1989-10-16

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: 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), they are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.
Mr. Speaker, 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 said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Nystrom:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are aware that this morning at eleven o'clock I wanted to move concurrence in the finance committee report which criticizes the Bank of Canada for high interest rate policies in this country. By moving Orders of the Day the government has avoided a very serious debate on a very serious issue, on a day when there is great instability in the stock markets around the country. My point is-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am willing to hear the point of order, but I would not want any debate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, by doing what it has done the government has shown contempt for members of this House and cowardice for members of this House.
It has prevented us from moving a motion on a serious issue, from presenting petitions to the House, from moving bills in the House of Commons, and from doing what we should be doing as serious minded members of Parliament. I suggest to you that that is contemptuous.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion moved by the government was in order.


SPEAKER'S RULING-MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are 53 motions in amendment set down on the notice paper in relation to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act.
I have generally reviewed the motions, and I am prepared to make a preliminary ruling at this time so as to allow the House to commence report stage debate.
I will come back to the House later today to rule on the remaining motions.

Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are in order. They will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
(A) Since Motion No. 5 arises from Motion No. 4, a vote on Motion No. 4 will also apply to Motion No. 5.

B) An affirmative vote on Motion No. 6 would obviate the need to put the question on Motions Nos. 8 and 11, but a negative vote on Motion No. 6 will require putting the question on Motions Nos. 8 and 11.

(C)	A vote on Motion No. 7 will also be applied to Motion No. 10.
(D)	Motions Nos. 12, 13 and 14 will be voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 18 will be grouped for debate, and a vote on Motion No. 15 will be applied to motions Nos. 16 and 18.

Motions Nos. 17 and 20 will be debated and voted on separately. I shall now put Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 to the House, and as I said earlier I shall come back to the House to report on the remaining motions.
The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace on a point of order.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first grouping of motions you have announced to the House, in other words Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, you have grouped together 10 motions for purposes of debate. I submit to you very seriously, Mr. Speaker, that just to read the content of those 10
October 16, 1989

motions would take up the 10 minutes of speaking time that we have under the report stage.
I would like to urge very seriously that grouping 10 motions together is too much and cannot be handled properly in a 10-minute speech.
I note that Motions Nos. 4 and 5 have to do with new entrants, whereas Motions Nos. 6 to 14 have to do with parental benefits, maternity benefits, and medical benefits. One could see some reason in grouping Motions Nos. 6 to 14, but I do not see the reason in grouping Motions Nos. 4 and 5 with these other motions.
In addition, as I pointed out, just to read into the record what is attempted by those 10 motions would take up the entire time allocated to members to speak at the report stage. I do not think that is acceptable. I would ask that you reconsider the grouping for the motions that are put together in this first grouping.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like to remind the House that rulings of the Speaker are not debatable.
However consultations are still continuing in preparation for a final ruling, so what I have given already will stand for now.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn) moved:: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 40 to 42 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) An insured person qualifies to receive benefits under" Motion No. 5
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 7 to 29 at page 4.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved:: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 9
(a)	by striking out line 22 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) Subject to subsection (7), the maximum number of weeks
for"
(b)	by striking out line 34 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
Government Orders
"(4) Subject to subsection (7), the maximum number of weeks for"
(c)	by striking out line 24 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"of benefit shall not exceed thirty.
(7) The maximum number of ten weeks specified in paragraphs (3)(b) and (4)(b) is extended to fifteen weeks where
(a)	a child referred to in paragraph (3)(b) or (4)(b) is six months of age or older at the time of the child's arrival at the claimant's home or actual placement with the claimant for the purpose of adoption; and
(b)	a medical practitioner or the agency that placed the child certifies that the child suffers from a physical, psychological or emotional condition that requires an additional period of parental care.".


William Warren Allmand: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out line 31 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"fifteen; and"

Hon. Warren Allmand (for Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso)), moved:
Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out line 31 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"ten, except for adopted children placed with the claimant for the first time after the child is 6 months old, the maximum shall be extended from 10 weeks to 20 weeks, subject to certification by a provincial child welfare agency of physical and emotional needs requiring the parent to stay at home and"


William Warren Allmand: Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out line 41 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"fifteen."
Hon. Warren Allmand (for Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -Canso)), moved:
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out line 41 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:

Government Orders
"ten, except for adopted children placed with the claimant for the first time after the child is 6 months old, the maximum shall be extended from 10 weeks to 20 weeks, subject to certification by a provincial child welfare agency of physical and emotional needs requiring the parent to stay at home."


Ron Fisher: Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out line 41 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"twenty-four."


William Warren Allmand: Motion No. 13
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out lines 3 and 4 at page 9.


Ron Fisher: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out lines 9 to 24 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"and (3)."
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand in the House this morning and oppose in the strongest of terms Bill C-21, an act to amend the unemployment insurance program in this great land of ours.
From the very beginning Bill C-21 has to be seen for what this government is doing. Whether we are talking about free trade, deregulation, VIA Rail, or the general sales tax, these programs put forth by this government are couched in the term the government has become so fond of using, that is, "good for Canada". None of those programs that the government has put forth can be construed as being good for Canada.
I would certainly suggest that Bill C-21 is one of the worst of a bad bunch of programs that the government is trying to foist upon the people of Canada. On that basis I move:
That the House do now adjourn.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


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


Mr. Hicks:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of an article that appeared in some Canadian newspapers, the implication being that I paid an employee to perform no work, I emphatically deny it.


Mr. Clifford:: Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, the media carried stories suggesting that I had hired the offspring of a colleague but no actual work was done. I categorically deny this.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to bring to your attention that during the consideration of this bill in committee and again here in the House, amendments have been dealt with as to whether or not they go beyond the Royal Recommendation or do not go beyond the Royal Recommendation. In committee some of the proposed amendments were ruled out of order because they went beyond the Royal Recommendation, and I note in the bill before us that some of the amendments have the Royal Recommendations attached.
My point of order is the following: According to clause 51 of this bill, the government terminates its financial contribution to the unemployment insurance fund. Clause 51 of the bill repeals Section 118 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Section 118 of the Unemployment Insurance Act obliges the government to contribute to the fund for certain kinds of benefits, regionally extended benefits, fishermen benefits, et cetera.
Government Orders
By repealing Section 118, the government has, in effect, privatized the unemployment insurance fund. As a result of this legislation, the fund will be entirely contributed to by a compulsory check-off on workers and employers. All the moneys in the fund will be contributed in an obligatory fashion by workers and by employers, and no moneys will go into the fund out of general revenue as a result of clause 51 of this bill.
If that is the case, I do not see how we can refer to the Royal Recommendation which is necessary when you are about to spend moneys raised from the taxpayers of Canada in a general way from the general revenue fund. That is not the case here. No moneys will go into the unemployment insurance fund out of the general revenue fund or out of general taxation. What we are dealing with here from now on, if this bill is passed in its present form, is a fund which will be entirely contributed to by workers and employers in a compulsory fashion by a national check-off. That national check-off program was permitted by a constitutional amendment in 1940, following a Privy Council judgment which said a previous Unemployment Insurance Act was unconstitutional.
I want to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is out of order in many respects. The consideration of amendments both in the House and in committee are out of order because reference has been made to the Royal Recommendation argument. I must say that some of the witnesses who appeared before the committee even raised objections stating that the government should not even amend the unemployment insurance system from now on because it is really a system which belongs to the workers and to the employers of Canada. The argument was made by several serious witnesses before the committee that the government could only amend the legislation with the consent of those who controlled the fund.
Before we discuss the various amendments to the bill, I would like you to consider this point of order with respect to the bill and to the changed nature of the unemployment insurance fund as a result of clause 51 which, in effect, privatizes unemployment insurance in Canada and which, by the way, this party very vigorously opposes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his comments. There are two points. The first part deals with the fact that the bill itself would have been out of order because of the reason given by the hon. member.

October 16, 1989
Government Orders
The Chair feels that if that is the case, the motion made now by the hon. member is a bit late and should have been made at second reading stage.
With regard to his point concerning the grouping of the motions today, however, the Chair will take that into consideration and may hear the member further at three o'clock on that point.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is my assumption that you have ruled that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace would speak next. The question is, did you recognize him for debate before the point of order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think when we get to debate, the Chair will recognize a member, and at that time, whatever motions are appropriate. We are getting to the debate stage quite quickly. On debate, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.


Mr. Gauthier:: A point of order, is he recognized-


William Warren Allmand: Would you mind your own business? I have been around here for a few years. I know what to do.
I believe I have been recognized for debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair did, in fact, recognize the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace for debate, but I have a point of order from the member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I move:
That the member for Mission-Coquitlam be now heard.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would normally not want to bring this to the attention of the Chair, but once the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace was recognized, he distinctly said, "I have been around here for a few years". This was heard by everybody on our side and even by the Whip, and I think that indicates quite clearly that he started to speak to the motion. Therefore, the point of order of my friend from the New Democratic Party was late.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on that same point, we all know the standing orders and how, once the Speaker has recognized a member, that member has the floor as soon as he speaks. I was trying to get the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace recognized, because I think he is the next speaker on our list, and that is why we agreed
that I should shut up and he should speak. That is what happened, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I have a slightly different version than that of the Whip of the Official Opposition. I clearly heard the member admonishing his Whip for interfering and wanting to get on with the debate.


Rodney Edward Murphy: But he did not start.


Iain Francis Angus: But he did not start.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair does find the motion by the hon. member for Churchill to be in order.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to finally speak on this bill. I want to thank the hon. members for the lesson that has taken place in the last 10 minutes on parliamentary procedure. I am sure it will serve me well in the future.
I would like to address myself to this convoluted collection of amendments and to try in some kind of rational way to address the many, many things I am not going to be able to address in 10 minutes but that we must address, Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,10, 11,12, 13 and 14. This is a very serious piece of legislation that is going to affect Canadians from coast to coast, from the Arctic circle to the 49th parallel, and we are having it compressed into a debate on one motion.
First, I would like to talk about the establishment of a new benefits structure. It is an establishment that replaces the three phase system now in place. The new maximum duration of benefits will be based on the weeks of work and the regional unemployment rate determined in accordance with table 2, et cetera, that is attached to the bill.
The extent of the cuts do not look like much, and hon. members from the other side would have Canadians believe that the primary intent of these amendments is to have Canadians go through some form of behavior modification, to use a term used considerably during the hearings. Behaviour modification is a 1984 Orwellian attitude that has no place in the Canada of today.

To suggest that Canadian workers need to have their behaviour modified; that Canadian workers are not diligent; that Canadian workers are not interested in working, is the cruelest, most despicable kind of PR that this country can do on behalf of its workers. To suggest that Canadians in areas of this country that have unemployment rates of 20, 30 or 40 per cent in some industries, could have their behaviour modified by requiring that they work an extra week or two weeks or three weeks before they are eligible for unemployment insurance, is the most cynical, despicable kind of attitude that I think we can muster for Canadian workers.
I thought that this House was the place where we had the opportunity to make people aware of what the government's plans were for the people. Canadian workers must be made aware of the kind of changes that these amendments to Bill C-21 will make to their lives, not to a piece of legislation that is mouldering in some library somewhere, not just to the regulation books in an unemployment insurance office. These amendments throughout Bill C-21 are going to have a direct and dramatic impact on the lives of hundreds and thousands of Canadian workers.
To suggest that those workers are going to be served- and that is another term that was used a number of times by the hon. members from the other side of the House in committee-is also an insidious type of suggestion. To tell people that you are serving them while you are grabbing something from them suggests to me that maybe we should take into this House a dictionary every day when we come in here and we should be looking up the definition of "serve". We should be looking up the definition of "behaviour modification". We should be looking up the definition of "abusers", because this government would have Canadians believe that most people on UI abuse the system. Possibly if not this government, but certainly a number of the members who have travelled with us on the legislative committee continually inferred that we, Canadians workers, were abusing the system.
I think it might be something that the Speaker's office would consider, to have on the desk of each member a dictionary so that we can be very clear about what we are saying when we are talking to the people of Canada and for the people of Canada.
Government Orders
It is very, very important that we consider the dramatic impact of these amendments on men and women, in our communities and to the communities themselves. What happens when a worker finds himself or herself with unemployment insurance eligibility cut back? What happens to the community? That worker, no longer eligible for the insurance program that he or she has paid for possibly for years and years of will often find himself and his family on the welfare system. Depending on the province, that will have a direct impact on the municipality or on the province.
The fact is that it has an impact. That impact trickles down to the community in every way. It trickles down to the small business people. It trickles down to the expenses of the municipality. It impacts on the school system. It impacts on the voluntary and social services communities.
I suggest that those kind of impacts have not been explained to the Canadian people. Those impacts have not been explained to the municipalities in Canada. Those impacts have not been discussed appropriately with the provinces.
I would suggest that some of the very serious amendments that we have put forward about the ability to bond for adoptive parents, amendments that would put this legislation in keeping with provincial legislation that requires adoptive parents to spend a certain period of time upon adoption with the child before returning to work, amendments that are not being heard, are the kinds of amendments that we should have. If we must live with this cynical, mean-spirited, cruel legislation, at least we could be concerned about the children that this legislation affects in the adoptive process.
The suggestion that we have one standard in terms of the bonding period for natural parents and a different standard for adoptive parents is something that I find very difficult to understand. We introduced an amendment which was ruled out of order because it somehow escaped the parameters of the legislation. I know I cannot question the ruling of the Speaker on that but I would at some later time like to seek an explanation because I do not understand how that goes beyond the parameters of this existing legislation.
The suggestion has been made that this unemployment insurance program is good for Canada at a time when, as a result of the free trade agreement, Canadians in various industries and sectors of this country are finding themselves faced with announcements of layoffs. We see ourselves facing in the workplaces the

October 16, 1989
uncertainty and the anguish that workers are facing. The suggestion that this legislation is good for Canada, and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundum started on that line of thinking earlier today, also defies one's imagination.
If one were to take a look at the numbers of people who are facing unemployment, if one were to take a look at the impact of the free trade agreement, if one were to take a look and go to talk to the workers who are facing lay-off with VIA Rail, if one were to go to take a look at the workers who are facing lay-offs because of mergers in the airline industry, if one were to take a look and go to talk to the workers from General Motors who have received announcements of layoffs, if one were to go to speak to women in industries that are now moving to the south including high-tech industries, computer-related industries, it would be very, very difficult for anybody in this Chamber to agree after hearing those people that this legislation is good for Canada.
We heard over 200 presentations almost entirely opposing some part or all of this proposed legislation. Yet, at the end of the day, one hon. member from the other side of the House said that that was because our friends did not come before us. When we had business associations, when we had major corporations, when we had groups that represent employers across the country and sectors across the country appear before the committee to oppose the legislation, to suggest that the government's friends did not appear before it is quite silly.
I would like to say, in closing, that it is incumbent upon this House to do everything it can to ensure that every clause of this legislation is debated adequately.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, after Maurice Richard and Gordie Howe, today we have the great Wayne Gretzky. Last night in Edmonton, with 53 seconds to play in the third period, he scored and passed Gordie Howe's total of 1850 points. He added a second goal in overtime, giving the Los Angeles Kings a 5-4 win over the Edmonton Oilers.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out this great day to all Canadians. Wayne Gretzky is an example for our youth. Bravo, Wayne!


WORLD FOOD DAY
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, today is World Food Day, a day to remind us that all people everywhere have a basic right to sufficient food to sustain healthy, productive lives.
Each year our world loses 11 million hectares of forest and 25 billion tonnes of topsoil through wanton, destructive ecological practices. Each year vast tracts of the world's productive land become desert. In Canada every year we lose thousands of hectares of our scarce agricultural land through soil erosion, salination, and urbanization.
Current policies of the government discourage family farming, national agricultural self-sufficiency, and the production of food for Canadians.
World Food Day also reminds us of the thousands of hungry Canadians who are receiving totally inadequate support from this government. These Canadians, most of them children, are not lazy; they are hungry. Food banks are flourishing. All of this represents a totally unacceptable way to feed poor and hungry Canadians.
In Canada there are one million people living below the poverty line. They have inadequate food. There are daily too many Canadian farmers unable to continue farming because of this government's defective agricul-
October 16, 1989

tural policies. Before it is too late, may I remind this government of the woman who 200 years ago ignored her country's poor and declared: "Let them eat cake".


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, hockey is a Canadian game. Gordie Howe and Wayne Gretzky hold a very special place in the hearts of all Canadians. Last night in Edmonton, the great one did it. No. 99, Gretzky, became the National Hockey League's leading career scorer. He surpassed Howe's 1850 points for goals and assists.
Wayne tied the record in the first period, beat the record in the third period, and in overtime he scored the winning goal. He now has a total of 1852 points. That is teamwork.
Congratulations, Wayne. We wish you continuing success.



Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the ninth annual World Food Day. This year's theme is "Food and Our Environment". The threat to food security is an increasing problem. The need to inform Canadians about global issues is now greater than ever. It is reported that the world produces enough food to feed all the people on the planet. We in Canada contribute substantially to the world's pantry, yet we hear almost daily stories of starvation and malnutrition. The problems relate to environmental degradation and food distribution.
The World Commission on Environment and Development has warned that without strong actions to redress inequalities in the distribution of the world's resources and the persistent abuse of the environment our very existence is in peril.
What is needed is an attitudinal change of dramatic proportions. This government's response to that challenge has been to reduce the amount of aid we give to tackle these issues. The last budget cut multilateral food aid by $32 million and bilateral food aid by $24.4 million.
Rhetoric will not feed the hungry of the world. It is time this government recognizes that Canada has the responsibility to play a lead in addressing the problems of food and our environment.


NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES WEEK
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, National Universities Week is October 14 to October 22. I would therefore remind members of the enormous contribution made to our country by universities.
Universities in Canada have a tradition that goes back more than 200 years before Confederation. They are a rich, democratic and accessible resource devoted to the pursuit of knowledge in all fields, to the challenging of old beliefs and to the exploring of new.
Universities are devoted to developing our leaders of tomorrow. They play a vital role in preserving our culture and heritage and researching social and ethical concerns.
Medical, scientific, engineering, educational and other research have enhanced our lives, our industry, our international reputation, our future and that of the world.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the premature advertising of the goods and services tax is not the first time this government and its officials have usurped the right of Parliament and assumed that whatever the government wants the government will get.
In 1985 an official of the Department of Employment and Immigration took it upon himself to anticipate that Parliament would of course pass legislation to consider pension income as earned income, thereby disqualifying pensioners from receiving unemployment insurance. He wrongly advised a group of public servants who had been cajoled or coerced into taking early retirement not to bother applying for unemployment insurance because they did not qualify.
At that time the bill had not even been introduced in the House. The fact is that those retirees would have qualified for up to $16,000 in benefits each. Instead of

October 16, 1989
correcting its errors the government has dragged these people through five years of court hearings.
I appeal to the minister to accept responsibility for this injustice and to provide the benefits to which these retirees were and are entitled.
He *	*


CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, this week is Co-op Week in Canada. I am pleased to rise and pay tribute to the co-operative movement.
"Together we make the difference" is the co-op theme. It reminds us that this country was built, not by dog-eat-dog competition but by working together. The pioneers of the co-op movement are grassroots men and women with the vision to realize that ordinary people can accomplish great things by pooling their resources and putting democracy into action.
Today 12 million Canadians are members of co-ops. We have the legacy of the Antigonish Movement, the Desjardins Movement, the Prairie Pools, Federated Co-ops and local initiatives from coast to coast in such areas as housing, health, financial, fishing, and worker co-ops. In this era when individuals and communities are increasingly losing the ability to control their own destinies through corporate globalization, free trade, and volatile money markets, co-ops make more sense than ever.
Therefore I call on this government to show some faith in grassroots Canada and to give the co-op movement at least as much support and encouragement as it gives its corporate buddies.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a truly exceptional athlete. On behalf of all Canadians I wish to extend congratulations to Wayne Gretzky on scoring point number 1851 last night in Edmonton's Northlands Coliseum, thus surpassing Gordie Howe as the NHL's all time point leader.
While the game of hockey has changed over the years Gordie Howe's all time point total, accumulated over an incredible 26-year career was a record that many believed would never fall. Yet last night it did. What makes
this even more amazing is that it was done in just 11 seasons.
As one of Canada's greatest goodwill ambassadors Wayne Gretzky is a unique individual who has personified excellence and dedication to the sport of hockey. Last night's record breaking performance was quite an achievement in his illustrious career.
Even though he is now a Los Angeles King, Wayne continues to represent the sport of hockey and Canada in a dignified and sportsmanlike manner.


ATLANTIC CANADA DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to remind the House of a major project in Atlantic Canada which will have a profound impact on the economies of all the Atlantic provinces but especially upon the areas on either side of the Northumberland Strait. The fixed link to P.E.I. will add almost one billion dollars to the region during construction. It will create new industries and services affecting every comer of the maritimes.
After completion the fixed link will remove barriers between the three maritime provinces and encourage interprovincial trade. It will be one of Canada's major tourist attractions. This privately funded project will be the focus of Atlantic Canada and its potential. It will offset any negative impact from the reduction of CFB Summerside, and it will improve transportation throughout the region.
I urge the Minister of the Environment to ensure that the study now under way will be completed as soon as possible so that the next steps can be taken toward a successful conclusion.
* * #


PEACEKEEPING
Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, Elk Island recognizes the importances of the United Nations peacekeeping forces around the world.
Recently in Sherwood Park Alberta the Eric W. Cor-mack Branch No. 277 of the Royal Canadian Legion dedicated a specially designed wall to the United Nations peacekeepers. The ceremony included dignitaries and a great many military service personnel and was a tribute
October 16, 1989

to the valuable contributions of Canadian soldiers, sailors and air crew in maintaining world peace.
On behalf of all of the people of Elk Island, I salute comrade President Don Crockett and all the members of his branch for their continuing commitment, hard work and dedication to the worthy cause of the Royal Canadian Legion, and I thank them for reminding us of our responsibility as Canadians in working for world peace.


FIREFIGHTERS
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament I deem it a privilege to present Fire Services Exemplary Service Medals on behalf of Her Excellency the Governor General.
The award is an extremely important form of recognition for Canadians who have made lengthy, essential and at times life threatening contributions to our communities.
Since the establishment of the award in 1985 the contribution of thousands of individual firefighters has been appropriately recognized. However, the current rules by which the award is made overlook a very important group of otherwise worthy and meritorious potential recipients; namely, those who would have qualified but retired from the fire service before the 1985 establishment date.
This is an injustice that should be rectified immediately even if it means retroactive recognition of some 2,000 or more individuals. I believe the cost to the Canadian taxpayer would be minimal in comparison with the contribution made, particularly by volunteers, to this vital community service.


URANIUM MINING
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of concerned citizens in Rankin Inlet, Arviat, Baker Lake, and Whale Cove in the Northwest Territories. Some 531 people in Rankin Inlet, 293 in Baker Lake, 187 in Arviat, and 72 in Whale Cove have signed petitions opposing the development of a uranium mine near the settlement of Baker Lake.
The petitioners are concerned about the protection of Inuit land, protection of the Inuit lifestyle, protection of the wildlife and renewable resources, and protection of the well-being of the residents of the area.
I urge the Government of Canada to recognize and consider the views of these petitioners who have asked me to bring their concerns to the attention of the House of Commons and in particular the government.


WORLD FOOD DAY
Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, today 158 member nations of the Food and Agriculture Organization join in an annual observance of World Food Day. It is an occasion to reflect on an unfinished task-the eradication of hunger and malnutrition and the attainment of genuine food security for all people. This year's theme is: "Food and the Environment".
In Canada, World Food Day activities are co-ordinated by a World Food Day Association, an umbrella organization which brings together 235 non-governmental organizations, producer associations, provincial and local governments and many others. The World Food Day Association has from its inception received funding and support from the Canadian International Development Agency and Agriculture Canada.
Agriculture Canada and CIDA also have a long tradition of providing assistance to those in greatest need in the form of food aid. Even in times of financial restraint, Canadians on a per capita basis continue to provide more food in the form of food aid than any other country.
Just last week, the Prime Minister announced a $42 million economic package for Poland and Hungary. That includes $12 million in much needed food aid for Poland.
Let me assure the House and all Canadians that our efforts to help eliminate hunger will continue. Our efforts to educate people about the problem will continue. Our commitment and support are firm.


SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members would rejoice with me in the

October 16, 1989
Oral Questions
freedom that has come to Walter Sisulu in South Africa and many other black prisoners in that country.
While we rejoice at their freedom we also wonder why, at this time when it is obvious that sanctions are having an effect on South Africa, the Canadian government and the Prime Minister in particular would be drawing back from their commitment to impose further sanctions if apartheid is not dismantled.
It is obvious that it is not the intention of the new government in South Africa to dismantle apartheid. It is obvious that it is time for the Prime Minister to live up to his commitment to do that and to impose comprehensive, mandatory economic sanctions on South Africa so that what little progress has been made can be increased.
This is not a time to back down from Margaret Thatcher at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kuala Lumpur. Mrs. Thatcher is increasingly becoming marginalized, is increasingly becoming a sort of an international joke who may have been powerful in the 1980s but will not be powerful in the 1990s. The Prime Minister should not become a joke himself by kowtowing to Mrs. Thatcher.
Let us have comprehensive sanctions now and let us bring the day of freedom for South Africa closer, faster.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to bring to the attention of the House that Freightliner, one of the United States major truck makers, will construct a $32 million plant in my riding. This plant will create 600 permanent jobs and is expected to have yearly sales of over $400 million.
Freightliner chose this location because the region's citizens are good workers. Mr. John Mosier, president of the Canadian company, stated that the decision of the parent company in Portland, Oregon to allow Canadian expansion "shows faith in the Canadian operation and how they do business".
The members opposite feared that the free trade agreement with the United States would result in Canadian companies pulling up roots and moving south. The decision by Freightliner demonstrates quite the opposite.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Recently, the prestigious National Planning Association of the United States published a report which said that the implementation of the free trade treaty could mean "a certain loss of autonomy in two important economic areas: monetary policy and taxation" for Canada.
I therefore ask the Deputy Prime Minister why the government negotiated a free trade agreement which would have such harmful results for Canada's economic independence. Why?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question properly, the hon. member is claiming that the trade agreement has these fiscal and social effects.
What we have seen so far is the following. We have seen tremendous job creation since January 1, under the agreement. We have seen tremendous new capital investment intentions, the highest really in history since they have kept records. There has been a 27 per cent increased capital expenditure in the manufacturing sector in the last six months as a result in part of the trade agreement.
More important, because of this wealth, because of this energy, social programs will be able to be maintained and strengthened in the future.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the hon. minister to a recent report published by the prestigious National Planning Association of the United States. This report said that the free trade agreement will limit the autonomy of Canada in matters of fiscal and monetary policy. For example, it states:
October 16, 1989

Increased capital market integration, as provided for in the FTA
between the two countries, should increase the volume of such capital
flows and therefore make Canada's exchange rate and trade account
more vulnerable to shifts in U.S. monetary policy.
I ask the Minister: Will he not admit on behalf of his government that more and more, day after day, it is clear that the free trade agreement is and will be a disaster for Canada?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, a country's autonomy in terms of fiscal policy and monetary policy is a direct result of the wealth of the country and the productivity of its economy. Under this agreement we have seen enormous quantities of new investment to put in place new plant and equipment for building a stronger infrastructure in our economy in the future. That of course will lead to autonomy in terms of fiscal and monetary policy.
More important, this particular agreement, by locking in a mechanism whereby we can retaliate against American actions which are unfair in terms of trade in North America, gives us additional autonomy that we never had before.
Mr. Gray (Windsor West) Mr. Speaker, the Canadian public will be very surprised to hear the hon. minister's answer. They have been led to believe by the government that there would not be trade difficulties requiring retaliation if this deal went into effect.
I want to ask the minister, specifically when he referred to job creation figures, why he and the government will not provide figures showing specifically how many jobs are created by the trade deal and instead are hiding behind the general Statistics Canada figures which make no distinction between jobs created through the trade deal and jobs created generally.
Why will the minister not take the studies the government produced before the election, which gave specific numerical projections of jobs to be created sector by sector, update them and give us the facts? Why will the government not come clean with Canadians?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that an analysis of this subject takes a proper period to do. The Minister for International Trade made this clear to the standing committee last spring. That analysis should be done carefully.
Oral Questions
In the meantime one can look to the future. How does one look to the future? One looks to investment in capital, investment in plant and equipment. It is up 13.6 per cent for business investment, over-all intentions; plus intentions are up 27 per cent in the manufacturing sector.
I know of no better example of the confidence that the business community and indeed the people of North America have in this agreement for Canada's economy than those particular figures.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. I have here a copy of a release put out by the Prime Minister's office which states: "The Prime Minister announces growing global trade development strategy".
I also have here another release put out just about a year ago amidst the election by the Minister for International Trade which states: "Minister announces world market trade development strategy".
I also have another announcement made a few years ago by the other minister of trade called the "new national trade strategy".
Canadians would be interested to know, with all these different announcements for global, world, national trade strategies, what is the difference. Where does the difference lie? The programs announced in each of these releases are exactly the same. If anything the amount of money being announced is less than it was years ago because the expenditures have been reduced.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Why does the government keep recycling old announcements, old press releases, and old programs rather than begin addressing seriously the question of how we regain the markets we have lost over the last four years?
Was the Prime Minister's announcement in Singapore just another example of a Singapore sling?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell the hon. member that we have some news for him together with a reiteration of what this government has been saying for the past six months.

October 16, 1989
Oral Questions
The important news is that under "Going Global" $65 million will be spent for trade promotion around the world, $15 million of it in the United States. The rest will be spent in the Pacific, Europe and other parts of the world. This is what globalization means. The government has made a commitment to it, and it was announced on Saturday by the Prime Minister.
Something else has been made clear, and I would add this is news for the hon. gentleman. The Pacific Asia Travel Association, the biggest association in the Pacific with 4,000 travel agents, will have its first meeting in the history of that organization in North America. Guess where they are having it, Mr. Speaker. They are having it in Canada in March.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure we have the statements by the minister correct. He said that they are announcing $65 million for new trade development promotion in the United States and Southeast Asia.
In 1985, under the national trade strategy the funding was $70 million. Now considering inflation that is about a 20 per cent reduction. In fact what the government is announcing is about a 20 or 30 per cent reduction in the amount of money going into trade promotion and development efforts in the burgeoning Asia markets.
Once again, I ask the government why is it cutting back, why is it reducing and slicing the ability of this country to trade abroad at a time when our export markets have fallen precipitously in the last eight months?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, we will have to confirm the hon. member's statistics. I think he is wrong. I think the important thing for him to understand is the quality of our programs.
If the hon. member takes a look at what this government is doing in terms of international trade, he will see that we have programs that never existed before that are going to help us to penetrate foreign markets. A prime example is the whole border states program. Another program is put in place to take exporters abroad to help them with the new harmonized tariff system.
A third program will allow buyers from abroad, the Pacific, Europe, and the United States, to come to
Canada and be matched up with our international trade centres. None of this existed before. These are qualitative improvements in our over-all trade strategy.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
According to a study prepared by the State of Pennsylvania, and I quote:

"Canadian firms are finding it easier to locate in the United States where the consumer market is some 10 times larger than her own and export back to Canada".

Will the minister finally acknowledge today that the loss of 60,000 jobs as a result of plant closings and production restructuring was caused by the Free Trade agreement? And could he explain why the United States is able to use the FTA to attract Canadian companies?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to realize that 30 per cent of automotive production in North America is done out of Canada. Our population warrants 10 per cent and we are producing three times that.
In addition there are announcements eveiy day in terms of this sector of new plants, equipment and expansions in Canada which are considerable.
As announced by the hon. member for Elgin, Freight-liner will create 500 new jobs. It is a truck manufacturing firm in southwestern Ontario. I have here a quotation which states: "Hughes Aircraft expands in Canada". They see 500 new jobs. I have a quotation here from Honda Canada's president.


Some Hon. Members:: What about GM?


Thomas Hockin: 
Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about recent announcements. Let us talk about General Motors.
On Friday 2,500 Canadians who worked for the Scarborough GM plant found out, like 60,000 other Canadians, that their employer thought it was time to close down or rationalize production in the U.S. There is no doubt, however, the auto and auto parts industry is one the state of Pennsylvania has decided to target in its rifle shot strategy to lure production out of Canada.
After giving in to the United States on Canadian content, conceding any right to extract guarantees from firms locating investments in Canada, and refusing to give Canadian firms any further assistance in export promotion, can the minister tell Canadians precisely what he is doing to ensure that firms like Hyundai, which Canada has paid to come here, will maintain production in this country rather than shift their plants and sourcing to U.S. producers?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, before I respond on the automotive dimension of this, the hon. member is from northern Ontario and I think he would be very interested to know that last week the government under the FEDNOR program announced the establishment of Mirolin Industries in North Bay, a bathroom fixtures manufacturing operation. There are 319 jobs going there because of the strength of northern Ontario and because of the trade agreement.
The hon. member also knows that with the restructuring of GM in North America two things are happening. First of all, they are taking a look at their Scarborough van plant to see if it could be put to an alternative use. They have not announced its closure. They are studying to what uses it could be put. Even more important, Mr. Speaker, important GM facilities which have been based at Van Nuys, California are moving to-guess where- Canada.


WEST COAST FISHERY
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The west coast fishing industry lost an important round when a month ago the free trade panel ruled
Oral Questions
against us with respect to the landing requirements for west coast salmon and herring.
The government has had a month. The final report is going to be released tomorrow. In anticipation of a similar ruling, does the government have contingency plans to deal with preserving the fishing industry in British Columbia, the 8,000 jobs, the protection of the resource, and the production of the industry?


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has rightly pointed out, the government will be releasing the free trade panel response to the GATT decision. I think it would be appropriate if we waited to see what it says.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VIA RAIL
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, on October 4, the Minister of Transport announced that this government will cut passenger rail service in this country by 51 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Since then, this government has tried to justify this position. As we all know, it is unjustifiable. In fact, the Prime Minister said in this House that the government was not going to destroy VIA Rail. On the contrary, it was going to save it.
The Prime Minister told Singapore businessmen yesterday that Canada was trying to get rid of VIA Rail. When he realized what he had said, he immediately changed the subject.
Why does the Prime Minister say one thing in Canada and say something else in Singapore? Why doesn't he come clean with the Canadian people and tell the truth?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my friend won't have any objection to my quoting all what the Prime Minister said, not just the part which the member used.
The Prime Minister said, "We are not trying to get rid-" But he said, "We actually have a 13.5 per cent

October 16, 1989
Oral Questions
manufacturers' sales tax. We are the only industrialized country in the world that penalizes manufacturers, so we have to scrap the tax". He was not talking about VIA Rail, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I thought my question had to do with VIA Rail. I wasn't talking about the sales tax.
The Prime Minister told Singapore businessmen yesterday that he was trying to get rid of VIA Rail. We know that from the remarks that were made. Why does this government not have the honesty to say to the people of Canada what the Prime Minister said abroad yesterday?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in the last two weeks has said many times in the House of Commons that he wanted to keep VIA Rail. Moreover, he said that we want to keep a national network. It is also what we announced. The Prime Minister was here all the time when answering questions about VIA Rail. At no time did he say that he wanted to get rid of VIA Rail. He said he wanted to keep VIA Rail, but a national, sustainable and an affordable network.


CONNAUGHT BIOSCIENCES
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Industry, Science and Technology. It concerns the government's attempt to finally recognize for Canadians the importance of Canadian-made scientific research and development. On Friday he finally recognized that the proposed takeover of Connaught BioSciences by Institut Merieux of France would not be of net benefit to Canada.
Why did the minister still give the company another 30 days to try to improve its bid? Why is the minister the only one who cannot recognize the fact that under no circumstances would it be in Canada's interest to have this company taken over by a foreign company?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, as provided under the law, I issued a statement indicating the current bid by Institut Merieux for Connaught did not meet the test of being a net benefit to Canada. I followed the law. I will continue to follow the law in terms of what is required
for reviewing any takeover of any company of any sort and will ensure it is of net benefit to Canada before Investment Canada approves it.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, the government should know that if this takeover is approved, the Canadian people will know that both Investment Canada and the government's rhetoric are jokes.

The minister knows perfectly well that the French government would never allow a takeover of Institut Merieux by Connaught.
Why is the Canadian Government doing nothing to prevent a takeover of Connaught by Merieux?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member without knowing the details of Connaught's operations, without giving any consideration to the nature of the vaccine, biotechnology and biosciences business world-wide, without recognizing the mergers of pharmaceutical companies that are going on around the world, without giving recognition to the advice of consultants and so on has said that we should not look at any of the evidence, we should not look at any bid that we should close our minds and make a decision before we review the facts. A closed mind decision may be appropriate for the hon. member. It is not for this government.


VIA RAIL
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. This morning's Toronto Star says as follows: "In an embarrassing slip of the tongue, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney told Singapore businessmen yesterday Canada was 'trying to get rid of VIA Rail'. Then Mulroney caught himself. Glancing at the travelling Canadian press corps he changed the subject.
The question I have for the Minister of Transport: Which is it, is the Prime Minister out to save VIA Rail or is he out to get rid of it?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said before. I said that the Prime Minister has been here for two weeks. All the time we were talking about VIA Rail. He answered many ques-
October 16, 1989

tions in terms of maintaining a national service across Canada.
Once again, I disagree with the interpretation given of what the Prime Minister was talking about. He was talking about sales tax which is not the same as VIA Rail cuts.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, throughout the whole debate on VIA Rail, we have been hearing one thing at one time and another thing at another time from this government.
Last night on The Nation's Business the Minister of Transport said that he had instructed management at VIA Rail to deal with laid off VIA employees generously. This weekend we learn that this government intends to weasel out of its contractual obligations of VIA employees. Is this the government's idea of generosity or will the minister stand in the House today and give a commitment, not only to this House and to the people of Canada but to VIA Rail employees who will be laid off, that this government will instruct VIA Rail to adhere to the contractual obligations in the collective agreement that deal with permanent lay-offs of these employees in a positive way? Will he do that?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, if my friend remembers, because he was at my press conference, it is exactly what I said in my statement of October 4. I repeat. I said the government has asked VIA Rail to respect the collective agreement which has been signed with the unions. It will be done. I always said that from the first day that the collective agreement had been signed with VIA Rail that it would, of course, be respected.


TRANSPORTATION
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Some time ago, an assessment review panel was appointed to assess the environmental impact of the fixed link to P.E.I. Considering that many people in my area of Atlantic Canada are convinced that the fixed link to P. E. I. will have a dramatic positive impact on the economy of all Atlantic Canada, especially those areas of
Oral Questions
the Northumberland Strait, can the minister tell me whether the assessment review panel is in operation? If it is in operation, does it have any conclusions? If it has no conclusions, when can we expect some?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the assessment review panel has been set up since last April. In May we were provided with a bridge concept assessment by Public Works Canada. In June, the panel held public meetings. In August, the panel requested more information from Public Works. They will get this information and we expect a report from the panel to be filed before next April.


JUSTICE
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Immigration. A promising young reformist politician was murdered in the Philippines in 1986 four days after the presidential election. Rodolfo Pacificador is wanted for the murder. Yet this government has refused to deport him. Instead he has been released on bond. He has been given a working permit. Now he walks the streets of Toronto. He is a true fugitive from justice.
Meanwhile, the request of the Philippine government and the Philippine community in Canada to have him sent home to face trial has been unanswered. Why is this government, which deals quickly and harshly with penniless refugees, taking so long to decide whether a wealthy man is to be deported or not for murder? Is this not tantamount to a double standard? When can we expect a definitive answer?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, let me say that this is one of those cases that, because of the privacy provisions, I am unable to discuss in the chamber today.
I recognize the sensitivity of these issues for people with concerns around regimes that we as a government and as Canadians never supported. Let me say as well that we are not in any way harsh with refugees. Quite the reverse. Our humanitarian approach to refugees is still among the most welcoming in the world. I know there

October 16, 1989
Oral Questions
have been occasions when I have worked with the hon. member on some of these cases and I think he knows we do a good job.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: My supplementary is for the same minister, Mr. Speaker.
When the new refugee system was put in place the minister promised that the government would have a faster track process to deal precisely with this sort of thing. But what is going on here? An accused murderer is walking the streets in Canada freely.
If the new system is so good, why does it take years to bring an accused murderer to justice?.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would agree that one of the reasons that people like to come to this country is because we have a system where the law applies to everybody in the same way. If there is due process under way then that process must be allowed to continue.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. As he will be aware, the Minister of Fisheries has refused again and again to say whether there will be a special assistance program for fishermen or plant workers whose lives have been devastated by the fish quota cuts in the Newfoundland inshore fisheiy alone. There will be 2,500 workers who will not qualify for UI this winter because of the drastic fishery.
Would the minister now admit that it is the government's shilly-shallying which is putting thousands of workers in Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada on the welfare roles? Is he willing to undertake to light a fire under the Minister of Fisheries to bring in a special assistance program without any further foot-dragging?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have been working with the Province of Newfoundland on the current situation in the fisheiy in Newfoundland. We have now received the advice of the provincial government, which has been working very closely with our officials. I expect that we would have an answer shortly on the situation with regard to the fishery. We are working as quickly as we can on this because we recognize its importance.


Roger Simmons: I thank the minister for her response, Mr. Speaker. I had intended to put a supplementary to her which I shall.
As she will know, like the cliche the proverbial round peg in the square hole or vice versa, whichever you like, the minister, I submit, with the new job creation regulations which are designed for Canadians in urban areas is forcing many thousands of fisheries workers who want to qualify for these programs on to welfare roles depriving them of a reasonable opportunity to get some income on standard make-work projects.
Would the minister indicate to the House that she recognizes that the job training requirements are not working in rural Canada, certainly not in rural Newfoundland, and would she undertake to bring in a program to cater to the particular needs of rural Newfoundlanders in this respect?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to admit any such thing because it is simply not true.
Where there is high unemployment, as the hon. member knows, there are no changes or very minimal changes in the unemployment insurance system. The whole role of economic development and training go together. If we are going to develop the economy on a small or large scale, then we need trained people. The two have to go together, and we are working very hard on that. It has had success in areas of Newfoundland just as in other parts of Canada.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago the chair of the Finance Committee referred to seniors as being too old to need to spend money. Two weeks ago he said that Albertans were out to lunch on the issue of GST and suggested that they needed a grade five teacher to educate them.
This weekend our venerable "chair" remarked that business people who object to the proposed goods and services tax must be lacking in education and in competence. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether these comments about a wide variety of groups and interests in Canada indicate that this government is

prepared only to insult those who oppose the GST rather than to listen to them.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make quite clear that the way the hon. member has expressed the question is not correct. The hon. member to whom he has just referred is not speaking on behalf of the government.
We have indicated on many occasions that we want to listen to as many views as possible on the goods and services tax. One of the ways that we will be listening to those views is through the auspices of the Finance Committee. Other ways we are listening is through our own members of Parliament as well as through opposition members of Parliament and directly through representations that are made to the government.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The recent remarks about business people dismissed the valuable study and research that has been done by the small business community and organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Organization of Small Business. Can the finance minister assure this House that the concerns of the small business community in Canada will not be dismissed and that the government will accept the recommendation of the small business community and scrap this proposed tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the specific answer to that question is, no, that is not our intent. We have indicated that we listen to the small business community, its representatives and to all people who have a view that they want to express on the structure of this tax.
I think one thing that comes through very, very clearly and all the things that have been said about the goods and services tax is that we must make a move from the existing federal sales tax. The existing federal sales tax as was agreed, in two reports by the finance committee of the House of Commons, must go and the best option that we can look to is the goods and services tax.
We are now in the course of committee hearings and other forms of consultation to see whether there are ways of fine tuning this to make sure that we get the best sales tax system in the world today.
Oral Questions


Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Small business in Elk Island and in other parts of Alberta is concerned about changing the federal sales tax. Small business people say the old way was simpler. Why should small business support the GST?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. colleague how could the old way, the manufacturers' sales tax way possibly be simpler? We have 22,000 different tax treatments of 75,000 different manufacturers' goods. Twenty-two thousand different treatments.
Under the new tax, as the member knows, under the small traders' exemption, we will be exempting over half a million small businesses. Those that will be filing a remittance will be able to do so now-the vast majority of them-on one page rather than on dozens of pages under the manufacturers' sales tax.
Third, the cash flow is much better for small business under this than it is under the manufacturers' sales tax. You can get your credit back on your inputs before you sell your inventory-a tremendous improvement on the former tax-plus we have an administration rebate and we have a generous capital cost allowance for new equipment. Small business is better off under the GST than it ever was under the MST.


GANDER AIR CRASH
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it concerns the Gander air crash of December 12, 1985.
For four years, members of Parliament have been asking questions on this issue and for four years the government has been telling us that there is not a shred of evidence of any terrorist involvement or anything like that.
For four years the government has been telling us that there was nothing untoward and that it was invisible ice on the wings that caused the Gander air crash.
Why is it that we were not told until an hour ago that CSIS had conducted an investigation into the Gander aircrash years ago? Why were we not told this in the

October 16, 1989
Oral Questions
House of Commons? What does the government have to hide on this issue?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I said last Friday about Gander's crash that the government has done all that it needed to do about that crash. In fact, we did more. We asked a former member of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Justice Estey, to conduct an investigation to see if we would have to have another inquiry on Gander. His decision has been very clear at that level.


Don Boudria: It wasn't ice on the wings. You are right.


Benoît Bouchard: The member should look at the report by the judge another time. He did not understand it the first time, I believe. I think if you look at the report correctly, you will see what Judge Estey said. He said that it is likely that we will never know exactly what was the cause of the accident. But he said particularly that it is useless to have another inquiry. For that reason he recommended to me and the government to close the file, which is exactly what I did, Mr. Speaker.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, first of all, Judge Estey informed the Government that the crash was not caused by icing on the wings. That is my first point. Second, I want to ask the Minister of Transport or the Deputy Prime Minister why the House was not informed that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service had investigated this matter. Why were we never given that information? I would also like to know whether Judge Estey was aware of this investigation.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, once again, all the facts, all documents and all the necessary information were submitted to a person who has a very high degree of credibility in this country. Perhaps the Hon. Member will agree that we can trust Judge Estey when he says in his recommendation to the Government that since there was no way to determine the exact cause of the accident, he did not see any need for a new inquiry that would reach the same conclusions. We therefore accepted the report, the case was closed, and we do not intend to reopen the Gander case, for very obvious reasons.


CANADIAN SIKH COMMUNITY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister concerning the integrity of the Canadian Sikh community. Last June 22, I asked a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the new book, Soft Target, which alleged that a special CSIS report was provided to the Secretary of State for External Affairs which alleges that Indian diplomats were subverting Canadians of Sikh ancestry in this country. No answers to date have been provided.
Given that this community has had to resort to an open public letter to the Prime Minister in order to get some answers and some justice, I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to inform the House and all Canadians about the facts surrounding this report. If, in fact, this report is in existence, how can this government have condoned the undermining of Canadian citizenship and its full rights by a foreign government in Canada and what action does this government plan to take against this foreign government?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this question has been raised in the House before. It has been responded to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Of course, the Government of Canada is concerned about these sorts of activities and is very interested in pursuing them.
The Government of Canada does investigate these kinds of issues and they are dealt with in the appropriate manner. I regret that I cannot go beyond that at this time, but if there is any further information on this particular file, I would be pleased to look into it and get back to the hon. member.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Deputy Prime Minister, the problem is that this House, Canadians, and the Canadian Sikh community have had no information. Therefore, the information that the community has is somehow that the government is either hiding something or not listening to Canadian citizens in

this country. That is why the question was posed last June and that is why the question was posed again today.


AIR INDIA CRASH
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is again for the Deputy Prime Minister and it concerns another area of difficulty deeply felt by Canadians of Sikh ancestry.
Since the terrible tragedy of the Air India crash four years ago the government has not seen fit to grant a full public investigation into why and how this disaster occurred. I ask the minister since two special investigations have been initiated in both the Gander and Air Ontario tragedies, why is it that the government steadfastly refuses to conduct a similar public investigation into an accident which is historic and which claimed the lives of over 300 Canadians probably and certainly through the act of sabotage. Why apply a different set of criteria and a different set of standards, vis-a-vis Air India?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks me why we apply a different set of standards and criteria. The fact is that the two cases are quite different. In the case of Air India, the police investigation is still ongoing. Second, there are attempts to extradite certain suspects in connection with that police investigation.
Surely the hon. member would not want the Government of Canada, or anyone else, to take action that may very well impede the investigation process.


CORPORATE MERGERS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns the activity on the TSE and other stock markets around the countiy, the jitters that are still there and the tremendous drop on Friday across the continent.
One of the reasons for the drop was a lot of activity in the stock market in the United States and Canada in the last year because of takeovers and corporate mergers
Oral Questions
and tremendous corporate debts. I know the Minister of Finance does not listen to the chairman of the finance committee. I had a chance to do some reading over the weekend and one of the books I looked at was Where I Stand. The author is a guy named Brian Mulroney.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Will the Minister of Finance say whether or not he agrees with the Prime Minister who on page 52 of his book says:
The government should eliminate the interest deductibility provision on non-productive corporate takeovers in Canada to ensure that large pools of capital are not diverted to useless empire building-


Mr. Speaker:: I am having some difficulty in finding how that question is directly related to the administration of government. However, the minister may want to deal with it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me comment first on the general premise. There has been a good deal more activity in the United States on takeovers, leverage buyouts and things related than has been the case in Canada. I do not think we have nearly the same problem here as there has been in the United States.
Having said that, I always listen carefully to what the Prime Minister says, as I listen to what the hon. member has to say. This particular issue is a very difficult one. I think that he and I would probably agree that unproductive takeovers are things that we would like to do without. The difficulty is in trying to define what an unproductive takeover is. That is why we have not been able to do anything to address the particular problem.


FOOD BANKS
Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on another difficult matter for the Minister of Finance. The Vancouver food bank provides 3,200 bags of food weekly; Edmonton's food bank feeds 11,000 people each month; Regina's food bank provides 5,500 meals, 6,000 boxes of food a month and Toronto's food bank feeds 84,000 people a week. A Montreal study shows that one in five kids are hungry. Food banks in Canada are becoming institutionalized.

October 16, 1989
Oral Questions
Is the minister planning to wait until food banks in Canada bar their doors to force this government to act, or is the government going to provide adequate financial support for Canada's hungry?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the last five years we have demonstrated a very clear commitment to addressing the problems of those in lower income brackets. Let me just enumerate some of these matters. We have increased the size of the child tax credit quite significantly from what it was in 1984. We were the first government to bring in the refundable sales tax credit. That sales tax credit has been increased on two occasions since its introduction in 1986.
We also, through income tax reform in 1988, made changes that resulted in 850,000 low income Canadians being put in a position where they would not have to pay tax, from a position where they were paying tax. So, in each of these three areas we have been addressing the problems of those in low income brackets.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will know that some discussions have taken place. By consent of the House, I am instructed that the House is prepared to hear the Hon. Minister of Transport on a very unfortunate and unhappy matter. I will hear appropriate comments from the opposition as well.


DISASTERS
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it is to my great sorrow that I wish to inform the House of the marine tragedy that occurred yesterday in the waters of the Atlantic, a few kilometres north of St. John's, Newfoundland.
This tragedy took place during a search and rescue operation conducted by the Canadian Coast Guard ship, Sir Wilfrid Grenfell. This ship was called to Middle Cove on the report of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary that three divers there were urgently in need of assistance.

Upon arriving on the scene, the Sir Wilfred Grenfell launched two fast rescue craft. By then, two of the divers had managed to make it to shore on their own. One of the craft had just recovered the third diver when it was hit by a large wave and capsized, losing all occupants. The second craft immediately attempted rescue, but no trace of the four men could be found.

I regret that thus, four men were lost at sea; the diver, Leonard Caul, and the Coast Guard crew; Gregory Peddle, Officer in Charge; First Seaman Raymond Wel-cher, and Engineer Pierre Gallien. Their deaths bring to four the number of Canadian Coast Guard members who have lost their lives at sea in service in 1989.
It was on January 20 that Tom Shelby, of the Coast Guard western region, lost his life while going to the assistance of a tugboat in distress near Port Hardy.
I am sure that all members of this House will wish to join me in extending our condolences to the families of the victims of these tragic accidents. We salute their bravery and dedication.
Their loss is tragic, Mr. Speaker. I believe all members would agree that they shall be remembered as heroes both personally and as representatives of the thousands of men and women across this country who place their lives in peril to save the lives of others. Their daily bravery is testimony to the finest and noblest aspects of the human character.
We are indebted to these men and their colleagues in the Coast Guard and indeed, we are indebted to all of their fellow Canadians who serve in the dangerous professions, for it is the selfless courage of these thousands that provides hope and security to us all.

I am sure that all members of this House will join me in extending our condolences to the families of these victims. We salute their bravery and dedication. Mr. Speaker, we are indebted to these men and their colleagues in the Coast Guard; and indeed we are indebted to all of their fellow Canadians who serve in the dangerous professions, for it is the selfless courage of these thousands that provides hope and security to us all.
October 16, 1989


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-THnity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a sad note in response to comments made by the Minister of Transport, to relate to the House two tragic incidents that occurred in Newfoundland over the weekend.
The first occurred late last week in the small community of Jamestown, in Bonavista Bay in my riding, where three men tragically lost their lives when they drowned in a motor vehicle that was claimed by the sea.
Yesterday in the community of Middle Cove, just outside of St. John's, in a combined diving accident and search and rescue attempt, a diver and three members of the ship's company of the Canadian Coast Guard vessel Sir Wilfrid Grenfell were also claimed. This is once again a grim reminder of the rigours and the dangers of the ocean that are faced by Canadians who go down to the sea in ships, and equally by those who live by the sea.
I am sure I am joined by my colleagues on both sides of the House in extending our deepest sympathy to the bereaved families and in recognizing the incredible feat of courage involved.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the Minister of Transport and the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception in expressing my party's thoughts on this weekend's tragedy.
First I wish to extend our condolences to the family, friends and co-workers of the three Coast Guard employees, Gregory Peddle, Raymond Welcher and Pierre Gallien who perished this weekend, as well as Tom Shelby from the western region who died in January of this year.
I also want to express our condolences to the family of the diver, Leonard Caul, who perished as well.
Second, I want to pay tribute to these four men from the Coast Guard and countless others in the employ of the Government of Canada who regularly put their lives on the line in order to protect others. Search and rescue is a dangerous and sometimes deadly occupation. Yet these men and women risk their lives on an ongoing basis in order to save others from injury and death.
Oral Questions
The same can also be said of the airborne search and rescue teams, both military and civilian, who log thousands of hours in search of lost aircraft.
They all make an extremely important contribution to this country, Mr. Speaker. In paying respect to these heroes of the Canadian Coast Guard, we are also saying thank you to them and their families for their sacrifice on all our behalf.
I believe it would be appropriate for us to spend a moment in reflection, but I am at your discretion, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the suggestion is appropriate under the circumstances.
Whereupon the House stood in silence for one minute.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In reply to a question that I put to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on October 5, 1988, the minister said there were not rights written on fishing licences.
I would like to draw to the attention of the members of this House the commercial fishing licence that I have of a P.E.I. tuna fisherman. It states very clearly on the licence that P.E.I. fishermen have the right-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a point of order but it is actually a question of debate about something a minister may or may not have said. The hon. member may have a point in argument or a point in debate, but it is not a point of order. It is not a procedural matter.
I do not think it is appropriate to enter into a debate at this time. The hon. member, of course, has other ways of raising this matter with the minister or other ministers, if that is appropriate. There are members' statements and there is also Question Period. I am sure the hon. member would want to avail himself of those more appropriate methods of taking up the issue again. Orders of the day.
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The Elouse resumed consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and on Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

Mr. Speaker:: There are 53 motions in amendment set down on the notice paper in relation to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act.
Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn causes the Chair difficulty because the hon. member is seeking to amend an interpretation section through a substantive motion. This is contrary to Citation 773, subsection (10) of the fifth edition of Beauschene. Therefore, Motion No. 1 will not be selected.
Motion No. 1(a) standing in the name of the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam causes the Chair much difficulty as it does not appear to fit into the bill. Therefore, Motion No. 1(a) will not be selected.
Motions Nos. IB, 14A, 17A and 38 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam are attempting to amend sections of the original act which are not included in this bill. Therefore, again in accordance with Beauschene's Citation 773, subsection (8), these motions will not be selected.
Motions Nos. 2 and 2A standing in the names of the hon. members for Saskatoon-Dundurn and Mission- Coquitlam propose a fundamental change to the bill with respect to major and minor claimants. The Chair believes that the hon. members in so doing are going beyond the principle of the bill and, as a consequence, I will not be able to accept these motions.
Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are in order. They will be debated together and voted on as follows:
(a)	Since Motion No. 5 is consequential to Motion No. 4, the vote on Motion No. 4 will be applied to Motion No. 5.
(b)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 6 will obviate the need to put the question on Motions Nos. 8 and 11, but a negative vote on Motion No. 6 will require putting a question on Motions Nos. 8 and 11.
(c)	A vote on Motion No. 7 will dispose of motion numbered 10.
(d)	Motions Nos. 12, 13 and 14 will be voted upon separately.
Motions Nos. 5A, 5B and 9 standing in the names of the hon. members for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso, Saskatoon-Dundum and Mission-Coquitlam each seek to introduce a new concept into the bill. This is contrary to our practice as set out in Citation 773, subsection (1) of Beauschene's fifth edition. Consequently the Chair must hold that these motions not be selected.
Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 18 will be grouped for debate with a vote on Motion No. 15 being applied to Motions Nos. 16 and 18.
Motions Nos. 17 and 20 will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 18A standing in the name of the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam will not be selected as it is similar to Motion No. 18 which has been selected and grouped with Motions Nos. 15 and 16.
Motions Nos. 21, 22 and 23 are acceptable. They will be debated together with a vote on Motion No. 21 disposing of Motions Nos. 22 and 23.
Motions Nos. 19, 24A, 27 and 28 all seek to introduce new elements into the bill contrary to Citation 773, subsection (1) of Beauschene's fifth edition.
In a similar vein, Motion No. 24 moves to set up a board which would be appointed by the Commission. This is a concept which was not contemplated at second reading and is therefore beyond the scope of the bill. For this reason, the Chair has no choice but to declare this motion out of order.
October 16, 1989

Motions Nos. 25, 26 and 39 are acceptable. They will be grouped for debate with a vote on Motion No. 25 applying to Motions Nos. 26 and 39.
Motions Nos. 29 and 32 standing respectively in the names of the hon. the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace are in order. They will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: an affirmative vote on Motion No. 29 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 32; and a negative vote on Motion No. 29 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 32.
Motions Nos. 30, 33 and 34 are acceptable. They will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.
Motion No. 31 standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn causes the Chair difficulty in that it seeks to add a condition to the clause. This is not in order or consistent with practice. I would refer the hon. member to May's twentieth edition at page 557. Therefore, it will not be selected.
Motions Nos. 35 and 36 are in order and will be debated together but voted upon separately.
Motions Nos. 36A, 37, 37A, formerly Motion No. 3, and 40, will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 41 standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn causes the Chair difficulty. It appears to be inconsistent with the principle of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. Nevertheless, the Chair will give the benefit of the doubt to the member and allow his motion to be put to the House. It will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 42 and 43 standing in the names of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn and Notre-Dame-de-Grace are out of order as Motion No. 42 brings to the bill a new concept not envisaged at second reading and thus it is beyond the scope of the bill, contrary to Citation 773, subsection 1, of Beauchesne's fifth edition.
Motion No. 43 places a condition on the bill that is a direct negative of the legislation, which is contrary to Citation 773, subsection 5, of Beauchesne's fifth edition. I would also refer hon. members in this connection to May's twentieth edition at page 557.
Government Orders
In summary, Motions Nos. 1, 1A, IB, 2A, 5A, 5B, 9, 14A, 17A, 18A, 19, 24, 24A, 27, 28, 31, 38, 42 and 43 are out order.
Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 36A, 37, 37A, formerly Motions No. 3, 39, 40 and 41 are acceptable and will be put to the House in the grouping and order I have outlined.
I again want to thank hon. members for their co-operation. Hon. members will know that with a large number of amendments on a bill which is clearly of great interest to the House, a great deal of work does have to go into the selection of the amendments and, as much as possible, this is discussed as carefully and thoroughly as we can with hon. members before the ruling is made. Again, I thank hon. members for their co-operation and I know I speak on your behalf when I extend to the Table our appreciation for their work.


MEASURE TO AMEND
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I note that you have grouped together Motions Nos. 21,22 and 23 for debate. You have also indicated that a vote on Motion No. 21 would take care of Motion No. 22 and 23. I simply point out that Motions Nos. 21 and 22 are on completely different matters and I do not see how a vote on Motion No. 21 could deal with Motion No. 22.
Motion No. 22 deals with whether or not there should be an appeal from certain decisions by the Commission with respect to training, whereas Motion No. 21 deals with the question as to whether or not money should be spent for new businesses, whether a claim for unemployment insurance could use a lump sum of that money to start a new business. I do not know how a decision on whether or not the money should be used for a business will determine the question as to whether there should be an appeal on a whole wide range of questions dealing with training. I simply bring that to your attention and ask that perhaps there be different voting arrangements.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace for raising this matter. Perhaps it would be best to begin debate. But the Chair will consider the remarks by the hon. member and I hope to be able to come back shortly and render a satisfactory answer. The hon. member on debate.

October 16, 1989
Government Orders


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as you know the legislative committee of this House carried on public hearings on this bill for approximately four weeks in all provinces of this country and also carried on extensive hearings here in Ottawa. As a result of those hearings, 157 out of 202 groups appearing before the committee vigorously, strongly opposed this bill.
As a matter of fact, a great percentage of those 157 groups appearing asked that the bill be withdrawn and sent back to the drawing board to be redrafted. I mention that because a good number of the 50-odd amendments to Bill C-21 that were put before this House arose from the public hearings. These are not amendments that have been created in the minds of Liberals, these are amendments that were strongly urged to the committee by the witness groups that appeared.
Why did these witness groups opposed this bill in such large numbers? They did so because the minister, through the bill, intends to reduce unemployment insurance benefits by between $1.3 billion and $1.5 billion. She intends to take that amount of money away from unemployed workers; money they need to pay their rent, buy their groceries and pay for the necessities of life while they are unemployed.
Several impact studies that have been made on this bill, but the global impact study indicates that 155,000 Canadians would lose their benefits altogether as a result of this bill and that 775,000 would have their benefits reduced. If you have your unemployment insurance benefits cut out altogether or reduced and you are left without unemployment insurance, there are only two alternatives. You have to either go to the soup kitchen or to the provincial welfare system. That is not an option that we, as federal members of Parliament, should be imposing on unemployed Canadians.
In response to that, the minister and the government will say, yes, they are taking between $1.3 and $1.5 million out of the unemployment insurance fund, away from unemployed Canadians, but they are going to use it for training and development.
In many parts of this country unemployed workers are saying, "training for what?" They come from one-indus-tiy towns and there are no other jobs in those towns
except those that they were doing. They want to know if they will be trained so that they will have to go to Toronto or some other high growth area of this country?
That is a general introduction to this particular bill. This group of amendments which is before us, deals with special benefits, not regular benefits. These amendments deal with maternity benefits, adoption benefits, parental care benefits and sickness benefits. These are unemployment insurance benefits that go to individuals who qualify under those categories.
According to present law, maternity and day care benefits lumped together amount to 15 weeks. A pregnant woman could get 15 weeks of benefits either before or after the delivery of the child. The law also provides 15 weeks of benefits to parents who adopt a child. The present law provides 15 weeks of benefits to people who are sick and cannot work.
As you know, there were several court cases with respect to these provisions. The courts ruled in the Schwartz case and the McGuinness case, that we should divide maternity benefits from parental benefits because maternity benefits should apply only to the woman having the child, and should relate principally to her condition while she is pregnant.
They said child care benefits should be permitted to either the father or the mother, and consequently should be an additional type of benefit. As a result of the court decisions, I give credit to the government but it was obliged by the courts to bring the Unemployment Insurance Act up to date. It will now provide 15 weeks of benefits for maternity and 10 weeks of benefits for child care which can be taken by adopting parents or by the father or mother. It will still provide 15 weeks of benefits for sickness.
That is good as far as it goes, but I want to raise some serious objections to what the government is doing. To begin with, at the present time, adopting parents have 15 weeks of benefits. Under this bill their benefits will be reduced to 10 weeks. That is not acceptable.
I have moved in Motions Nos. 7 and 10 that these 10 weeks of day care benefits or parental benefits be extended to 15 weeks for all parents, natural parents and adopting parents, so that the child care benefits will be the same for all parents and will be the same as they are under the present legislation.
October 16, 1989

Under this legislation, as well, the government is saying there will be 15 weeks of benefits for maternity, 10 weeks of benefits for parental care and 15 weeks of benefits for sickness. However, under this legislation, if you have to combine them together, the government says the maximum can only be 30 weeks. There were many interventions before the committee pointing out how that provision is discriminatory to women. We are saying that because of their pregnancy they will not have full access to the 15 weeks of sickness benefits.
I refer to the very well prepared brief submitted to us by the National Association of Women and the Law. They say that while clause 9 would improve the act by increasing the amount of combined pregnancy, sickness or accident benefits to 30 weeks from 15 weeks, they state: "It is our belief that sickness or accident benefits should not reduce entitlement to maternity or adoption benefits, or vice versa". They then refer to Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that there can be no discrimination on the basis of sex. They argue very strongly, and I am convinced by their argument, that this limitation of 30 weeks on sickness, maternity and parental care benefits is wrong. My amendment in Motion No. 13 would do away with that maximum.
My final remark is that the minister herself has introduced a amendment to her own bill in which she attempts to deal in a very selfish way with the brief put to us by adopting parents. The minister said she would be willing to extend the benefits for adopting parents from 10 to 15 weeks but, only if the child were six months old when it was delivered to the home and only if a medical practitioner or an agency that placed the child certified that the child had physical, psychological or emotional conditions that require an additional period of parental care. I think that is very niggardly. I cannot understand why the minister would not simply agree to increase the benefits from 10 to 15 weeks so that they would be the same as they were in the past.
I urge the House, government members and the minister to go the whole distance and permit 15 weeks instead of 10 weeks for adopting parents and for natural parents in taking care of their children. I would also urge the minister to remove this discriminatory clause against women which limits the total benefits to 30 weeks. It in fact discriminates against women because it says because
Government Orders
of their pregnancy they will not have the right to the full 15 weeks of sickness benefits. If the minister does not do that, we know that there will be a challenge before the courts sooner and later and she will have to change that section anyway, just as some of the changes in the bill were brought about through decisions of the courts.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words on the amendments to Bill C-21 before us, particularly those applying to adoptive parents.
One of the individuals involved in the court case referred to by the previous speaker is a constituent of mine. His difficulty was that because his wife was confined to hospital following the birth of their baby, he was denied any kind of benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act because he was looking after the children at home. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the courts ruled that that was discrimination and ordered the government to do something about it. What the government did in this legislation, as I understand it, rather than provide 15 weeks of benefits for an individual such as that constituent of mine, it proposes to reduce everyone's benefits to 10 weeks duration. The government was acting like a bunch of Liberals in trying to bring about that kind of justice to those individuals. It seems to me that if this government is serious about the kinds of things it says about the importance of the family unit, then the first thing this government should be doing is correcting those injustices that were in not only the previous legislation but in this amended legislation which has been before committee and is now before the House.
It is also true that of the 157 groups which appeared before that committee, hardly any did not criticize one or more aspects of the proposed amendments that we have before us, especially the ones that the government has presented.
I heard a spokesman for the Liberal party tell us that it, too, condemns what this government was doing. Prior to coming into the House I looked into my own records from the time that I came into the House in 1980 and from the job that I had prior to being elected, which was a trade union representative. I had considerable time to spend on problems that members in my union and

Government Orders
members of the community had had with the Unemployment Insurance Act when the Liberals were in power.


Mr. Harb:: Over there, now, over there.


Neil Young: One of the Liberal members says, "Over there". I think it is important that people realize that what we are dealing with today are principles that were advanced by the Liberal Party when it was in government. In fact, it is probably fairly accurate to state that this government is finishing the agenda that these guys started.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Neil Young: They obviously do not want to believe what I am saying so I want to refer to the record and let them answer to that, rather than making noise at us people in the New Democratic Party who like to tell the truth about what various governments do.
I will give in point form some of the history which led us to the point we are at today. In 1976, for example, under a Liberal government, the maximum age for coverage was reduced from age 70 to age 65, cutting off a whole group of Canadians who had relied on that social safety net to provide them with an adequate social income after they left the workforce.
In 1976, also, the benefit rate for claimants with families was reduced from 75 per cent of insurable earnings to 66 and two-thirds per cent. The disqualification period for voluntary quits doubled from three to six weeks. In haste, one year later, in 1977, maximum weeks of benefits were reduced from 51 to 50 weeks. Eight weeks minimum attachment to the labour force for benefits was replaced by a variable requirement between 10 and 14 weeks.
In 1979 the benefit rate was reduced from 66-2/3 per cent to 60 per cent. People whose incomes were 1.5 times the maximum insurable earnings were now required to pay back 30 per cent of the benefits exceeding that threshold. You may be interested to know that that was the first case of income testing under that particular program.
At the same time, the government introduced a section that dealt with repeaters and new entrant provisions which established higher requirements for benefits to new entrants to the workforce, and for people who had claimed in the previous year. Then in 1980, the cost of operating the national employment service was shifted to employees and employers, and employers and employees became liable for all costs of initial and labour
force extended benefits. That is not too far off what this government is doing.
I remember when the then Minister of Employment and Immigration made a proposal in the House that took funds from the unemployment insurance program for retraining purposes. That is exactly what the government is doing. The government, however, says to people in Newfoundland, in Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick, and in areas of the country where there is already severe unemployment, that it is going to reduce unemployment insurance benefits to provide retraining funds. Retraining for what, Mr. Speaker?
In effect, what the government is proposing to do is have the highest trained group of unemployed people in the country, use, if it is justified in using unemployment insurance funds, for real job creation in those areas of the country where it is needed.
I had the opportunity to speak in the House on another matter a few days ago and I spoke about a recent visit I had made to Nova Scotia, to Cape Breton actually, a small community just outside of Sydney. In that community something like 60 per cent of the adult population is unemployed, and the average per family income in that community is about $24,000 a year. There is a large coal mine in that community that employs about 1,300 people, but it is threatened with closure. Here you have a community with very serious unemployment problems and this government is talking about reducing the amount of benefits these individuals will receive when they become unemployed, but the government is going to use the money to retrain them. For what? There are no jobs in these communities, and the jobs that do exist are rapidly disappearing.
I beg to ask the question again, and I wish I could hear some member of the government stand up and explain this to me and to people in those communities, what kind of jobs are these people going to be trained for? What kinds of programs is the government going to put in place to ensure that if people are government the benefit of the doubt, what kind of job creation programs are going to be implemented to provide those communities with meaningful jobs?
I have not heard any member of the government explain that to the House, even though there have been numerous questions in Question Period and there have been numerous questions raised before that committee that travelled around the country. Still we have not heard from the government. All we hear about is how the government is going to do the unemployed a favour
October 16, 1989

by initiating job retraining programs but without providing the jobs. Now, that does not make any sense to me, it does not make sense to people in these communities and it certainly does not make sense to the families of those people who are already unemployed and who have very little hope for the future.
I want to add whatever little weight I have and ask the members on the government side to open their ears and their minds and listen to those arguments, especially when we are dealing with this debate on a very serious matter for all Canadians. Even though many people may have jobs which may appear to be fairly secure just now, I would suggest that there are an increasing number of Canadians who do have jobs but who are becoming very concerned about their security in the future, not only for themselves but for their kids, their relatives, for the people who live next door, for the people who live across the street. They all know that in these times in Canada, particularly with the free trade agreement, there is a deep level of concern in the country about employment opportunities.
I see that you are giving me the high sign, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I always have great respect for the Speaker so I will wind down. Thank you very much for your usual kind attention. I would urge the government to get on with the business of the country and act in the best interests of Canadians.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to this package of amendments, but I should declare to the House that in a sense, I have a special interest in the proposals being debated, first, because the new legislation that deals with adoptive parents is something that I had changed when I was minister back in 1983 and had introduced the 15-week adoptive parent rule at the time because of a number of inequities. I should point out that at the time, it was supported by all parties in the House. I would recommend to members on the opposite side in particular the quite eloquent speech made by the now Minister of Justice, who, in supporting the legislation I introduced in 1983, spoke about the questions of equity and fairness, and the lack of discrimination that should be afforded
Government Orders
the parents of whatever child, whether natural or adoptive.
I also want to speak as a parent of an adopted child. One followed the other, and I did not in any way preview in 1983 that I would eventually become a parent of an adoptive child but I subsequently did. While I speak with a special interest, I also speak from experience, and I speak with a special knowledge, and, I would say, with a special concern about this subject.
I do not understand why the government is changing what was a good piece of legislation which provided the same treatment for parents dealing with new children coming into their households, whether by natural means or by adoptive means. It is as simple as that. There is no difference in the requirements. There is no difference whatsoever in the need to establish a bonding with the child, to deal with the very important period of establishment of affection and development of the child during that period of time. It does need a parent in the home for as long a period as one can be established.
It was a recognition, in particular, that the maternity benefits provisions and the parental benefits are not related to a medical reason per se, but are related to the question of the child itself and the relationship of the child developing in that family. The importance that we place in this country upon the development of the family has to be incorporated in legislation.
If the government says there is a difference in that family relationship, between an adopted child and a natural child, then so will the private sector say the same thing. A whole series of benefits will be thereby altered.
I also want to point out that it is very important in terms of the future of the child itself. Why would one want to say that there is different treatment being meted out to an adopted child versus a natural child? Saying that one parent is entitled to 25 weeks and the other to 10 weeks one is immediately saying that there is a difference in the process. There is not, Mr. Speaker, and I can say very clearly that when the child becomes part of that family, there is no difference.
I want, as well, to speak to the amendment that the minister brought in, which in a sense makes it almost worst. Now it is saying that an extra five weeks can be applied if there is a certificate by an agency or a doctor or some other official intervening. That is not the way to create a sense of fairness or equity. We are now introducing a new bureaucratic process into the exercise.

October 16, 1989
Government Orders
We are now creating a further impediment or barrier to that kind of economic and social well being. Why? What is the point of it? It gives more work to the agencies, to the medical practitioners. It creates more awkwardness, more cumbersomeness. It simply is bad law.
For a government that likes to pride itself on trying to keep things simple, trying to eliminate more bureaucracy, here is an amendment which, in fact, adds to it, makes it more cumbersome, more complex and, in fact, I think provides for an even further discrimination. It is saying that one only gets that extra leave if the child shows mental, emotional or physical problems. Who is the judge of that? Are we going to take a young child and say that that important period of having to be bonded with the parent is somehow based upon a problem and that it has to be certified? Is that the way we want the child to start life in the family, certified by a doctor or by a social worker that he or she is a problem child? Is that something we want on the record as a basis for trying to get leave? Any proper parents will not subject themselves to that kind of requirement. It only provides another major barrier, it is simply providing for an unequal and discriminatory set of questions that have no place in this legislation.
I suppose if we were talking about billions of dollars, one would say that maybe there is a reason for it. We are talking about maybe $1 million in extra costs at most, based upon the benefit period last year. Maybe it was $1.5 million, but the fact is that the amount of money that is involved is nothing, but in terms of speaking of the nature of a child's relationship with the family and the future, it says an awful lot. I say to you that this amendment only makes the matter worse, or at least it does in my view.
Let me bring up another point that was drawn to my attention recently in my constituency office while talking to parents. We all know that at some point soon, we will be seized in this House with the question of abortion and the question of offering a choice on children and what to do with them. Clearly, one of the options, an important option that has to be offered, is the question of adoption. When you are asking a young, unmarried woman or a single parent to face that question, one of the really
important problems that many face is whether to keep the child.


Mr. McDermid:: Single men.


Lloyd Axworthy: And the men, that is true.


John Horton McDermid: I have a friend who is in that position.


Lloyd Axworthy: In both cases, and I agree with the hon. member. The question is whether to keep the child or to put it up for adoption. I think one has to eliminate economic and social barriers to that option. If you are going to offer true choice, real choice, then take away the economic or social constraints on that choice, eliminate the kind of problems that a potential parent may see. I will have more to say about that during that debate but, surely, if you are putting a further barrier, a further handicap on the question of adoption, you are adding a further constraint on the choice as to whether adoption is one of the viable choices to be made.
It has repercussions way beyond just unemployment insurance. This particular motion speaks to an important part of family policy in this country. It speaks to how we look at children, how we look at the family and the relationship between them. I do not see the minister in the House, and I am not being critical, but I would hope those who speak to the minister would draw this to the government's attention and would say that it does not change the intent of the bill. This is not something that is going to do damage.
I do not agree with the intent of these amendments. God knows, when I was Minister of Employment, I fought for totally opposite kinds of views because I saw unemployment insurance as an expansive, inclusive kind of legislation and not one that tries to restrict or exclude, so it is a different philosophy.
The government may have that right, but on this measure alone, I think we are dealing with something that Conservative members previously fully adopted and supported in 1983. Why they would change their minds now, I have no idea. Why a worthy and distinguished member like the Minister of Justice would change his mind and vote for something like this, I have no idea, because he was very eloquent in supporting the 1983 amendments.
October 16, 1989

Furthermore, I would say to members generally, look at what this amendment does. Look at what they are talking about. We are simply saying that there is a discrimination. There is a distinction. There is a difference between the nature of a family relationship if the child is natural or adopted. I do not think anyone in this House or in this country wants to create that kind of discrimination. I would simply ask members opposite as I would ask members of the House generally to be very careful when they come to this series of amendments.
My colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, has brought in the proper amendment, to simply restore the status quo, to make it clear that all families and all children get treated the same. I would encourage members on both opposition and government sides to vote for that amendment. It makes sense from a family point of view. It makes sense in terms of the basic principles of equity and equality in this society.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say it is a pleasure to rise to speak on this bill today. It is not. I wish it were not here. I wish it would go away. I wish the government would go back to the unanimous recommendations that were reached by an all-party committee in the previous Parliament to truly reform the unemployment insurance bill. With the support of government members and opposition members from both parties, the government has chosen to go in a completely opposite direction, to take a punitive and blaming approach toward those who happen to be without a job through no fault of their own.
As we travelled across the country, we heard in city after city and town after town about how this bill will contribute to the growing disparity in our country between those who have and those who have not. It will make people who are the working poor even poorer and those regions which are poor even poorer.
This is exemplified by the fact that those with the lowest incomes lose the most in benefits. Perhaps I could just give a couple of examples. Those earning under $10,000 who are disqualified or limited in their benefits by this bill lose the greatest amount, on average, over $1,000, over 10 per cent of their income, when they cannot meet the new requirements of this bill. Eighty
Government Orders
per cent of those who lose under this bill earn under $25,000 a year. In many regions of this country, that is not even a poverty level income for a family.
The growing disparity is demonstrated by the fact that the highest loss per person who loses benefits or fails to qualify for benefits is in Newfoundland. If there are people who can argue that Newfoundland has the most thriving economy of the regions in this country, then I do not think they have their eyes on reality.
I wish to speak specifically to this group of amendments. The few saving features of the bill are not nearly enough to compensate for the tremendous damage it does to those who can least afford it. The few saving features of the bill are here, not from a desire on the part of the government to reform the unemployment insurance system, to make it better or fairer or to make it of more assistance to those who need income replacement when they do not have a job. They arise in fact from court decisions that left the government no option. One of those is the provision of parental benefits to natural parents as well to adoptive parents.
The courts have determined that in fact, it is contrary to the charter if natural parents do not enjoy the same parental and child care time as adoptive parents enjoy.
However, to introduce that equality, the government has chosen not to provide the same benefits to natural parents as to adoptive parents, but to reduce the benefit to adoptive parents. It has shown no interest in doing what is fair and just in providing to natural parents that which adoptive parents have enjoyed for a number of years and that which the courts ruled on.
Many amendments were introduced and many amendments are before the House to try to correct that basic problem. The only right and proper answer is for the government to take the 15 weeks that adoptive parents now enjoy and to ensure that the same benefit is enjoyed by natural parents.
Everything else the House sees before it, including the minister's amendment, are attempts to circumvent and not address the fundamental problem. The benefits should be the same for both and they should not be less than what the adoptive parents now enjoy. Any other amendment requiring certification, any other amendment proposing special adoptive leave are all efforts to

October 16, 1989
Government Orders
try to persuade the government, if it cannot go all the way, to at least go part way. It is not good enough.
In the bill, as amended by the minister's motion, adoptive parents are being robbed of what they now enjoy. Natural parents are not being provided that to which the courts have determined they are entitled.
The other inequity addressed by these amendments is the qualifying period for unemployment insurance. Can anybody give me a logical reason why a woman who becomes unemployed by virtue of a pregnancy and therefore unable to earn income should have a different qualifying period than any other worker in this society? Why should a woman in an area of high unemployment not be able to qualify, with the same number of weeks as any other worker who needs income replacement, when she has an interruption of earnings?
The waiting period is another problem that is addressed by these amendments. Again, the waiting period is a disincentive to use benefits to which the family is entitled. It is an economic hardship which makes it easier for middle or high income families to take advantage of these benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act than for low income families. Low income families simply cannot afford two weeks without income so that they can take advantage, for example, of parental leave benefits.
The argument has already been well made on the maximum period of benefits and I do not propose to make it again except to restate that improvements in benefits are not improvements unless you have every ability to take full advantage of, and to fully utilize those benefits for the purpose for which they are intended. An artificial cap of 30 weeks does not allow that to happen.
Finally I would like to say that the other equity provision that the bill addresses is to allow those over 65 to qualify for unemployment insurance. This again is a change imposed on the government by the courts that determined that discrimination on the basis of age is not allowed under the Charter and does occur under the existing act.
The government has failed to take advantage of this opportunity to correct a problem with legislation that was brought to our attention over and over again during
the hearings. That problem is the discriminatory way in which pension income is treated. Persons with pension income have that income treated as earned income for purposes of unemployment insurance. If they have a pension, they cannot qualify even though they are contributing, are available for employment and are intending to remain as contributors to the plan. That is not right. That is not just. In fact, we heard today in this House of a case of people being deprived of benefits that they were entitled to because they were misinformed on this provision of the act.
It is especially unjust when the same pension income is not treated as earned income for purposes of turning it into a pension plan or an RRSP.
I would like to conclude by simply saying that the government had and still has the opportunity with this bill to truly reform the unemployment insurance scheme, to go back to the all-party committee that reported to the House last year and to review again the changes that it proposed to the system, to come up with a scheme that is fair, equitable and recognizes the extent to which the government is responsible for unemployment in this country through various fiscal measures, and that it should continue to assume financial responsibility for unemployment in the regions of this country and for the poorest of the unemployed.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this bill which unfortunately is before the House at this time. There are so many areas on which one could focus, but I propose to focus on this bill from a general point of view and in particular from the point of view of its effect on Saskatchewan.
This is a bill that hits the province of Saskatchewan and my particular community, the city of Moose Jaw and the area surrounding Moose Jaw in my riding, at a particularly bad time. Moose Jaw, like other communities in the province of Saskatchewan, is suffering through some bad times. Agriculture for the last few years has been very poor and agriculture has a very direct impact on the economy of the province of Saskatchewan. As well, we have a number of small businesses that are
October 16, 1989

closing, not only in Moose Jaw but throughout the province. We have workers who are being laid off.
This is a bill that the province does not need at this time. The policies of the provincial government, the policies of Premier Grant Devine, have added to the problems that exist in the province of Saskatchewan. I would remind you that it was Premier Devine back in 1982 who inherited a province from a New Democratic government, a province that was viable and vibrant and in the black, and indicated that you could completely mismanage the province of Saskatchewan and still break even. How wrong he was. Today, the province of Saskatchewan has the biggest deficit that the province has had in the history of its existence. Certainly the policies of this government have not helped the situation either.
High interest rates have had a disastrous effect on Saskatchewan. This government talks of the deficit and it knows full well that by lowering interest rates one percentage point it could save $1.5 billion a year. But in the province of Saskatchewan small businesses are suffering because of high interest rates and consumers are suffering because of high interest rates. Consumers are less willing to invest their money in consumer goods, especially consumer goods of any significant value, because of the high interest rates. Small business people suffer as well because they do not invest or are more hesitant to invest because of the high interest policy, and this is at a time when many businesses are struggling to simply survive.
The cuts in VIA Rail that are going to be taking effect in January of next year are going to affect the city of Moose Jaw to the tune of $1 million a year. One million dollars out of the economy of a city of some 36,000 people is a lot of money.
The government is further going to inflict harm on the economy of Saskatchewan and the economy of Moose Jaw by the goods and services tax which is going to further hit seniors, small business people, consumers, and workers in the riding and throughout this country. It is one more item that the people of my riding do not need.
The city of Regina recently conducted a study that indicated that fully one-third of people living in Regina are living below the poverty line. This is in a province that was a have province in 1982. It is now a have not province, and it is going down all the time.
Government Orders
This is a government that introduces changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, changes that are going to make unemployment insurance more difficult to receive and, when you do receive these benefits they are going to be at a reduced rate. In the last four years the province has lost 50,000 people; 50,000 people have left the province of Saskatchewan since 1985. As a net loss half those people, or proportionately the highest percentage of those people, has been between the ages of 18 and 24.
The future of our province is leaving. They are leaving because the employment situation is poor and they are waiting for governments, either federally or provincially, to put some investment into that province, to provide some opportunities for that province. Certainly this unemployment insurance bill weighs negatively upon that.
The unemployment bill further affects small businesses by forcing them to pay higher premiums, which is just one more item for many businesses that are struggling to survive. I remind this House that small business creates more jobs in this country than any other sector of our economy.
The city council of the city of Moose Jaw has been so concerned about this bill that it recently passed a motion which it has forwarded to the government. I think it is worth while reminding the House of that motion in which council voiced its opposition to the changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act.
It has specifically pointed out, first, that changes which reduce the eligibility requirements will restrict low income, seasonal workers from obtaining earlier benefits. Second, it is opposed to changes which increase premium costs for employees and employers.
The city council of the city of Moose Jaw does not pass such motions very lightly, but it represents the unified force that exists against this bill in the city of Moose Jaw and throughout the province of Saskatchewan.
In Moose Jaw housing starts have been drastically cut. Sales of houses are way down. Businesses are suffering and at the same time this government has indicated that the attitude toward regional program development has to be changed, that it has to be bottom line economics. This is a country that was built on regional development, that relies on regional development. Certainly the regions of this country deserve better. They deserve a

October 16, 1989
Government Orders
better attitude from this government than they are getting.
I find it somewhat ironic that my colleagues to the right themselves have been decrying this bill. There is not a single principle introduced in this Conservative legislation which was not pioneered under Liberal legislation.
The Liberals were the first people to take money out of benefits for training, and they even shifted the cost of the national employment service to premiums instead of government funding. The Liberals have been complaining about the way people are being treated with respect to voluntary quits, but it was the Liberals who first doubled the disqualification for those people back in 1976. As well, the Liberals complain about increased requirements to obtain benefits and about reduced weeks of coverage, but it was the Liberals who took both of these steps first in the 1970s. This government is simply completing the task which was commenced under the Liberal government.
We in this party are opposed to this bill. We are opposed to this bill because we like to see Canadians reach their full potential. We like Canadians to have the opportunity to reach their full potential. We like small business people to have the opportunity to invest and to prosper and grow. We also like people to have the opportunity to work in regions where they want to work and to be able to remain in places like Saskatchewan and Moose Jaw in particular, and not be forced to leave the province at the rate they have been leaving. It is an exodus from the province that is unprecedented, and it is going to have very disastrous effects on the future of our province.
We are opposed to this bill because it is not taking the direction in which our society should be heading. Instead of penalizing Canadians who through no fault of their own are unemployed, instead of forcing small business and employers and employees to pay more at a time when they are struggling to survive, we should be putting our effort into developing and maintaining viable regional development programs. Instead of its continuous attack on average Canadians this government should be allowing Canadians to reach their full potential.
We would urge that this bill be defeated.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal particularly with amendment No. 6 as listed in Votes and Proceedings, because several members have dealt with this matter of adoptive benefits. Indeed, we had several briefs that addressed this matter when the legislative committee was travelling, and the minister with this amendment is endeavouring to answer the requests of the various people who have appeared before the committee on it.
On behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I am pleased to discuss this amendment to clause 9 of Bill C-21. It provides for an additional five weeks of parental benefits, fifteen weeks rather than ten, in cases where a child six months of age or older enters the home for the first time. To be eligible for this added benefit the claimant will have to submit a certificate from a medical practitioner or the agency which places the child with the parents. This certificate will confirm that the child suffers from a physical, psychological or emotional condition requiring an additional period of parental care.
This amendment addresses the special circumstances parents face when an infant has been institutionalized or otherwise prevented from going home for an extended period after birth. It will also be relevant in adoption cases where the children are six months of age or older. It is estimated that this covers approximately 90 per cent of the adoptions in Canada. When a child six months of age or older is entering a home for the first time, regardless of the reasons, it makes sense that a parent needs an extended period of time to welcome that child, establish daily routines, and develop a secure parent-child relationship.
This amendment is being introduced in response to representations that were made to the legislative committee during its study of the bill by those concerned about the interests of children and parents. Without this amendment adoptive parents would have seen a decrease in their benefits. At the time this seemed to be an unavoidable although not completely satisfactory approach to the government. What had been driving that provision was the need to treat natural and adoptive parents alike, in order to ensure conformity with the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
October 16, 1989

The minister is very pleased that through the work of the members of the legislative committee on all sides and a number of groups which appeared before them this amendment is possible.
The government is committed to ensuring that the UI program is in sync with modem reality and recognizes the challenges parents face in combining family and work related responsibilities. This amendment, along with other provisions in Bill C-21 for maternity, parental and the combining of special benefits, will go a long way toward acknowledging current family and work situations.
I am particularly pleased to see this amendment go forward. I commend members of groups who appeared before us for the dedicated way in which they try to help children who have some disability. I was really impressed with the testimony they gave us and came to understand that it takes a little longer for a child who has a disability to become a part of a family of persons whom he or she may not have seen before.
I want to make a few other comments on the legislation, but before I doing so I would like to say that we heard more than 200 briefs, and many of them several times. I do not know how we are going to deal with this matter in the future. Perhaps the committee, in its wisdom, will decide that it is going to hear one national group give a brief. We had as many as 70 groups repeat almost verbatim the same brief over and over and over again.


Ron Fisher: Let the people speak.


William James Kempling: I do not know whether people consider that productive or not.


Ron Fisher: Yes.


William James Kempling: But, of course, when you are doing statistics it makes it appear to be very important.


Ron Fisher: Very embarrassing for you.


William James Kempling: You will have your chance to speak whenever you want to get up on your feet.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, we had many people appear before the committee. Many of their remarks will be featured in this debate by others. We had a witness in Toronto who spoke of the constitutionality of the bill and
Government Orders
gave us a long and very learned dissertation on how unemployment insurance became a federal responsibility through constitutional change.
By the same token, the person who made this presentation indicated that she thought perhaps this bill may not be constitutional. But when she was asked if she intended to pursue that point, whether she intended to mount a court challenge to the government on that, she said: "Well, I am not sure whether I want to proceed or not". Others who had her view brought to their attention were not that positive either.
The fact is the government has a legal opinion on the bill. It has been told by the Department of Justice that the bill is legal in all senses. What the whole matter seems to revolve around is what we mean by benefits.
Do we just mean dollars and cents by benefits, or do benefits mean training? Can they mean training? The major point of the opinion that the government received was that benefits can be more than money. They can in fact be training. If that training is going to enhance the ability of the individual to seek and secure employment in the future, then the UI funds may be used for training.
We have discussed the matter across the country with industry groups and small business groups. More than 50 per cent of small business groups say their greatest difficulty is in getting trained people to work in their businesses. We talked to people in industry who said that those who have high tech skills and saleable skills in the future will be the ones they will be employing.
Our attempt through this bill is to broaden the ability of our labour force to react to the demand that will be put on it by industry in the future to produce its products.
We have heard many comments made about mobility. It has been said that perhaps we should not be training these people to gain another skill because they may move away from the city in which they are presently living and seek employment in some other part of the country. For some reason everybody picks on Toronto. I do not know why that is, but I guess it is because unemployment is low in Toronto and what is loosely called the Golden Horseshoe.
The fact is that that is the history of Canada. People do not stay in one place for the rest of their lives. I was bom in Grimsby and remember moving to Kitchener, then to

October 16, 1989
Government Orders
Oshawa, then to Toronto, and then to Dundas because that is where the work was.


Some Hon. Members:: The Golden Horseshoe!


William James Kempling: The Golden Horseshoe; well you've got me there, guys.
If you look at the development of western Canada you will see that people came not from the west to the east but from the east to the west. Read our history. You will see that the success of the country has been in the mobility of people, people taking advantage of an opportunity that they see in another part of the country. That is what made this country what it is today, and that is what will drive it into the future.
I do not believe it should be a responsibility of the government to find an unemployed person in a village which is loosely referred to as a one industry village and keep that person in money until some other industry comes along and employs him or her. There has to be some initiative on the part of the individual to go out and seek employment. I cannot believe there is not a motivational change in an individual who let us say is married, has a job, has a car, has a house, has a mortgage, has some children, and becomes unemployed. Is he just going to sit back and say: "I can't do anything unless the government finds me a job. Woe is me. We will lose the car, we will lose the house, and I guess we will all have to go down to the soup kitchen the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace refers to".
I do not think that is the way it operates in this country. I think that retraining people and putting them into jobs that will be available or are available today-and we have lots of jobs available that cannot be filled-is the wave of the future, and that is the purpose of Bill C-21.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-21. As we have already heard there is great effort needed before the proposed legislation will be acceptable to all Canadians.
Before I get to specifics of the amendments proposed by my colleagues, allow me first to touch on unemployment insurance and welfare. These two safety net
programs are very closely linked. Unfortunately, in the attempts to reform unemployment insurance, the government will simply transfer part of the load on to an already overburdened welfare system. Let me explain.
The government's proposed changes make it more difficult for Canadian workers to collect unemployment insurance and shorten the benefit period they are entitled to. Obviously this will result in less people on unemployment insurance and more people on welfare.
For example, of the 83,000 people who are unemployed in Manitoba right now, 4,300 will have to go on welfare because they cannot qualify for benefits under the new eligibility rules. Another 24,000 will have their benefits reduced. In Toronto, as another example, metro taxpayers will have to pay an extra $2 million per year because the change will throw 4,500 people off benefits and on to the municipal welfare rolls.
In my own region of Ottawa-Carleton the regional government has predicted that it will be handling somewhere between 540 and 820 more general welfare assistance cases each month as a result of the proposed changes. At an estimated $550 per case, the increased cost to the region could be as high as $5.4 million per year.
Part of the proposed legislation will simply push many of the unemployed out of one safety net and into another. When we stop and think about the fact that in the Ottawa-Carleton region 67 per cent of all those on welfare are between the ages of 18 and 37, we can see that the second safety net is seriously flawed as well.
These Canadians need our help. It is my belief that something drastic must be done to get these people back to work. You cannot amend UI without improvement to the entire social welfare system.
Today I would like to concentrate on the proposed amendments to Bill C-21, in particular Motion Nos. 7 and 10. These motions have been put forward to correct a serious flaw in the government proposed legislation by re-establishing the 15-week benefit period for all those taking parental leave. This is a matter which is of great importance to many people in my constituency and throughout Canada.

Government Orders
If Bill C-21 is passed as it stands now, biological parents will be entitled to up to 25 weeks of combined maternity and parental benefits to provide care for their new child. Adoptive parents, on the other hand, will be limited to a maximum of 10 weeks to care for a new child. Adoptive parents will have lost five weeks from their previous fifteen weeks entitlement.
It is common knowledge that more and more biological parents are using their combined maternity and parental leave benefits very late in their pregnancy. The simple explanation for this is that they need and want to devote as much time as possible to caring for their baby after its birth. Yet, adoptive parents are not entitled to these maternity benefits and will, on top of that, be losing five weeks of parental leave. The loss of those five weeks is extremely important to any parent, biological or not. In my opinion and in the opinion of adoptive parents across our country this loss is unacceptable.
When we stop and think about it, Bill C-21 means that we will have very different maximum periods of benefits despite the fact that adoptive and biological working parents pay the same premiums for UI benefits. It is easy to argue that adoptive parents do not have the same pre-natal and post-natal needs of biological parents, but this is not to say that they do not have special and veiy real needs of their own.
In fact, the existing adoption leave benefit was put in place in 1983 to allow adoptive mothers to claim unemployment insurance benefits similar to natural birth mothers. The government of the day recognized that parental and maternity leave was not solely to allow the biological mother a chance to physically recover from pregnancy and birth; the legislation acknowledged the need for special worker benefits to care for a new child.
It is ironic that the member who is now the hon. Minister of Justice stated at that time, and I quote from Hansard of July 2, 1983:
Parents who adopt children face the same physical, mental, social and economic adjustments as natural parents. They often do not have advance notice of the date of adoption. I am pleased the government has brought in legislation to correct this discrimination.
Yet it is his government today which is putting forward legislation that will reintroduce the discrimination against adoptive parents.

Currently, adoptive parents are entitled to a maximum 15 weeks of benefits to take care of their child. Bill C-21 would limit this period to 10 weeks. The lost of these five additional weeks is a very serious matter for any parent, biological or otherwise. Mr. Speaker, this period should not be changed.
There are those who maintain that adoptive parents don't need maternity leave and benefits. That is not always the case. Everybody knows that more and more biological mothers combine their maternity and parental leave by going on maternity leave at a very late stage of their pregnancy. The reason is quite simple: They prefer to spend as much time as possible with their baby after its birth.
Adoptive parents have the same needs and requirements as biological parents. However, our present legislation prevents them from meeting those needs as natural parents do, because of the resulting loss of income. Ten weeks is not enough to establish a bond with a child that is practically a stranger. Experts in this area are well aware of the problems. Child placement services usually require one of the adoptive parents to stay home for at least six months after adoption. Why can't the government acknowledge this need as well?
Furthermore, the aura of uncertainty which surrounds most adoptions and the timing as well give prospective parents very little time to prepare for this event.
There is a tendency to believe that most adoptions involve newborn infants. That is certainly not always the case. Usually, adoptive parents do not know the age, sex, mental or physical abilities, genetic antecedents and sometimes even the race of the child that will be entrusted to them. Tremendous adjustments must therefore be made by adoptive parents who have to get to know their child after the adoption comes through. The uncertainty does not disappear once the child is placed in a home. Indeed, parents run the very real risk of losing their child if the natural mother changes her mind. In Quebec and Nova Scotia, for example, a natural mother has six months to reclaim her child. Of course, this possibility of losing custody of the child creates a great deal of tension for the adoptive parents. Biological

October 16, 1989
Business of the House
parents, however, do not have to worry about such an eventuality.
Given the short benefit period allowed adoptive parents under Bill C-21, we must conclude that the Government is totally unaware of the many needs of adoptive parents or, even worse, that it has simply chosen to ignore them.

With Bill C-21 the government also implies that the nurturing needs of an adopted child are not as great as those of a child living with its natural parent. In fact many adopted children require more time for bonding to be established. There are many reasons for this but I will discuss only a few. I can see your hand waving, Mr. Speaker, so I will move on.
Adoptive parents must be social workers, psychologists and parents all at the same time and at the very beginning of their relationship with their child.
If Bill C-21 passes into legislation unamended, the effect will be to discriminate between adopted and biological parents as well as between adopted children and biological children. Obviously this will have a major social and economic impact on adopted families and our communities. The legislation as it stands is regressive and discriminatory. I can only hope that the government will recognize this fact before it is too late and support the amendment as proposed in Motions Nos. 7 and 10.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River, I would like to recognize the parliamentary secretary on a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the member, but there have been consultations among the three parties and I have a couple of travel motions that we would like to put before the House. The first motion is:
That the Standing Committee on Environment be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C. on October 23-25, 1989, for the purpose of discussions with United States congressmen on acid rain, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
The second motion is:
That the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs be authorized to travel to Halifax, Nova Scotia from October 22 to October 27,1989 and to Victoria and Comox, British Columbia from October 30 to November 2, 1989 in relation to its study on Canada's maritime sovereignty and security and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motions agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. parliamentary secretary on a further point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the private member who was to present his bill at five o'clock is unable to do so. I understand also, because of us not knowing of that earlier, that we would need the consent of the House to extend government time through to six o'clock.
In light of that I would therefore ask we can obtain the consent of the House to continue this debate to give members a chance to participate on an issue which all of us see as important and to give us an extra hour of debate during the Private Members' hour from five o'clock to six o'clock.


Rodney Edward Murphy: We do not agree to give up private members' time to the government to change the Unemployment Insurance Act. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we are against this legislation. We think it is horrific. We think it is going to be devastating to regions of Canada, therefore we do not give our consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no consent.
October 16, 1989




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise in this House and speak on this motion. It is discouraging to be up here again fighting another rear-guard action as this government attempts to pick apart the safety net that Canadians have come to count on in this country.
Unemployment insurance was introduced in July of 1941. It was a direct result of decades of pressure from our political predecessors, the CCF, the farm labour parties, and so on through the 1920s and 1930s that saw the devastation which forced unemployment and cost individuals and communities. In the atmosphere of needing all the wartime production, all the labour force that the government could muster, unemployment insurance was brought in, in 1941, and has been an important part of our social safety net ever since.
There were two principles that guided the evolution of the unemployment insurance program through the years. First, unemployment insurance should alleviate individual hardship caused by unemployment. This was something that a person had by right of citizenship. Second, there was the principle that the effect of unemployment insurance and this particular aspect of our safety net should have equal impact across the country.
In other words, those regions of the country that were hardest hit by unemployment should be recognized in the way the act is administered so that those people would not suffer unduly because of the regions of the country that they lived in.
However what have we seen happen here? What have we seen the millionaire stock brokers from Toronto come in with now in terms of unemployment insurance? We
Government Orders
see a gradual shift to a charity model, back to the poor houses. We see food banks.
The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam listed the number of people seeking help in food banks nowadays. We see people being forced off unemployment insurance through this measure on to welfare, which places a new and undue burden on municipalities and on the provinces. They also have a deficit problem. It does not help to reduce the federal deficit by increasing the provincial and municipal deficits and all the way down to increasing individual deficits, because individuals in this country are as deeply in debt as the government. Shifting it down to individuals, municipalities and provincial governments does not deal with the problem at all.
Another thing that this movement to change the unemployment insurance program is doing is forcing relocation of thousands and thousands of people. It is no accident that unemployment is high in the regions. It is not a fate of nature, the unseen hand, or anything else. It is the very real fiscal and economic policies that this government has brought in.
For example, policies like gutting regional development programs, especially for isolated communities, and making regional development accessible only to the big companies that already have access to all kinds of government programs. It is the result of an interest rate policy that funnels all the money from around the country into the big trading centres like Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. It overheats those economies and then gets into a cyclical process whereby interest rates go even higher. Unemployment then rises in the regions of the country and the economic activity that could be expected there cannot happen because of interest rates.
Now we see a very miserly approach. We saw that when the member for Burlington was making his comments with regard to clause 6, the clause that deals with the relative benefits, paternal benefits between adoptive parents and biological parents.
First, it should be pointed out that this would not be here in the first place or that a government member would not be supporting it if it were not forced by the courts. Second, a approach like this that discriminates between different kinds of parents certainly cannot be said to be an equity provision.

October 16, 1989
Government Orders
When the member says that the provisions here actually cover 90 per cent of the adoptive parents, why then bring a miserly little motion that would discriminate against the other 10 per cent? That does not make any kind of sense at all, at least not unless you are looking at it from the perspective of millionaire's row.
I would like to deal specifically with Motions Nos. 4 and 5 because they deal most directly with the effects on regions such as the region I represent, Prince Albert- Churchill River, a northern constituency with high unemployment, scattered communities, and an underdeveloped economy.
The loss to this region can be figured in several different ways. The government came out with figures that said that the loss to the Prince Alberta-Yorkton UI region would be $4.4 million over the course of a year, each and every year. Global Economics said that the loss would be $11 million. When I checked into why this difference existed I found out that it was because government members were figuring behaviour modification into the equation. They were not taking into account the real numbers and how much people are actually going to lose; they were taking into account $6.6 million worth of behaviour modification in the region of the country I represent.
Whose behaviour is it going to be modifying? I did a little research on this. There are 600 claimants who fall under the clerical category, such as secretaries and office personnel. Those people often cannot move because they have family responsibilities and certainly cannot, as the member for Burlington suggested, move to Toronto, find a secretarial job and pay for the move with the earnings of a clerical job.
They are losing an average of $430 each. That is $258,000 worth of behaviour modification for secretaries and clerical personnel in northern Saskatchewan. Construction workers also have to modify their behaviour: 930 claimants, $613 or $560,000 worth of behaviour modification for construction workers in this constituency. This is totally unacceptable.
The chronic problem with the unemployment insurance program is determining the unemployment rates in regions such as the one I represent. For the La Ronge CEIC office the official unemployment rate is 13 per
cent. That is unbelievable. When you check into how these things are figured you can see why it happens because treaty Indians are not included in this. The surveys are done by telephone and only 20 or 30 per cent of the people have telephones and are inaccessible to any Statistics Canada surveyors. The actual unemployment rate in that area is in fact 25 per cent to 30 per cent, which would put them well over the cut-off line at 15 per cent. However, because of the way the figures are arrived at, that region will not be eligible for benefits that are its right.
Second, I hoped that when the whole Unemployment Insurance Act was being reviewed the whole problem of seasonal unemployment and the type of economy that exists in frontier areas of the country would be taken into account.
When I did research for this particular speech I found that although there are about 400 commercial fishermen in northern Saskatchewan, only 7 of them are registered with the CEIC although there is a commercial fishing benefit program. The reason is that these people not only fish but they do some line cutting. Their other big source of employment is firefighting. What has happened under that provision, as has been pointed out in the House, is that firefighters across the country are paid on a casual basis because it takes so long to get them on the government payroll, and it is easier to get the money by putting them on casual.
Consequently people are working many weeks through the summer. In many cases they work sufficient weeks to collect unemployment insurance, but because they are paid on a casual basis they are not eligible for unemployment insurance. Therefore there is a whole pattern of employment where people do some cutting line fishing, firefighting, and so on. Those people are working very hard.
There is an illusion that people who need unemployment insurance are lazy or not self-motivated. That is unfair. I invite members to go to that part of the country and see how hard people work and under what conditions they live. To penalize them and not deal with the problems in the UI system which affect them very directly makes a mockery of any kind of claim that the government might make in positively reforming the unemployment insurance system through this legislation.
October 16, 1989

The other argument that the government makes is that this new system is going to cost employers and employees. The government is withdrawing more and perhaps it will force some people to move. However, the government claims that the big benefit will be an increased amount of training, that there will be more money available for training as a result of this legislation.
Many Canadians appearing before the committee made the point that certainly training should be an investment that falls on the country as a whole and not an investment that falls on the backs of the unemployed. Even given that particular criticism there is no guarantee at all in this legislation, nor in any of the comments that I have heard made, that that training will accrue to the regions of the country where the biggest losses are being experienced.
There will be a real loss in our region of the country of $11 million. I know $11 million would buy a lot of training. I would be very surprised, in fact I will be watching very closely to see what portion of that $11 million gets back to that part of the country. The reason I am concerned is that I know that the government promised there would be the finest adjustment programs in the world when it came to free trade; people who lost their jobs would be looked after. The de Grandpre commission was supposed to recommend that all this would be done. It said existing programs should do it. Well, this is the existing program.
What is going to happen in a region like mine where there is a rapidly growing labour force of people who have never held a job and where there are unemployment rates of 50 per cent, 60 per cent or 70 per cent? I predict that the money for training is not going to go there.
The money for training is going to go again into the metropolitan areas where there are very visible job losses, for example to the GM plant in Scarborough, the Inglis plant in Toronto. Those are the types of priorities that the government is going to be setting for retraining because it is politically expedient to do so. That is where the national media is.
The Globe and Mail will report it and everybody will read here in Quorum that the government did wonderful
Government Orders
things in retraining, but no one puts in Quorum quotes from the La Ronge Northerner that says that there are thousands of young students coming out of the school system in northern Saskatchewan who need training and have never had an opportunity to participate.
I strongly support Motions Nos. 4 and 5 which would have the effect of equalizing the benefits that are available to people on the basis of the unemployment rates in their region and would not discriminate against people in our region of the country.
I also wish to strongly register that I am ashamed to be part of a House that would even consider taking such a gigantic step backward in Canadian social policies as this bill represents.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, after my hon. colleague has led us off on such a rhetorical note which makes sense nonetheless, it almost shakes the confidence of those who would want to see this House as a place where we would do things that are instrumental for the well-being of all Canadians and upon which well-being we construct a new future for all of Canada.
It is unfortunate that other members, some in my party, have had occasion to refer to some of the elements of these clauses that are absolutely contrary to that particular view. In clause 9, to which these several motions refer, the government is addressing itself to creating a fundamental attitudinal change among workers in the country.
For those of us who were not quite aware what the rest of the country does see in this particular clause, I would just like to briefly refer to a sentence from a September 11 article published in Vancouver. A member of the business community made a representation before the legislative committee studying Bill C-21.
I know my colleague opposite has an aversion to those who repeat positions given before a legislative committee, even though that repetition drives home points that are most valid. The repetition this time came from a member of the business community who said that Bill C-21 should have as its objective the creation of a mobile pool of jobless workers shifting across the country ready to plug into the needs of industry.

October 16, 1989
Government Orders
There are those of us who believe in an economic strategy, an industrial strategy for this country, one that takes a look at the resources and the needs of our nation and builds upon them for the benefit of all of its citizens, for the benefit of those people who would like to have work, and to create jobs on behalf of those who think that they can engage their energies and their vigour productively. Those of us who have been looking for that kind of initiative see instead Bill C-21 which does quite the opposite.
In fact because I would not dare to use statistics that the government so casually dismisses as being completely incorrect, erroneous, and unfounded, I will use government statistics in referring to the objectives of Bill C-21, especially in clause 9.
For example, this particular clause through its entrants requirements, restrictions of benefits, and lengthening of qualifying periods will have the net impact of causing 41 per cent of all claimants from Newfoundland to suffer reductions in benefits, 46 per cent of all claimants from P.E.I. to lose benefits, 40 per cent of all the claimants from the province of New Brunswick to lose benefits, and 49 per cent of all claimants from Manitoba will suffer a reduction in benefits.
I do not want to go on to the others because many of them fall into a much lower category, but it is important to keep those figures in mind when we address the objective of this government. If the objective is, as the hon. member opposite suggests, to put people back to work, the attitudinal change to which all other members have made reference suggests that the onus is going to be on the worker to locate the job. It will not be the result of any government program, any government strategy or great initiative, or any development of the market-place that generates jobs to which all workers will naturally gravitate. No. In fact I read those specific figures because they have a startling resemblance and relationship to other figures.
For example, using the labour market survey published recently and used as a reference by the government, it does appear that from the fourth quarter of 1988 to the end of the second quarter in 1989 that we are looking at a bill which says: "let's put people back to work by making them look for a job; make them accept the jobs that are
there". The natural question then is: Where are these jobs?
It appears that according to the labour market survey they certainly do not exist in Quebec because in those three quarters there was a net drop of 11,000 jobs. There was no growth in Prince Edward Island. There has been no growth in jobs in Prince Edward Island since the fourth quarter of 1987. There was no growth in jobs in New Brunswick. There was no growth in jobs in Manitoba. There was again a loss of 5,000 jobs in Saskatchewan.
My hon. colleague from Saskatchewan noted as well that there was a net emigration of 2,000 people per month. We are exporting the unemployment from regions less advantaged to other areas. This particular bill would suggest that the government is embarking on a grand strategy of job creation, a grand strategy of employment, a great plan to create a new wealth for all of Canada. It attacks those people in those regions where the results have been the contrary to expectations of employment growth.
That does not make sense. It cannot possibly excite the confidence of this House when we look at those government figures. They are not invented by others who would like to look at the gaping holes in this particular legislation. What comes through all those figures is an unfortunate description, and I use the adjective rather cautiously but I do it deliberately. There seems to be a petty viciousness. A less kind soul than myself might have looked at those provinces that I recited from these lists and said: "I think I see a political connection." None of those provinces returned a Conservative majority. There is nothing for the government to lose there politically. If the solutions are political to the problems of Canada, if the solutions are economic with political involvement then the government has nothing to worry about.
Those people have already told them what they think of the government's programs over the last four years. After five years of alleged unprecedented growth, I can stand here before this House and read those kinds of statistics. No, that sort of pettiness is unfortunately reflected in Clause 9 as well when we address what the government is doing in terms of looking for places where it can find funds to save and deposit to reduce its deficit. One of those has to do with people who perform not only a humane service but a social service, a national service.
October 16, 1989

They take upon themselves a personal responsibility, a great responsibility in my view, one that perhaps people like myself and many others throughout this country might not be able to meet were we put to the test. What they do is to take many young boys and girls, newborn, and provide them with a home. Because they do that, under this particular clause, we are penalizing them. We are penalizing those parents who take that step forward, those parents who want to adopt, who want to provide a home for children, all children, who they can call their own. They want to provide them with an environment where they can grow into mature adults, functional and productive citizens of this nation. We want to give them that opportunity so treat us like all parents.
An adoptive parent is a parent, period. It is unfortunate that before this House some of my colleagues have had to resort to giving a description of parenthood and to giving a description designed to encourage the government to recognize that parenthood is parenthood notwithstanding natural birth or adoptive situations and circumstances. That is a most unfortunate situation.
What we are doing with this particular clause is focusing on adoptive parents. We are going to reduce benefits. We are going to reduce the opportunities that they might normally enjoy under the former act. We are going to reduce their benefits in order to apply them to deficit reduction. It is an additional tax, an onus that we impose upon people for making the decision to do something that is socially worthwhile as well as personally satisfying.
We cannot through this Parliament, through this government, penalize those who have initiative that benefits all of society. Are we talking about a great amount? No, we are not. Several of the organizations and several individuals who appeared before us, and dozens of individuals who have written to me personally and to other members of my caucus have pointed out that we are talking essentially about a trite amount. When viewed in the global sum of $13 billion last year, rounded figures, for UI, we are talking about figures very, very close to $300,000 per annum for adoptive leave.
When we are talking about putting those kinds of parents through that kind of duress, we are talking about a particular principle. That principle says that the par-
Govemment Orders
ents shall not suffer but the children who are going to be children of adoptive families shall suffer. We have no right. We have an absolute responsibility to make sure that all Canadians are viewed similarly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5 o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
In accordance with Standing Order 94 notice was published for consideration today of the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Brant. Since the member is not present to move his motion at this time the motion will, in accordance with Standing Order 42, be dropped from the Order Paper.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There being nothing more before the House, the sitting will be suspended until 6 p.m. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 5 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 6 p.m.
* sk *

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, October 13, consideration of Bill C-20, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6) the House will now proceed to the taking of deferred divisions at report stage of Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act.
The first question is on Motion No. 1. Ms. McLaughlin moved:
That Bill C-20 be amended in Clause 1 by adding immediately
after line 16 at page 1 the following
"except for northern residents as defined in the Income "Ihx Act."


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think that the prior decision of the Chair concerning Bill C-20 was that if the vote on Motion No. 1 was negatived we had to proceed to vote on Motion No. 2. In the interest of saving time, and after having consultations with my colleagues from all sides of the House, I would like to propose that the results of the vote on Motion No. 1 apply to all subsequent motions to the bill, except that on the final vote, that is the concurrence vote, that the reverse be taken into account. The government would not want to vote with us and I would give it its way on that one.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The vote on Motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for Yukon will be applied to Motions Nos. 4, 10 and 17. The result of the vote on Motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Calgary Northeast-


Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is no unanimous consent.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that may assist the House. I am wondering if the member who just spoke would be agreeable to allowing the preceding vote to apply to all of the votes on the motions and deal with the question of the bill itself as a separate item. If that is acceptable that may save the House some time.


Alex Kindy: It is agreeable, Mr. Speaker.
October 16, 1989

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to all subsequent motions.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 2. Mr. Kindy moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 64)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Althouse
Angus	Arseneault
Assad	Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bellemare	Benjamin
Berger	Blaikie
Boudria	Brewin
Butland	Catterall
Comuzzi	Crawford
Ferguson	Finestone
Fisher	Flis
Funk	Gardiner
Gauthier	Harvard
Hopkins	Hunter
Kaplan	Karpoff
Keyes	Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kindy	Kristiansen
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)	Lapierre
Laporte	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee	MacAulay
Manley	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	McGuire
Mifflin	Milliken
Murphy	Nystrom
Pagtakhan	Parent
Pickard	Proud
Robichaud	Rocheleau
Samson	Simmons
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)	Stewart
Stupich	Taylor
Vanclief	Volpe
Wappel	Whittaker
Young (Gloucester)	Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-64
Dick	Dobbie
Dnmm	Dorin
Duplessis	Edwards
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferland
Fontaine	Fretz
Friesen	Germ
Greene	Guilbault
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Holtmann
Horner	Homing
Hudon	Jacques
James	Jourdenais
Kempling	Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Landry	Langlois
Larrivee	Layton
Leblanc (Longueuil)	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Malone	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
McKnight	Mitges
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Nowlan
O'Kurley	Plourde
Pronovost	Redway
Reid	Reimer
Ricard	Richardson
Robitaille	Roy-Arcelin
St-Julien	Schneider
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)	Shields
Siddon	Sobeski
Soetens	Sparrow
Stevenson	Tardif
Tetreault	Thompson
Thorkelson	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)	Himer (Halton-Peel)
Vankoughnet	Vezina
Vien	Vincent
Weiner	Wenman
White	Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Worthy-124	Winegard


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 3. Mr. Kindy moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 65)
++NAYS
++YEAS
Members
Members
Anderson
Atkinson
Belsher
Bertrand
Blackburn (Jonquiere) Blenkam
Bouchard (Roberval)
Bourgault
Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Casey
Charest
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cooper
Corbett
Couture
DeBlois
Della Noce
Andre
Attewell
Bernier
Bjornson
Blais
Bosley
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Brightwell
Cadieux
Cardiff
Chadwick
Chartrand
Clifford
Corbeil
Cote
Crosby (Halifax West) de Cotret Desjardins
Allmand
Angus
Assad
Bellemare
Berger
Boudria
Butland
Comuzzi
Ferguson
Fisher
Funk
Gauthier
Hopkins
Kaplan
Keyes
Kindy
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam) Laporte
Althouse
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Benjamin
Blaikie
Brew in
Catterall
Crawford
Finestone
Flis
Gardiner
Harvard
Hunter
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kristiansen
Lapierre
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)

October 16, 1989
Government Orders
Lee	MacAulay
Manley	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	McGuire
Mifflin	Milliken
Murphy	Nystrom
Pagtakhan	Parent
Pickard	Proud
Robichaud	Rocheleau
Samson	Simmons
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)	Stewart
Stupich	Taylor
Vanclief	Volpe
Wappel	Whittaker
Young (Gloucester)	Young (Beaches -Woodbine)-i
Anderson	NAYS Members Andre
Atkinson	Attewell
Belsher	Bernier
Bertrand	Bjornson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blais
Blenkarn	Bosley
Bouchard (Roberval)	Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Bourgault	Brightwell
Browes	Cadieux
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Casey	Chadwick
Charest	Chartrand
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Clifford
Cooper	Corbeil
Corbett	Cote
Couture	Crosby (Halifax West)
DeBlois	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dick	Dobbie
Domm	Dorin
Duplessis	Edwards
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferland
Fontaine	Fretz
Friesen	Gerin
Greene	Guilbault
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Holtmann
Horner	Horning
Hudon	Jacques
James	Jourdenais
Kempling	Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Landry	Langlois
Larrivee	Layton
Leblanc (Longueuil)	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Malone	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
McKnight	Mitges
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Nowlan
O'Kurley	Plourde
Pronovost	Redway
Reid	Reimer
Ricard	Richardson
Robitaille	Roy-Arcelin
St-Julien	Schneider
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)	Shields
Siddon	Sobeski
Soetens	Sparrow
Stevenson	Tardif
Tetreault	Thompson
Thorkelson	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)	Turner (Halton-Peel)
Vankoughnet	Vezina
Vien	Vincent
Weiner	Wenman
White	Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard
Worthy-124


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 4. Ms. McLaughlin moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-20 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 26 to
30 and lines 37 to 39 at page 2.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 66)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Althouse
Angus	Arseneault
Assad	Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bellemare	Benjamin
Berger	Blaikie
Boudria	Brew in
Butland	Catterall
Comuzzi	Crawford
Ferguson	Finestone
Fisher	Flis
Funk	Gardiner
Gauthier	Harvard
Hopkins	Hunter
Kaplan	Karpoff
Keyes	Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kindy	Kristiansen
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)	Lapierre
Laporte	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee	MacAulay
Manley	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	McGuire
Mifflin	Milliken
Murphy	Nystrom
Pagtakhan	Parent
Pickard	Proud
Robichaud	Rocheleau
Samson	Simmons
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)	Stewart
Stupich	Taylor
Vanclief	Volpe
Wappel	Whittaker
Young (Gloucester)	Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-64
 NAYS Members
Anderson	Andre
Atkinson	Attewell
Belsher	Bernier
Bertrand	Bjornson
Blackburn (Jonquifere)	Blais
Blenkarn	Bosley
Bouchard (Roberval)	Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Bourgault	Brightwell
Browes	Cadieux
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Casey	Chadwick
Charest	Chartrand
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Clifford
Cooper	Corbeil
Corbett	Cote
Couture	Crosby (Halifax West)
DeBlois	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
October 16, 1989

Government Orders
Dick	Dobbie
Domm	Dorin
Duplessis	Edwards
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferland
Fontaine	Fretz
Friesen	Gerin
Greene	Guilbault
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Holtmann
Homer	Homing
Hudon	Jacques
James	Jourdenais
Kempling	Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Landry	Langlois
Larrivee	Layton
Leblanc (Longueuil)	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Malone	Mayer
Mazankowski	McCreath
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
McKnight	Mitges
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Nowlan
O'Kurley	Plourde
Pronovost	Redway
Reid	Reimer
Ricard	Richardson
Robitaille	Roy-Arcelin
St-Julien	Schneider
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)	Shields
Siddon	Sobeski
Soetens	Sparrow
Stevenson	Tardif
Tetreault	Thompson
Thorkelson	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)	T\irner (Halton-Peel)
Vankoughnet	Vezina
Vien	Vincent
Weiner	Wenman
White	Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Worthy-124	Winegard


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 5. Mr. Kindy moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
The Elouse divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 67)
Members
Althouse
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Benjamin
Blaikie
Brew in
Catterall
Crawford
Finestone
Flis
Gardiner
Harvard
Hunter
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kristiansen
Lapierre
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Allmand
Angus
Assad
Bellemare
Berger
Boudria
Butland
Comuzzi
Ferguson
Fisher
Funk
Gauthier
Hopkins
Kaplan
Keyes
Kindy
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam) Laporte
Lee
Manley
Martin (Lasalle-Emard) Mifflin
Murphy
Pagtakhan
Pickard
Robichaud
Samson
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Stupich
Vanclief
Wappel
Young (Gloucester)
Anderson
Atkinson
Belsher
Bertrand
Blackburn (Jonquiere) Blenkarn
Bouchard (Roberval)
Bourgault
Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Casey
Charest
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cooper
Corbett
Couture
DeBlois
Della Noce
Dick
Do mm
Duplessis
Epp
Feltham
Fontaine
Friesen
Greene
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Horner
Hudon
James
Kempling
Landry
Larrivee
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Littlechild
Lopez
Malone
Mazankowski
McDermid
McKnight
Monteith
Nicholson
O'Kurley
Pronovost
Reid
Ricard
Robitaille
St-Julien
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Vankoughnet
Vien
Weiner
White
MacAulay
Marleau
McGuire
Milliken
Nystrom
Parent
Proud
Rocheleau
Simmons
Stewart
Taylor
Volpe
Whittaker
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-64
++NAYS
Members
Andre
Attewell
Bernier
Bjomson
Blais
Bosley
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Brightwell
Cadieux
Cardiff
Chadwick
Chartrand
Clifford
Corbeil
Cote
Crosby (Halifax West)
de Cotret
Desjardins
Dobbie
Dorin
Edwards
Fee
Ferland
Fretz
Gerin
Guilbault
Hawkes
Holtmann
Homing
Jacques
Jourdenais
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Langlois
Layton
Lewis
Loiselle
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Mayer
McCreath
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Mitges
Moore
Nowlan
Plourde
Redway
Reimer
Richardson
Roy-Arcelin
Schneider
Shields
Sobeski
Sparrow
Tardif
Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Tlimer (Halton-Peel)
Vezina
Vincent
Wenman
Wilbee

Government Orders
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard
Worthy-124


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 10. Ms. McLaughlin moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-20 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 10 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"8. Non-bio-degradable laundry detergents."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 11. Mr. Kindy moved:
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 8.


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


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


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):: 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.


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:: Dispense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
It being 6.37 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m..
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 17, 1989