost every group who appeared before the committee condemning these changes. Yet this government sits here and says, "We don't want to discuss it any more. One day in committee stage is more than enough. Canadians are hearing too many bad things about our policies. We don't want to discuss it any more."
Listen to what the Canadian Council on Social Development had to say about Bill C-21. Let's listen to some of the criticism it has made of this bill and see why the government is so reluctant to have it discussed. I think these reasons betray the justification that the government claims for using closure. It indicates that the government does not want to hear these criticisms. Let me read some of them into the record.
In a recent communique released October 2, subsequent to its presentation to the committee, the Canadian Council on Social Development said this:
Low-income workers will be disproportionately affected by the cutbacks: 80 per cent of those affected will have incomes under $25,000 a year, according to calculations by Global Economics Ltd.
The main disincentive to work is not UI benefits, but low wages. Most jobs available to UI recipients are at, or scarcely above, the minimum wage. A worker making the $4.00 federal minimum wage today, earns an annual income of $8,320. The average provincial minimum wage in 1986 supported a worker with dependent spouse and child at only 48 per cent of the Statistics Canada poverty line. The solution is to improve wages, not lower UI benefits.
The proposed financing arrangements are regressive. Low income workers pay a larger percentage of their total earnings into UI premiums than do higher-income workers. Likewise, smaller employers pay proportionately more than do large employers. By funding labour adjustment programs from changes to UI, the government is shifting the burden from general taxation onto employers and workers, and more so onto those at lower income levels. Since a two-earner family with two children living on $20,000 a year will-as a result of this government's policies-be paying $1,424 more in income and sales tax in 1990 than in 1984 (according to CCSD calculations), low-income Canadians can ill afford the further burden of UI changes.
That is the statement by the respected Canadian Council on Social Development. Those are the criticisms that it levels against this bill.

October 24, 1989
Government Orders
The hon. member for Burlington shakes his head. He knows perfectly well these criticisms are valid. He should be supporting this council and denouncing this bill and this government for introducing such a piece of legislation and then trying to ram it through this House by the use of time allocation techniques and closure. That is what has been going on at every stage and it is not justified by any of the facts relating to the time on which this bill has been debated in this House. It has not been obstructed. It has not been prolonged unduly. This government is too impatient to allow Canadians to hear the truth about the savage policies that it is introducing in this country which are wrong and should be withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Simcoe Centre, I have looked at the motion of the member for Mission-Coquitlam and I will accept it. The debate is on the amendment.


Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of this motion and I welcome this opportunity to speak.
This government wants to get this wonderful country operating with every worker in a place of meaningful employment. It is urgent that no time be lost. Bill C-21 will help women, youth, part-time and seasonal workers, disabled and aboriginal peoples, older people and unemployed to take advantage of programs that will enhance their ability to take their place in the workforce. It will open the doors to better quality jobs and higher wages.
We have been accused of being hard-hearted, cold, uncaring and unloving, but let me tell you, we are just the opposite. This government believes in giving Canadians the opportunity to train and retrain for jobs that are waiting to be filled. How much better to be working than sitting with unemployment benefits and no hope. Remember, we are the government which has created the opportunities that increased jobs since 1984 by 1,555,000. Statistics Canada has said that since January we have created 189,000 jobs.
I just want to mention here that the unemployment insurance program is vital to the well-being of Canadians. Its role as a social safety net in providing temporary income protection to unemployed Canadian workers is essential and it is endorsed by this government.
A recent survey by Statistics Canada showed that 14 per cent of Canadian manufacturers were facing production problems due to a lack of skilled labour. Unless action is taken, these problems will likely become more acute in the 1990s.
Bill C-21 is a strategy for the future of Canada. It is one of many policies which have been developed to turn this country from being debt ridden to a country of sound management. We must not delay this program. Let us get on with the jobs we have been elected to do and support this motion.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to address this motion of the government. I have been in this House now for five years. Over the course of the last five years this government, in an ever-more-frequent fashion, has invoked closure in order to cut off and stifle debate on issues of national concern.
We have before us a bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, a bill that will affect, in a very direct way, hundreds of thousands of Canadians, a bill that will adversely affect the working poor in Canada. This government, in its arrogance, has decided to invoke closure to cut off debate.
You, Sir, have considerable experience in this House. You have been here for quite a number of years and know the rules of parliamentary procedure with respect to the invocation of closure and the stifling of debate. Yes, there is a place for closure in a democratic system. At times it may be necessary for a government, in very extreme circumstances, to cut off debate, to eliminate further discussion of a piece of legislation. But I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that those situations are extremely rare indeed. This government has done an about-face.
A few years ago when the Conservative party was in opposition its members spoke about the arrogance of closure. They referred to it as repugnant. The former Deputy Prime Minister, Erik Nielsen, on many occasions stood up on this side of the House when he was in opposition and criticized the imposition of closure. In fact, ministers of the Crown in the House here today have stood up and spoken against the bringing in of closure.
October 24, 1989

I think it is important that we ask why this government has decided to cut off debate, to muzzle discussion of this particular piece of legislation. I think the reasons are obvious. Of the 202 groups that appeared before the committee, the overwhelming majority opposed this bill. The overwhelming majority, 157 to be exact, recommended some very major changes.
It is not as if this is the first time that this government has brought in closure with respect to Bill C-21. In fact, at second reading stage, closure was invoked and, as was indicated previously, this bill was debated for a total of about 12 or 13 hours. That is not a long period of time when you consider the ramifications of the provisions in this particular bill.
Finally the bill did go to committee. The committee did travel. It did listen to Canadians. The itinerary was not as extensive as the opposition wanted it to be.


William James Kempling: It was exactly what the opposition asked for.


John V. Nunziata: But the committee began to deliberate on some of the recommendations that were made by the various groups that appeared before the committee. Instead of debating fully the recommendations and amendments presented by the opposition, for the second time in the consideration of Bill C-21 at committee the Conservative members again invoked closure to cut off further debate.
Here we are back in the House at report stage and this government again invokes closure. It is clear why it is doing so; it is clearly embarrassed. The government knows that the longer we debate and discuss this particular legislation, the more opportunity Canadians will have to respond and the more heat it will take for this very regressive measure.
It is not as if the parliamentary timetable would not permit some extra discussion and debate on the 43 amendments that are on the Order Paper and before Parliament. The Prime Minister decided in June that he would take a three or four-month holiday, notwithstanding that the rules of the House specified a specific period of time for this House not to be in session. This government decided to take a few extra weeks' holiday, much to the chagrin and opposition of members on this
Government Orders
side of the House. Why, if the government was so intent on dealing with this bill in such a quick fashion, did it not recall the House at an earlier point in time? Why, for example, has the House leader for the Conservative party not asked the opposition House leaders to extend the debate into the evening hours? It is clear that this government does not want any further discussion or debate.
The invocation of closure goes contrary to some of the very basic tenets of democracy, of the parliamentary system of government. In any democracy it is important that governments introduce legislation , that there be a fair and full debate and that the opposition be permitted to present alternatives. In the end, the government has a sufficient number of members in order to defeat any proposal made by the opposition parties.
What is important in a democratic system is that there be that debate, that discussion, in order for Canadians to fully understand. To invoke closure, in my respectful submission, Your Honour, is to show contempt for this Parliament. Contempt has been shown not only on this occasion but on many other occasions in the past five years, including in the past year or so, when this government on numerous occasions-four times during the free trade debate-invoked closure.
Canadians believe that there ought to be discussion and debate and will not accept arrogance on the part of the government. We in the opposition would very much like the opportunity to debate the merits of Bill C-21. A great number of my constituents will be directly affected by the provisions of this piece of legislation that runs about 33 pages.
I believe that I have a responsibility, indeed a duty, to speak to this bill, to articulate in the House of Commons and at committee how this particular legislation will affect my constituents. Because this government has chosen to invoke closure, my parliamentary privileges are affected in an adverse way because I will not have that opportunity to present my objections to Bill C-21.1 will not have the opportunity to share with my colleagues on this side of the House and on that side of the House the reasons why the constituents of York South-Weston will be adversely affected by this piece of legislation.

Government Orders
In summary, let me say that we on this side of the House do not accept the arrogance of this government. We want to continue to debate this bill to discuss the merits of the legislation.
I know that I have but a few minutes to put on the record some of the concerns that I have. You are indicating, Mr. Speaker, a minute. Now how can I, in one minute, in 60 seconds, deal adequately with a bill that has 33 clauses, a bill that has drawn the attention of over 200 groups? How can I, in a reasonable fashion, deal with this bill in 60 seconds?


John Harvard: It's impossible.


John V. Nunziata: It is impossible. My colleague says it is impossible. The government knows that. I want to know why the government is afraid to allow me and my colleagues on this side of the House the opportunity to represent our constituents in a responsible way.
I have prepared submissions on Bill C-21. I am not being given the opportunity to present the submissions to this House. I find that regrettable. I know that you, Sir, are an individual who respects the tradition of this House.
Sir, you have been in this House for some 20-odd years and you know how important parliamentary debate is. I challenge other members of long standing in this House to point to another government at any point in history that has shown the arrogance and the undemocratic nature that this Conservative government has shown. Indeed it is a contempt of Parliament.
You sitting in the chair, Mr. Speaker, should not allow that to happen. I would ask you, Sir, to stand up for those rights.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Nanaimo- Cowichan-Fisheries-Fish processing regulations /
Enforcement of landing requirements; the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia-Canada Pension Plan-Request for amendment of Act-Disabled persons; the Hon. Member for Battle-fords-Meadow Lake-Canada Post Corporation-Services in communities /Minister's position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That, in relation to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage, and two sitting days to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and
That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Business on the day allotted to report stage consideration, and on the second day allotted to the third reading stage consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
and the amendment thereto of Ms. Langan (p. 5060).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It now being 3.57 p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) have expired.
Accordingly, under the terms of the standing order it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
October 24, 1989

Government Orders


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 amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
Anderson
Attewell
Bertrand
Blackburn (Jonquiere) Blenkarn
Bouchard (Roberval)
Brightwell
Casey
Champagne (Champlain)
Chartrand
Cole
Members
Atkinson
Beatty
Bjomson
Blais
Bosley
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean) Campbell (Vancouver Centre) Chadwick Charest
Clark (Brandon-Souris) Collins


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 24, 1989
Government Orders


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


ADVANCE PAYMENTS FOR CROPS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, October 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-36, an act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress how important the passage of this bill is to the agricultural industry of Canada. Farmers have made economic decisions based on the availability of advance grain payments; agri-business is relying on farmers making economic decisions whether it be in the area of purchasing equipment, fertilizers or seed; rural municipalities are expecting that taxes will be paid. Canadians generally have come to depend on this traditional availability of cash, and to delay Bill C-36 any further would be a disservice to those whose employment and standard of living depend on this bill. To delay is purely unconscionable.
This bill is important to farmers. They have told me that they are prepared to pay their share of the national debt. There is absolutely no argument with them in any way, shape or form on that subject. However they do object to members of the opposition delaying this bill, and they have said that they will remember them next
October 24, 1989

election day. They have said to me: "You are the government; you fix this matter." Therefore I move:
That this question be now put.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion is debatable.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in direct response to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Regina-Wascana, he must have the interests of Saskatchewan producers at heart. He must know that this bill, as it stands today, cannot go forward without proper and adequate debate in the House. It is particularly within the knowledge of the government and the government member who moved this motion that the Advance Payments for Crops Act, up until this point, very clearly outlined that this bill provided for the easy sale of grains and for the orderly marketing of grains under the Canadian Wheat Board.
It is not a loan that the farmer borrows against the crop that is in the bin. It should not be subject to the payment of interest, and that is essentially the nature of the bill before us.
The government is insisting that farmers pay an interest rate on the loan. Let me read into the record something that was in the local newspaper in my riding to support the argument that I am making here. The Prairie Pools was quoted in the North Battleford News Optimist as calling for a reinstatement of the interest-free cash advance for farmers. In a letter to the agriculture minister, which the Minister of Agriculture must have received by now, the president of Prairie Pools, Mr. Doug Livingstone, stated: "the interest-free cash advance is valuable in providing farmers with much needed cash during surplus stocks and tight quotas". Let me quote directly from that letter. Mr. Livingstone states: "Charging interest on cash advances may affect a producer's ability to wait for delivery opportunities later in the year".
Government Orders
The Prairie Pools and other farm organizations across the prairies have been telling this government since April 27, when this government first announced that it was going to go ahead with this bill, that this is not a program that should be subject to interest rates. This is quite clearly a program that allows for the sale of farm products.
I am sure you have seen how a farm operation works, Mr. Speaker, just as the member for Regina-Wascana would have seen how a farm operation works. You harvest your crop, you put it in the bin, and then you move it to the elevator for sale. It is at the elevator that the crop gets purchased. When the crop is sitting in the bin and the elevator is full, the farmer cannot move the crop from the bin to the elevator. Therefore it sits there. The farmer's bills are adding up because the people he borrowed money from during the summer in order to get the crop in and harvested cannot now be paid.
With this bill the government is adding an extra burden to this whole process of trying to move the grain from the bin to the elevator to export and as such is throwing a damper on the whole orderly marketing of grain.
Under no circumstances can the motion moved by the member for Regina-Wascana be heard at this point in time. The government still has not heard from a number of rural representatives both of my party and of the Official Opposition in the House. A number of witnesses are anxious, the Prairie Pools included, to appear before the committee of the House.
The Prairie Pools wants this government to hold off any planned changes to the cash advance until there is a thorough study of the possible effects of farm cash flow on agricultural marketing, which means there is a normal course of delay that should be taking place here.
If this government were really serious about protecting the interests of western Canadian farmers, it would withdraw this bill immediately and put into place the provisions of the statutes which presently exist. Those statutes call for the government simply to put out the forms for the cash advance program so that the farm community would, right now, have access to the cash advance. Interest-free as it may be, that is exactly the way it should be.

October 24, 1989
Government Orders
I also want to point out that I have received a number of phone calls over the course of the last couple of weeks from producers, some of whom are being pressured to pay debts by the Farm Credit Corporation which is stating: "If you can get a cash advance, we will be able to swing you through until this whole process is complete." Those particular farmers are wondering what they are supposed to do.
The government, last April 27, knew what it wanted to do with this cash advance program. It sat on it all the way through to now, and some of my constituents are in a real bind because they are not able to get the cash advance on which they are counting to pay off their debts. It is a direct responsibility of this government to ensure that farmers are able to hang on to what they have come to count on. In fact farmers do count on it for the sale of their grain and the maintenance of their farms.
This government has been so proud of its record on agriculture. Every time somebody on the other side of the House stands up, it is to talk about what this government has done for agriculture.
What state is agriculture in in this country? It is worse than it was under the previous government which had also mowed agriculture into the ground. Everything this government has done has been simply band-aids on problems. Not a single financial problem in the agricultural sector has been alleviated by any of the programs that have been instituted since 1984. One full term in government, and now we are into a second term of this particular government and the farm crisis is broadening. Bills like this are creating no end of difficulty for the producers who do not know what to do from one day to the next. They do not know where they are going to turn.
This year the crop in some parts of Saskatchewan and western Canada is better than it was last year because of the massive drought that hit the prairie provinces. There is a bit better crop in some areas of Saskatchewan and western Canada, and what happens? They cannot sell it now. They cannot get the money for the crop now
because this government is holding back on this whole interest-free cash advance program.
The whole process up to this point has been quite disgusting and unnerving. The government should actually be ashamed of itself for talking about how wonderful it has been to agriculture, and then on the other hand pushing it down one more time. Not only is the government going to have a tax revolt on its hands and a train revolt, it is going to have an agriculture revolt if it keeps this sort of thing up.
The last time I spoke on this bill was on the motion of the Liberal party to hoist this matter for six months. At that point I suggested that the government was listening as much on this issue as it was listening on the issues of the goods and services tax and of VIA Rail. We have a situation where the people of Canada, the producers, the people who are most affected by government legislation, are doing the talking and the government is not doing the listening. They are doing exactly the opposite thing of what is demanded by the market-place, the market that they are so proud of out there.
I have had a large number of telephone calls in my riding concerning the cash advance. Every single one of those calls advocates a support for the interest-free cash advance, not because they are looking for a hand-out from the government and free money, but because that is the nature of this program. That is what is needed. A short time ago the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre outlined the purpose of this whole process when he stated:
The Advance Payments for Crops Act was a benefit not only to producers but to small businesses as well. As we all know, the farmer lives on credit for a good portion of the year and advance payments allow him to pay his bills to small business people who are themselves suffering.
As this government will know, the hon. member who chairs the goods and services tax committee, the finance committee here in the House, has heard from people all over Canada. Small business people in western Canada are saying that this government, through the goods and services tax, is putting a burden on them that they cannot bear.
One of the reasons they cannot bear it is the pressure from the agricultural community at this point that the bills are not being paid. The economy is just too poor.
My colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, also stated:
With this change in the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, it is quite clear that farmers will not be utilizing the programs as they had
October 24, 1989

before. A study by the UPA in Quebec indicated that approximately 10 per cent of producers now utilizing the Advance Payments for Crops Act will utilize it when the interests amended are added to this act.
It is destroying the program. Putting the interest rate on to this program simply eliminates it, simply gets rid of the program altogether. This government may just as well have reduced and destroyed the program.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has expired. Before I recognize the next hon. member, there is a point of order by the Minister of Justice.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the proceedings to be interrupted for me to put the following motion without debate. I move:
That a subcommittee of the Standing Committee of Finance composed of one member from each recognized party in the House, be authorized to travel to Yellowknife (Northwest Territories) on Thursday, October 26, 1989 for the purpose of hearing witnesses on the committee's consideration of the goods and services tax;
And that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the opposition and in a spirit of co-operation that we always show with the government when we are approached and asked about these things, we will of course agree to the motion that the minister has proposed and give our consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Government Orders


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-36, an act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Schneider (p.5069).
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed myself last Friday when I was speaking to the amendment on this bill. I was only allowed 20 minutes and I have two hours' worth of stuff.
I want to start off by mentioning my hon. friend, the member for Regina-Wascana, who did what I consider to be the dumbest thing any member from the prairies could ever do, that is, to try and cut off debate on interest-free cash advances for farmers. I am not complaining about that. If he is going to be that stupid, I will be glad to help him out.
I want to say to my hon. friend that I challenge him to debate this matter in some place in his riding like Montmartre. You set the date, time, and place, and I will be there. I want you to do that; just give me a couple of weeks' notice. We will take this out to your farmers in the rural part of Regina-Wascana. Of course one of us will bring the Hansard record with us.
The government is breaking its own law by refusing both Treasury Board and cabinet to authorize the Canadian Wheat Board or the other agencies in the rest of Canada to issue cash advances, interest-free, on farm production.
I hope there are some legal eagles checking on this because I suspect the law says the Minister of Finance "shall", not "may" pay to provide the funds for the Canadian Wheat Board and the other agencies that issue the funds as a cash advance on that farm production.
If there ever was a backhanded, underhanded manner in which to subvert the law of the land, it is to not provide the money. The new crop year starts August 1 in the case of grain in the Canadian Wheat Board area.

October 24, 1989
Government Orders
Since August 1, the government has refused to allow the Canadian Wheat Board to issue cash advances which under the law it is allowed to do. What lengths the government goes to to subvert the law.
It is the same as what Otto Lang did when he tried to repeal the temporary Wheat Reserves Act to save the government $100 million by not having paid the Canadian Wheat Board storage costs on certain amounts of grain for the previous 18 months. We took him to court and beat him. We collected $100 million for the grain producers of western Canada.
The same thing is occurring again, only this time the faces have changed. They are just as ugly as the previous ones. The names have changed, Liberal-Conservative, Conservative-Liberal, the same breed of cats. Now the Tories are doing the same damn thing that they condemned the Liberals for doing.
When we are talking about interest-free, I had a chance to briefly mention last Friday about deferred corporation taxes. Almost $40 billion have accrued on the books of this country by corporations that were allowed to defer their taxes and they do not pay them back. In fact, it is an interest-free loan.
I suggested last Friday, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to charge 10 per cent interest on those deferred corporation taxes, which is at least 3 per cent below the bank rate, you would pick up $4 billion a year for the Government of Canada. I think that is a neat way to reduce the deficit.
The point is, there can be interest-free loans for corporations like the CPR, Bell Telephone, and International Nickel, but an interest-free cash advance for farmers is a no-no, say the Tories.
I do not necessarily know whether or not there will be any resurrections, but if there were one I would hope it would be the former member for Prince Albert who would come back and haunt the hon. Minister of Energy who sits there as a fine Christian gentleman. Mr. Diefenbaker, I am sure, would love to shake his jowls at him, poke his finger in his ear, in his nose, and in his eye about what he is doing to a program brought in in 1957.1 find this passing strange. In fact, in western Canada, people of all political stripes applauded Mr. Diefenbaker, his political foes as well as his friends, and every farm organization, for bringing in something that we had been
tiying to get the Liberals to do since 1947, and we got it in 1957.
Who is trying to do away with it? The same outfit that brought it in. I do not think even the Liberals are that stupid, but the Tories are. In fact, they are setting records all the time. They set one today.
Many times the Tories berated the Liberals when they were in government for closure and time allocation and they did a terrible number of them. When one is in, the other one is out and all they do is exchange speeches. But the Tories today set a record. Always before, with the Liberals, you had a least two or three days to debate, but today the Tories set a record of one day. How about that? What a record to meet.
Now the Tories have set another record. They are destroying a program that was unanimously approved of, accepted, agreed to, and supported right across political lines and by all the farm organizations, including the ones that fight among themselves and with each other, and has been supported consistently since 1957.
I know it is a fond hope, but if the three and a half Tories who are in here would not mind, if they would go back to their own caucus and their-


An Hon. Member:: Two and a half.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: All right, two and a half. Perhaps these members would go back to their caucus and to the cabinet and say that this is a bum move, because the $27 million that the interest charges were on cash advances last year is a heck of a lot less than the cost of storing grain and transporting it. It provides a cash flow for grain producers so they can pay their taxes and their other bills. In fact, they can even make their payments to the Farm Credit Corporation.
This is such a stupid way to go about reducing government expenditures. The end result of passing a bill like this is that it is going to cost the government more than the $27 million.
I say to my hon. friend that you talk about sound business practices and business-like management, but I would not let this government manage a chicken coop. It is just blowing it. It is doing it "bass ackwards". It is so ridiculous that I would hope my hon. friend would go back to the cabinet committee or Treasury Board, or beat up on the Minister of Finance behind the Peace Tower or something, anything to get him to withdraw this nonsense. There is no saving in this for the government, and
October 24, 1989

it is at a terrible cost for agriculture producers all over this country.
Surely, my hon. friend, the minister knows that. He knows in his own area of Manitoba what a benefit this has been to grain producers year in and year out since 1957. Why does he want to cut that off? It is inexplicable, it is not explainable, not justifiable and it is uncivilized. In fact, I will close by saying to my hon. friend that it is even un-Christian.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to 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
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis) moved: that 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, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Levis, the city where a former parliamentary stenographer and editor for the House of Commons from 1892 to 1917, Alphonse Desjardins, founded Canada's first caisse populate, the first of 1,343 Desjardins caisses populaires and credit unions in Quebec, I have the honour to table today a Bill to authorize the Safeguard Life Assurance Company to be continued under Quebec's Insurance Act.
On June 29, 1989, the Senate approved this bill on third reading. Established in 1901, the Safeguard was the first insurance company created and financed by the French-speaking business community in Canada. This share company again made economic history in our country in 1962 by becoming the exclusive property of the Caisses populaires Desjardins of Quebec, that is, 100
Private Members' Business
per cent owned by them. The Safeguard was the instrument-some would say the turning point-for bringing together the first holding company in Quebec for financial institutions that belong to our fellow citizens through some 1,343 caisses populaires and credit unions in Quebec that make up the Desjardins Movement.
After a modest beginning, the Safeguard could take pride in being the largest French-speaking life insurance company in Canada in 1962, with $52 million in assets. Today, the Safeguard has $800 million in assets.
In March 1988, the elected directors of the Desjardins Movement approved the plan for the growth and capitalization of the Safeguard. Accordingly, Desjardins has already increased the company's capital and made a commitment to its future capitalization.
Today, the Safeguard is asking to be continued under Quebec jurisdiction. This is what the customers, shareholders and managers of the Safeguard want so that it can prosper and grow in this highly competitive and fast-changing environment in our country. To do so, it needs to be governed by a single control and supervision authority, the same one that already regulates all the other activities of the Desjardins Movement, namely the Inspector General of Financial Institutions of Quebec.
In addition, then-Minister of State for Finance, Thomas Hockin, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, Mr. Mackenzie, and the Inspector General of Financial Institutions of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, were informed of all the details of the Safeguard's plan and gave their support to this Bill.
As I said earlier, the Senate studied and approved this bill before the summer break. There was no opposition to this bill when it was considered in the Senate committee.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of continuing this company under Quebec jurisdiction is not to escape from or reduce supervision of its affairs but to achieve greater openness.
Indeed, such a move will force the company, in addition to satisfying the rules governing federally incorporated insurance companies and the rules set by Quebec, to meet all the requirements in all Canadian

October 24, 1989
Private Members' Business
provinces from which federally chartered companies are exempt.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the proposed transfer of jurisdiction for the Safeguard makes a great deal of sense and is clearly to the benefit of its shareholders and customers and the public at large. Therefore, I urge the members of this House to pass the Safeguard bill quickly so that this company can carry out its planned transfer of jurisdiction as soon as possible.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today to 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. I am supporting the motion that it be referred to a legislative committee.
What this means in layman's terms is that the Safeguard Life Assurance Company is asking that it be allowed to transfer its charter from a federal charter, that is federal control, to control by the province of Quebec. There are probably some extremely valid reasons for so doing, and not the least of which is that it is mainly controlled by shareholders in the province of Quebec. On the other hand, it is important that we look veiy carefully at the reasons for the transfer of this company and that it not be because perhaps under the Quebec charter there might be considerably more loopholes of which they can take advantage. I support the motion.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill S-5 to authorize the Safeguard Life Assurance Company to be continued as a corporation under the laws of the province of Quebec.
I listened to the remarks of my colleague on the other side of the House, and I think I might point out that in February 1988 the management of Safeguard advised the office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions of their intention to replace their federal charter by a provincial charter.
They gave two reasons for making such a request. First, over 95 per cent of Safeguard policyholders live in Quebec and the company intends to concentrate all future operations in that province.
Second, Safeguard wishes to avail itself of certain provisions which, in the opinion of the board, would eventually be included in Quebec's legislation on insurance companies.
The office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions told the company that they would not raise objections if the company were to show that such a move was endorsed by shareholders and policyholders alike.
This position was then confirmed by the minister responsible for financial institutions because it was in keeping with the guidelines followed in recent years.
During the next few months the management of Safeguard consulted with their policyholders and shareholders, 95 per cent of whom approved the project aimed at securing a provincial charter. This is why the office of the Superintendent has since confirmed that it has no objection to Safeguard acquiring a provincial charter.
The bill now under consideration would authorize Safeguard to substitute a Quebec government charter for the charter it now has.
As my colleague from Levis (Mr. Fontaine) pointed out, the bill was passed by the Senate after committee hearings where it heard evidence from company management.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should-and the opposition agrees-refer Bill S-5 to a legislative committee for further consultation and disposition.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In view of the fact that the adjournment debate is at six o'clock, I must suspend the sitting now until six o'clock this day, at which time we will have the adjournment debate.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.08 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 5.58 p.m.
October 24, 1989
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
FISHERIES-FISH PROCESSING REGULATIONS/ENFORCEMENT OF LANDING REQUIREMENTS
['The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24 (1).']
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, in discussing the final report of the free trade panel, the Minister for International Trade said, in effect, although I did not take his words down accurately, that compensation is not easy to calculate, but the ruling is being considered. These are the words that interest me most: "Whatever we do will be in the interest of Canadians generally and those involved in the industry in particular".
I fear that the people involved in the fishing industry in British Columbia will take very little comfort from those words, because they have been hearing similar comments from ministers on the government side for some years now.
In November, 1987, when the Minister of Fisheries was asked about the effect of the GATT ruling, he made it quite clear as to what the government position was. He offered his assurances that those jobs would not be jeopardized in any way. He went on to state:
The provisions of Canada's participation in GATT allow for export controls for the purpose of preserving security of supply, for ensuring adequacy of supply to plants and for the conservation of the resource. Many member nations of GATT take advantage of such export restrictions.
Later on he said, "-a government which spends over $100 million a year to manage and enhance the west coast salmon and herring industry will not allow jobs, historically established, to be threatened by any such initiative."
Further on he stated, "What we have is a panel recommendation which will, in all likelihood, be overturned by the GATT council of which we are a member, and we will be opposing that recommendation when it
Adjournment Debate
reaches the GATT council." Those are very comforting words from almost two years ago. But the government took no such action. It had the report from GATT, and an opportunity to appeal it. It chose not to appeal. It had the opportunity to take alternative actions, and it chose not to do that.
The government did nothing in fact, and then it signed its way into the free trade agreement, or at least accepted the final wording of the free trade deal on December 10, 1987, in which agreement it agreed not to go against any GATT decision.
On March 21, 1988, the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister for International Trade announced that Canada would not veto the GATT panel ruling. It had that opportunity and they chose not to do that. It had an opportunity to impose export taxes, prior to the free trade agreement being signed. It chose not to do that. The next day, the full GATT council accepted the panel ruling.
Then the government came up with alternative proposals. It had some sure fire methods of controlling the situation. They could have vetoed the GATT council decision. It could have imposed an export tax. It chose not to do either. Instead, totally ignoring the recommendations from everyone involved in the fishing industry in the west coast, it brought in a new system of regulations, landing requirements for B.C. salmon and herring. This was going to be the way of saving the industry for British Columbia.
A panel was set up in response to the Americans raising this issue again. The panel brought in a preliminary report on September 15. That is almost 40 days ago now. The preliminary report, which has not been released to this date to the best of my knowledge, although we were able to get copies of it from the Americans, ruled against Canada.
There was a suggestion within the body of the report that if we did not insist on 100 per cent landing, then it might be okay. It did not state it would be, but stated it might be okay if we had something less than 100 per cent insistence of landing in British Columbia. The government has taken a lot of comfort from the fact that the panel, in the body of its report, suggested that something less than 100 per cent might be satisfactory. It did not state that it would be.
Once again, as I say, the government has taken comfort from that statement. But it has not told the fishing industry, the people involved in the processing

October 24, 1989
Adjournment Debate
industry, or the fishermen themselves, just what position the government intends to take.
It had 61 days in total from the release of the preliminary report. It has 21 days left, and it has chosen not to say anything, other than that it will consult the fishing industry. Again, I have not been able to find out from anyone in the fishing industry that the government is consulting anyone, and the days are slipping by.
Canada did react to the preliminary report. It had a position paper. But there is no rehearing of the case, although there was an opportunity given the death of one of the members of the panel and his replacement. There was an opportunity to have a rehearing and to hear new evidence. Evidence was available. Canada had the evidence. It has it in this paper which goes into the details as to what extent exports were going on in spite of the landing regulations. The fish were being landed in British Columbia and millions of pounds of fish were being shipped out after they were landed. So it is obvious from the evidence from affidavits that are sworn by Mr. Nordlandmann, the manager of the largest shipper of unprocessed salmon from B.C. landing stations. The evidence was there to show that it did not interfere with the shipments to the United States. Canada should have won that case. Canada still has the opportunity to say, "We are going to insist on 100 per cent landing because we need it to control the resource".


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, Canada and the United States received the final report of the FTA panel on Pacific salmon and herring on October 16 of this year. We are currently reviewing the report and its impact on Canadian landing requirements for Pacific salmon and herring and have not yet come to a decision. We have begun to consult with the B.C. government and the industry and have received some useful suggestions.
Under FTA rules, Canada and the United States must reach a decision on this case within 30 days of receipt of the final report. Regardless of the final decision, Canada will ensure that the conservation and management of the salmon and herring resource will not be compromised. The panel has recognized that it is the sovereign right of Canada to collect conservation and management information and that Canada does not have to depend on a foreign nation for that information.
The panel stated that Canada's landing requirements would be acceptable if provision was made to exempt from landing that portion of the catch whose exportation without landing would not impede the data collection process. The report also stated that the actual proportion should be determined on the basis of the actual data and management needs of each fishery or group of fisheries, but that a 10 to 20 per cent level would provide appropriate guidance.
The government feels strongly that it must take time to carefully study the report and complete consultations with the province of British Columbia and the industry before publicly announcing its purpose.
The government recognizes that it takes time to provide a proper assessment of the implications of the report. The critical question is whether the report permits a realistic achievement of our conservation and management requirements; that is, the ability to perform statistically valid biological sampling, the ability to obtain information needed for effective in-season management and the ability to validate catch by species, number and weight, area and time.
With the above in mind, the government is hopeful that through the consultative process and taking the time necessary to measure the impacts on the conservation of these essential resources, we will be able to ensure that our goals are met.



Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to again raise in this House a concern that I have relative to the Canada Pension Plan disability pension provisions. This flows from a question put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare back on June 14,1989, a statement pursuant to standing order of approximately the same date, and also a question put back in May 1988.
The concern relates to those Canadians who have paid into the Canada Pension Plan over the years who become disabled and, as a result of the disability, have to leave their employment, but who are delayed in applying for their disability pension. These are not common occurrences nowadays because most Canadians are
October 24, 1989

aware of the opportunity for disability pension. Indeed, if they are not, I am sure that the availability is brought to their attention by others.
But there are situations, and I think particularly of a Mrs. Donna Sinclair of Swift Current, Saskatchewan, a constituent of mine, with whose case I am well familiar. This is a lady who is 60 years old at this point in time, who contributed to the Canada Pension Plan, I believe, in 11 of 13 years between 1966 and 1978 or 1979. She had to leave her employment as a result of diabetes and subsequently has had both legs amputated. Somehow she did not know or did not understand that there was a possibility of a Canada Pension Plan disability pension. She finally learned of it from a friend or from relatives and applied in 1987. Of course, when she applied, she learned that she did not meet the test of recency because in order to be eligible, a person must have contributed, I believe, in five of the last ten years, in her particular situation. So she did not qualify.
It seems to me just and fair that people in this situation who have contributed through their employment, who have had to leave that employment through disability and who simply did not know of the availability, nonetheless ought not to be precluded from receiving a disability pension. Obviously there is not a simple answer to this because it does, I believe, require an amendment to the legislation. I think it is probably more complicated because the minister does not just wave a wand and do this. I think it requires federal-provincial co-operation and I am sure a lot of other things enter into it.
At this point in time, I certainly am not intending to be critical of the minister who, I think, is a very able and articulate individual. However, I do have a concern in this case that not enough is being done. I do not think that the answer given to me back in June is satisfactory, the answer being that I should put a motion on the Order Paper in regard to Private Members' Business and if and when that comes up the matter will again be raised.
We all know how Private Members' Business works. The matter may never be drawn. It is a matter of the luck of the draw and so I am taking the opportunity to again
Adjournment Debate
bring the matter to the attention of members in this House.
Mrs. Sinclair is not alone. I know of another situation in my constituency and other members from all sides have raised the matter with me as well. It is evident that in every constituency there are two or three or four such individuals. So it is not just an isolated situation. I think it is a situation that is deserving of attention and I, therefore, again express to the minister and to the department that it would be well to try to find a solution to accommodate people like Mrs. Sinclair who, I think, have played by all of the rules but did not understand that there was an availability.
I think what we are seeking here today is a review of the situation. I must compliment my colleague, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and Disabled Persons, because he has responded and indicated that that committee will be examining certain aspects of the Canada Pension Plan and has undertaken to study the economic factors involved in integrating disabled persons into our society. If and when that comes forward, certainly we will be making representations to him and his committee. I thank him for his interest in the matter.
I think this is one problem which really does need the attention of both levels of government, that is, the federal government and the provinces. I sincerely hope that at some time in the not too distant future, the matter can become the subject of some discussion between those levels of government in regard to opening up the Canada Pension Plan legislation.
In closing, I appreciate the responses that I received of some caring and some compassion and some concern and, above all else, a willingness on the part of government to try to do something about this situation. There are people who are deserving, who are needy, and I think they need some kind of response.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the concerns of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia with regard to the recency test which is applied to Canada Pension Plan disability benefit applicants.

October 24, 1989
Adjournment Debate
Disability benefits are intended to replace earnings lost through disability. Therefore, a recent attachment to the workforce was a requirement for benefit eligibility. This government has already amended the recency test by providing more flexible eligibility requirements.
Under Bill C-116 effective January, 1987, the Canada Pension Plan disability provisions were amended so that persons who have contributed to the CPP in two of the last three years, or five of the last ten years prior to their application, can meet the contributory requirements.
Prior to the passage of this legislation, the test of recency required that contributions were made in five of the last ten years and one-third of the contributory period.
It may also be noted that under Bill C-116, the time limit of 12 months retroactively for the determination of disability in the original act was extended to 15 months in 1987. Through this amendment, some persons may qualify for disability benefits up to six years or more after they leave work. Most private insurance plans for disability have much more stringent recency tests. Most limit their protection to between 30 and 90 days following the cessation of work.
I wish to say that the hon. member is not alone in his concern for the disabled Canadians who failed to meet the CPP recency tests. The department is currently reviewing the limit on retroactivity determination to see whether some further extension of this time limit would be feasible.
However, the hon. member should be cognizant of the fact that amendments to this effect must be undertaken with caution, given the possibility that they could cause more problems than they solve. For example, the farther we go in the past, the more difficult it is to assess precisely when all the relevant medical and socioeconomic factors may have resulted in the disability of the individual. This is because the factors contributing to the disability often change over time. Indeed, such changes may lead to the amelioration, the elimination, or the degeneration of the health condition.
Furthermore, if the retroactive period were substantially extended the process of disability determination would likely require more information and resources from the client, and they would likely increase the time spent on disability adjudication, potentially delaying the initial payments for some individuals. Consequently, we have to ensure that the current administrative structure can respond adequately and efficiently to any change in the legislation.
In light of these and other conditions, the feasibility of a legislative amendment must be thoroughly evaluated. At the present time, the government does not have a specific time frame within which it intends to reopen the CPP act. The hon. member knows that his request to open the act to make amendments involves a process which is complex and requires considerable time. Major changes to the CPP require the approval of two-thirds of the provinces having two-thirds of the Canadian population, as well as the approval of Parliament.
However, I assure the hon. member that should the act be reopened, his recommendations will be taken into consideration.
CANADA POST CORPORATION-SERVICES IN COMMUNITIES/MINISTER'S POSITION


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity tonight to address the question which I asked in this House on June 15. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that it was on that date that Canada Post announced its profit of $96 million. It was on that day that a number of members rose in the House of Commons to discuss that profit and what it means to the services for residents of Canada.
As a result of the profit shown by Canada Post Corporation, and other matters, the Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations Committee has embarked upon a study of the operations of Canada Post, and by this time next week will have begun the hearings across Canada into the operations of Canada Post and a discussion about the future and the opportunities that Canada Post gives to residents of Canada.
The question I was asking of the minister concerned the communities from coast to coast in Canada that are organizing to save their rural post offices, or get door-to-door delivery. They are being denied the opportunity
October 24, 1989

to do that, at the same time that Canada Post records a profit of $96 million.
Canada Post, the federal government, and the minister responsible for Canada Post, made a clear choice when they decided to accept the profits of $96 million over the needs of the rural communities of Canada and the service requirements of the people who live there. Canada Post and the federal government chose big business over Canadian people in providing that service.
Canada Post should take that profit of $96 million and use it to repair some of the damage that it has done to the postal system over the last few years. The federal government should insist that this money be used to extend door-to-door delivery service to suburban residents. The government should insist this capital be used to re-open rural post offices which have been shut across Canada.
Canada Post should be seen first and foremost not as a money machine for the federal government, but to honour its mandate which is service first. The government has turned Canada Post into a Frankenstein of Crown corporations, and it is running amok, not accountable to Parliament, to the committees or to the people of Canada.
At the time, I also released a ten-point plan which I thought should govern the future operations of Canada Post. I would like to put part of that on the record tonight in the time allotted to me. The ten-point program includes: The primary goal of Canada Post should be to provide and extend service to Canadians. The profit created by Canada Post should be directly rolled back into maintaining and expanding service to Canadians; that all 167 rural post offices closed by Canada Post should be immediately re-opened, and that the government should review rural postal operations with the goal of extending service to areas currently in need of service.
The federal government should ensure that door-to-door delivery is extended to suburban residents, and it should do away with the supermailboxes which have become super headaches across the country. Canada Post's campaign of harassment and intimidation of its workers must be halted, and the Canada Post Crown corporation should be expected to be a model employer
Adjournment Debate
that sees the link between good working conditions, harmonious labour relations, and the provision of better postal service to Canadians. All post office operations should be contracted in and a halt should be put on further erosion of service and working conditions through contracting out. Service should be extended where warranted at post offices to include the sale of paper, tape or other related items for the use in preparing parcels for mailing.
The Government of Canada and Canada Post should examine the possibility of providing services to Canadians which are provided in other countries, such as, flower sales and dry cleaning drop-off points in rural parts of Canada. The Government of Canada and Canada Post should abandon the plans to sell off parts of the postal system to the private sector and get back to the business of providing service to Canadians. Finally, the Rural Route Mail Carriers Organization should be recognized by the government so that it can negotiate working conditions and standards that it does not currently have.
In presenting that ten-point program, I reiterate my previous call from the spring sitting of this Parliament for a public inquiry into the Post Office, a public inquiry which comes from the Government of Canada as opposed to the Consumers and Corporate Affairs Commission. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, during Question Period I called on the minister to institute a moratorium on the conversion and closing of rural post offices until such time as the committee has reported and Parliament has a chance to read the report.
Canada Post's expenditure earlier this year on 64,000 videos for employees, a new mega wardrobe for its employees, its campaign to take the Canada out of Canada Post, and its national coloured glossy promotional leaflet are clear signals to Canadians: the federal government and Canada Post are trying their hardest to make our postal system a pretty package for the private sector to facilitate the government's plans to privatize Canada Post and roll back the clock on postal service and working conditions.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, in 1981 when the post office was incorporated into a Crown Corporation, it was mandated to improve the service and become financially self-sufficient.

Adjournment Debate
This year is an important milestone for the post office regarding these objectives. Canada Post Corporation recorded a profit of $96 million. It is the first time in 30 years that the people of Canada are not required to subsidize their postal service when they pay their taxes.
The hon. member has suggested that the minister responsible for Canada Post is taking liberties with the mandate given to the corporation by Parliament. As well, he is suggesting that the profits have been achieved at the expense of service. It is an interesting suggestion but, unfortunately for the hon. member, it does not withstand close scrutiny.
When the post office was transformed into a Crown corporation, it was given an asset base that was in great need of attention. Capital investment levels were not sufficient at the time to maintain its base. Over the next five years, the corporation plans to invest $2.5 billion in new equipment and machinery. This investment is fundamental if the corporation is to continue to provide a postal service that is marked by being accessible, reliable and affordable. These investments will benefit all the customers of Canada Post and are only possible so long as the corporation continues to make a profit. Otherwise, we will return to the days when Canada Post was having to be a drain on the national treasury.
The corporation's achievement of being self-sufficient has not been achieved at the expense of service. On the contrary, the service that is provided by Canada Post has been improving. Today, the accounting firm of Ernst-Young, formerly Clarkson Gordon, released its service performance report on Canada Post. This report demonstrates that once again the corporation is meeting its commitment of on time delivery. The report reveals that the rate of on time delivery for a properly prepared,
first-class letter mailed within the same urban area was 96 per cent. For delivery in the same province, it was also 96 per cent. Between provinces, these figures were 97 per cent. So you can see that we are getting on time delivery between urban centres. We have been getting on time delivery within the provinces and we are getting on time delivery between provinces. That is quite impressive for a corporation that delivers 33 million pieces of mail a day to nearly 10.7 million addresses.
Not only are delivery standards being met, but the corporation is working hard on improving accessibility. The corporation intends to increase the number of places that customers can access postal products and service. The corporation has made a commitment to Canadians that will keep rate increases below the price of inflation. This promise is being kept, as seen with the present proposed rate increase that is now before the Postal Service Review Committee.
The corporation has put forward a request to raise the price of a first-class stamp by one cent. This amounts to a 2.6 per cent increase. This is what is meant by self-sufficiency while improving service. I, and many others, do not think that that is wrong, but rather that it is something that should be encouraged and something that we are very proud of. We wish the post office continued success.
In conclusion, it is really nice to stand in the House of Commons with the galleries overflowing, the Speaker in his chair and the crowds cheering. It is wonderful to be here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24 (1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 25,1989