1989-06-21

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, June 18 to 24 marks Occupational Health and Safety Week. This year's theme is "Safety Takes Teamwork". In this effort the Canada Safety Council, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety and the Canadian Standards Association have joined forces to promote safety in the workplace. In doing so they help to promote safety awareness among Canadian business, industry and government.
Notable advances in occupational health and safety have occurred in Canada over the past decade. The inception of the Workplace Hazardous Material Information System by governments throughout the country ensures access to data and instruction on how to handle dangerous material by workers. The creation of the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety in 1978 was also a positive step. The Centre gives access to information regarding hazards in the workplace.
Despite these efforts the rate of accidents in the Canadian workplace is still substantially high. However, we must continue to build on these improvements so that some day all Canadians can work in a healthy and safe environment.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, last week on two separate occasions I rose in the House to advise you of some very positive investments taking place as a result of good government policy. One investment was in the pharmaceutical industry in Whitby and the second was in food processing in Trenton. I would like to inform you that another company has just opened a new 50,000 square foot plant in the town of Pickering employing some 50 people.
A British company, David Brown Gear Industries, required a new distribution facility for its products in Canada and wanted to open a warehouse as well in the United States. For your information, Mr. Speaker, I have paraphrased the comments of Mr. Brown, the Chairman of the Board, at the opening ceremonies of the new facility in Pickering. He said, although we had planned to open a new facility in both Canada and the United States, because of the Free Trade Agreement we decided to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the FTA and built a larger facility in Pickering.
He also advised me that because of the healthy economic environment for business in Canada they may also open a manufacturing facility here in Canada. It is encouraging to see the results of good Conservative policies creating jobs in Canada.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-THnity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, this coming Friday morning at ten o'clock the ceremonial guard will perform the changing of the guard on Parliament Hill. Today in Ottawa over the lunch hour the Dominion Carilloneur provided a traditional salute to the Canadian Forces.
On behalf of my colleagues and my constituents from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception I wish to convey our

June 21, 1989
thanks and appreciation to the men and women in uniform of the Canadian Forces for the professional and effective way in which they continue to maintain Canada's safety, sovereignty and security, and for working so successfully with our allies to maintain global peace. I would also like to include our DND civilians whose dedication and support are fundamental and essential to the success of the Canadian Forces.
Armed Forces Day will be observed this year on Saturday, June 24, and many Canadian Forces bases will be open to the public. I encourage everyone to visit our military and meet the men and women of the Canadian Forces who serve us so well.


VANCOUVER'S NEEDLE EXCHANGE PROGRAM
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, Vancouver's Needle Exchange Program is a courageous initiative by Mayor Gordon Campbell and Vancouver City Council. The program not only provides drug users with clean syringes, but it dispenses educational literature, condoms, advice on safe sexual practices and materials to clean syringes.
The program is working. The response rate from drug users is six times higher than expected. No new people are known to have started taking drugs as a result of the program. Indeed, the opposite has happened; people have started seeking help for their drug problems and the program has undercut the black market for drug paraphernalia.
The federal Government has so far refused to provide financial assistance to Vancouver for the program. That is wrong, and I have already written to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty) to tell him so. I understand some Canadians' prudish attitudes, but we have a crisis on our hands. AIDS causes pernicious pneumonia, cancer, wasting syndrome, brain lesions, seizures, spasms and death.
We are long overdue for a national strategy to help prevent the spread of AIDS and to treat people living with AIDS with dignity. Vancouver's Needle Exchange Program is exemplary. I urge the federal Government to begin to provide funding for that program. This is not just a municipal issue or a Vancouver issue, this is a national and international tragedy and it is about time that the Minister of National Health and Welfare got off his butt and responded to the situation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian ambassador to China has returned to tell the story of its Government's war against its youth, a story made more compelling by the personal pain of his experience. Yet he suggested that economic sanctions directed against that country would be ineffective because of the size and the essential economic autonomy of China.
Will the Canadian people accept this so-called conclusion of such a rational analysis? Does the power and size of a nation provide for a contemptible government immunity from tangible expressions of international contempt? Should Canada and the International Community of Nations be bullied into apparent acquiescence
June 21, 1989

to infamy? I think not. I believe the Canadian people think not.
I pray that the Canadian Government will think not and that for Canada and China it will not be business as usual.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to impress upon the House and on my hon. colleagues the importance of the plant breeders' rights legislation. Canada is one of the very few agriculturally developed countries that does not have a legal mechanism to protect the inventors of new varieties of plants.
Consequently, Canadian research is left to universities and government agencies rather than the private sector. This situation puts Canada far behind most developed countries. In order to compete on the world market, Canadian farmers require hardy, high-producing plants that are disease and pest resistant.
The realization of plant breeders' rights would enable Canadian farmers to compete in global markets. I would like to add that consumers will also benefit from lower prices. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out on behalf of my constituents in support of the Rafferty-Alameda dam project. Southeastern Saskatchewan needs this project.
The overwhelming consensus of area residents is that this project represents a practical plan for sustainable development of our region.
We are upset that our future is being jeopardized by those who are unfamiliar with our region of the country.
It is unfair that we have opposition from people who have not seen the project firsthand, which is not a productive valley.
As a long time resident of the region and as chairman of the federal task force on drought, I can testify to the great need for water management. Few people in this country understand the dominant role which water plays in controlling the future of this area.
While opponents of the project make the point on the environment, I would like to remind the House that sustainable development, as defined by the Brundtland Commission-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, the Hon. Member's time has expired.


HOUSING
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, we are seeing attempts by government Ministers to play down at least four donations totalling $4,800 made to the PC Fund and to two Conservative ridings, including that of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) from moneys laundered by Patricia Starr from CMHC guaranteed funds.
These donations came from the capital bank account of the Toronto section of the National Council of Jewish Women controlled by Patricia Starr. The source of some of these funds, which the Minister of Housing (Mr. Redway) has confirmed in this House on Monday, included CMHC guaranteed funds meant to be used for consulting fees on the Prince Charles housing project.
As neither the Minister of Employment and Immigration, nor the Minister of Housing understands the seriousness of this matter, I call on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to realize that the integrity, not only of the public contracting system, but that of his Government is at stake, and for the Prime Minister to ask for an open investigation into the involvement of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the use of CMHC funds in the Prince Charles project in Toronto.

June 21, 1989
Oral Questions LIBERAL PARTY


LEADERSHIP STAKES
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, they are at the post and they are off and running in the longest Liberal leadership stakes.
The former Member from Shawinigan Farms is the early favourite but he has been running hard for the past five years and is carrying excess baggage to go the distance.
The current Member from Lasalle-Emard Stables had a disastrous debut in the House of Commons and is not expected to hold the pace.
The grey gelding from Windsor is an old work horse and outclassed in this field.
The western entry from Winnipeg soft centre is just coming off an injury suffered in a dispute with a provincial stable mate and is not expected to show.
The young Island entrant from Humber-St. Barbe has not matured well and is not expected to put up a challenge.
The nag from Hamilton was making much noise in the paddock but was scratched before entering the gate.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, the Soviet Union and the United States are taking a small step towards disarming the seas. They will be sending warships to each other's ports which will be disarmed of their nuclear capacity.
Two weeks ago, the Neptune report, released by Greenpeace, demonstrated the absolute insanity of arming our seas with nuclear weapons and nuclear powered vessels. The report demonstrates that since 1956 there were nine nuclear reactors and 50 nuclear warheads lost on the ocean floor as a result of accidents at sea. Many more accidents and fires involving nuclear material have also occurred.
On June 8, 1989, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) stood in this Chamber and stated: "When there are nuclear weapons there are going to be accidents". There is only one answer. Let us prevent
accidents by preventing nuclear weapons in Canadian waters.
I call on this Government to follow the example of New Zealand and ban all vessels with nuclear capability from Canadian ports.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton):: Mr. Speaker, no mission is more challenging or important to the Members of this House than is the building of our country in unity and in harmony within the concept of diversity as represented by our two official languages and our several cultural origins.
No province has demonstrated more successfully the spirit of humanity, tolerance and goodwill that is the essence of this unique Canadianism, than has my own Province of New Brunswick over the past many years.
Therefore, I take particular pride in the results of a poll released yesterday that reflect clear and continuing support by the large majority of New Brunswickers for the fair application of Canada's policies of bilingualism. I would respectfully urge all of the provinces of our nation to pursue the principles of respect for minority rights which have long characterized the quality of life in New Brunswick.
Canadian unity, with every province at the table, is the goal we must all seek. Nothing less will ever suit, as our heritage to future generations of this country.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister of Finance to explain to me why, in answer to my question yesterday, he denied saying two years ago that he was considering imposing only a federal sales tax, although that is just what he said in his speech to the House of Commons two years ago.

Why did he say two years ago that with a sales tax that excluded the provinces, the hidden tax would disappear, when he tells us today that he does not have the constitutional power without the provinces' agreement?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in June of 1987, the White Paper that we published set out three proposals. One proposal was a national sales tax which would involve the provinces, a federal-provincial sales tax. That was the objective which we have been working towards up until just before this last Budget.


IMPACT OF NEW TAX
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to let the Minister get away with this because here is what he said. Yesterday he claimed that his reason for misleading Canadians two years ago was that all along he assumed that the provinces would be part of a sales tax proposal. Two years ago in the House of Commons on June 18, 1987 this is what he said:
Ttvo federal-only sales taxes are also being considered: a Goods and Services Tax and a Value-Added Tkx. Sales tax reform will eliminate the hidden tax in the prices consumers pay.
Why, yesterday in the House of Commons, did he misrepresent what he said in the House of Commons two years ago. Why did he not know then when he proposed two federal-only taxes that he did not have the constitutional powers he now maintains will force retailers that ascribe the tax to add the tax to the sales slip?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me give it to the Leader of the Opposition very clearly. Our proposal is to replace a 13.5 per cent tax which is buried deep in the production process. By the time it reaches the retail level, nobody in this country can tell just what the precise retail tax impact is.
Let me give the Hon. Member some examples from the White Paper of June 18, 1987. For household furniture there was a variation of five points between the high effective tax rate at the retail and the lowest
Oral Questions
effective tax rate. For kitchen utensils, seven points; for garbage bags and paper plates, six and a half points; for lubricating oil and grease it is a seven and a half point spread.
The point that I am making is with the new tax it will be the same for all products across the board that are taxable. That is why I say that this tax is very clear. It is very visible for the consumer whereas with the old tax one could not tell because of that huge spread between the high effective rate and the low effective rate.


POSITION OF MINISTER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that does not disguise the fact that two years ago he told the House of Commons that there would no longer be a hidden sales tax.
The Minister claimed yesterday in the House of Commons in response to my question that his reason for changing his mind about the sales tax, and whether or not it would appear on sales slips, was that he had lost the constitutional power. I want to quote what he said to us yesterday:
Two years ago we were working on a national sales tax which would have involved the provinces. Once we moved away from a national sales tax-then we lost that control.
That is not what he said earlier. He contemplated two federal-only sales taxes and he said they would eliminate the hidden tax. Two years ago he said he would eliminate the hidden tax with or without the provinces.
Once again I ask the Minister to explain why he has changed his mind. Why did he disguise the true situation to Canadians and why he is now welshing once again on a promise he made to Canadians two years ago?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is no changing of minds. There is no welshing on promises, as the Hon. Member has said. That is the normal nonsense that we get from this man.
What the Leader of the Opposition has stated is that I said that it would not be on the invoice. I would like him to show me where I have said that at any time that this would be in the invoice. I have made it quite clear that it would not be-


John Napier Turner: Caught again.

June 21, 1989
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I said it would be very clear to Canadians what the tax would be. There will be a sign in stores-


John Napier Turner: Isn't that nice?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There will be a sign in stores that will say-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -9 per cent goods and-


Mr. Nunziata:: That is a joke.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there will be a sign in the stores which will say that there is a 9 per cent goods and services tax included in the price of the item.


John Napier Turner: How do you have the power?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member says how do I have the power? It is generally accepted by retailers that this is what they will be doing. There is agreement among the Retailer's Association, the Small Business Association and the Consumers' Association in that there should be a sign in the stores.


An Hon. Member:: That is stupid.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Immigration. It concerns the deteriorating situation in China.
Earlier today we were all shocked and dismayed to learn that three students were the first to be executed by the Chinese Government for their role in the demonstrations. Moreover, our Canadian Ambassador to China yesterday informed the External Affairs Committee that in reference to Chinese students in Canada, and I quote:
I'd keep a very low profile. The struggle is important but don't get yourself photographed.
Since a policy of ruthless revenge seems to be the response of the Chinese Government, and since Chinese authorities in Canada are monitoring and pursuing the actions of Chinese students on Canadian soil, I ask the Minister rather than simply extending the student visas of these students, is the Government prepared to establish a special program that would allow these students to
make application directly for landed immigrant status in our country?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I assured the House yesterday that all those Chinese citizens who are in Canada as visitors, in whatever form, students, temporary workers, tourists, need have no fear that they will be asked to leave Canada as long as the situation in China remains threatening for them.
I think at this stage that we are doing everything we can on behalf of Chinese citizens in Canada and we will continue to do so.


REQUEST FOR LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS FOR CHINESE NATIONALS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. I think everyone in the House appreciates the action of the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sergio Marchi: In light of a possible wave of executions, which have already begun, is the Government is prepared to go the extra step? In the past in natural disasters, such as the 1980 earthquake in Italy, the Government reacted by allowing families here to sponsor individuals to come to Canada and visitors were allowed to make application for landed immigrant status. The precedent is well set. The situation in China makes other situations pale by comparison.
I am asking the Minister once again. Rather than suggesting there should be no fear because people will not be returned now with the possibility that they would have to return at some point, why cannot the Government say to these 4,000 students "We will give you the voluntary possibility of having permanent landed immigration status in Canada while you are here". What is so wrong with saying that, Madam Minister?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything wrong with saying that. I think that what we have done so far is indicate that we want the Chinese citizens in Canada to have as much flexibility as possible. That is why I have encouraged them to go to our office. That is why we have extended the visas even though many of those visas do not yet expire. We have not ruled anything out. What we are doing is looking at the situation every day, both in our offices across Canada and in the Government to ensure that we are doing everything we can to be helpful.
June 21, 1989


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I am forced to pose this question since the official muck-raker for the Liberal Party seems incapable of doing so.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Which one?


John R. Rodriguez: My question is for the Minister of National Revenue. When the Toronto section of the National Council of Jewish Women first applied for charitable status in 1986, it was denied because the Department ruled that the Foundation did not appear to be providing housing exclusively for those who needed charity. Four months later the Department reversed its decision and charitable status was granted, contingent upon housing at the Prince Charles complex being provided exclusively for charitable cases. Why did the Department reverse its decision?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, it is normal procedure for the Department of National Revenue to work with any and all applicants for charitable status licences. This was the case with the National Council of Jewish Women, Toronto section. The Council co-operated at that time in changing its regulations to comply with the laws, as it is co-operating now with the investigation under way. That is why we are satisfied that all corrective action by that council has been taken in accordance with the rules and regulations of its charitable status.


MINISTERIAL CONTACT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned that in fact a charitable organization got taxpayers' money because the Minister of Employment and Immigration intervened and in turn got
Oral Questions
a contribution to her political campaign. My supplementary question-


Mr. McKnight:: Now you're the number one muckrak-er, John.


John R. Rodriguez: -is directed to the same Minister. Can the Minister of National Revenue confirm that the Minister of Employment and Immigration contacted the Department to support the application for charitable status for this organization?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I understand that in the normal course of events the Minister's office makes routine contingency inquiries on the Status-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, sure.


Otto John Jelinek: They say: "Oh, sure". My office in the Department of National Revenue receives between
6,000	and 7,000 inquiries from Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, including from the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.
If he is suggesting that Members of Parliament should not represent their constituents, then I am suggesting that he should resign his seat and go back to doing whatever he was doing before.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: I am asking questions of the Minister, and he is refusing to come clean and straight with us.


MONITORING OF PRINCE CHARLES COMPLEX
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question for the Minister. Surely he cannot say that there is a Santa Claus, Barbara, because there is no Santa Claus.


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


John R. Rodriguez: Mrs. Starr has confirmed that only 60 per cent of the housing at the Prince Charles Complex is for charitable cases. Can the Minister tell us what monitoring was done to ensure that the housing at the Prince Charles Complex was provided exclusively for charitable cases?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence-


An Hon. Member:: Not you.

June 21, 1989
Oral Questions


John Horton McDermid: Well, I am sorry it does not satisfy the Hon. Member that I am answering the question, but I am going to answer it anyway.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: In the absence of the Minister responsible for housing, I can tell the Hon. Member that the housing put up by this group is non-profit housing. It followed the rules and regulations set out by the Government in co-operation with the provincial Government and the non-profit housing program. They followed the rules.


FISHERIES
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The disaster facing thousands of people in southwestern Nova Scotia is now more real with the proposal put forth yesterday by the Minister's advisers which virtually shuts down the whole industry by next Thursday for the rest of the year.
The Minister has been warned by the inshore alliance, the Minister's advisers, and others that the consequences of closing down the inshore fishery will be unprecedented hardships on the communities. I therefore ask the Minister to review his policy before the people choose desperate means to protect their livelihoods.
Will the Minister intervene and do something? Will he perhaps listen to the people of these many communities of southern Nova Scotia?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, while I am certainly as concerned about the plight of the communities of southwestern Nova Scotia as I am of those in all of Atlantic Canada, the problem we are facing this year is one of sustaining the fishery for the long-term future.
It is a fact that the quotas in the Scotia Fundy region have been declining persistently each year over the past decade because more fish have been taken from the water each year than our regulations have provided for. If we are to sustain that fishery and manage it in an
orderly way for the long term, we must also manage the quotas. I would discourage anyone who might consider fishing in excess of these quotas when the inevitable closures do occur.


REVIEW OF QUOTA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. With the offshore fishing on Brown's Banks in the very waters of Scotia Fundy to which the Minister just referred, at a time when the inshore fishermen are not allowed to go in these waters adjacent to the coast, and the fishermen know that there are lots of fish. They just have to look at the catches that are now being caught. The Government is again supporting big corporate interests over the many concerns of the communities across the Province of Nova Scotia.
Will the Minister now review the quota management system that he has used for the last five years, a system with many injustices? Will he review it and at least set up a new policy?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, first I want to point out that the inshore fishery of southwestern Nova Scotia is not being closed down.
In fact, 2,300 of the licensed fishermen in the inshore fishery who fish with fixed gear, gill-nets and long line, will be able to fish through the entire season, and 250 of the larger draggers that have grown and replaced small boats with larger vessels over the last several years will be closed down, because they have already caught more fish by this time this year than they caught by this time last year and they have exceeded their quota.
The comments about the offshore sector are superfluous because they relate to an enterprise allocation scheme which the Hon. Member's Government enacted following the Kirby task force in 1983, something which was confirmed and renewed with the advice of all Atlantic fisheries Ministers and the industry in support of those initiatives.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and concerns the crisis in the Canadian dairy industry.
June 21, 1989

Last summer the Government adopted a new formula for setting the target price for industrial milk. This formula provided for no indexation for input costs such as rising costs for interest rates and fuel. In the new dairy year starting August 1,1 wonder if the Minister will put in place an indexation mechanism to compensate farmers for input costs.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Hon. Member is convening a meeting to discuss the crisis in the dairy industry. I think the crisis in the dairy industry is in the mind of the Hon. Member.
The fact is that last August and again in February, if we were to have stuck to the formula, there would have been a reduction in the target price for industrial milk. The Government, giving due consideration to the fact that there may be an increase in input costs, agreed to waive the cost of production formula and indeed maintain the price at the current level, notwithstanding the fact that it should have been reduced by $1.89 in August and 14 cents in February. I think that shows the kind of flexibility that is generous and compassionate with the dairy farmers, and we intend to continue that way.
On another point, I have indicated to the dairy farmers of Canada that this particular issue, the cost of production formula indexation, the issue of the trade negotiations and discussions with regard to the renewal of the five-year dairy plan, are things that I am prepared to discuss with them in a formalized way under a proposition which we would refer to as a dairy task force.
We are inviting dairy farmers and other participants to engage with the Government in trying to sort out a deal with all these very important issues. I hope I will have the support of the Hon. Member in that regard.


INCOME OF FARMERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that diary farmers are very concerned that the Government has agreed to a deal whereby their prices can go down but their prices and incomes cannot go up until 1991.
The Minister has not indicated in his answer that he is prepared to put in place an indexation mechanism until 1991. Why would the Government agree to a deal
Oral Questions
whereby farmers' incomes can go down but cannot go up until the year 1991?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I just told the Hon. Member, the actions of the Government do not support that proposition. When the cost of the production formula was to trigger a downward price in the target price, the Government of Canada ignored the reality of that and maintained the price level. We still have that same flexibility under the arrangement to which the Hon. Member refers.
I invite the dairy farmers of Canada and others, including the Hon. Member, to participate with us in working out this very important issue, the trade issue, the future of the five-year dairy policy, the cost of production formula, the transferral of quotas, and all those things that have an effect upon the dairy industry in Canada.
We would like to work at it from a constructive basis, not the destructive course that the Hon. Member is on.


FINANCE
Mrs. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I am sure the Minister would agree that his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, is a man of integrity. On Saturday June 10, when he spoke at a meeting of the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs told a Toronto newspaper that the new sales tax would not be hidden. I quote:

"Visibility, I think, is the only way to ensure that consumers in the end don't get ripped off".

The Minister was right. We know that. Consumers know that. I therefore want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he agrees with his colleague, the

June 21, 1989
Oral Questions
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that the only way to ensure that consumers are not ripped off is to make the new sales tax a visible part of the price.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me remind my hon. friend of what I stated in a previous answer. When we have an existing sales tax that is buried deep in the production process it results in a spread between the high effective rate and the low effective rate.
Let me again give some examples: household appliances six and a half points; watches, four points. There is no consistency with the existing tax. The effective rate of tax at the retail level may be 3 per cent, 5 per cent, 10 per cent, or 13.5 per cent.
With this new tax it will be quite clear that on all taxable goods and services it will be 9 per cent. We will be moving away from the hidden tax that we have today, the manufactured sales tax, to one that is quite transparent for the consumer to see.


WITHDRAWAL OF HIDDEN TAX-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, it will still be a hidden tax. It will still be easy to raise that tax without the consumer being aware of it.
Whether it is special charitable tax status for their friends, windfall profits for tobacco companies, or tax deductions for free traders, when it comes to tax breaks the average Canadian gets the short end of the stick with this Government.
Will the Minister defend the interests of average Canadians and withdraw this ill-conceived "now you see it, now you don't" sales tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member states that the consumer will not be aware. If there is ever a change in the sales tax, the consumer will be very much aware of that. The rate at the retail level will be the same for all goods and services that are taxable.
The Hon. Member talks about the average Canadian, and do we have an interest in protecting the average Canadian. Yes, and that will be very clear when this technical paper comes out.
In that technical paper the Hon. Member will see that we have enhanced the value of the refundable sales tax
credit for people in the low and lower middle income brackets. We are ensuring the objective that we set out in the Budget of families earning less than $30,000 being better off after this sales tax reform.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MEMBERS OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in our Gallery of Members of the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
*


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Defence. Canadian Forces Base Calgary is on land owned by the Sarcee Indians of Alberta. In 1985, DND signed a document with those Indians that gave certain conditions. One was free access to a portion of the land by the Indians, and the second was ensuring against environmental contamination. DND has breached both conditions of that legal document.
Will the Minister personally intervene to see that DND lives up to the commitments that it signed in 1985?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member makes a statement that is not factual, that there has been a breach. What there is is a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation. There is a misinterpretation on behalf of one of the parties that negotiated the lease.
We have offered to have discussions with the Sarcee Band. As a matter of fact, I believe earlier this week there was, or later this week there will be, a representative of my Department in Calgary to discuss with the Sarcee Band what this misunderstanding may be. We will discuss it through the usual channels.
Two parties signed a contract. The contract was negotiated by people who understood the language and the terms and conditions. We hope to be able to settle it, as other individuals would between two contractors.
June 21, 1989


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL MEETING WITH SARCEE BAND
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the Indians certainly understand, with legal advice, that there is a breach of the legal document signed in 1985. They are not prepared to meet with officials. They want to meet with the Minister.
Will the Minister personally meet with the Sarcees in an attempt to resolve this dispute before it goes to court?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, before I can answer the Hon. Member's question, I would like to have the advice of my official who today, tomorrow, or yesterday was or will be discussing with the Sarcees the agreements in the lease.
The Hon. Member is asking for the Minister to become involved in what is a dispute of legal terms. If the Hon. Member wishes to provide information in a legal sense to his friends, he can do so. I don believe that I am capable of that.


NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. As the Minister may be aware, the people and Government of the Northwest Territories are currently engaged in a major economic planning process.
While northerners are attempting to set their own agenda in terms of economic strategy, we will continue to require sizeable federal support to assist us in the development of our economy for the foreseeable future.
Since a stronger northern economy means a stronger Canada, will the Minister agree to the establishment of a development agency for the North?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, there is a whole Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Therefore, there is a Department that has the responsibility for northern development.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: The attitude of the Minister betrays the ignorance of the Government.
Oral Questions


EXTENSION OF TOURISM AND SMALL BUSINESS AGREEMENTS
Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. The Minister's Department has tourism and small business economic subagreements with the Government of the Northwest Territories that will be expiring soon. The Government of the Northwest Territories has requested an extension of those agreements.
Will the Minister give an undertaking today to extend those two agreements which are so important to the economy of the Northwest Territories?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his question. I must confess that I entered Question Period today hoping that I would get a question, since I have not had one in this session.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, our Department is in constant negotiation with the Governments of both the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory. The status of agreements between our Governments are constantly under review and are regularly being negotiated.
At the eleventh National Northern Development Conference held in Edmonton last October, the territorial government Leaders agreed that their economies were among the strongest in Canada. This economic resurgence was further in evidence at the Prospects North '89 Conference which was held in Yellowknife in June of this year.
I would like to suggest the evidence is very clear that the policies of the Government have been extremely favourable to economic circumstances in the Northwest Territories.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.

June 21, 1989
Oral Questions
Today's edition of La Presse reports that the Quebec Minister of Transport never received the memorandum of agreement on Highway 13.
Could the Minister of Transport confirm this statement by his provincial counterpart's parliamentary secretary?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, when the memorandum of agreement was signed in March 1988, the Minister of State (Transport) at the time, the Hon. Member for Rimouski, transmitted the memorandum of agreement, which sets the funding amounts of the agreement between Ottawa and Quebec, to the Quebec Minister of Transport who has had the memorandum for the past fourteen months.
So I believe the Quebec Government has had the document for well over a year.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post who last week in this House singled out by name and residency one of my constituents. That constituent is Mr. Edward Kjargaard, the RM of Douglas, who wrote to me to say that he was misrepresented by Canada Post and the Minister in his remarks in the House.


An Hon. Member:: What else is new?


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Is the Minister responsible for Canada Post prepared to take this opportunity to apologize to my constituent for that misrepresentation?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the ad in question placed by Canada Post contains the signatures of municipal leaders across the country. They signed documents supporting this statement and releasing the Post Office to use their endorsement for whatever purposes.
If the endorsement of the Hon. Member's constituent is in keeping with the results of the Gallup poll which showed that 97 per cent of rural Canadians-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: -think the postal service has improved, I guess we can put the Hon. Member in the 3 per cent minority.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister.
It appears, as my constituent says, that the Post Office was more interested in his signature than his opinion.
If Canada Post is misleading the public in this situation, are we to believe that Canada Post is trying to mislead Canadians in all its public relations activities?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member should go back to his constituent and ask him why he signed a document he did not know the contents of.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
In 1986 the Government bragged about its VIA legislation, Bill C-97, but then allowed it to die an ignoble Tory death. Given the current crisis facing VIA, will the Government now commit itself to reintroduction of that legislation to guarantee the independent survival of VIA Rail?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows very well that we are in a process with VIA Rail which will result in its presenting to me in a few weeks its report concerning the new reference levels which have been given to the company.

June 21, 1989

I do not believe that it is relevant at the present time to talk about any type of legislation. First, we will look at the proposal dealing with the new reference levels.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I can assure the Minister that the travelling public thinks that it is relevant.


COMMITTEE REVIEW OF BUSINESS PLAN
Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister prepared to turn over to the Transport Committee for public scrutiny and review the business plan of VIA Rail so that the committee can review it and pass comment on it?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious that I do not intend to make any other commitment than to consider the proposals that VIA Rail will make concerning its ability to live within the reference levels that we set for it and, from that, to make recommendations to the Government. There is no question of making any commitment on legislation or a reference to the Transport Committee.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It relates to the issue of family violence and, more specifically, to the National Forum on Family Violence which is in progress.
Since this is an extremely important subject to many Canadians from coast to coast, will the Minister please tell us what the federal Government has done and what it is planning to do in dealing with this serious problem?
As well, what effect will the conference have on legislation and government policy?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed an important question on an extremely important issue.
The federal Government has two key initiatives. The first deals with family violence, which involves some six
Oral Questions
different Departments of Government at a cost of some $40 million. The other deals with child sexual abuse, which involves some $25 million.
Among the initiatives being taken on family violence is a major increase in the number of shelters for battered women and their children. This conference will help to provide to the Government information to develop a national strategy which will involve the federal Government-


Ms. Copps:: How about some money?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Hon. Member says: "How about some money?" Sixty-five million dollars is a considerable amount of money.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: It's a drop in the bucket.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Only a Liberal would say: "What is $65 million?"


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Just two days ago in Halifax the Prime Minister finally came clean with Canadians. He finally acknowledged the sorry state of Canada's technological efforts.
The record of the Government is abysmal. We are among the worst performers in terms of research and development among any industrialized country in the world.
Over the past five years, during which time this Government has been in office, the level of research and development in Canada has actually declined.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: In spite of this the Government refuses to increase its already abysmal level of investment in Canadian-


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


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: -jobs for the future.

June 21, 1989
Oral Questions
Will the Prime Minister tell us when his Government will do even its fair share in order to create a level playing field for Canadians, a level playing field at least in research and development.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for an excellent question on a very important matter involving Canada's well-being.
In fact, he will be interested to know that Statistics Canada figures show that the federal Government funds about 85 per cent of all public sector R and D in Canada. The federal Government spends 10 times more on research and development in Ontario than does the Government of Ontario.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Where was the Government of Ontario on Bill C-22?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend makes a good point in regard-


M. Ouellet:: That proves to you that you are not spending enough in Quebec.


An Hon. Member:: Remember Bill C-22, Andre!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, the Hon. Member tells me- The Liberal Member for Papineau tells me about Quebec, while the Liberal Party was opposed to a bill that resulted in $1.4 billion being spent in Quebec. The Liberals were opposed to it. This Government took that action in favour of a sound research and development policy for Canada.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister and concerns sustainable development and the environment.

The Science Council of Canada, in its report entitled Environmental Peacekeepers, recommends a very active role for the Department of Industry, Science and Technology in promoting the goal of a clean and healthy environment and sustainable development. This is entirely consistent with the recommendations of the Brundtland Commission report, which the Government has also praised.
Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why Canadians should take seriously his claims that the environment is the first priority in light of the fact that the Government has refused to give a legal onus to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology in seeking to achieve this goal of sustainable development?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I got the full-


Sheila Maureen Copps: There was an amendment last night that was not passed.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -the full drift of the question-apart from a legislative change in the last 24 hours-but there is nothing at all that has taken place by this Government today or yesterday or at any time, specifically yesterday and last evening, at variance with what Prime Minister Brundtland said herself.


Sheila Maureen Copps: False.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In Washington, Prime Minister Brundtland said of Canada that if all the nations of the world conducted themselves with regard to the achievement of sustainable development as Canada has, with the leadership that Canada is providing, all of us would be much further along in achieving ultimately the goal of sustainable development around the world.


FISHERIES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister is aware that until the signing of the Free Trade Agreement it was illegal to import live bait into the Province of Ontario. The Minister is also aware that at the present time truckloads of live bait are entering northern Ontario, threatening the fishing industry in
June 21, 1989

Ontario and northern Manitoba. Why has the federal Government done absolutely nothing to protect our stocks?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what free trade and the trucking of live bait has to do with protecting our live stocks in Lake Ontario and in the Ontario fishery, which are administered under an agreement by the Province of Ontario. I will certainly look into the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan on a short supplementary. That will be the last question.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister will know that VIA's first quarterly report shows that revenue is up, more people are using the trains and costs are down. Will the Minister go back and tell Cabinet that it was misled and in fact there are 1.45 billion passenger miles per year of usage in VIA Rail? Will he go back to Cabinet to say the Government made a mistake, it is in error and wants to keep VIA? Will he do that?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it is 3.05. No.


POINT OF ORDER
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure on behalf of all Members of the House to welcome back Hon. Stanley Knowles, to the best television seat in the House next to yours, Mr. Speaker.
I know Members are pleased that he overcame a recent illness with his usual determination to celebrate his eighty-first birthday on Sunday. We welcome him back with affection and respect as one of Canada's most outstanding parliamentarians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Committee Reports



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.
*	* sft


INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE
Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table two copies, in both official languages, of a document on Canada's position on the conventions and recommendations adopted at the 74th and 75th sessions of the International Labour Conference in Geneva in October 1987 and June 1988.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture dealing with Supplementary Estimates (A), 1989-90 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990.


LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION-FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Labour,

June 21, 1989
Petitions
Employment and Immigration, concerning the situation of Lebanese citizens wishing to immigrate to Canada.

This report was unanimously adopted by the committee. While the committee appreciates the Government's efforts to assist these people in expediting the processing of their applications, it also points out in the report, measures which the Government may consider to further enhance the system.
In accordance with Standing Order 109, the committee requests a Government response to the recommendations it puts forth today.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition, thanks to the work of Greenpeace, on behalf of residents of Salmon Arm, Vancouver, Sicamous, Enderby and Tappen. There are hundreds and hundreds of people who point out that they are very concerned that the Government is looking at the West Coast as a place to do drilling. They point out that the West Coast of British Columbia is Canada's most earthquake prone region. The Queen Charlotte's basin has even higher earthquake activity than the San Andreas Fault.
Fundamentally, they do not want any more hydrocarbon exploration activities to take place in our coastal waters, be they initiated by the public or private sector, nor do they want the Government to pay for such activities from this day on.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table hundreds of petitions that have been found in order by the Clerk of Petitions. The petitions, provided by the work of Greenpeace, are from Calgary and other communities in Alberta and throughout British Columbia who are concerned about the 1988 agreement creating the South Moresby National Park Reserve. The federal Government has now committed itself to spend $20 million or more to explore for minerals and hydrocarbons in this first national marine park. They are concerned that exploring for hydrocarbons in the waters
around the Queen Charlottes, particularly Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound, would be unwise because of the earthquake prone nature of the area and the fact that there is extensive earthquake activity from the San Andreas Fault and that the waters surrounding the area are the roughest and the most unpredictable in the world. Therefore these hundreds of petitioners ask that there be no further consideration of hydrocarbon exploration activities in the coastal waters of British Columbia and that there be a permanent moratorium placed on such offshore hydrocarbon exploration and development.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, evidence is mounting that Canada is perceived by criminals in the United States as a safe haven. Our extradition laws offer them many years of sanctuary from capital punishment in the United States as we weave our way through a maze of court appeals.
My petition today represents the signatures of 2,152 people from Peterborough, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Nova Scotia. These people are asking the Government of Canada to revise its extradition laws in order that we prevent Canada from becoming a haven for escaped convicts from the United States.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to plead with this House to consider petitions that have been submitted by hundreds of people who appreciate the quality of our National Arts Centre Orchestra.
The undersigned have written that they consider the National Arts Centre Orchestra to be a world class one that has brought fame to Canada and to its capital city. In fact, it is the jewel of Canada. They believe that the National Arts Centre Orchestra is in imminent danger of being damaged or even destroyed, and they consider the present management have proved themselves to be incompetent, or if not, inadequate in artistic matters. They call upon this House as a matter of priority to ensure that the National Arts Centre maintains its Orchestra at its current size, not cut, and at the present standard of excellence.

June 21, 1989

The petitioners wish to ensure that sound, cultural credentials are maintained as a criteria for any new appointments to the National Arts Centre Board of Trustees.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table several petitions concerning our national orchestra which for many years has build up an impressive record based on the quality of its performance and its importance in the cultural sphere.
The people who signed this petition are from my own riding-from Rockcliffe, New Edinburgh and Sandy Hill. These are people who go regularly to the National Arts Centre and would like Parliament to urge the administration of the NAC to act quickly to ensure that our national orchestra will continue to exist and pursue its outstanding work in the music field.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, following what my colleague from Peterborough has presented to the House of Commons this afternoon, I have here, pursuant to the Standing Orders, a petition that will bring in excess of 50,000 signatures to the attention of the Government of those people who are extremely concerned about our present extradition laws. No longer do we feel in this nation that we can provide a safe haven for criminals who are alleged to have committed atrocious crimes in the United States and yet who can hide behind the judicial system in this country. My petitioners humbly pray that the Government address this problem immediately.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition similar to those of my colleague's with respect to offshore exploration. These are signatures from Argentia, British Columbia and a number from the ridings of Vancouver Centre and Vancouver South.
The petitioners claim that the West Coast of British Columbia is Canada's most earthquake-prone region, that the Queen Charlotte basin has even higher earthquake activity than the San Andreas Fault and that the Hecate Strait has some of the roughest and most
Order Paper Questions
unpredictable seas in the world. Therefore this petition, gathered by Greenpeace, implores the Government and the private sector not to do any exploration activities in that area and especially in the national marine park of South Moresby.


Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition from over 100 residents in the City of Toronto, duly signed by the Clerk of Petitions and certified. The petitioners are concerned for the refugee claimants who came here before 1989 and who are now in the backlog, as it is called.
Many of these people have been denied work permits. They are also concerned that in the humanitarian evaluation of their cases, which will begin next month, the Minister should use fair and reasonable criteria. For example, it should include the presence in Canada of relatives. It should include successful establishment in Canada and special consideration should be given to those refugee claimants fleeing war zones, oppressive governments and natural disasters.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 78, 79, 80 and 81.


Mr. Simmons: 1.	Has any action been taken by the government relating to the concern expressed by the Auditor General in his 1988 Report to Parliament over the acquisition of a surveillance helicopter, including inadequate assessment of the number of days when conditions would permit the helicopter to fly and, if so, (a) what was such action (b) what additional costs, if any, were involved in modifying fishery patrol vessels to make them suitable for landing?
2.	What action, if any, has been taken to acquire the expertise in this area either on a staff or a contract basis, as recommended by the Auditor General?


Thomas Edward Siddon: 1(a) In response to the need identified, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has established a system, including the appointment of a regional Trials Officer and the introduction of a data collection format

June 21, 1989
Order Paper Questions
to assess the number of days, on average, a helicopter would be permitted to fly.
1(b) The helicopter is based on the FPV LJ. COWLEY which was designed for helicopter operations. The modification cost was $48.7K for the purchase and installation of a second beacon on the vessel. The Department has delayed modification of a second fisheries patrol vessel until a full assessment can be carried out after the trial period, which ends this fiscal year 1989-90.
(2) When contracting out aerial surveillance needs, the Department has relied, and continues to rely, on the expertise within other Government departments (DSS, MOT). This was the case in the most recent acquisition of a helicopter for South West Nova Scotia in which DFO worked extensively with the National Search and Rescue Secretariat (NSS) in identifying our requirements. In addition, NSS was fully involved in the evaluation of the bids received for this contract. This approach has proven effective to date.


Mr. Simmons: 1.	Has any action been taken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to avoid the past difficulties experienced in the acquisition of 42 ft. patrol vessels?
2.	Has the Department taken whatever steps that are necessary to monitor adequately the effects on stability, handling, or operational capability in future acquisitions of such vessels?


Thomas Edward Siddon: 1. Yes, the Department has rectified these problems by rigorously monitoring vessel construction, crew training and professional marine management of vessels. Safety of vessel operations is always closely monitored, particularly with new vessels and in this case all problems with the 42 foot vessels were identified and rectified immediately.
2. All major and minor vessels acquired by the Department must be tested for stability by a qualified Naval Architect and must have a Canadian Coast Guard, Ship Safety Directorate approved Stability Booklet onboard prior to final acceptance and issue of a Voyage Safety Certificate. In the case of the 42 foot vessels, a series of mathematical models have been conducted in two phases to simulate sea-keeping in various sea states. Results indicate that these vessels behave normally and are safe
to operate up to sea state 4, the maximum that can reasonably be expected. It is also intended to verify and correlate the mathematical derived data by conducting full scale sea-keeping trials on one of these vessels during 1989.


Mr. Simmons: What action, if any, has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans taken to resolve the problems, as outlined in the 1988 Auditor General's Report, that the fish inspection program faces considerable pressures in that the training for inspectors is insufficient, there are inconsistencies in standards and procedures, manuals are often out of date, and that weaknesses in management control exist?
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): While the Department, through its 1986 reorganization, had taken steps to focus time and energy to ensure inspectors have the best possible training and tools for their work, one should also consider the Auditor General's statement regarding the inspection program in which he stated "we were impressed throughout the audit by the high international reputation of Canada's fish inspection program. Few other countries have such a comprehensive system.
Also noteworthy is the department's work with industry to improve fish product quality." The public can have confidence in the fish inspection system due to its multi-facetted nature involving inspection of vessels, unloading practices, raw product, transportation, plants processing practices, and final product. While the Department is taking, and has taken, action to ensure that the Canadian fish inspection system remains as one of the best in the world, the multi-facetted approach provides assurance that the fish now on the market meets standards in spite of the limitations of any one aspect of the inspection program. Any problems that did exist resulted from a lack of central direction and control. In 1986 the Department undertook a major reorganization that, among other things, centralized authority and accountability for the inspection program. As noted in the report, many initiatives to improve management of the inspection program were being planned or were under development at the time of the audit, but at the time of the audit the improvements had not had an impact at the inspector level. Since the audit, a Fish Products Inspection Manual has been issued to inspectors and results are being felt at the field level.

The following outlines the action taken to date in response to specific comments regarding fish inspection which the Auditor General made in his 1988 Report.
-Sampling. The Auditor General raised concerns regarding the Department's sampling plans. The Department has been evaluating an alternative internationally recognized sampling plan for two years and is now implementing major pilot projects to test the new sampling plan under practical conditions. If the pilot projects prove that the new sampling plan performs as expected, the new plan will be introduced early in 1990.
-Inconsistencies in standards and procedures. The Department issued the "Fish Products Inspection Manual Policies and Procedures" to all inspectors in February of this year. While the "Fish Products Inspection Manual Standards and Methods" is scheduled to be released this year, six (6) specific product standards and methods chapters have already been forwarded to the field for use and other standards and methods will be released shortly. By the end of 1989/90 more than 80 per cent of all fish products will be covered by newly revised standards and methods.
The "Metal Can Defect Manual" will be published this month. The Facilities Inspection Manual will be released as a first draft by July.
These new manuals and standards will complete the task of reissuing a revised set of instructions to all staff.
-Training. The Auditor General raised concerns over training. The Department has been developing national training packages for some time. Inspectors will be evaluated in 1989/90 to determine their specific training needs. Training will be delivered in 37 training modules. Twenty (20) modules are now complete and training will commence in 1989/90. University level courses in sensory evaluation for inspectors started in 1986/87 and are continuing.
-Inspector Testing. Inspector testing continues with respect to tuna. A series of workshops will be held in June to lay the groundwork for testing inspectors evaluations of other products. Work on chemical indicators of spoilage is continuing and will help in the testing of inspectors. A national inspection laboratory was estab-
Order Paper Questions
lished in 1988 in Ottawa and is now equipped and staffed to assist in work on chemical indicators of spoilage.
-Management Weakness. Management weakness in information systems and program control are being addressed through the development of a comprehensive Management Information System (MIS) that will indicate where effort is spent and what results are achieved. Portions of the MIS will be completed in 1989/90 and in conjunction with the work on manuals and audits will provide improved management control.
-Field Reviews. Audits of field application of standards and compliance to policies and procedures will start in early 1990.
-In-Plant Quality Control. The Auditor General questioned why the Department does not use existing company in-plant quality control systems to help assure that standards are met. The Department is now moving ahead with implementation of a comprehensive Quality Management Program that will involve coordinated company and government action to ensure that standards are met.


Mr. Boudria: 1.	Does the government intend to extend its rental lease with the Campeau Corporation for Tower C, Ottawa, Ont. and, if so (a) at what cost (b) what is the estimated cost to the government for the (i) asbestos clean-up (ii) air conditioning and heating retrofit of the building?
2.	Did the government receive bids for other leases and, if so, from whom and what was the amount in each case?
3.	Did the government plan to vacate the building and, if so, what were the anticipated costs of such a move?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The Minister of Public Works is investigating the feasibility of a proposal to the Treasury Board to enter into a medium term arrangement with the owner of Tower C, Place de Ville, which is one of the buildings currently occupied by Transport Canada. Since the final lease arrangements have not yet been finalized with the Campeau Corporation, the total occupancy cost, including the government's share of the refit costs, are still not known.
2. In December 1988, a lease proposal call was advertised for 80,626 m2U to provide accomodation for the National Headquarters of Transport Canada. Twenty-one lease proposals were submitted, resulting in 14

Unemployment Insurance Act
qualified bids, with rates for each five years of the proposed twenty-year term. Listed below are the names of the Offerors with the rates for the first five years of
the term:		
Seltzer (Gloucester) Development		$365.94
Bourque, Pierre et Fils Ltee		231.50
795009 Ontario Ltd. Angevin Group (disqualified)		(1152.00)
Les Entreprises Duroc-Lachapelle Inc.		234.00
Les Placements Alize Quebec Ltee (disqualified)		(127.89)
Calmar Quebec Ltee (disqualified)		(160.94)
Campeau Corporation (2) (1 disqualified)	$363.15	(350.00)Glenview Corporation (2)	275.14	249.13Les Developpements immobiliers Gamelin Ltee	244.00Lithwick Family Holdings Inc.	289.05Les Entreprises H.L.P. Inc.	251.10Minto Corporation (2)	352.38	363.14Matthews Group Limited	239.77Perez Corporation	299.78W.D. Laflamme Ltee (disqualified)	(297.00)Marchant Development (disqualified)	(355.20)Ossory Canada Inc. (disqualified)	(299.00)Rampart Building Corporation	262.50
3. To consolidate the Headquarters of Transport Canada, a lease proposal call was advertised; but the Government decided, within the context of the April budget, not to proceed with it. In this scenario, the estimated moving and fit-up costs were $1,000,000.00 and $15,000,000.00 respectively.


Albert Glen Cooper: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) I move:
That the debate on the motion for second reading of an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act and on any amendments proposed thereto shall not be further adjourned.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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 yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Division No. 47)

Members
Anderson	Andre
Atkinson	Attewell
Beatty	Belsher
Bernier	Bertrand
Bird	Bjornson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blais
Blenkam	Bosley
Bouchard (Roberval)	Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Bourgault	Brightwell
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Chadwick	Champagne (Champlain)
Charest	Clark (Yellowhead)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Clifford
Cole	Collins
Cook	Cooper
Corbeil	Corbett
Cote	Couture
Crosby (Halifax West)	Darling
DeBlois	de Cotret
Desjardins	Dick
Dobbie	Domm
Dorin	Duplessis
Fee	Felt ham
June 21, 1989

Ferland
Germ
Greene
Gustafson
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hogue
Homer
Hudon
Jacques
Johnson
Jourdenais
Koury
Langlois
Layton
Lewis
Loiselle
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Marin
Mayer
McCreath
McKnight
Merrithew
Monteith
Nowlan
O'Kurley
Porter
Reid
Richardson
St-Julien
Shields
Sobeski
Sparrow
Tardif
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Turner (Halton-Peel)
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
White
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek Winegard
Althouse
Angus
Assad
Belair
Berger
Black
Boudria
Butland
Callbeck
Catterall
Comuzzi
Crawford
Dionne
Ferguson
Fisher
Foster
Gaffney
Gauthier
Grey (Beaver River)
Harb
Heap
Hovdebo
Jordan
Keyes
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Laporte
Lee
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Maheu
Marchi
McGuire
Mifflin
Friesen
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Guilbault
Halliday
Hicks
Holtmann
Homing
Hughes
Jelinek
Joncas
Kempling
Landry
Larrivee
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Littlechild
MacDonald (Rosedale)
Malone
Martin (Lincoln)
Mazankowski
McDermid
McLean
Mitges
Nicholson
Oberle
Plamondon
Pronovost
Reimer
Robitaille
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Soetens
Stevenson
Thacker
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Van de Walle Venne Vien Wenman Wilbee *Assiniboia)
Worthy-129
++NAYS
Members
Anawak
Arseneault
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benjamin
Bevilacqua
Blondin
Brew in
Caccia
Campbell (South West Nova)
Clancy
Copps
de Jong
Duhamel
Finestone
Fontana
Fulton
Gardiner
Gray (Windsor West)
Guamieri
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hopkins
Hunter
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
MacAulay
MacLaren
Manley
Marleau
McLaughlin
Milliken
Unemployment Insurance Act
Mills Murphy Ouellet Parker Phinney Proud Rideout Robichaud Rodriguez Simmons Speller Stupich Tobin Vanclief Waddell Wappel Wood
Young (Beaches -Woodbine)-99


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Mitchell
Nystrom
Parent
Peterson
Pickard
Prud'homme
Riis
Robinson
Rompkey
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Stewart
Taylor
Tbraer (Vancouver Quadra)
Volpe
Walker
Whittaker
Young (Gloucester)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 7, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Allmand that:
The motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "that" and by substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has applied closure to the Bill and closed off debate. It has locked out the unemployed of our country and told those without a job in Canada, "We don't have any more time to talk about you". That is the type of hammer that the Government has applied against the unemployed in Canada.
This debate is about how we as a nation treat people who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs. This debate is about whether or not we believe that governments at all levels, particularly the Government in Ottawa, have a commitment to help Canadian workers

Unemployment Insurance Act
when they need that help the most, when they become unemployed.
With this legislation the Government is pulling out of the most basic of our social programs, the most fundamental element of the social net of Canada, the unemployment insurance, protecting as it has for more than 40 years the unemployed of this country, as a matter not of discretion but as a matter of right, and as a matter going to the pride of every Canadian worker, and not a matter of welfare. By pulling $2 billion out of the unemployment insurance program, leaving it merely to employers and employees to finance the program, it is privatizing unemployment insurance. It is privatizing the most fundamental social program in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: It is part of the same agenda through which we have seen privatization everywhere: we suffer the dilution in the privatizing of our transportation infrastructure, selling off Air Canada, the public air transport in the country, closing down rail transportation and passenger service at VIA Rail, closing down the rural post offices and the rural postal routes, abandoning regional economic development, shutting down rural and small-town Canada, and now destroying our social programs by privatizing them and leaving the unemployed to their own resorts.
We now see the Americanization of our national policies in full flight as a result of the trade agreement, as a result of the philosophy of the Speech from the Throne, as a result of the philosophy inherent in the Budget, and now, of course, as a result of this legislation cutting unemployment insurance.
We have known for some time, and we have brought it to the attention of the Government, that the American government has always considered unemployment insurance an unacceptable subsidy offending the meaning of its trade legislation, the 1930 Trade Act, the 1974 Trade Act, and the omnibus trade bill passed by the Congress last year. This Government pulled out of unemployment insurance before the negotiations on the definition of subsidy ever began. It knuckled under once again to the American government. As part of the trade agreement,
it privatized unemployment insurance at the expense of the Canadian worker in favour of American business.
The Tory solution as to how Canada should treat people who lose their jobs, through no fault of their own, is to cut $2 billion out of the unemployment insurance program, to make unemployment insurance more difficult to receive by extending the period needed to qualify for benefits, and by making the benefit period shorter. It is like throwing an anchor out to a drowning man.

This Bill reflects an attitude that considers people who lose their jobs not as powerless victims of economic circumstances but as lazy, good-for-nothing bums who don't deserve our help and support. As was pointed out by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) on June 6 here in the House, our Party agrees with the need to reduce the deficit but never at the expense of the unemployed, the sick, the disabled, the poor and the destitute.
The Conservative Government does not agree. It believes that the best way to reduce the deficit is to do so at the expense of the weakest and neediest members of our society.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


John Napier Turner: That is why it has
decided to reduce unemployment insurance benefits. It is easier to run roughshod over people who can't defend themselves, people without influence, the underclasses, people who are powerless in their own country. The same attitude is reflected in the Government's approach to the new sales tax, in the cuts applied to childcare expenses, the reductions in transfer payments for education and health and the incredible tax increases this Government has imposed on Canadian families since 1984, families on low and middle incomes, while at the same time providing tax relief for the rich.

This Bill is the further implementation of the Tories' right-wing agenda, an agenda they kept hidden and secret during the election campaign. They kept it secret because they knew that the vast majority of Canadians would simply not accept such Draconian and cowardly measures. The Tories did not merely keep silent about that agenda, they did not merely keep silent about their
June 21, 1989

real intentions, they went one step further. They deliberately misled Canadians by saying they would never touch unemployment insurance.
I want to take Members to a scene before a whole host of Conservative supporters at the Hotel Newfoundland in St. John's on October 13. In response to reporters, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) stated: "The federal Government has no plans to make changes to the unemployment insurance program". Those were the words of the Minister for International Trade. Of course, in St. John's the reporters know him well, so they asked him if he had checked this with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The Prime Minister was in the same room with him speaking to the same gathering of Conservatives. In response to that question from reporters, the Minister stated: "You're damn right I asked him about it and he said no, no one is planning any changes in the unemployment insurance program". That is what was stated by the Minister for International Trade on the authority of the Prime Minister of Canada a few days before the election.
To put it bluntly, either the Prime Minister did not tell the truth to the Minister for International Trade, or the Minister for International Trade did not tell the truth to the Canadian people. I suspect that neither of them told the truth to the Canadian people.
Everyone in the country knows that this legislation will shift people off unemployment insurance and onto welfare. As reported in Hansard on June 6, at page 2677, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) stated: "Nothing could be further from the truth".
How does the Minister of Employment and Immigration respond to the Tory Premier of Nova Scotia, Mr. Buchanan? He had this to say about the changes announced by the Minister: "This is of grave concern to me because that means there is a transfer of funding for these people from the unemployment insurance books to our social service books". The Premier is absolutely correct.
We have asked for the impact studies on which this legislation is based.
Unemployment Insurance Act

In fact, the Government has given no thought at all to the potential impact of these measures on the unemployed, let alone the provincial governments. The changes made within the program will also have the effect of taking money out of the pockets of the unemployed to put it into training programs.
Our Party wants training and skills upgrading programs, and it has demanded those for years. We need more of these programs. However, we always took the position that funds earmarked for training programs would come out of the country's general Budget or be provided jointly by business and the government.
Now today, after cutting training and retraining programs for four and a half years, the Government discovers that training is important. However, instead of creating new ways to finance training programs, the Government takes money from the unemployed to pay for these programs.
What will happen is that poorly paid workers in labour-intensive industries will finance the training of skilled workers who hold highly technical jobs in industries that do not employ many workers.
The new programs, which have not yet been announced, will not apply equally to all regions and are not transferable. An unemployed person in Newfoudland cannot be trained to be an auto worker. People who lose their jobs in regions that offer no other employment opportunities will have their unemployment insurance benefits reduced to pay for training programs in which they cannot take part.
And to justify these brutal changes, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) says that the unemployed do not pay for unemployment insurance, that only those who have a job pay into it, and that therefore, the Government is not taking money from the unemployed.
Of course, the opposite is true: the unemployed will pay for these cuts. They will pay by receiving less money than they would be entitled to under the present program. It is completely wrong to say that the unemployed will not pay.

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act

The Minister of State for Employment and Immigration (Mrs. Vezina) told the House last Friday: "We are not cutting our programs, we are making them more effective and more productive".
How does the Minister explain that to an employee of a small trucking company in Moncton where the unemployment rate is now 11.3 per cent? How can she explain that it is "more effective", to use her words, to be required to work four weeks longer to qualify for any unemployment insurance benefits, and that it is not cutting the program when they will be entitled to seven weeks less of insurance payments?
What does the Government say to the clerk in Comer Brook where there is an unemployment rate of 17.6 per cent? How is it more effective for that person to receive three weeks less in unemployment insurance cheques?
How does the Government explain to the miner in Sudbury, where the unemployment rate is 8.5 per cent, that working six more weeks to qualify and then receiving five weeks less in benefits is not cutting benefits?
What does the Government tell the unemployed lumberman in the Kootenays, where the unemployment rate is 12.1 per cent, who will now need three more weeks work to qualify and who will receive eight weeks less in unemployment insurance?
What does the Minister and the Prime Minister suggest unemployed parents tell their children when there is not enough money to put food on the table, or to buy proper clothing, or to find an adequate and decent place to live?
We are seeing here a Government that ascribes to the big lie theory, practised by so many deceitful regimes around the world to justify their actions. The method is simple. If something is said often enough and loud enough it eventually becomes the truth.
Here is what the Prime Minister said during the French television debate with myself and the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). "We shall maintain all our social programs, without fail. There is nothing in the Free Trade Agreement that will prevent us from fulfilling these obligations, nor in the future, and we intend to spend more on these programs".
Is cutting $2 billion out of unemployment insurance and making people wait longer for fewer benefits how you would describe the way a Government would maintain "all our social programs without fail", Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, would you say that that was how you would "spend more on these programs"? Of course you would not, Mr. Speaker. That is what the Tory Government says. That is what it expects Canadians to believe.
Canadians no longer believe this incessant propaganda of the federal Government. What they are now seeing is the Government's agenda being completely unmasked. The unemployment insurance cuts, the Budget, the trade deal and the Throne Speech make that perfectly clear.
The agenda is clearly laissez-faire, but markets run the countiy. Members of the Government have been following a cynical and calculatedly callous public agenda aimed at cutting everything for the average Canadian to make way for the market forces which will benefit the rich and powerful among us. It has become and is becoming the law of the jungle. It is a world in which only the strongest and richest will survive.
We have said in the House before that there is nothing wrong with business-but the business of business is money and profit, which is fine. The business of public life is people. The mistake this Government is making is that it confuses the two and does not make a distinction between them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I have said before that I believe in market forces and in competition. I believe in rewarding success. I believe in entrepreneur-ism. However, Mr. Speaker, you know and I know that the country would not have been built solely on market forces. We built this country east and west and north by resisting the overwhelming continental market forces of the United States. That is why we built a national railway, a national highway, a public broadcasting system, and a national health care system. That is why we had a national public unemployment insurance system paid for by the people of Canada and contributed to by employers and employees alike.
We did those things because we believe as Canadians that the role of our Parliament and the role of our Government is to defend those who cannot defend themselves. I believe that the vast majority of Cana-
June 21, 1989

dians share this point of view. These values are reflected in programs of fairness that we have built over 122 years.
I am confident that these values can endure. I am confident that Canadians want these values to endure. That is why we will continue to give a voice to those values, to help Canadians understand what is really behind the Tory agenda, what is really behind the philosophy of this Bill, what the Tory Government is doing to make this a very, very different country from the country that we have known.
We have just been present at a vote, the results of which will apply closure against this Bill. Members opposite have the majority. We alone in the Opposition cannot defeat this Bill, which will rob unemployed Canadians of the means to support themselves and their families. Therefore, I want to ask every one of the Conservative back-benchers to consider in his or her conscience just what they are doing here. I want each and every one of the Conservative back-benchers to consider the unemployed in their own riding, the potential unemployed in their ridings and to consider the devastating impact this measure will have on families across the country, in their ridings.
There is no monopoly on unemployment. There is no monopoly on suffering. I want to appeal to the Conservative back-benchers to consider just what they will do at 1 a.m. tomorrow morning in this vote. Each one ought to ask: Is it fair for a federal Government, justified by this Parliament, to make unemployed workers pay the cost of new training programs? I want every one of the Conservative back-benchers to think about whether they really want their constituents pushed off unemployment insurance and onto welfare. I want every Conservative backbencher to acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between being on unemployment insurance, a right of citizenship, and being on welfare. Anyone who does not know the difference between the two does not know what Canada is all about.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   TUmer@Vancouver Quadra: A fair and fully funded unemployment insurance program leaves the unemployed with a degree of pride. No fault is attached to the accident of unemployment. No degree of blame
Unemployment Insurance Act
isput on those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves without a job. Compare that with the indignity and shame of having to go to a food bank, or having to line up for welfare, and then people will know what we are talking about on this side of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Thraer@Vancouver Quadra: Mr. Speaker, you do not solve problems of unemployment by taking money away from the unemployed. We cannot solve the problems of poverty by taking money away from the poor. We cannot solve the Government's problems of the deficit by attacking the people who can least afford to bear that burden. We do not build a better country by tearing down the rights of the disadvantaged.
We have seven hours of debate left on this Bill. I want to ask every Member of Parliament to use every bit of time given to us as freely elected members of the people to bring these issues to the highest court in the land. The greatest privilege any Canadian citizen can have is the one shared by Members of Parliament to represent the weak, the disenfranchised, the disenchanted, those who have not been getting the same opportunities as so many of us have.
I urge every Member of Parliament to join with us at 1 a.m. tomorrow morning, to stand up for the rights and the dignity of Canadian workers, to stand up for the rights of citizenship of a publicly financed unemployment insurance scheme, to stand up for the most fundamental of our social programs, to stand up by voting against this Draconian, repressive, regressive piece of legislation. That is my plea to Members on all sides of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing (Mr. Axwort-hy).


Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, in the five minutes remaining to complete my remarks, I want to continue in the same vein indicating the tragic consequences that will arise as a result of these Draconian measures included in the changes to the unemployment insurance legislation.

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
The people in my riding see the unemployment rate increasing rather than decreasing and it is not satisfactory to them that their benefits under UI are decreasing when there are no job opportunities for them.
Also, the money which may come from the savings the Government will be making by taking funds out of UI are not likely to be introduced into far-sighted programs but rather into the same short-time shortsighted programs that have existed to date.
The proposals do not make it clear exactly how the Government can justify its hope that the private sector, which in the past has done a woefully inadequate job of retraining and educating workers, will take up this retraining torch and do anything other than look after the private sector's own short-term interests.
The Government's figures indicate that some of the
300,000	Canadians who are currently eligible for UI benefits will not be after these changes take effect. Three hundred thousand Canadians will be thrown on the welfare rolls rather than have the opportunity to obtain UI benefits to which they have contributed throughout their working lives. Without access to the impact studies which the Government must surely have conducted, it is difficult to be precise. Even using these figures, the cost to local economies across the country will, of course, be tragic. The Government's action represents in particular a clear attack on the regions, including the interior of B.C., rural Alberta, the Atlantic Provinces, the North, northern Ontario, north and eastern Quebec and, of course, Saskatchewan. All these areas of the country will suffer an inexcusable and vicious attack.
To compound the problem the federal Government is also banning its support for regionally extended benefits and in so doing is denying any responsibility for regional differences in employment rates which frequently are a direct result of failed federal Government policies. At the present time we are also finding increasingly that federal Government policies are attacking the regions rather than assisting them. This one-two punch is completed when we consider that the Minister of Finance's Budget cuts large amounts of funding destined for many one-industry towns. Entire regions are placed in jeopardy by the Government that sees only balance sheets and accounting formula rather than people.
It is clear that the Bill is a product of the Government's neo-Conservative philosophy rather than any thoughtful government planning.
There are some areas of this legislation which are positive. For example, recognition of the rights of natural parents under the unemployment insurance system is a positive step. But the Government can hardly be said to be visionaiy on this matter. So too are improvements to sickness benefits which now enable individuals to file for benefits regardless of when, during their claim, they become ill. Another positive step is the change to benefit access afforded to Canadians over 65 years of age.
Once again the Government fought this every step of the way and only after court decisions against the Government did it move to correct these problems.
On behalf of my caucus colleagues and all those across the country who fought long and hard to convince the Government that injustices were being done under the UI system, I think we owe our deepest congratulations for their efforts which have helped move this Government a few steps closer to understanding the need for legislation which is both sensible and sensitive.
I want to conclude by saying that this Bill is more about dividing and conquering than it is about improving the unemployment insurance system. Time after time and clause after clause this Government pits region against region, worker against worker, for an ever shrinking number of dollars.
I do not recall the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) travelling around the country during the election telling people: " Vote for me and I will cut your UI benefits. Vote for me and I will cancel the child care plan. Vote for me and I will cut the amount of money you get through EPF. Vote for me and I will harmonize our nation's social programs with those in the United States. Vote for me and I will make the biggest tax grab in Canadian history".
I do not remember him saying those things, but in the end that surely is what he should have said if he was going to be straightforward and honest with the Canadian people.
These are some of the first shots in the harmonization battle, a battle, I am sad to say, my Party predicted would take place. I will predict that in the weeks and months ahead other similar pieces of legislation will be placed before this House and, as with Bill C-21, the New Democrats will stand firm in their opposition to this kind of regressive legislation. In closing, the Government
June 21, 1989

must start to put people first. For example, the over 12 per cent unemployed in Saskatoon want jobs, not cuts to UI benefits of $1.3 billion a year.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would like to thank the Hon. Member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing (Mr. Axworthy) for allowing the Chair to recognize the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), technically in the middle of his speech.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House today and express my views of Bill C-21, the views of a parlimentarian who knows the meaning of the terms training, job creation, regional disparity and competition.
Mr. Speaker, since the measures of the labour force development strategy have been discussed extensively, I will merely recall some of its most important aspects.
I would also like to take this opportunity to respond to the criticism from Hon. Members opposite, who in their enthusiasm were at times inclined to misrepresent this Bill.
First of all, I think we should look at the background of this labour force development strategy. Since it came to power, this Government has always put great emphasis on job creation. We believe that a nation's wealth starts with universal access to the labour market.
There is another, equally important principle. Canadians want to work, as long as they are given the means to do so.

As it turns out, the opportunities in the labour market are reducing for workers with minimal education and professional training. Faced with competition, new productivity methods, more complex equipment, which in turn changes the nature of the jobs offered, Canadians must acquire different skills and more varied skills in all sectors of the economy.
Unemployment Insurance Act

This Bill, with the measures it entails, will help Canadians be better prepared to meet the challenges of the twenty-first centuiy. It is not just a matter of adjusting to the realities of free trade. It is also a matter of being able to take advantage of the enormous potential of Europe in 1992 and of competing with Asian countries.
Beyond all economic considerations, Mr. Speaker, there are men and women to whom a steady, paying job means a better quality of life. And that is exactly the purpose of this Bill.
Throughout the debate on these issues, I was astonished, to put it mildly, every time our friends opposite claimed that Canadians would have more trouble paying the rent or buying food. Mr. Speaker, these are just more scare tactics. Should I say: Once again, our neighbours across the way are going on a witch hunt.
We have $12 billion to spend in the unemployment insurance fund, and we will spend those $12 billion. Not a cent will be saved as result of this reform. All Canadians who are entitled to benefits will receive them. In addition, they will have access to further training and thus acquire additional tools to work their way out of the vicious circle of low-paying jobs, unemployment insurance, welfare, and back to low-paying jobs again.
Something had to be done, Mr. Speaker. Canada may soon be facing a serious shortage of skilled labour. Across this country, I have met entrepreneurs who were desperate because they were unable to find skilled workers. In the circumstances, this Government realized that it had to find the means to turn the situation around.
Mr. Speaker, we didn't do this as a favour to the unions, to employers or to Canadian voters. We did so because we had to pursue the policies of a responsible Government, a Government that is building the future of this country's economy, a Government that believes in the intelligence and creative skills of its workers.

This reform, to be entirely successful, must be backed by the private sector in terms of concrete measures. Employers have a primary responsibility to train our workforce. The $230 million which we intend to inject into increased training must encourage employers to do

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
their share. It is in the best interest to do so as well as in the best interest of workers.
In this debate on Bill C-21, we also heard our colleagues opposite say that the economically weak regions would be the hardest hit. Mr. Speaker, they obviously do not know what kind of parliamentarian I am. They forget that I have always fought so that regions like mine could be treated in a way that reflects these social and economic characteristics.
Of the $230 million for increased training in the private sector, $50 million will go to help communities whose economy has been affected by market changes. This money is in addition to the $148 million that my Government is already spending on job creation. The Unemployment Insurance Plan will not only be more active, it will also play a role in development.
The Opposition also accused us of perverting the Unemployment Insurance Plan. Such statements obviously show a misunderstanding of Bill C-21.
Take for example the $50 million more for the Canada Assistance Plan so that welfare recipients can acquire skills and experience to get a job. This is a very important target group. They are very often young people of 18 to 25 who dropped out of high school and are marginalized, with no future.
Including money from the provinces, there is $200 million more a year to put welfare recipients back to work. In fact, 20,000 of them will be able to improve their training. Is that what the Opposition calls perverting the Unemployment Insurance Plan? I would call it making the best possible use of the resources available.
Mr. Speaker, with the rhetoric that has been characteristic of this debate, the Opposition has claimed, without explaining why, that Bill C-21 was unfair and misleading. It is not that way at all. Just think about what we are doing for new parents and people who are 65 and over. We propose to allocate an extra $450 million to
special benefits. The combination of maternity, parental and sick leave will be increased from 15 to 30 weeks.
These improved benefits will give parents more generous income support while helping them to reconcile professional goals with family responsibilities.

This represents one of the most progressive measures proposed by any Government. As Minister of State responsible for seniors, I dream of a society free of all forms of discrimination based on age. The Labour Force Development Strategy addresses certain injustices of which persons aged 65 or more are victims. In the future they will be protected by paying UI premiums and having access to benefits when needed.

This measure not only complies with Charter requirements, it also responds to the wishes of thousands of Canadians who want to stay in the labour market and for whom reaching the age of 65 often coincides with the start of a new career.
The Opposition also accused us of cynicism and of wanting to make Canadian workers more docile by penalizing those who leave their jobs without a valid reason. Mr. Speaker, I prefer to reduce the unemployment insurance benefits of workers who leave their jobs voluntarily, in order to help the unemployed who want to work.
I would remind the former of the basic principle of the Unemployment Insurance Program: to provide temporary help for those who had the misfortune of losing their job. That is our definition of the safety-net concept.
At the present time, more than $1 billion in benefits are paid to people who leave their jobs without a valid reason. And I would like to take this opportunity to remind Hon. Members that there are precedents to define those valid reasons and that it is not our intention to oblige people to submit meekly to sexual harassment, racial discrimination or attitudes of that sort. I may also remind Hon. Members that I am the Minister responsible for the employment equity policy and, as such, very much aware of these situations.
June 21, 1989

What this measure says is that Canadian workers and Canadian employers no longer want to pay as much for people who decide to stop working of their own accord.
Briefly, Mr. Speaker, we are offering an improved unemployment insurance plan to this House and to all Canadians. The plan will continue to help those who lose their jobs, in addition to helping them to obtain training.
The unemployment insurance program has ceased to be a passive institution. It is now an active source of additional tools and holds out the hope of a better future to thousands of Canadians who are now unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, we want to create jobs. We want to create opportunities, and training remains the cornerstone of this important social objective. It is a bold plan, but it is commensurate with the challenges my Government intends to meet.
Mr. Speaker, it would be irresponsible to postpone implementation of the labour force strategy. Canadians want these dynamic and effective measures. They don't want to wait six more months. They have waited long enough as it is. Canadians want to work.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Ms. Campbell)-no questions or comments.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see this debate today on the Unemployment Insurance Bill, which is intended to give taxpayers control. It is shocking to see that the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration (Mrs. Vezina) is not aware of the cuts that will affect some people-
Where are the Opposition Members, where are the Members representing ridings like South West Nova?
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, to begin, that we are now debating closure. We only had one day of debate on this Bill. Only three Liberal Members and two New Democrats spoke-
The Minister may say that the Opposition's concerns are not justified, that it is not really what this Bill will do-
Unemployment Insurance Act

This Bill wants to privatize the unemployment insurance program. I would like to expand on some of the comments made earlier today by my Leader and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) when they spoke on this legislation. This is legislation which will see more than $50 million per year taken out of the economy of Nova Scotia beginning in 1990, taken from seasonal workers who want to stay there to work, who would like to have a year-round job, but due to the seasonality in Canada, it is impossible everywhere to have a year-round job. Perhaps the Minister represents an area where employees can have full-time jobs. She is lucky. The real Minister of Employment who is from Toronto is lucky that she comes from the boom area of Canada.
I would like to talk about the commitment to training contained in this Bill over which the Government and the Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) (Mrs. Vezina) have congratulated themselves for having made some tough choices. Among other things, Bill C-21 calls for the transfer of some $800 million from the main unemployment insurance account, that pool of money into which Canadians deposit about $13 billion annually, for a variety of public and private sector retraining initiatives. This is what the Government is planning.
It is a basic moral obscenity when the Government reduces training funds by $700 million from 1984 to 1989, and turns around and taxes those least able to afford it in order to demonstrate some long-term commitment to their employment welfare.
We in the Opposition have long demanded more generous training programs, both as a principle of good labour-market management and in response to the challenges that the Government sees in the Free Trade Agreement. But never in our darkest imaginings could we have foreseen the spectre of a Canadian Government taking away the hard earned benefits of those who through no fault of their own find themselves out of work, in order to reconstitute a training regime or program which it was responsible for gutting in the first place.

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
The training initiatives provided in C-21 also clearly constitute an unfair transfer of resources. The jobless are being told to pay the freight for those who wish to upgrade their skills when in fact those on unemployment insurance tend to lack the literacy skills and level of comprehension of UIC procedures necessary to take full advantage of the training programs on which the Government prides itself.
If history is any guide, it is the large companies like IBM, which already administer effective training programs, that will fully utilize these incentives, leaving some poor displaced worker, who would use UIC benefits to pay for basic food and shelter, seeing his or her money go to pay for the computer skills course of some well-heeled middle manager.
The design of the proposals contained in C-21 also demonstrate once again the Government's time-honoured habit of ignoring the recommendations of its own studies. Let me refer to Mr. Jean de Grandpre's Adviso-iy Council on Adjustment which recommended shifting priorities within UIC away from income maintenance and toward employment promotion or training. However, his council did not counsel any lowering of the financial safety net. I quote directly from the report:
The Council recognizes that the safety net is important and that it
may be more important to Canada's regions which may not
participate in our fast-growing economy.
Where are the government MPs who are not here to protect their ridings? They should be here because they also have slow growth areas within their ridings which this Bill is going to hurt.
The Government commissioned another study which it did not follow. Claude Forget's study on unemployment insurance called for an approach to reform, loosely along the lines of C-21, but only if an income supplementation program for lower income workers was in place. Like Mr. de Grandpre, he felt that Unemployment Insurance reform should seek to enhance the safety net and not reduce it. This Bill is doing just the opposite. It is creating fear in areas where there are no jobs. It may bring the workers to Ontario, but Canada has seen that before and it did not work.
What galls me most in all of this, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government prides itself, indeed preens itself, on its ability to make tough decisions, but it refused to demand
greater participation by the private sector in our national training effort. And it is the private sector, after all, which stands to benefit most from any training regime. This is especially surprising given the attention which the Government has lavished on the training question for the last half decade.
For most of the Government's term in office we have been witness to a good deal of debate and governmental hand-wringing about the training gap that exists between Canada and our major trading partners. For example, Canadian businesses spend about $1.4 billion per year on formal training, about half that of the United States on a per-employee basis. We provide an average of one hour per year of ongoing training while the Japanese provide about 200 hours per year. We do in fact have one of the worst private sector training systems in the industrialized world.
The Government did not go after that group to help on the training. It went after the weakest part in this country, those people who need unemployment insurance benefits because of the seasonality of the country.
C-21 tells us that the Government plans to "encourage" the private sector to do more through a process of consultation and the setting up of public-private sector consultation boards, the total bill for which is about $230 million. This approach has never worked in the past. Indeed, Mr. de Grandpre believed that "the private sector will not increase its training effort simply because it is exhorted to do so". In order to compel compliance, he recommended the imposition of a 1 per cent payroll tax on those companies which do not have a comprehensive training program with a provision for refund should compliance follow.
This Bill tells us that despite all its tough talk the Government did not have the intestinal fortitude to tax those who are really responsible for maintaining the competitive edge of the Canadian economy in training and high technology. Maybe the Government thought that putting a tax on the very people who bankrolled its victory in the November election was too tough an alternative. Or perhaps the Tories felt that it is time to get tough with the poor, the uneducated, the powerless, those who do not have enough economic votes to cause the Government any real electoral concern. Or maybe the tough talking Tories felt that after all the years of seeing the rich subsidize the poor it was just about time to see the poor start subsidizing the rich.
June 21, 1989

This is bizarre logic, Mr. Speaker. I hope there are other reasons for this but it comes out clearly that this Bill is affecting the poorest and least powerful group of Canadians. If that is the logic, it is inconsistent with the values which we Canadians have long cherished, but it is the only logic of which the Government appears capable.
Bill C-21's provisions for training are, of course, not its only misguided element. As a Nova Scotian and the representative of a predominantly rural constituency largely dependent on seasonal industries, and I refer to fishing, forestry, farming and tourism, I am keenly aware of the negative impact that the changes in entrance requirements will have. Employers in seasonal industries will find it difficult to extend the number of weeks of employment with the likely result that provincial and municipal welfare roles will expand.
It is ironic that part of the purpose of this Bill is to take people off of welfare and retrain them. These people have jobs, they are needed seasonally. More ironic, we all know that the problem currently being experienced in the fishery is that there is not enough fish. Give us the fish and the people will work year-round. Get rid of some of the attitudes of the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) toward the East and we will probably have a longer season of fish processing.
Last week the coalition from the West came in and told us that their unprocessed fish had to go to the United States to be processed. The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) stood up in the House and said that that does not hurt. Indeed it does hurt. It means that those jobs are not staying in Canada, it means that those workers are not getting longer employment in a natural resource which is renewable and which is Canadian. The fish is caught in Canadian waters. It is landed, they say, and they say that that will not offend GATT or the United States. We will see if it offends the United States. They will probably turn around and use the omnibus trade Bill against us as they did on hogs and as they are trying to do in intellectual property.
I have a lot of relatives, like a lot of us in here, from the United States. When the United States says some-
Unemployment Insurance Act
thing they do it. When Canada says something, it does not do it. It shies away from standing up against the United States.
If we had fish, we would have jobs. We would not need the UIC. My people in South West Nova need fish. They need longer tourism seasons. They would like to finish their natural resources further. Maybe if the Government put effort into finding ways to produce longer,we would have full time employment, like the Minister before me was saying that we in the opposition are so pessimistic about it.
The fact is that this Bill will affect the people. It does away with the three-phase system and it brings in one phase. If we go by the unemployment insurance statistics in Nova Scotia in 1988, where you have an average unemployment rate of 10.2 per cent, and an average beneficiary of 50,180, and an average weekly benefit of $193.37, the total pay-out in 1988 was $527,395,520.
What is the impact of the changes? Cost per beneficiary, because the average loss is probably five to nine weeks is $1,160.22. That is per beneficiary. The cost to the province is $58,219,839.
You cannot tell me, Mr. Speaker, that that is not going to hurt, and that if you retrain them and send them to Ontario that the people are going to have a better quality of living by moving into downtown-well, they could not move into downtown Toronto, they could not afford it. They would have to take a tent. Perhaps they could be moved into rural Ontario and they would have to work. It did not work before. It is best to find the money to keep the jobs there, or to find a change in direction, like in fish, which is going to give jobs to the communities and produce longer working times in these rural communities.
However, we Cannot, as this Bill is doing, take away from the seasonality of Canada, cut back those seasonal workers and leave them in a worse position than they were a year from the time that it starts. Starting in January, 1990, and with closure on this Bill, it means that this Government is serious about how it is going to affect it. Those people will be in a worse position than they were the previous year.
The only time that this Government has said in the Bill that it will put money into it and retain the three-phase system is if the unemployment rate is over 15 per cent. There were four areas in Canada, two in Newfoundland, one in Cape Breton and one in the Okanagan Valley, Kamloops or somewhere in that area, last year. There were only four areas which had an

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
unemployment rate above 15 per cent. That is the only time that the old system will work if that unemployment rate is above 15 per cent.
Now you tell me, Mr. Speaker, that those people are not going to hurt, and that the Minister of Employment and Immigration's (Mrs. McDougall) retraining package for Ontario and rural Ontario is going to help retrain people who already know how to cut fish. They know how to go out and work in a mill. They know what the tourism trade needs. We have an excellent tourism industry.
I see my time is coming to a close. I would just like to end by saying that the use of closure after one day of debate is about the worst type of procedure that I have ever seen in my time in Parliament. The use of it to end a debate on a Bill which is so important, maybe not to downtown Toronto or downtown Vancouver, but to all the people who rely on the unemployment insurance program without an alternative from this Government. Look at what de Grandpre said. We could bring in what he wants. That is not what the Government did. However, it does not provide a safety net for those rural people. Forget said the same thing, provide a safety net for those areas which are not in the urban centres where there is a high unemployment rate.
I hope that when the Bill goes to committee that all Canadians will write to all their Members of Parliament and show their dissatisfaction with the direction of retraining and no supplement to the people who are going to be hurt more next year. I hope they write to every one of the Government Members and particularly the Ministers. We have the summer, hopefully, unless they are going to close this Bill. If so, it will be an experience to sit in this House to see the most important piece of legislation for my constituency come into this House and be closed after one day of debate on second reading. It is unheard of. It is unconscionable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Don Valley West.


Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21 is an important piece of legislation. It always astounds me when I listen to Members of the Opposition
on Bills like this. We wonder where the real world ever enters into any of their thinking.
There is not a program, apparently, according to the Opposition which is touchable if those touches make it better. The essence of the argument which we have heard throughout the conversation about the Bill is as follows. The Opposition states that they support retraining, provided no changes are made to the unemployment insurance system. If we translate that, that means, provided that somebody finds some way to get somebody else for more money to pay for the training through Government. If we do not know after all those years of the Liberal Government what the consequence of that would be, which would be simply to put more people on the unemployment insurance rolls by driving the cost of Government up again, then we have not learned lessons from the 1960s and 1970s. That is ultimately, I guess, the difference between the kind of policies which come from this side and the kind of policies which came from the other side. I suppose if the economic solution for the fishermen is to make a case that we need more fish, and to argue somehow the Government's purpose is to invent fish, when in fact what the Government's whole policy is about at the moment is attempting to conserve the existing stocks so that-


Mr. Milliken:: Mismanagement.


John William Bosley: This Government did not mismanage those stocks. It happened before this Government got into office. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken) knows full well that that is the case. It has been since this Government came into place that conservation efforts have begun and pushed. Do we find any support from the Hon. Member and his Party for that? No. We find such arguments as, the economic solution for the fishermen is to invent fish. Well, if it could be done, it would be. It cannot be.
If we are going to try and do something for the fishermen in this country, it seems to me we do exactly what this Bill says, we say that because they have a problem the procedures for self employed fishermen will not be touched by these amendments. Not touched.
Nevertheless, Opposition Members, I suspect, and other good friends of mine from Nova Scotia will probably make the same speech later claiming somehow
June 21, 1989

that what is going on in here affects the fishermen of Canada, when it is not. However, if that is the way the debate wants to be held, that is the way it will be held.
The issue for this country remains the same. Governments have had to face this fact, that it is not a question any more of being able to with credibility say to the people of Canada the solution for our problems is to find more money from Government and throw it at the problem. What we have to do in this country, and it has begun finally under this Government in the last five years, is figure out how to use money smarter in order to put people back to work who want help. The solution is not to spend more money on unemployment insurance for the unemployed. The solution so clearly is to use unemployment insurance moneys and other moneys for those people who are unemployed in order to get them permanent work.
Every time we have made that case, Opposition Members have risen in this House to say that it will not work. The predictions have been dire. Whatever change we make and whatever tax policy change we make, we are told consistently, hundreds of thousands of people will go out of work as a result. The evidence is in this country. It does not need to be repeated. I say to the Members opposite, that exactly the same thing has been happening in this debate. We are being told that hundreds of thousands of people will go off the unemployment insurance rolls onto welfare and all the misery which that implies because of a change in a $13 billion program to take $800 million and spend it on training people better than we now do.
Surely it is self-evident, when one looks at the consequences of leaving people on unemployment insurance, if you deal in the world where we come from in Toronto. People must not be left on unemployment insurance assuming they will get some training. Those days have to go. It ought to be self-evident to Members here-and I think it is to Members on this side, Mr. Speaker-that the proposal from the Minister is in line absolutely with the labour adjustment policies of this Government in order to bring not only this program into the 21st Century but all of our labour adjustment programs into the 21st Century.
The Hon. Member opposite is a good friend of mine. He was with me last week in Europe. We were there
Unemployment Insurance Act
examining what is going to happen in 1992 in Europe. What happens has significant consequences for us in the competition this country will have to face.
There are no arguments among the countries of Europe about rationalizing and harmonizing the support programs for those who need help in order to be retrained. These people know it is self-evident. We apparently do not. It is to our shame if we do not understand the importance of this kind of policy change. The Europeans know full well that they are going to have to rationalize and harmonize their standards in order to be competitive in the market. So have we. I do not see this, as some Members opposite would claim, as the be all and end all. Of course not. Nor does the Government. It sees this Bill as an essential part of all of its developments in the labour adjustment strategy, the most important of which will be the final elimination of the barriers to trade and activity between the provinces of this country so we at least in this country can have a common market.
It is about time we got to that if we really want to put people to work. I hope we will not be impeded by the consistent and everlasting resolution of some provinces not to be involved in that for reasons that have historically to do with sovereignty. I hope we will recognize the international world we now live in and that we will come to the global competitive position that we have to.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) referred earlier to the UIC program. The ground shifts, I notice, for Liberal leaders. This is now the most important social program in Canada. A couple of weeks ago it was medicare, a couple of weeks before that it was something else. It is a serious program. The Leader of the Opposition accused us of letting the market function. You bet we are going to let the market function. That is what makes the work for people who get off unemployment insurance by the creation of jobs. That is the only place it will come from. My family was Liberal before the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milli-ken) was bom. We laughed over these issues. If Liberals still believe that you are going to drive the engine of growth and job-creation in this country with government programs, then they are living in pre-Keynesian, 19th Century ignorance that this country deserves to be protected from.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That is rubbish.

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act


John William Bosley: It is not rubbish. The whole consequential issue of what this Government has done is to say that there is a place for the safety net. It is protected here. It is fine-tuned and adjusted here to be useful, more useful than it now is. The concept that we will just keep taking out of the public pot, more and more out of the economy of the country to put into needed programs, that I hope-even for the Liberal Party-is a passe policy. Otherwise the Liberals will be where they deserve to be, in oblivion.


An Hon. Member:: Never.


John William Bosley: We will watch with interest all of the various candidates for the leadership of that Party tell us where they stand on these issues.
One of the most interesting books to come out is from the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Mills). I hope some Members of his Party read some concepts in it because there are some good ones having to do with letting the market function, recognizing that you cannot constantly be interventionist yet create wealth and work for people.


An Hon. Member:: Did he get a Canada Council grant?


John William Bosley: I understood the Member did not apply for a grant from Canada Council to get the book published, in which case he would be unusual in his Party, but there it is.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John William Bosley: In a riding like mine where nearly 20 per cent of the citizens are over 65 years of age, one of the complaints for years has been the difficulties that people approaching their senior years face who want to carry on working.
Court charters and other challenges notwithstanding, one of the things in this Bill that I think the Opposition ought to identify as a good thing is what it will do for older workers. Let us remind people what it is the Opposition says it is going to vote against with regard to senior citizens and senior workers of this country. They claim this Bill ought to be shot down and tom apart.


An Hon. Member:: Not just for that reason.


John William Bosley: The Opposition always has a reason. In this case the Liberals will go back to doing all the good things in this Bill and spending more money on the other things. Isn't that amazing? In an election campaign, we
used to get that from people who called themselves the Albanian Communist Party. That group of people campaigned in every election, on every program. It was make the rich pay, make somebody else pay, make more money available by taxing somebody else, get more money into the system for the programs. I never thought I would hear that whole policy shift from the Liberal Party of Canada, but we hear it again. It was just voiced. Make somebody else pay for it. Is that the consequence of the new Liberalism? I do not have to worry for our successors. Members here will see what will happen in following elections if this is the new policy direction of the Liberal Party. Maybe I am not getting it. Maybe it is not that the old policy was good enough, the new Liberal Party wants to go even further and spend even more money. That would appear to be the new Liberal solution.


Mr. Walker:: Check the Budget.


John William Bosley: An Hon. Member says check the Budget. I stood in this House and listened to Allan MacEachen, now practising his ways in a different place, argue that the solution to unemployment in this country-which is what this Bill is about, at least the safety net portions-is to raise taxes, raise the deficit at the same time and raise the spending of the Government. As a consequence of that for program spending-not interest payments-the consequence of increasing the share of GNP taken by government would enable the GNP to grow.


An Hon. Member:: Your policy?


John William Bosley: No, it is not our policy. You will find that under this Government the proportion of debt and of debt servicing and the share of GNP carried by the debt burden is in decline. This is the only way in which to put more money in the hands of private entrepreneurs to create work. That was not the Liberal policy of the time. The Liberal policy of the time was dead clear. Tax more, take more, and somehow the economy will grow more. The evidence was right before us.
I think Canadians are far too sophisticated now to believe again the rubbish that was attempted to be perpetrated on them by predecessor governments of the Liberal Party. I think when Liberals still sit on the other side saying "Oh, no, we'll keep the good parts, you like the older worker parts, good for you. We'll keep the good parts. We'll simply throw more money at training programs. We'll throw more money at this and we will
June 21, 1989

throw more money at that". That old Liberal policy is thoroughly invalidated.
I do not like to throw money at programs that have been proven to be inefficient. The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) is showing his usual capacity for keeping his ears closed and his mouth open.
Charlie, I will listen to your speech when you speak.


Mr. Caccia:: I have had enough.


John William Bosley: We do not have the American practice, but since the Hon. Member for Davenport is exercised, I would be happy to cede the floor to him for a few minutes. It might get it out of his system.


Charles L. Caccia: Wait for 1992.


John William Bosley: Oh, we do not have that practice. I will stay and listen to the Hon. Member for Davenport if he will listen to me.


Charles L. Caccia: I have had enough.


John William Bosley: Oh, you have had enough? Well, the people have had enough of the kind of policy the Hon. Member for Davenport supports.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles L. Caccia: Wait for 1992.


John William Bosley: I am perfectly happy to wait until 1993 and the next election.
The Hon. Member is convinced. Old Cabinet Ministers forget that they may remain old Cabinet Ministers if they adopt the same old policies that they adopted when they were new Cabinet Ministers years ago. They adopted policies that are utterly discredited by every economic institute in this country.
What this is about is clearly and simply a recognition that some of the issues in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the unemployment insurance program can be used in more efficient ways to do more good for those who need that help. That apparently is such a novel idea, so threatening, that Members opposite claim somehow that the poor or the powerless are hurt by an improvement in the training programs for those same people.


An Hon. Member:: Training for what?
Unemployment Insurance Act


John William Bosley: Training for what, says a Member? Training for the jobs of the future. What is the Member's alternative? Is it no training? I suppose the Member opposite has never done what some of have done, which is sit in Manpower offices and offices of the Commission listening and dealing with constituents who are trying to get every little bit of training out of the Commission they can get because they do not want to remain unemployed. They do not want to remain unemployed, whether they are 45 or 65, young or old, women or men.
One of the issues opposition Members ought to be raising, an issue I want to speak about briefly-


David James Walker: You only have three minutes.


John William Bosley: That is all it takes. It only takes three minutes. I have spoken to the Minister about this and I am sure this issue will be addressed. It is whether or not there is humanity in the officers at Manpower to do the matching that needs to be done. I believe that 99 per cent of the people who work at Manpower on the training program side are about as well-intentioned, generous and kind as can be, but they are so overworked in some ways that sometimes they do not have the time to do-


Charles L. Caccia: Because of your cuts to the Department.


John William Bosley: Because we do not yet have the funds for the training programs, which is why this is changing so we will have more funds for the training programs. One then hopes that we will be able to use those funds in a more humane way. We have always known that we did not have enough money-


Charles L. Caccia: You don't know how to spell it.


John William Bosley: I don't know how to spell it? The Hon. Member for Davenport is in his usual mood.


Charles L. Caccia: Right.


John William Bosley: I accept that.


Charles L. Caccia: Spell it for us.


John William Bosley: Spell it? S-u-c-c-e-s-s, j-o-b-s, w-e-a-1-t-h. Work for people, that is where this is going.


Charles L. Caccia: The word "humanity".

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act


John William Bosley: The word "humanity"? Humanity is that I wait and listen to the Hon. Member when he speaks but he does not have the humanity to be quiet when someone else is speaking.
I know that as a result of these changes, two things of some consequence will happen. We will contribute to the continuing reduction in the number of permanently unemployed, particularly those who wind up for sad reasons being repeaters in the UIC program because they do not have enough training. If we are successful doing that alone, we will have made an enormous impact, particularly on the urban poor.


Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)):: No, it doesn't affect anybody.


John William Bosley: The Hon. Member doesn't know what is going on in downtown Toronto.
Second, I think we will see when we revisit this in about three years that all of the predictions we are making about more jobs and employment for those who need it will again have come true.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I enjoyed listening to the speech made by the Hon. Member who just spoke. However, if he had dealt directly with the issues at debate before us today, he might have answered three questions. He might have answered first why it is that the Government, after just one day of debate, has decided to shut off debate on the principle of this important Bill. He refused to deal with that question.
The Hon. Member might also have answered why it is that, despite the fact that the Department of Employment and Immigration has carried out and completed impact studies to determine what will be the effect on different parts of the country and different groups of people of these changes, the Department refuses to release these studies and has in fact stated so by letter in its refusal under the Freedom of Information Act. Why is this so if the picture that is to be painted by those impact studies is so grand and glorious, as the Hon. Member has suggested? Why is there an attempt to first ram this Bill through so quickly and, second, to suppress crucial information which should be before us when debating the principles of this Bill?
Third, I would have thought that the Hon. Member himself might have dealt with the real principle here, which is not the question of whether or not Members on
this side of the House or on that side of the House are concerned about training. The Hon. Member knows full well that all three Parties have made commitments to both the principle of increased training for people who are unemployed and to particular ways to put that principle into effect. That is not the issue. The issue is whether it is right to take beyond that $800 million which is being given to training, a further $1 billion out of the unemployment insurance fund and effectively put it back into the coffers of the Government because the Government will not in the future pay for regionally extended unemployment insurance benefits. That is the real principle.
The real principle, though the Hon. Member might wish to deny it, is to shift a large amount of money which in the past the Government has been responsible for when it let unemployment rise above 4 per cent. It will no longer provide that money to the unemployment insurance fund and, instead, contribution rates will be increased for those who are unemployed and for employers.
That is the real issue. If government Members had the courage to participate directly in questions and answers during this debate, as they would have to do if they had not put closure into effect, that is the issue they would have to answer to. However, they have now succeeded in being able to simply make witty, interesting but ultimately incorrect and unacceptable interpretations of the legislation before us.
This legislation is very clear-cut. In at least 30 different ways, this legislation makes it significantly more difficult for people who are not able to find employment to get the support which they as contributors to an insurance fund have surely the right to expect when they face what they have insured themselves against, the condition of unemployment, and we will demonstrate that in committee.
I could point out that this piece of legislation goes against everything the Government promised during the last election campaign. Frankly, though, that would be nothing new. That would not be a novelty. Ever since the Government was re-elected on November 21, it has completely turned its back on every promise it made to the Canadian people in order to win re-election. Whether one takes the promise of a vast program of child care, the promise of a tremendous defence of regional development expenditure, the promise that none of our social

benefits would be affected by free trade, one finds that ever since its election the Government has made a complete U-tum. To put it bluntly, it has spit in the eye of the Canadian electorate and stated: "We don't care what we promised you. We think we are going to be here for the next five years. You can like it or lump it, but you are going to have to take it, and we are going to give it to you as hard and as viciously as we possibly can".
As the previous Member attempted to suggest, the issue is not a question of us on this side of the House saying let us give everything we can to the people of the country without worrying about who will pay for it. That is not the question. The question is, who pays for what is crucially needed in the country? Who pays for what we said during the election campaign was crucially needed, a program of adjustment, a program of training, and a program of help for those people who would be hit by the free trade deal? Who pays for that?
Do we do as those countries in Europe the previous Member talked about? Do we make the companies that will benefit-or so we were told during the trade deal-so immensely from that deal pay a somewhat greater increase, a 1 per cent levy for training? Even such an obviously radical socialist as the head of Bell Enterprises, Mr. de Grandpre, suggested that companies should have to pay a training levy within the country. Do we do that in order to finance the crucial adjustment assistance that is needed?
Instead, do we do what the Government has decided to do? Do we take the group which is the most vulnerable, the weakest, the most up against it, those who are unemployed and have been unemployed for significant periods of time and often live in poorer regions of this country, and say to them: "I'm sorry, but for the good of Canada please be patriotic. For the good of our country's economy, accept the sacrifice and tighten your belts. We know you are close to starvation and your level of assets has been reduced tremendously by this period of unemployment, but we think you have still got something to give Canada. You have still got something to give to the corporate elite in this country. So we are going to ask you, you who are unemployed in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, the interior of B.C., northern Saskatchewan,
Unemployment Insurance Act
northern Ontario, or even in parts of our major metropolitan cities such as Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver-where there are pockets of significant poverty and unemployment-to pay the cost of adjustment". That is what this piece of legislation tries to do.
Or do we take a position that has some sense of equity, social justice and fairness within it? Do we take a position that, at the very least, those who are somewhat better off in society should be the people who end up paying for the adjustment costs that are there as part of putting the trade deal into effect?
For those of us on this side of the House there is no question how that choice is answered. It is answered by stating that it is not the poorest in our country who should pay. It is not the people who are out of work. It is not the poorer regions that should pay for something which will benefit the large corporations.
Instead, we suggest, and have suggested again and again, that the adjustment costs and the training benefits which are crucial for the future of this country should be financed by the corporate sector and by taxpayers who are better off. It should not fall on the shoulders of those people who are the poorest within this Canada of ours.
It seems to me so self-evident and clear-cut that that is the just way to go about doing things which all of us in the House want to see done: an expansion of training, training for those who are out of work, training for those who are not officially unemployed but are out of the labour force, training to give them an opportunity for the future. The payment of those costs should not come from the mean, nasty and vicious attacks on the unemployed which are part of this legislation, but from those people who have the resources and the opportunities to be able to make a contribution to those increased costs.
That is not what we have in front of us. Despite the absence of any promise in the pages and pages of promises the Government made in the last election, despite the absence of anything in those pages about a squeeze on unemployment benefits, we have an attack on those who are out of work. In the past I have called it "Thatcherite" in its philosophy. That is why I was a little surprised to hear the previous Member speak so roundly in its favour. But I suppose it is necessary to work one's way back into favour by giving a sense of support to things which are surely insupportable by any of the

Unemployment Insurance Act
philosophic views which I know the previous Member actually holds.
What we have is a set of changes which in cities such as Sudbury, Yorkton, Edmonton and in areas such as King's County in Nova Scotia, the Eastern Townships of Quebec where, in the past, one was able to get up to 21 weeks of support as an unemployed person after 11 weeks of work, one will not be able to get any support whatsoever now. After 17 weeks of work in those areas one used to be able to get 37 weeks of support. Now it will only be possible to get 24 weeks in terms of benefits.
In other areas such as Montreal, the lower Fraser Valley of B.C., Victoria, Cumberland and Guysborough Counties in Nova Scotia previously after 10 weeks one could receive 34 weeks of support to try to help one to find a new job. Now one will receive nothing. In those areas previously 16 weeks of work would get one 40 weeks of support. Now it will get just 27 weeks in which to tiy to find a new job. These are in areas where it is difficult to find employment.
In an area such as Fredericton, New Brunswick, 10 weeks of work previously would get one 38 weeks of support. Now one will receive nothing. It is an area in which 15 weeks of work would entitle one to 43 weeks of support. Now one will receive just 30 weeks of support.
In fact, in 90 per cent of the 48 unemployment insurance regions the number of weeks one will have to work to qualify for UI has increased, and increased significantly. In over half the regions the entrance requirement will increase by six weeks.
Some 20 per cent of all people who receive unemployment insurance take more than 20 weeks to find new work. Most of these people will be unable to claim unemployment insurance in the particular areas in which they live under these changes.
This is a measure which will hit people, and hit people hard. Across the country there are groups speaking out against this move. They are saying that this approach is not just or right and certainly not what the Government promised. Yet in the face of this opposition the Government comes to the House today and wishes to slam through this legislation using its majority with no sense of the importance of having a full debate on the principles involved here.
Frankly, the Government should be ashamed of itself for not presenting to the people of Canada the chance to debate and consider these issues in principle over a significant period of time. This is dangerous damage to the people of Canada. It is an abuse of power. It should not take place. I hope that the people of Canada will stop it from taking place in the future.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to add a few of my thoughts and words to the debate on Bill C-21. In listening to Members opposite I have not agreed with many of the conclusions which they have come up with. However, there was one exception. It was in the closing remarks of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. TUmer). He said the greatest privilege available to Canadians is that of standing up in this House to represent the views of other Canadians.
Those of us who sit in this Chamber are privileged. We are privileged to sit here and participate in debates. However, that privilege takes with it a responsibility, a responsibility not only to our own constituents but to all Canadians. In our deliberations we must represent the diverse thoughts and feelings of other Canadians and hopefully arrive at a conclusion that will benefit the majority of them.
Within each of our constituencies are many strong and diverse opinions. It is our responsibility to listen to these opinions. We have to reflect on them. Finally, we have to represent them to our colleagues and enunciate them in the House. In some ways each of our constituencies reflects the nation as a whole. Just as Canada contains many different values, opinions and ideas so does each of our constituencies.
We have to represent that entire constituency. We have to make decisions on behalf of those we represent. These decisions that we arrive at will affect not only the people in Red Deer, Moncton and Vancouver but all Canadians.
Unemployment insurance is one of those issues that has generated many and varied opinions locally, regionally and nationally. The unemployment insurance issue has been well studied. It has been well reported.
The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) implied that the Government is doing something sinister in keeping an impact study secret. That is not the case. In appearing before the committee the Minister informed

us that it would be released at the committee stage of the Bill. It is my understanding that that is normal parliamentary tradition and the normal time to release an impact study.
I would like to suggest that if the Hon. Member had bothered to read the letter he was waving around in front of us, he would have seen that the request for information on the study was exempted under Section 26 of the Access to Information Act. That section states that if a study is going to be released within a three-month period, then it is exempted from being released at the time of the request. I would suggest that if he read the letter he would know that there is nothing sinister about withholding it at this time.
All of us have heard representations from business and labour. Those who were here in the previous Parliament had a chance to study another report. Those of us who were working elsewhere listened to our co-workers, our neighbours and our friends. There were a great many suggestions and a great many ideas about what should be done to the unemployment insurance program. There is no one answer to this program that will address all the needs, wants and desires of Canadians.
This Bill does not address every concern. However, it is an important step toward improving the program by allowing for more skills training and other measures that will assist claimants to adapt successfully to changing labour market conditions.
In my conversations, I have been told many things about the existing program. There are those who say that what we have is no longer insurance. Others say: "Why should I pay? There is no way I can collect". There are others who look at the program, see people who abuse it and get mad. They consider those who would work, the lack of skills and training and say that it could be better. It will get better, and this Bill will help it.
We as Canadians are a caring and compassionate people. As a nation, we are willing to provide help to those with legitimate need. We also hate waste. We do not like others to take advantage of our generosity. This principle applies to many situations. It definitely applies to unemployment insurance.
Unemployment Insurance Act
I can think of no one who is not prepared to assist someone else who, through economic circumstances, loses their employment. We want to help those people get re-established and re-employed. However, most Canadians draw the line at supporting those who are uninterested in working or who use or abuse the system for their own convenience.
Unemployment insurance is not welfare. It should not be considered a wage subsidy. It should be a program to provide a temporary buffer and assistance to get back into the work force. We have a responsibility to make our unemployment insurance program as efficient and fair as possible. While maintaining the program's essential income support function, these amendments and changes reduce elements in the program that act as disincentives to work.
As the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) said when she opened second reading debate, the small minority who simply choose not to work at various times should not be encouraged by a system paid for by all Canadians.
We also support provisions that increase penalties for those who quit their jobs without just cause or who fraudulently collect benefits. We want a system that will help those who genuinely need help, but we and the people who have to pay for the Bills that we approve do not want to support those who simply do not want to work.
These changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act form part of the Government's over-all Labour Force Development Strategy. That strategy was tabled in the House on April 11 by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Bill C-21 should not be looked at in isolation, but looked at in conjunction with the Canadian Jobs Strategy which is designed to help individuals and groups adjust to change through a variety of options, including retraining.
The Canadian Jobs Strategy itself is a success stoiy. As most Members know, it is based on three basic principles. The first is that help should go first to those who need it most. We as a nation have limited resources in spite of some of the statements we hear. It is essential that we put our resources to the most effective use by assisting those who can best benefit and those with the greatest need.

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
Second, programs and services should be used that best meet the needs. Third, decision making should be done at the local level.
The closer decision makers are to the user, the more effective the program is liable to be. Made-in-Ottawa solutions do not always meet the needs in Red Deer, Yellowknife, Moncton or any other region of Canada. Since the Canadian Jobs Strategy was introduced in September, 1985, 1.3 million people have benefited from the program. Its success is not because of the wisdom of Government or the wisdom of bureaucrats, it has succeeded because of the involvement of the providers and the users, the training and educational institutions, business and labour, some of the same groups that are going to make this program successful. These are the people who know where the needs are and they are in a far better position than we to effectively plan, implement and utilize the program.
Canadian business knows that it will need a well trained workforce as we prepare for the next century. Our workers are very much aware of the importance of skills and extra training in today's workforce. They know that the workplace is changing and they want to be prepared for those changes.
My own experience backs up the result of a Decima survey that was taken last year, where fully half of the workers polled indicated a willingness to reduce wage demands in return for additional training. The Canadian worker knows about technological and job changes, and wants to be ready. They do not want to be unemployed, they want the necessary skills to continue working and contributing.
There are some businesses investing in skill development, but far too many are not investing the money and training that we think they should. We in Canada have not developed a tradition of training. All too often, businesses and government have reacted to skill shortages after they become evident when, in effect, they should have been able to anticipate, prepare for them and avoid them.
All too often Canadians have left it to Government to devise and fund programs which have not met the needs of business and labour. But these programs were used simply because government money was available. We placed our priorities where the money was rather than where the skills were needed.
We have to stop trying to impose government solutions. We must let those who know what the needs are participate in the planning process. Local input is what has made the Canadian Jobs Strategy so successful and it will make this program successful.
A major objective of the new Labour Force Development Strategy is to allow business and labour groups more participation in skills upgrading for the labour force. This summer, six task forces set up by the Minister of Employment and Immigration will be writing discussion papers on various aspects of the Labour Force Development Strategy. The Canadian Labour Market Productivity Centre is organizing five symposia for this fall at which these discussion papers will be presented. A final report will be ready this November.
There is a role for Government in skills training, but that role is to work co-operatively with those in need. It is obvious that our current efforts have not been adequate to meet the demands of the economy. The skill shortages that we see across the country will get worse unless we take action.
As we move into a highly competitive service oriented economy, a grade 12 education will no longer be adequate. By the year 2000 almost one half of the jobs created will require more than five years of education and training beyond high school. Sixty per cent of our supply of workers for the year 2000 have already graduated and are out of school. Unless there is retraining on a large scale, Canadian employers in the year 2000 will be hard pressed to find properly trained people.
Even now we have a problem. Some 36 per cent of the members of the Canadian Manufacturers Association and 43 per cent of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business report that they now face shortages of qualified labour. Statistics Canada has reported that 14 per cent of all Canadian manufacturers are facing production problems due to a shortage of skilled labour.
Other members have talked about the fact that we lack a strong tradition or culture of training among Canadian business. We spend half of what is spent in the United States in training for an employee. I believe that the average Canadian worker and businessman knows what skills they need to be competitive. The private sector must become more involved. The Government's objective is to stimulate an additional private sector training effort of $1.5 billion per year by 1994.1 am confident that

business will rise to this challenge. They will accept it and it will work.
Much has been said about where the money is coming from and whose money it is that funds the program. I submit that we should not differentiate between what comes from the worker and what comes from the Government. There is no such thing as government money. In the end, it all comes from the taxpayer. Every dollar that we spend comes out of their pocket. We owe it to them to make sure that we spend it as effectively as possible.
Taxpayers in my riding have been letting me know that they do not want to pay people not to work. They do not want to fund make-work projects, but they do want meaningful employment. They do want training that leads to useful employment, and most of them think they are more capable of determining what they need than some politician or bureaucrat. I am confident that Canadian business is prepared to meet the challenge of this Act and invest in private sector training.
The Government announced in the Budget papers that after January 1, next year, unemployment insurance will be funded solely by premiums paid by workers and employers. As a result, premiums will increase slightly, but to a level that is still below where they were two years ago. In a situation where the unemployment insurance fund goes into a deficit, the Government will still be there as a back-up.
When talking about incentives, we cannot afford to support people who only want 10 week jobs. Changes to entrance requirements and to the duration of benefits will encourage the unemployed to find work. In high employment areas where more jobs are available, unemployment insurance will be harder to get and will be available for a shorter period of time. That is as it should be.
We cannot afford not to help those who want to be trained and gain the skills they will need to find secure and long-term employment. Therefore, the Labour Force Development Strategy places a greater emphasis on providing assistance for retraining. Unemployment insurance recipients will find it more to their advantage to retrain themselves than to sit at home.
Unemployment Insurance Act
It has been said by some Members opposite that this program will force more people onto welfare. I submit that it will help people off welfare and into the workforce.
Since 1986, the federal and provincial Governments have undertaken joint initiatives to help social assistance recipients acquire the skills and work experience needed to become self-sufficient. These programs have had a success rate of better than 50 per cent. Three months after participating in the program, over half the participants are still working in the jobs they were trained for.
The Thomson Report presented to the Ontario Government by the Social Assistance Review Committee, supports this type of initiative and adds statistical proof that these types of programs do help social assistance recipients enter the mainstream labour-market. They are working and it has called for an expansion of them. This report adds proof to my feeling that Canadians do want to work. We as a group are productive people who want to work and to contribute.
The Government will be making an additional $50 million available out of the Canadian Jobs Strategy fund, not out of the unemployment insurance fund, for social assistance recipients to help them gain the skills that they need to improve their employment prospects and to find employment rather than remain on the social assistance rolls. Together with $50 million from the Canada Assistance Plan, we hope that the provinces will meet this dollar for dollar, making an additional $200 million available for this initiative.
This $50 million will come out of the Canadian Job Strategy budget, not the unemployment insurance fund. This Bill will not throw more people onto the welfare rolls. Rather, it should encourage a greater participation in the labour force, and thereby reduce unemployment.
Talking about youth, times are changing and so are employment patterns. Unskilled jobs are diminishing and the demand for highly skilled workers is going to rise dramatically in the years ahead. Young people will need to be better trained in the future. Students need to be encouraged to remain in school and gain the necessary skills to compete in the workforce of the 21st century.

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
Through the Labour Force Development Strategy, the Government proposes to quadruple funding to co-operative education, particularly at the secondary school level, to help reduce the dropout rate and unemployment rate of youth entering the labour market directly out of high school. The Government is also proposing a major new program for entry level training to help young people make the transition from school to work. Together, these two initiatives for co-operative education and entry level training will receive an additional $100 million.
At the opposite end of the workforce, we are also concerned with older workers. The Labour Force Development Strategy proposes to increase current services to displaced older workers by a further $100 million. In accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, unemployment insurance benefits will be extended to those 65 years of age and older. Seniors will now have the choice to stay in the workforce on the same terms as anyone else.
There has been among my constituents much discussion about this provision. As a result of it, we lose the provision that allows workers to receive a three-week lump sum payout at age 65. However, in order to meet the provisions of the Charter, those over 65 must be allowed access to unemployment insurance if they so choose, and the potential cost must come from somewhere. We cannot have it both ways.
In conclusion, the Bill is a positive step toward improving the unemployment insurance program. The overall cost is going to remain the same. Greater emphasis is being placed on more active measures to help the unemployed improve their job prospects through skills training, self-employment and relocation assistance. As well, special benefits like maternity, parental and sickness benefits are being expanded.
Canadians are productive people. They do not want subsidies for doing nothing. They do not want make-work projects. They want the opportunity to work and the skills needed to work effectively and contribute.
All of us want to help the unemployed. Contrary to the perception enunciated by those opposite, we are sympathetic, we are concerned, but the unemployed want jobs, not welfare, and the provisions of this Act will help them accomplish just that.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of Bill C-21 openly demonstrates the fact that Election '88 was the largest and most obvious act of political deception ever inflicted on Canadians. The regressive Conservative Party, its Leader and its Ministers told us repeatedly that Canada's unemployment insurance, regional development, farm and social programs were safe with them and were not incompatible with the Free Trade Agreement.
With the pre-Budget and Budget decisions, it is very obvious that Canadians were not being told the truth during the election campaign because unemployment insurance, regional development, farm, defence and social programs have borne the brunt of the Budget cuts. Government Members who bragged during the election campaign about what great financial managers they are, have shown themselves to be the greatest embezzlers in Canadian history.
Riding the wave of international prosperity, reaping unexpected revenue because of the booming economy, the Government squandered, wasted and dissipated those revenues to the point where even after the largest budget cuts and the largest tax increases in memory, they find themselves with a projected deficit of $30.5 billion. Instead of continued prosperity as promised under free trade, Canadians find themselves being hammered as never before with new taxes and new program cuts.
In the Atlantic provinces the feeling is that war has been declared upon them by their own Government and that the Canadian version of the scorched earth policy is being implemented. This is how Atlantic Canadians feel. Believe me, the case is not being overstated.
A few days ago the House voted on the Government's borrowing Bill. It gave itself permission to borrow almost $25 billion. Where is that $25 billion going to be spent? The Government has not told us, but I know where very much of the $25 billion is not going to be spent and that is in Atlantic Canada. Hundreds of millions of dollars are not going to be spent on our transportation system. VIA, as we know it in the Maritimes, will be decreased to the point where even the VIA bus from RE.I. to Moncton will be cut. We in Prince Edward Island have not had passenger rail service for 20 years, but we thought we would at least be able to keep the bus connection to Moncton where we could transfer to the railway. Approximately 600 jobs will be lost and Islanders will be
June 21, 1989

left with no means of public transportation to the mainland.
This Government is not going to spend much of the $25 billion on agriculture. Since it was elected in November, the most truthful statement that the Government has made was contained in the Speech from the Throne where it was stated that farmers are costing the Treasury too much money. Henceforth, the Government began to slash agriculture programs with a ruthlessness never witnessed before in this country. The indications are that it will continue to do so.
The Government immediately broke the long-term dairy policy. It agreed with the United States and asked GATT to cap for 21 months any increases in input costs to dairy farmers in Canada. At the same time, GATT gave substantial increases to Great Britain and other GATT partners. Canada seems to be the only country that abides by the GATT rulings. Canada is the good boy in the GATT gang.
The Government then eliminated the interest subsidy under the Prairie Grain Advanced Payments for Crops Act. There will be minus $27 million in that program. Seven million dollars will not be spent in the skim milk subsidy. Six million dollars will not be spent on the commodity board loans program. Seven million dollars will not be spent on the dairy special export program. Nine million dollars less will be spent on new programs from the Farm Credit Corporation, and the Government will renegotiate the Crop Insurance Program with the provinces to save $200 million over the next two years. All these subsidies just happen to be included in Annex 785.4 of the Free Trade Agreement.
This Government is not going to spend much of the $25 billion on Established Programs Funding. It is going to cut $200 million out of that program in 1990 and 1991 alone. However, the biggest and crudest cut of all is the cutting of $2.7 billion out of the budget for the Department of National Defence. The Government White Paper on Defence turned out to be a sham. Instead of rebuilding and refurbishing our defence capabilities, the Government has turned our military into the joke of the free world.
The cruelest cut of all came with closing of CFB Summarised and to a lesser extent, CFB Portage la Prairie. In the process, 3,000 jobs will be lost in Summer-side which will raise the unemployment rate there to 36 per cent. This will leave the gulf region with no aerial
Unemployment Insurance Act
reconnaissance, no airborne environmental and drug surveillance and a delay in the response of search and rescue operations. In addition, the Government has so mismanaged the fishery in Atlantic Canada that fish plant after fish plant has closed while foreign overfishing continues and even, it seems, is being encouraged to continue.
To top everything the Government, after hacking its way through every economic sector including tourism, and creating even higher levels of unemployment throughout Atlantic Canada, is now going to make it more difficult to qualify for unemployment insurance. This is an example of the new government mathematics. It states that less plus less equals more. The Government is going to cut $2.9 billion out of the unemployment commission moneys.
I would like to take a few minutes now to show how the new unemployment insurance changes will affect Prince Edward Island. First, the new changes will have a negative impact calculated by the Government to be 10.3 per cent. This can be compared to our sister Atlantic provinces where the negative impact will be only 4.6 per cent and to Canada as a whole where the negative impact will be 5.2 per cent. These are the Government's own figures. As you see, Mr. Speaker, Prince Edward Island will suffer twice the negative impact of the country as a whole and twice the negative impact of the other Atlantic provinces, and the Government calls this fair and equitable treatment.
I have three questions I want to address concerning unemployment insurance. They are, one, what role does UI play in the provincial economy of Prince Edward Island; two, what impact will the proposed UI changes have on Prince Edward Island; and three, what is position of P.E.I. on the proposed changes?
Today unemployment insurance is one of the most important programs in Atlantic Canada, and it is especially so in Prince Edward Island. In fact, in 1988, Prince Edward Islanders received more than $138 million in benefits, or $1,076 for every man, woman and child in the Province compared to $422 for Canada as a whole. Further, the UI program provides more money to the provincial economy than some of the industries in the province. For example, last year an average of 11,000 persons received UI benefits in P.E.I. out of an average labour force of 62,000, which is 18 per cent. In other words, approximately one out of five Islanders in the

Unemployment Insurance Act
labour force relied on UI benefits at some time during the year. This is due primarily to our seasonal economy.
Clearly the direct impact of this program is very far-reaching. There are also significant indirect impacts. Islanders spent their UI benefits as consumers which, in turn, creates spin-off employment and thus impacts, not only on those who receive benefits, but also on the retail trade and on the service sectors. That is why UI plays such a vital role in a seasonal resource-based economy such as P.E.I.
Allow me at this time, Mr. Speaker, to describe the economy of P.E.I. to you. There are 128,000 people living on Prince Edward Island, and natural resources are the backbone of our economy. We are blessed with good, arable land, so agriculture is one of our major industries. We are an island so we have access to fish stocks such as lobster, cod, scallops, herring, oysters and so on. The beauty of our island is another natural resource, one that attracts more than 700,000 visitors each year. These are our basic industries; land, fish, and natural beauty. The industries which utilize these resources are, by their very nature, seasonal. There are, of course, other industries in P.E.I., but a significant percentage of our labour force is dependent on these seasonal industries.
The UI program supports the needs of those employed in seasonal jobs while at the same time supporting the needs of private sector employers in the rural areas of our country.
Why is UI so important? It is because you cannot fish lobster or process fish during the winter. We have a slight problem with ice around Prince Edward Island during the winter. It is because potatoes cannot be grown during the winter and it is because our tourist resort areas become like ghost towns during the winter. That is why we require UI, in order to supplement the incomes of those Islanders who cannot find work as well as those who cannot find full-time work.
The proposal to increase the number of weeks worked to qualify for UI benefits is based on the erroneous assumption that there are more weeks of employment available and that people just do not want to work them.
P.E.I. has a very short tourist season. July and August are the high season tourist months with a shorter season in June and September. What are Islanders supposed to do to get the number of required weeks if their employer only operates 10 weeks a year? Does the federal Government expect those employers to stay open longer when there are no tourists and there is no income? We cannot ask our tourists to ignore the fact that they cannot swim in May or October. We cannot ask our potato farmers to harvest their crop in December. Our economy is a seasonal one.
The role UI plays in our provincial economy is one of tremendous importance. The proposed changes will significantly impact on Islanders who can least afford it. The question is, what is the real impact of the proposed UI changes? The impact can be described in one word, "devastating". We know that our province will be the one most affected by the proposed changes.
We have, with the data available, calculated some of the repercussions for P.E.I. Given the increase in the number of work weeks required to draw UI benefits, P.E.I. could lose as much as $18 million. A reduction in the length of benefits could mean a loss of another $6 million. The impact on provincial government programs such as welfare assistance has not been included in these estimates but they will add to the increase. In total, based on a conservative estimate, and I do not use that word in a pejorative sense here, P.E.I. could lose as much as $27 million in UI benefits alone which would result in very significant spin-off losses as well.
One of the arguments made in defence of the changes is that P.E.I. will lose benefits but gain additional dollars through the Labour Force Development Strategy. In order for this argument to apply, the federal Government would have to do two things; first, it would have to institute an extensive and comprehensive job creation program. There is no point in training people for jobs which do not exist unless they want to force people to move to central Canada. Second, it would have to negotiate extensively with provinces to ensure that the programs are responsive to the uniqueness of each region in this country.

The diversity of this country must be recognized in the Labour Force Development Strategy. The new strategy should not be solely driven by private sector training. The whole thrust of the Canadian Jobs Strategy is to involve the private sector in providing training. P.E.I. has a very small private sector, one which can only do so much training. How many times can you ask the same employer to train the unemployed for jobs that do not exist? It is not feasible to expect the limited private sector in our province to provide more meaningful and effective training for the unemployed, especially if they have to absorb a significant portion of the cost.
The federal proposal to change UI will substantially reduce benefits to Islanders but the program proposed to replace them will not substantially benefit Islanders unless the programs are sensitive to the provincial economy. The training programs must be geared towards a growth that will provide long-term jobs with a large number of private sector employers. Unfortunately that does not describe the current economy of P.E.I.
The final question to be addressed is the position of P.E.I. on the proposed UI changes. P.E.I. has a unique economy. The current UI program recognizes and complements that uniqueness. This country is made up of diverse regions. Indeed the success of the country is based on recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of each region. We rely on UI in our region. We sincerely wish that we did not have to do that. All provinces, especially P.E.I., would like to have a booming economy that creates full-time jobs. However, the reality is that we do not. Programs must recognize and deal with the reality of each province. Each province is unique in its own right. In fact, Canada is diversity. Therefore, all programs must be both receptive and responsive to the needs of all Canadians. The current UI program has been successful in respecting that criteria.
This is not to suggest that there are not some positive proposals in the Labour Force Development Strategy. The Maternal Parental Sickness Benefits Program will in fact benefit Canadians. The proposed arrangements will provide more generous income protection for those Canadians involved. Furthermore, providing benefits to those over the age of 65 corrects an inequity which existed within the UI system.
Unemployment Insurance Act
Permitting workers on sickness or maternity benefits during a labour dispute to receive benefits also eliminates an unfair situation for those workers. While there is some merit in some of the proposed UI changes, however, I must say clearly and unequivocably, P.E.I. does not support increasing the number of weeks required to draw benefits and decreasing the number of weeks those benefits can be collected.
There is another aspect of the Government's proposed UI program with which I strongly disagree, and that is the Government's decision to withdraw from the funding of the program. It would seem that the federal Government has a responsibility to Canadians from Vancouver to St. John's, Newfoundland. We cannot shirk that responsibility by suggesting that employers and employees should absorb the total cost of a program designed and administered by the federal Government.
I would also like to address another critical issue in our province, and that is the announcement in the federal Budget of the closure of the Canadian Forces Base at Summerside. Closure of this base would have a tremendous effect on Prince Edward Island and on the Summerside economy.
There are more than 1,300 direct jobs at stake, as well as 2,000 indirect jobs. This represents 4.4 per cent of employment in the province. Our unemployment rate could increase to 60 per cent or higher. This would be a most devastating blow to our province. If Ontario or Quebec were to lose the same percentage of jobs, it would represent over 200,000 jobs in those two provinces.
There would not be enough ink in the newspapers in Upper and Lower Canada to tell the people of the country how devastating this would be, and how they would force the Government to change its mind if any government was going to take 200,000 jobs out of the economy of Toronto or Montreal.
How would a federal Member from Ontario feel if that number of jobs were lost? How would their Premier feel?
People in Prince Edward Island are for just and equitable treatment. I urge this Government to reconsider its decision. Our economy cannot absorb such a tremendous increase in the number of unemployed. The

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
closure of CFB Summerside will further increase regional disparity. We will become more and more the poor cousins of Canada.
My request is simple and clear. Change the decision. Do not increase the number of weeks required to draw unemployment insurance. Do not reduce the number of weeks of benefits which can be drawn.
P.E.I. cannot accept closure of Canadian Forces Base in Summerside. Our economy in Prince County depends on the base for its survival. It contributes more to the economy of Prince County than the fishery. Our feelings run so deep on this issue that doubt is now being cast by our Premier on his support for the Meech Lake Accord.
In conclusion, Canada is a great country. We are admired throughout the world for our ability to respect diversity. We respect the uniqueness of our provinces. This principle forms a foundation of our country. Programs such as UI and defence spending respect that principle. Changing the number of weeks required to draw, and reducing the duration of benefits, as well as the closing of CFB Summerside violates that principle. We must not let that happen. The Government is sowing the wind, and they will reap the whirlwind.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Member for Egmont (Mr. McGuire) as he spoke on unemployment insurance and the care that he has for his constituency in Prince Edward Island.
I commend him for doing his best to represent the needs of his constituents. I would urge him, however, to think again before making a speech like he did now. When he uses terms like scorched earth policy, it is the kind of language which works once, maybe twice, but after that not only does the language lose its effectiveness, but the Member who uses it loses effectiveness.
People watch to see what happens afterward. They look for a scorched earth policy and they find that after all it is not a scorched earth policy. Then they do a little bit of a double-take. They say: "Look, we heard this man say it".
I commend him for thinking of the variable needs of Canada, the regions. He said, and I think I quote him accurately, "the policy ought to reflect the regions of
Canada". This is exactly what unemployment insurance does. It reflects the needs of the regions of Canada. There are variable unemployment rates across Canada. The Bill recognizes those various needs across Canada. The Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) was a Member of the Government when that whole concept was brought in. I am sure he voted for it, as a good Member of the Government at the time.
The whole idea of variable entry programs was brought in 10 or 12 years ago, based upon the varying needs of the regions of Canada and the employment needs of those regions. I would encourage the Member for Egmont to keep that in mind as he speaks.
I would point out to him at the same time that if he wants to do that, he should also listen to the party line as espoused by his party leaders on the subject, because his finance critic just three months ago tomorrow, to be exact-


An Hon. Member:: What time?


Benno Friesen: were largely blue collar workers. They were usually unorganized and usually had no union leadership.
In the ensuing years, labour has become organized, thankfully. Not only do the labour unions work largely for the blue collar workers, but they also have trained economists on their staff, economists with M.BAs and so forth. The conditions have changed.
We have tripartite agreements and arrangements. Conditions have changed, maybe not the way we want them yet, but the circumstances are different. The unemployment insurance Bill is designed to be flexible enough to meet the changing conditions in Canada.
I ask Members to read a book like "Mega Trends", which was published a few years ago, and is simply a composite of magazine and newspaper articles. They are statements from opinion makers from around the world outlining what the mega trends are for the world, and therefore, for each of the economies in the world.
By and large, the message of that book is that the labour force, particularly in the western world but certainly in the other countries too, is changing. Conditions are changing. We have moved from an industrial society in the western world to an information society. There are entirely different kinds of working conditions. There are entirely different kinds of labour contracts.


An Hon. Member:: Unemployment is still the same.


Benno Friesen: Unemployment hurts just as much as it ever did before. It sure does. That is why we need the protection that unemployment insurance gives. Unemployment insurance is not the insurance people need the most. They need the opportunity to get a job. If the workforce does not change along with society it will not matter how much insurance a person has. If workers do not change to the needs of the workplace they will still be unemployed. We need changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act to enable workers to change to the circumstances that exist in our society.
I know that my conservative friends in the NDP want nothing to change because they are the most conservative people in this House. They want nothing to change. If something is entrenched, keep it that way, because we
Unemployment Insurance Act
might lose something. There is no risk involved in that Party. The NDP do not want risk at all.


Charles L. Caccia: What are you for?


Benno Friesen: I support the ability to change. Does the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) do that? The people on the other side want to keep things as they are. If it were up to these folks it would still be the same Bill we had in 1940 because as far as they are concerned things never change. The only thing that changes over there is their leadership. If Members opposite wonder why they were rejected last November, they should listen to what their Leader said when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) introduced his first economic plan for Canada. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said "This thing will lose us 50,000 to 100,000 jobs". People in Canada remembered that. They said, "Hey, we remember there was going to be gross unemployment because of the financial picture that the Finance Minister was planning for Canada". Instead the reverse happened and rather than lose 50,000 jobs we gained over one million in four years. Not bad. For this group to paint the Government as the enemy of the workers when we have created 1.4 million jobs for the people, they are not the ones to talk.


Mr. Volpe:: You are not even up to recession levels.


Benno Friesen: Not even up to recession levels? I will tell this wizard from-


Mr. Sobeski:: That's why manufacturers cannot find people to work. Because they need training and that is what this Bill will do and you know it.


An Hon. Member:: Come on.


Benno Friesen: Some day I will get back into the debate. I think this is my show.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: What this Bill does is provide a labour force development strategy for Canada.


Charles L. Caccia: Right on. That's good.


Benno Friesen: The Member for Davenport is happy now. That was music to his ears. He knows that the unemployed-the few that there are in Toronto-


An Hon. Member:: What will it do for your unemployed constituents?


Benno Friesen: It means jobs.

Unemployment Insurance Act


Charles L. Caccia: Tell us how.


Benno Friesen: If a worker is 45 or 50 years old and loses his job because of technological change in my riding, he is going to benefit from this Bill because he will be retrained and be able to get a job. He does not want to sit at home. He wants to work. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has often said, "The best social program is a job". That is what this program does.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He is from Alice in Wonderland.


Benno Friesen: At least I have the attention of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker.


Mrs. Maheu:: Tell us-


Benno Friesen: I did not hear what the Member said but I can tell her what the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren) said. Would you like to hear again what he said? He said, "the Government has few options if it does not take tough action, such as cutting unemployment insurance". I want the Members opposite to know that we are not talking about cutting the insurance. We are talking about making it possible to use those programs to give the unemployed more opportunities. We are not going to cut the insurance the way the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North said we should do it.
What we want to do is use that money in such a way that people can adjust to changing circumstances. The Members opposite think circumstances never change. They want things to stay as they always have. When you are in a leadership role, as this Government is, people recognize that circumstances change. We have technological change here in Canada. The sooner Members of the Opposition wake up to that, the better off they will be. They will start representing the workers as soon as they recognize that.
The Bill introduces a labour force development strategy. Workers who are unemployed can retrain themselves, use their talents and apply them in a new way in the workplace and get the jobs they want. Not only do workers have to adjust, but so do employers. Opposition Members may want to heckle me on some points but I think they will agree with me that in Canada employers need to get behind the whole concept of training and retraining employees. Canada lags behind the industrial countries in this case. It certainly lags behind the United States. It is time for our industrial leaders to think in
terms of their employees and adapting them to changing circumstances.
The private sector now has to assume a leadership role in the training of workers as it has done in other industrialized nations. We have to do this in Canada. We want to make training in skills an every day part of our workplace so that the worker on the job knows that there is a future for him, that he can adapt and that the employer has his best interests at heart.


Mr. Fisher:: That would be something new.


Benno Friesen: The Hon. Member from Saskatchewan who thinks in terms of class conflict constantly because that is the mentality of his Party-it is them or us-cannot ever envisage there might be a change in the mindset of the employer. To the Member it is still the old sweatshop bosses of the industrial revolution days. But there is a change in the workplace, Mr. Speaker. There are employers who have the best interests of the employees at heart. If the Member wants to carry on with his old theories of class conflict, let him do that. But the worker will suffer if that is case. The employer will manage but the worker will suffer.
The Government is proposing to increase the resources available for training under Section 26 of the Act and the new Section 26(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The primary tool of the program will total $800 million for the retraining of employees.


Charles L. Caccia: Over how many years? Tell us.


Benno Friesen: And it will provide income support. How many unemployed are there? How much does it need? The Bill is revised now to meet the needs of the unemployed, don't you think it will be in the future, Mr. Speaker?
We are proposing that UI recipients with vital business plans can capitalize on their ingenuity by taking benefits to help defray the costs of start up in a business.


Charles L. Caccia: Reducing the benefits.


Benno Friesen: The Member for Davenport says reducing the benefits. That is what his friend from Egmont said too. If the Member reads the legislation he will know that is not true.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: What do you mean?
June 21, 1989


Benno Friesen: The first requirement is to be accurate. It is not reducing the benefits, it is giving the employee, the worker, the unemployed some flexibility and some credit. Maybe he has an idea the worker wants to embark upon. It is not necessarily the employer who has all the good ideas. A worker maybe an entrepreneur who wants to start up his own business. Doesn't the Member think a former employee who is now unemployed is capable of changing and adapting to society? Do Hon. Members not think that he has any good ideas? Give him some credit. This will help people to start up businesses.


Charles L. Caccia: He needs an income, that is what he needs.


Benno Friesen: In some cases it will help them to relocate to places where there are better job prospects.
The man from Davenport is sitting comfortably in a Toronto region with an unemployment rate of about 4 per cent. He can talk, but if he were to come to some of the other regions he would not be quite so glib). The unemployment rate has dropped in some areas from 17 per cent to 13 per cent. In British Columbia it has dropped 14 per cent to 11 per cent or recently even 9 per cent. I would hope that the Hon. Member for Davenport would see that as a success in the program. He can sit on his smug employment figures for Toronto, but give the rest of the country a chance and let the people capitalize on the variables that exist in the new legislation.
We want to adjust the Act to reflect the realities of today's workplace. It will reflect the realities of the Charter. I do not have to, but for the benefit of Hon. Members I will list some of the changes.


Shirley Maheu: Tell me how it will affect immigrant women.


Benno Friesen: There will be 15 weeks of maternity benefits available during the period surrounding the birth of a child, and 10 weeks of parental benefits will be available to natural and adoptive parents for either mother or father or shared between them.


Mrs. Marleau:: What about-


Benno Friesen: Now I hear the Member from Sudbury, I believe it is. Is it Sudbury?


Diane Marleau: Could be.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Benno Friesen: Oh, close enough. She has something to say. I am only saying that we are trying to update the legislation to meet the needs of the Charter. Does the Hon. Member believe in that kind of equality, or does she want to heckle me on that too?


Shirley Maheu: What about equality for immigrant women?


Benno Friesen: Oh, she accepts equality. That is terrific. They are being enlightened and have now come to the equality part of the Charter. That is comforting to know.
There is another variable involved in the legislation, and that has to do with other changing needs. There are people across Canada who are saying that if there are areas of Canada with low unemployment, why should people have the privilege of quitting a job and qualifying within 10 weeks? They are saying that they thought this was an insurance program for times of calamity.
An hour ago I heard the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor say that in areas like the Fraser Valley it used to be that people could enter the program at 10 weeks, and now there is nothing. That is not even true. There is something. It is longer than 10 weeks, but they can enter. It is not that there is nothing. This man from Essex- Windsor aspires to leadership, by the way, but he does not even quote the provisions of the Act properly or accurately.


Diane Marleau: Brainwashed.


Benno Friesen: Yes, he has been brainwashed. Is it right that if there is an area with high employment, where people are begging for workers, that on the spur of the moment a person should be able to quit a job and draw unemployment insurance? Why should people be able to do that? It is supposed to be calamity insurance, I thought.
It is true that in areas of high employment the people will have to work longer to get benefits. Are Hon. Members saying that it should not that way? Do members of the Liberal Party say that it should not be that way? I would like to hear from them. If there is good employment in the area, it seems to me that the people should have to work longer before they draw unemployment insurance benefits.
I note that you say my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I know that will disappoint Members opposite. I want to assure them that Canadians who deserve support have support under this legislation. It exists and will continue to exist. The unemployed of Canada can count on it, and I know

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
they will count on the kind of support this program gives to them.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we just heard from the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) a glib, shallow and incoherent intervention. He supports this Bill because it is change for the sake of change. He is asking the unemployed of his riding to read the speeches of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulro-ney) to find comfort when they are unemployed and run out of benefits. He is an embarrassment to his own Party and to this own colleagues, coming as he does from an area of high unemployment.
Earlier, I was surprised by the intervention of the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) who spoke with his fat cat view of the world. The Hon. Member for Don Valley West and the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock, I am sure, share the same basic philosophy. They believe in the market-place, and the Hon. Member for Don Valley West made a speech underlining the importance of the market-place.
When it comes to the unemployed, when it comes to the little people, when it comes to those who cannot defend themselves in the market-place, he believes in the importance of the market-place. However, when it comes to large corporations, when it comes to giving subsidies to large oil and gas companies, when it comes to giving support to megaprojects, all of a sudden there is a conversion; then he believes in subsidies and he no longer believes in the market-place.
How can one be consistent, convincing and politically in line with the thinking of Canadians with such a contradiction in terms? How can one be convincing in the eyes of one's constituents by speaking such profound, basic nonsense? The market-place has to work for the little people but, my gosh, they believe in subsidies when it comes to the corporate world.
The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock and the Hon. Member for Don Valley West will draw unemployment insurance after the next election. They will get a taste of it when their turn will come. I am sure that the former Member for Prince Albert, Mr. Diefenbaker, will be turning in his grave with rage if he heard the speeches made by those two Progressive Conservative Members. He was the great defender of the small people, of the
weak in society. He would turn in his grave if he heard that kind of nonsense.
What is Bill C-21 all about? It is not a question of the deficit. That is a smoke-screen. It is not a question of believing, as we have been accused of, in throwing money to the unemployed in order to solve the question of unemployment. It seems to me that the issue is the integrity of a key social program which has served Canada very well over the last 50 years.
Why do we on this side say that? We are the architects of that social program. It is our product. We made it better over the years. We see the program as being intended as a bridge for people who are between jobs, people who have no control over the vagaries of the market-place, that great market-place in which the Hon. Member for Don Valley West believes so strongly. People do not have control of that and therefore can lose employment and do not know when they will find other employment.
Second, we believe that the program stabilizes the population and provides stability. It prevents Canadians from moving and eventually living in 10 or 11 urban centres. Therefore, it is a very important social role.
Third, it reduces the burden on the provincial treasurers because it takes on responsibility for the unemployed rather than saying as does the Bill: "You take over this burden. Once you run out of your time, you go to the provincial social and family services and ask them to help you".
Fourth, we believe that it facilitates labour market requirements. It would take a lengthy intervention to go into details, but it is obvious that a good unemployment insurance scheme provides for a number of services and economic aids at the moment when needed for people who move from industry to industry, or sometimes even from region to region. We believe it is better to bring the jobs to the people than have the people move to the jobs.
Finally, it provides economic shock absorbers to certain segments in the workforce. For instance, the older workers on which my colleague the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) spoke so eloquently last night. It is a very important economic shock absorber for the older worker. Therefore, we would want to ensure that an older worker who becomes unemployed is not forced to turn to public assistance unduly



June 21, 1989

and too soon, but rather has the dignity of economic support through unemployment insurance until his or her employment situation is hopefully resolved.
Those are the five central pillars of ideology that have so far driven us in the evolution and the development of the unemployment insurance system, in which we believe profoundly. This is why we are here fighting against this measure of closure and the spirit of the Bill itself.

Mr. Speaker, I read with great interest a folder prepared in cooperation with the Regroupement de chomeurs et chomeuses du Quebec entitled Solidarite populaire Quebec and sub-titled, "Unemployment Insurance: $1.3 billion less, 200,000 beneficiaries cut!"
I found some examples on page 3. There is an example that I would like to bring to your attention because it is so typical, it is so well prepared, it describes a kind of working woman that can be found throughout Canada.
It says:
After working for 25 years without interruption in a Montreal candy factory, Christine, 55 years old, earns $333 gross a week. She is no longer able to meet the increased rate of production that her boss requires.
That is very important!
She quits her job. The Commission rules that she does not have a valid reason for quitting her job.
Now, under the present plan, Christine can receive a 6-week penalty and after 6 weeks, 44 weeks of benefits at the normal rate of 60 per cent of her salary.
But after the change with the coming into force of Bill C-21, Christine will have a 12-week penalty and during that time, Christine will not even be entitled to welfare; then she will have 37 weeks of benefits at a reduced rate of 50 per cent of her salary.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if that is social progress, if that is what the Conservative Party which calls itself Progressive has in mind for the Canadian people? I ask you that, Mr. Speaker!
Unemployment Insurance Act

At this point I would like to draw attention, very slowly, but it is necessary, to what will happen to people who become unemployed from British Columbia to Atlantic Canada, for the benefit of those back-benchers of the Tory Party who do not seem to know what will happen when this legislation comes into effect, judging from the speeches that have been made, some of their interventions, and some of their questions.
Starting with British Columbia, in the Kootenays under the present system a worker who becomes unemployed could receive benefits for 42 weeks. When Bill C-21 comes into effect, it will become 34 weeks. In the Kelowna region, the drop will be from 42 weeks at the present time to 33 weeks; in Kamloops from 42 weeks to 37 weeks.
To those Members who come from the Prairies, it is interesting to note that in southern Manitoba under the present system the unemployed worker receives 26 weeks of benefits, and that will drop to 21 weeks. In southern Saskatchewan it will drop from 26 weeks to 21 weeks. In Yorkton and Prince Albert it will drop from 32 weeks to 27 weeks. In the northern part of the prairie provinces it will drop from 42 weeks to 34 weeks.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: What is it for Davenport?


Charles L. Caccia: In the Liberal Party, we tend to embrace the whole country. We care for the unemployed no matter where they are. An unemployed person in the Yukon is as of much importance to us as if that person were in our own riding. We are responsible to everybody. That is our mandate.
In the remainder of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta the drop is 8 weeks, from 42 weeks to 34 weeks. In eastern Ontario the drop is from 22 weeks to 17 weeks, that is one month and one week less. In Belleville and Peterborough the drop is from 28 weeks to 21 weeks. In Sudbury it is from 29 weeks to 24 weeks; northwestern Ontario, from 28 weeks to 21 weeks; Windsor, from 22 weeks to 17 weeks; and Sarnia, from 25 weeks to 19 weeks.
This is where the unemployment is. This is where we have to concentrate our attention. These people do not

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
have control of the economy of their own region. When they become unemployed they cannot go off to the next employer across the street, because there are not that many employers.
Let us deal with Quebec.

-in Trois-Rivieres, it will go from 40 weeks now to 33; in the Eastern Townships, from 28 to 24; in the Gaspe, from 42 to 36; in northern Quebec, from 42 to 34-

There are also some pretty drastic drops in Newfoundland. In the Avalon Peninsula the drop is from 42 weeks to 33 weeks. I ask myself, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you do the same: How can the unemployed men and women in Avalon seek alternative employment in that part of the world?
This is where the greatness of the system comes into play. It provides economic stability and economic insurance, unless one wants to go to Toronto. Perhaps the plan of the Progressive Conservative Government is that all Canadians should live in 11 or 12 cities.
In Prince Edward Island it goes from 42 weeks to 33 weeks. In Halifax it is from 28 weeks to 21 weeks. I am selectively reading, Mr. Speaker. If I were to read every line my time would be gone, and you would not want to miss the rest of my speech.
In Saint John, New Brunswick it goes from 38 weeks to 30 weeks; in Fredericton, from 36 weeks to 30; Madawas-ka-Restigouche, from 42 weeks to 36 weeks. This is a sketch across the nation of what this measure will do.
I wonder what are the feelings and what goes through the minds of Members such as the Members from Abitibi, Mercier, Annapolis Valley-Hants, South Shore, Temiscamingue, Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup, Manicouagan, the Gaspe, Pontiac, Peace River, Red Deer, Charlesbourg, Levis, Richmond-Wolfe, Trois-Rivieres, Cumberland-Colchester, Timiskaming, Matapedia-Matane, Beauce, and Bonaventure.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Dispense.


Charles L. Caccia: Yes, it hurts. You would like to have it dispensed with.
What goes through the minds of the Members from Brome-Missisquoi, Fundy-Royal, Jonquiere, Chicoutimi, Parry Sound-Muskoka, Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, and Crowfoot, just to mention a few Tory ridings? They have not been very vocal in this debate. Actually, they have been strangely silent. I wonder why. Perhaps I am naive.
Perhaps Bill C-21 does not leave much to write home about. That is why they have not been so vocal in this debate. That is why this Bill is coming to a vote tonight in a hurry, fast, because we would not want to have trouble in the back benches of the Progressive Conservative Party. We want to prevent that. When the penny finally drops, when they finally catch up with what is written in Bill C-21, then perhaps they will wake up. However, then it will be tomorrow. It will be too late. That is why there has been such silence.
While the defence budget under the Tories is going up this year, and while subsidies to fossil fuel megaprojects are going up and being maintained to the tune of billions of dollars as a policy of the Government, the Progressive Conservative Government attacks the little people. That is the bottom line of this Bill. In the process it is making a sham of a fine key social program which has served several generations of Canadians so well.
My colleague from Egmont who spoke earlier reminded us that there is not only that but that the Tories have decided also that there is no room for the public sector any longer in the unemployment insurance program. When this Bill comes into effect the Government of Canada will drop its participation in this fund. That is really a sham, a disgrace. It is backward.
The country has been served very well by tripartite forms of government. Unemployment insurance has made progress over the decades because the Government, on behalf of the public, has participated in it with business and labour. Only the Government can speak for those who are not organized. Only the Government can speak for those who are not in business. Thus the tripartite formula is a good one. However, now it will be closed down. This is the end of it. It will be run by two parties-labour and business.
Guess who will run it eventually? I will leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, to guess and to tell us who in the end will run the unemployment insurance program. It does not take a genius to imagine who will do that once it is left to business. Therefore the future of this scheme is doomed

to become weaker and weaker. It will not serve the little people who need it and use it and who have so far benefited from it.
I will conclude on this remark. It is quite revealing that a Conservative Premier in the country-not a Liberal but a Conservative from Nova Scotia-was quoted as saying on Bill C-21: "This is of grave concern to me because that means there is a transfer of funding for these people from the unemployment insurance books to our social service books". Those are the words of Mr. Buchanan, not a wide-eyed radical. This was not a Liberal Premier but a Tory Premier in the Province of Nova Scotia. That is the most severe indictment of this measure that could ever be expected.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity in tonight's debate to address some of the issues before us. I must say that I really was not looking to speak in this particular debate on unemployment insurance, but I am prompted by some of the remarks of Members of the opposition Parties, including the one who just spoke, to do so.
I think their remarks really demonstrate how they are caught in the trap of being prisoners of their own rhetoric. They are hostages of the past. They refuse to learn from the mistakes that they have made and fail to recognize the changes that have been taking place in the labour force in Canada.
I would first like to mention a couple of things prompted by the speech we just heard a moment ago by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). He said that the Government was maintaining support for energy projects while refusing support for unemployment insurance. I will take the remark as it was stated without debating it, for a moment. We see the viewpoint of someone who for some reason or another would prefer to have people receive unemployment insurance than work in a productive capacity.
I know he has concerns about energy megaprojects and some of the environmental considerations connected thereto. However, I want to tell him that while I recognize those concerns I would certainly have to think
Unemployment Insurance Act
that supporting projects that employ people in a positive way, a way in which they can contribute to the economy, has to be of more value than simply paying them not to work. That is what the reforms of this program are all about.
I also want to take a bit of a look at the past because he raised these issues in this way and mention at the start just a few of the things that that former Government did. I am not sure if he was a part of it then, but a look at history is always important.
The unemployment insurance program was created in 1940. One would think that any program created by government from time to time should be reviewed to see whether or not it is meeting the current conditions. In 1971 there was such a review. It was conducted by the Government under the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Trudeau. His Government overhauled it. When it was changed the most noticeable change we could see was that the costs were doubled. It went from a cost of $900 million per year to $1.8 billion one year later in spite of favourable economic conditions. Presumably, then, this was not something that one would have desired, that is to say, not necessarily the question of the cost but the fact that more people were seeking unemployment insurance. It was becoming something which was seen as an opportunity for income as opposed to working and seeking productive employment.
In 1974 the Liberals decided to make some amendments. I think the changes they made then demonstrate the hypocrisy of what we heard just a moment ago. After being re-elected in 1974 the Liberals decided it was time for belt tightening and introduced three major Bills to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. The purpose of these measures was one only-to save money.
Bill C-79, which was introduced at that time, took away the right of workers 65 and older to participate in the unemployment insurance program. It reduced the special benefit payment for claimants with dependants, the Bill before us today we are returning the right to persons over 65 years of age to participate in the unemployment insurance scheme. We are reversing a change that was made in 1974 by the government of the day, supported by the Party of the Member who just

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
spoke, which took away the right of workers over 65 to participate in the system, as a cost-saving measure.
Bill C-27 increased the number of weeks of work needed to collect benefits from eight to between ten and fourteen, depending on the region. It was obviously recognized that there were differences in the regions of this country and therefore a change was made to save money, but done in a way that it affected the regions differently.
Finally, Bill C-14 reduced the maximum amount of benefits from 66.6 per cent to 60 per cent of wages earned, and penalized repeaters who were mostly seasonal workers.
When we lookback at those facts, it is difficult to listen to some of the rhetoric we heard a moment ago with any seriousness at all. Either they have had a mass transformation or they simply adopted what has become the habit of defending everything, to refuse any change, refuse to seek any change and propose no solution.
I want to return to why I believe this Bill should be supported. We do not necessarily gain by looking back 15 years. Rather, we want to look to the future and decide whether what we are trying to do is consistent with society of today and the society we expect in the future.
This Bill is worth supporting primarily for two reasons. First, it is an important step in making the unemployment insurance system responsive and efficient. I believe the changes make it a better program for all of the country, because it gives recognition to the changing nature of our economy.
As Members know, the proposed amendments and the proposed Labour Force Development Strategy are designed to address skills training and employment. The Unemployment Insurance Act amendments are a part of a series of changes in an attempt to make our employment programming more effective. By including the private educational sector and individual employees, the federal Government is making a concerted effort to change the direction of unemployment insurance from an attitude of the Government looking after one's interest to an attitude whereby the Government and industry will help you to get on your feet again soon.


Ron Fisher: The Government is not doing it any more. They are paying for it themselves.


Mr. Dorin:: The Member says the Government is not doing it any more because they are paying for it themselves. We heard earlier from a Member of the New Democratic Party who suggested that because the Government was restructuring the way the program would be financed-


Ron Fisher: After January, 1990 funding will come out of the workers' pockets.


Murray Dorin: It was restructured in the way the program would be financed and it will be financed essentially from the premiums. There will not be contributions from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.


Ron Fisher: That is right.


Murray Dorin: The Member states that, and it is true. What that seems to imply is that somehow those contributions were coming from somewhere else. It is a game typical of Members in that Party who somehow think we can have more and more and nobody has to pay. They think there is someone else who is paying the bill. The fact is that the unemployment insurance program is either going to be funded by premiums or by income tax or some other tax. If it is funded by income tax, whether the pay cheque deduction at the end of the month is on the line marked unemployment insurance, or the line called Canada Pension Plan, or the line that says income, the person receiving the cheque-


Ron Fisher: Unemployment insurance is for income support, not for training.


Murray Dorin: For the person receiving the pay cheque, it does not really make a great difference whether the deduction comes under the fine print of unemployment insurance, CPP or income tax. I suggest that it does not make a difference.


Ron Fisher: You have never been unemployed, then. I guess you have never been unemployed.


Murray Dorin: We are not talking about the unemployed.


Ron Fisher: That is precisely who we are talking about.


Murray Dorin: The people who are paying for the program are not the unemployed. The unemployed are receiving the benefit. The people who are paying for the program
June 21, 1989

are the employed, the people who are working, earning wages, paying taxes and paying UI premiums.
We can talk all we want, the fact is that a change to paying it from the premiums rather than it simply being taken from the income tax that is deducted from the cheque will give employees an opportunity to see what the program is costing them. It may help them decide whether the program is giving them the value for their money.
I cannot believe that some people would suggest that the money comes from somewhere else. It comes from the same people. There is only one group of taxpayers in this country, and they are either going to pay it in one form or another. I reject the suggestion that changing the system so that premiums will pay the cost of the program will have an adverse impact upon it. The alternative would be to raise income tax or some other tax that Canadians will have to pay in any event.


Ron Fisher: Maybe corporate tax. How would that be?


Murray Dorin: The corporate tax is being raised because the corporate premium is being raised. If you want to talk about getting it from the corporations, the corporations will be paying it through the premiums.
It is a sharing of cost by the corporate sector and the employees for a benefit to be paid to people who find themselves out of work for one reason or another.
Let me return to the question of education and training. While we all recognize that in Canada there is a significantly well trained labour force, probably the second best trained labour force in the world, we also realize that other countries are increasing their skill levels, increasing their productivity and their competitiveness. It is important for us to respond.
One way to respond is to give people whose skills may no longer apply to today's market an opportunity to become productive again. Surely, using the unemployment insurance program to do that, rather than simply giving them funds to look for jobs that no longer exist, has to be a step in the right direction.
The day after the Labour Force Development Strategy was discussed on national television, I was contacted by an institution in Edmonton. They were ready to start training more workers immediately, if the Government was willing to help. I know they are hoping for a sound
Unemployment Insurance Act
outcome to this debate and the consultations this summer.
The reason for my support of this Bill is based on a simple premise. That is, Canadians want to work. I am convinced that if we offer them the training and upgrading or the financing to go to work, they will take it.


Ms. Black:: What about jobs?


Murray Dorin: For jobs that will be available in new ways because we know that the world is changing. The Member can talk about trying to keep people employed in jobs that no longer exist.
I grew up in a small town. Every small town had a railway station, a bakery, a butcher shop, livery stable and a whole range of businesses that no longer exist today. We will never go back to those days. We will not be able to remain where we are. People have jobs today, jobs that will not exist one year, five years or ten years from now. Those jobs will no longer exist. We cannot try to maintain those jobs in a changing world and the man for the products and services they produce is no longer there. What we have to try to do is to find new jobs for those people and ensure that they are adequately trained to fill them. Five million Canadians a year change jobs. So job change is not the issue. Neither is trying to hold onto jobs that are no longer relevant to today's society. Surely what we want to do is train people for the society of the future.
I want to make a few comments about the capitalization and lump sum payments and how they reflect a commitment to change. Really these are an important statement for individual entrepreneurship. There can really be only three classes where workers go on unemployment insurance. Either they are unemployed for reasons beyond their control, they are temporarily out of the workforce for family reasons, or they have chosen not to work.
In the first scenario, when the person is unemployed for reasons of technology or economics, the proposed changes are improvements. Currently the rationale of the UI program is simply that you will continue to receive benefits until you find another job for which you are qualified, or until you go on another form of social assistance. This is not an exceptionally efficient use of finances, as I said earlier. It is a waste of the workers' time and talents, especially since they may be in a situation where there is really no hope of finding the

Unemployment Insurance Act
kind of jobs that they have been doing in the past. By encouraging the person to get additional education or start a new business venture, we are making an unemployed worker into a better and more productive one.
The second scenario, where employees leave for family reasons, is also being improved with these amendments. Expanded maternity leave and a recognition that adoptive parents as well need time to adjust to the additional person in their lives will make for a more responsive program. With women an increasingly important part of the workforce, these revisions help ensure fairness in the system. The same holds true for older workers who do not want to retire at age 65. By extending benefits, the Government is making the system fairer for those older workers who want to continue in the workforce. That is an important measure because while in the past 20 years we have seen high levels of unemployment, these are in large measure the result of the baby boom after the Second World War with those people coming into the workforce.
In the next 10, 15, 20 years the reverse is going to be true. As these people grow older and begin to reach retirement age, we do not have the numbers coming into the workforce. Therefore, while the problem of the 1970s and the 1980s was one of high unemployment, the problem of the 1990s and the years beyond, in my view, is going to be one of shortage of skilled workers. Therefore, I think it is quite appropriate that whereas in the past we were encouraging people aged 65 or even younger to retire from the workforce, for those who wish to continue we should we give them every opportunity to do so.
I would like to make mention of the people in the third category, those people who choose not to work. There is also a group of amendments and increased penalties for those who abuse the UI system. These are also an integral part of an efficient and fair approach. They make it clear that the UI system is for workers and not for conscientious objectors in the workforce.
I want to talk about fairness in the program. I have a great many constituents who come to see me with various complaints. These amendments move to solve some of the problems, but unfortunately not all of them. For example, I suppose that under the current system,
like the old one, it will still probably take several weeks for the contributor to receive the benefits to which he or she is legitimately entitled. That it can take months to receive a cheque strikes most of my constituents as unfair, especially since they are often receiving benefits for which perhaps they have paid over many months or years in the past. I have also heard from workers who could not collect benefits, and I am pleased to see that that issue is being addressed. I have also heard from people in the taxi industry and in the Armed Forces who currently do not believe the system is fair because they pay premiums and do not receive benefits. At some future time I would like to see that addressed.
On a positive note, the current amendments include a series of provisions to address current changes in the labour force, current factors of regional differences in the country. There is really no reason why we should offer the same level of benefits in an area where they have virtually full employment as we offer to an area in which there is less opportunity to find jobs. We know that in some areas of the country people can find work if they wish to. Again, this introduces an element of fairness.
I could speak longer on this topic, Mr. Speaker. I wish I had the opportunity. Maybe I will get that later tonight, but in the meantime I thank you for the time allotted to me and I will complete my remarks another day.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am really saddened by these changes for I believe that these changes strike at the very heart of some basic social tenets in Canada.
Canadians have clearly indicated that the principles of social justice are important to them. Yet somehow the Conservative Government has decided to turn its back on these principles. Canadians have worked very hard to develop a compassionate and dignified social system. We know the worth of a good job. We know the dignity of being able to provide for our families. We are horrified by the images of the poor and the homeless in Canada. We are horrified by the images of people lining up at food banks in our society. Over the past decades, we have made a conscious and a committed decision to ensure an economically viable means of support for all Canadians.
June 21, 1989

There are times when a person suddenly loses his or her job, and it can be for a variety of reasons. It can be for a simple reason, such as incompatibility with the workplace. It can be for a very complex reason, such as the shutdown of a factory in Ontario or the shutting down of fish processing plants in my province of British Columbia. It can be for reasons that are more repugnant than these. It can be because an employee must quit her job because she has been sexually harassed by her employer. That is the reality of unemployment today in Canada. It is demeaning and it is debilitating. Ask any one who has been unemployed. It attacks your selfworth, it traumatizes your family, it makes you unable to provide for your family. That is the reality of unemployment today.
Now, this Government has decided to attack unemployed Canadians. This Government knows what the face of unemployment is in Canada today. It is young people, it is women and it is visible minorities.
My question is, why is it always these groups that always get the raw end of the deal from this Government? Why is it always the disadvantaged who pay the price? In my riding of New Westminster-Burnaby these changes will have a big impact on the health of my community. Many of the jobs in my riding are dependent on the resource sector. It is important to cushion the lives of these workers during the boom and bust cycles. Right now people work 10 weeks in order to receive unemployment benefits. That is not a lot of time. It is in fact often difficult to accumulate much money during that working time. For those who work for minimum wage, you can be assured that little, if any, money has been put aside. If this person happens to lose his or her job, there is at least at this time the safety net provided by unemployment insurance benefits.
The benefit money is well used. With benefits many families are only able to cover the basics of every day life. Their discretionary income is little, it is slight, and people depend on these benefits to provide food, clothing and transportation for their families. The benefits must also cover the cost of their housing. As you know, the cost of housing is very high in the lower mainland of British Columbia where I come from. These changes are going to impact very heavily on British Columbia where the unemployment rate in April ranged from 9.2 per cent in the lower mainland to an astonishing 15.4 per cent in
Unemployment Insurance Act
Kamloops. There never have been enough jobs to go around.
I have some disturbing examples of the impact that the changes in qualification periods will have on the people in my riding. Under the old system, if someone worked 10 weeks they would be entitled to 32 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits. For those people who are fired after this Bill comes into effect with only 10 weeks of work, they have my heartfelt sympathy because they will receive nothing. Under the old system, those living in my riding and working 15 weeks could receive 37 weeks of assistance. Those people will now have nothing. Only those people who can receive 20 weeks of employment will get any scrap of benefit, but that benefit will be greatly reduced. Instead of receiving 42 weeks of insurance benefits, they will only get 31 weeks of benefits.
These are frightening statistics, Mr. Speaker. They are all the more frightening because unemployment is a plague which does hit the disadvantaged hardest, primarily women and younger people.


An Hon. Member:: Are we getting to maternity benefits now?


Dawn Black: Yes, I will. It is difficult for me to observe the Minister's new found commitment to retraining. It does, I suppose, make good headlines and give a capsule of hope to some unemployed Canadians, but let's look beyond the headlines and the catch phrases and look into the reality of these retraining proposals.
Canada does need a strong commitment to retraining. We need to remove women from the pink ghetto jobs. We need to give young people the opportunity to learn a skill, and we should offer hope to those who want to pursue non-traditional occupations. We must prepare ourselves for the changes that are brought about by technological change. Canada must make a commitment to a viable and productive retraining program.
Instead, what has the Government pieced together? It has made a commitment to retraining which is based on a suspect system of funding. It has decided to force the jobless to pay for those who want to upgrade. The Minister will shift $800 million from the UI fund in order to fund retraining. This money should not be coming from the jobless. This is a group which faces many battles already; they have few savings and sometimes have low

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
literacy skills, and we are telling them to fund those who wish to upgrade.


An Hon. Member:: You want to keep them at home rather than send them to school.


Dawn Black: This is unpalatable. What is to prevent a large corporation from using these funds to pay for upgrading programs for their middle and upper-level employees? I have seen no guarantees in this legislation that would prevent this. There are no guarantees. How will we go about retraining all those displaced by the free trade deal? We need a cohesive policy to face this challenge, not a piecemeal shuffle of funds from one program to another.
Why is $32 million of this money being used to pay for student on-the-job training? This money should be used for what it is intended for, the support of those who are unemployed. When will the Government make a responsible commitment to retraining?
The unemployment insurance cuts, as with every action that the Government has taken in this session, hits the disadvantaged the hardest; women and young people, native people, all of those who experience high unemployment levels. These are the people who are being most short-changed by this attack on our unemployment insurance system.
The unemployment rate for women is 7.9 per cent, higher than that for men which is 7.2 per cent. Women are in and out of the labour market more often than men. It is women who bear the brunt of the responsibility for child rearing and family responsibilities. Why is the Government attacking women further with its changes to the unemployment insurance program?
Women's groups cried out that the Mulroney trade deal would hurt social programs like unemployment insurance, they cried out that it would hurt women the most. The Government has proven those women's groups right. Immigrant women who are losing their jobs in the textile and clothing industries because of free trade now have only half an unemployment insurance program to turn to. They are paying for UI benefits and for training now through their premiums and they will not have access to these benefits that they deserve. They will not even be able to access the job training due to the Government's discriminatory language training practices. Many immigrant women are condemned to job
ghettos or to unemployment by the Government through its deplorable sexist discrimination in language training.
As a sweetener to this mess, the Government introduced parental leave and tried to take credit for it. The credit really belongs to Mr. Schachter who took the Government to court over another Tory discriminatory practice which forced natural mothers, out of economic necessity, to stay at home and take care of infants even if the couple had agreed that it would be the father who would take on this responsibility. It is Mr. Schachter who won parental benefits for natural fathers. The Government was forced to bring in parental leave through his actions.
At the same time, the Government has reduced adoptive parents' leave by five weeks. It has gone from 15 weeks to 10. The previous speaker tried to take credit for adoptive parents' leave. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) brought in these changes to parental leave knowing full well that many provincial labour laws do not guarantee that parents will be able to take that leave. This is just another way the Minister can attempt to score a few political points.
The fishing industry is a very important industry in my home province of British Columbia. After successive	I
years of both Conservative and Liberal mismanagement	I
the Canadian fishing industry is really at risk now, both	I
on the East Coast and the West Coast of Canada. Why	I
are they in danger? This is because the Conservative	I
Government decided to put the needs of the Canadian	I
people and the Canadian workers last.	I
On the East Coast, overfishing has meant massive	I
lay-offs. Those who fish have lost their incomes. Fish	I
plants are shutting down, processing jobs are lost. What	I
has the Government done to help these laid off workers?	I
It reduced their benefits. The Minister talks about	I
retraining but, Mr. Speaker, retraining for what? Where	|
are the jobs in these small coastal communities?	I
The Minister knows that 70 per cent of those who are	|
employed in the fish processing industry are women and	I
many of them visible minority women. Why has the	1
Government chosen to attack the regions of Canada,	I
attack the fragile resource industries of our country?	I
Why has the Government allowed these jobs to be stolen	I
from Canadian working women? The Government has	I
introduced changes to our unemployment insurance	I


program which may force these women and their families on to the welfare system.
It was in 1988 that Pat Carney told this House of Commons that fish would be landed, inspected, graded and quality- controlled in Canada. That has not happened. Instead, we have seen the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) gut the whole Canadian industry. The whole B.C. fish processing industry has been gutted and those jobs are going. These job losses could not come at a worse time for Canadians. Not only have we lost control over our own Canadian fish, our own resource, we have now lost control over Canadian jobs. We are losing control today over Canadian social programs.
I wonder whether the Government thinks that it is some kind of accident that the countries with the most progressive unemployment insurance programs also have the lowest rates of unemployment? Countries like Sweden, Austria and Switzerland, all with truly progressive unemployment insurance programs, have unemployment rates of less than 5 per cent.


An Hon. Member:: And the citizens have the highest tax rate in Sweden, too.


Dawn Black: Why has the Government again found it necessary to finance its agenda on the backs of the average and lower-income Canadian families? What benefit can come of this for Canadian people? None. Working people pay more when the Tories are in power and they receive less and less. We have a Government which said social programs were a sacred trust. We have a Government which chooses not to inform Canadians during an election of its plans to slash our social programs. We have a Government that invokes closure after only one day of debate on such a fundamental change to our social contract in Canada. This is flawed legislation. It is a sad time for all Canadians.


Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue the debate on Bill C-21, regarding the Government's proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. We in this country are faced with a
Unemployment Insurance Act
monstrous deficit. In times such as this what is required of the Government is responsible restraint.
What is required, especially now, is for the Government to strike a balance between what we must do and what we can afford to do. While this is anything but easy, it is the responsibility of this Government to address the realities of our current situation.
These proposals are a good attempt to reflect the balance which is required at this point in time. They address the limitations which our deficit has placed upon us, but more important these proposals ensure the system continues to provide assistance to those who are in need.
These proposals, in many ways, have sought to improve the current system without losing sight of the fact that we are faced with a deficit of crippling proportions. The time has come for us to try to accomplish more for less. Only in this way can we address all of our responsibilities.
The origins of our unemployment insurance system can be traced back to the period immediately following the Second World War. Faced with the possible spectre of severe unemployment, the Government of the day devised a system which ensured that the basic needs of the returning soldiers would be met. The seeds for what we have today were planted in 1971 when the system was reorganized.
We must ask ourselves, has it gone beyond what it was intended to do? Can it be improved? Can the unemployment insurance system do more to help those who are truly in need?
Can the system continue to support those who need it without serving to some as a disincentive to get back to work? Of course, unemployed workers should continue to receive benefits, but the system must be flexible enough to assist them in getting work.
There are many who want to work but, through no fault of their own, find themselves without jobs. The spirit of the Act is to support people while they look for work and to assist people with special problems so that they too can obtain work.
There are abuses of the system. The people who abuse the system are not dishonest. The truth is the system allows for, and in many cases, encourages these abuses to take place. We all know people who do not feel like

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
returning to work because they are entitled to more weeks of benefits. Many people do not have any objections to spending the summer collecting unemployment insurance. I think people realize this.
Never in the history of mankind have changes to society been more dramatic than they are now. The new legislation addresses the unemployment problems which are the result of this changing world: a world which finds women re-entering the workforce, a world which finds older workers displaced by changing job requirements, younger workers trying to crack the workforce, seasonal workers in and out of jobs and those facing the toughest challenge of all, the long-term unemployed.
Let us discuss for a moment the federal Government's new labour force development strategy announced in April. This will build on the success of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, and in consultation with business, labour and the provinces will provide new ways of responding to the needs of the Canadian labour market in this changing world.
Let us take, for example, the plight of many older workers. I meet many who want jobs while travelling in my riding of Elk Island. These people are accustomed to work. In fact, their pride demands that they put in an honest day's work. These older workers will benefit from the $100 million earmarked to retrain them.
For those who are in danger of losing their jobs, the new industrial adjustment service will be doubled to $30 million to help retrain workers who might otherwise be laid off. These are commonsense ideas which prevent workers from being displaced, which identify the special concerns of the older worker or those who are without skills.
I would like to speak for just a moment about young people. I have four children. How this country competes on the world stage in the future depends on how well they are prepared to meet the challenges. Support will be quadrupled through co-operative education, providing high school and college students with valuable hands on experience. Over the next four years, it will rise to $34 million. Many young people making the transition from school to the labour force will benefit from the new entry level training programs. One hundred million dollars will
be spent on this and up to 50,000 new workers will receive assistance from this program.
Forty-five million dollars will go to unemployed Canadians for increased self-employment, so that they can set up their own businesses and create more jobs. This lump sum form of benefits will also allow workers to move if they wish to seek jobs somewhere else.
This is not all. A national skills development advisory board will be set up to tell the Government what the private sector is looking for. Human resource planning will receive $65 million to further develop a national job strategy. This will expand Employment and Immigration's current human resource services. It will help industries and occupational associations plan for changes in their personal needs, using EIC programs and services. To further strengthen this plan, money will go to building networks of industry associations, unions and training institutions so they can work toward building more jobs for Canadians.
The Labour Force Development Strategy also proposes to make the system fairer by including these benefit provisions: Special unemployment benefits which will include 15 weeks of maternity benefits, 10 weeks of parental benefits and 15 weeks of sickness benefits. This will cost $450 million annually.
The system must be fine-tuned so it works best for those who need it most. We must ensure the system continues to help those who are in need, while recognizing the need for fiscal restraint. We must try to accomplish more for the people the system was originally designed for. We must try to make the system better. This is why the proposed changes are in line with regional disparities. Where there is high unemployment, people will not have to wait as long to collect benefits. They will also be able to collect for longer periods.
Seasonal workers will be helped under the proposed changes too. The Government proposes to eliminate the repeater clause. A seasonal worker who is forced to collect a second time in a year will not need to have the extra weeks of work the second time. These measures simply reflect the reality that it is tougher to find a job in the interior of B.C. than it is in southern Ontario. If we really are going to get more for less we must simply make the system work better. One way of getting more for less is by enlisting the support of industry. Since industry, both large and small, provides these jobs we must match its need for skilled labour with the need people have to
June 21, 1989

work. Instead of mobilizing a huge government bureaucracy to take care of this retraining, why not let industry experts do this? Compared with other industrialized countries, our industrial training programs lag far behind.
The Government's objective is to stimulate an additional private sector effort of $1.5 billion per year by the year 1994. This will bring the total to approximately $3 billion per year by 1994, a level which would take us up to par with industry training programs in the United States. This will help Canadians who are unemployed, Canadian who face unemployment because their skills are becoming obsolete, young Canadians who are beginning their careers, Canadians who will be helped to escape the prospect of long-term unemployment and Canadians who want to work.
We all know what many opposition Members are saying. They say the money belongs to the workers. I say the money not only belongs to them but to the unemployed workers as well. I say that when the system is being abused then money is being taken out of the pockets of all Canadians, especially those who need the money the most, those who are looking for jobs.
What do the people of Canada think of the UI system? The results of a Gallup poll that were made public recently in The Gazette confirmed what the Government is attempting to address with these proposed changes. The poll revealed that 74 per cent of Canadian citizens felt that many people are abusing the unemployment insurance program. Almost three-quarters of those polled felt that many people use the unemployment system as a form of paid vacation. Is this fair to Canadians who pay into the system? Is this fair to the unemployed Canadians who have a real need for assistance? Isn't the aim of the system to help these Canadians find work? Don't training and retraining programs do precisely this?
In summary, some Hon. Members seem to think we can solve a problem by throwing money at it. This is not a responsible way to spend Canadians' hard earned money. The intention of these proposals is to improve the UI system while keeping in mind the necessity of restraint. These proposals represent a creative way of achieving
Unemployment Insurance Act
both. These proposals do not lose sight of our responsibilities to unemployed Canadians. These proposals are designed to provide jobs.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in this very important debate on this very important Bill C-21, which amends the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is an important debate taking place here today because this Bill, which is badly flawed and unacceptable on its own for many reasons, most of which we have already heard throughout this debate, is even more repugnant when one looks at the backdrop of events that have taken place prior to the introduction of these changes.
I want to speak for a while about some of the changes as they affect Atlantic Canada. The Hon. Member opposite may have a chance to speak a little later, so perhaps he could listen to me first and speak more intelligently a little later.
Canadians will remember that during the recent election campaign on many occasions when the Liberals and the New Democrats told the people that they believed major changes were coming once the Tory Government got re-elected, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the Minister for International Trade said as eloquently as he possibly can, as all Newfoundlanders do: "Unemployment benefits are safe with the Conservatives". He went to the extent of saying that he confirmedwith the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that there were no problems at all all. He said that all this was fearmongering from the Opposition in an effort to get votes.
Shortly after the Tories were re-elected, after a few leaks, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) had to come to this House prior to Budget night and tell us that there would be major changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. She stated in this House, as many other other members of the front bench opposite did at the time, that the changes were consistent with the statement that had been made by the Minister for International Trade during the election campaign.
We kept asking the Prime Minister, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister for Employment, how could they speak out of both sides of their mouths? Was it not true that statements made were misleading to

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
Canadians during the election campaign? Members opposite insisted all along that that was not the case.
Just recently the Minister appeared at the Labour Committee and was asked whether or not certain changes were being considered to the Unemployment Insurance Act prior to and during the election campaign. The Minister did not rule out or unequivocally say no, that was not the case, that no changes were being considered. She said: "I suppose there were some evaluations going on in the Department but nothing specific. Therefore, in my view, I think the statements made during the campaign were correct". I think Canadians know a flip-flop and a shim-sham when they see one. This particular exchange and these comments made in the House were exactly that. It was an effort to gain votes. It was an effort by a desperate Party during a desperate campaign to try to hide the true agenda in order to get re-elected.
That was the backdrop. It showed the depth of deception of the Party opposite when it was campaigning for votes. Since the election, the Tories have come into this House and talked about the great commitments toward national reconciliation, wealth creation, job creation, and economic prosperity which they would inflict upon Canadians.
There are a number of programs which Canadians have come to respect and expect, especially from our neck of the woods in Atlantic Canada. Initially these were called regional development agreements. Then the name was changed to the general development agreements. This was a method by which the federal Government took the vast resources of this country and redistributed them, took the concept of equalization, that it did not matter where you lived in this great nation, you had a right to expect and enjoy a certain standard of living. The GDAs did this. The ERDA process which replaced it in 1984 did it. That process took money from the wealthiest parts of the country and redistributed it to places like Atlantic Canada.
During that same election campaign in November, 1988, members of this Government seeking re-election and election went on and said: "Regional development programs are safe. That is a sacred trust". Well those GDAs and subsequently the ERDAs contributed billions of dollars toward the economy of Atlantic Canada. On March 31 of this year, the Government, under its true agenda, allowed $721 million in general development agreements or ERDA agreements to expire in Atlantic
Canada alone. It is telling that the Government hid the details of this of this for as long as it possibly could.
Then there was a leak in the press and the Government had to come clean with the Canadian public. The Minister opposite from my home province, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. MacKay) who is responsible for ACOA, would shake his head many times. He should have been hanging his head in shame because he allowed his colleagues in Cabinet to take $721 million in very necessary investment in Atlantic Canada and shuffle it off under the guise of deficit reduction. That is shameful.
By March of next year, if this pattern of uncaring, this true Tory agenda, continues unabated, there will be $1,221 billion worth of development agreements that may not be renewed. An Hon. Member opposite is shaking his head. He should talk to the Premiers of Newfoundland, P.E.I. and New Brunswick who are on bended knees asking the Government to honour its commitments to Atlantic Canada and to renew those agreements that have been allowed to lapse.
Mrs. Sparrow. What about Hibernia?


Ronald MacDonald: An Hon. Member asks about Hibernia. What about Hibernia? The deadlines placed by the Government to have that deal signed and the production modules in place has passed. Just last week, we heard the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Epp) say that he did say in a speech he gave that they would have to reduce the cost of Hibernia. He said that they may take those jobs that were supposed to be created in Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada off-shore because because they might have to produce the production platforms off-shore. They are exporting the jobs. That is what the Government is doing with Hibernia, so do not give me any of that crap about Hibernia. The people of Atlantic Canada know exactly what is happening with Hibernia. It is the same type of game the Government has played with ERDAs and all the other development programs that have been canned.
Through this cruel game with ERDAs, the Government cut off some very important development programs in things like the fisheries, forestry and the tourism industry. I will deal first with the tourism industry. The Minister from Nova Scotia keeps saying that while he is negotiating, these agreements are not dead, but it may take a little longer. He says that they may reprofile the moneys. I think we should reprofile the Minister. We should put him back on his woodlot in

Pictou County. He is not doing his job on behalf of the people of Atlantic Canada.
The tourism sector of Atlantic Canada is one of the industrial sectors that has the potential for true growth, the creation of thousands of jobs and new wealth in Atlantic Canada. That was recognized by this Government, by previous Governments and by all the Governments of Atlantic Canada.
The tourism sub-agreements for Atlantic Canada expired and the Government played a cat, mouse and shell game with the Premiers. Perhaps, through a slip of the tongue, the Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. Hockin) spit out last night or the night before that they will not review the tourism sub-agreements, they are dead. That is what he said. We on this side of the House knew it and the people of Atlantic Canada knew it, but once again, we had to squeeze it out of a Tory before we were told exactly what the Government is going to do and how it will devastate our region.
In the forestry industry, there have been hundreds of millions of dollars put into silviculture for the 30,000-odd private woodlot owners of Nova Scotia alone. In Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada, there are tens of thousands, perhaps over 100,000 jobs directly and indirectly related to the forestry industry. The Government of Canada, in co-operation with the Governments of the Atlantic provinces, were using that money for silviculture so that forestry was truly a renewable resource. It created jobs. Yes, they were seasonal jobs but they were jobs. They left people with their dignity. When people were laid off, they would go on unemployment insurance. That program has not been renewed and there will be thousands of individuals in Nova Scotia who will not be able to work in the forestry because the Government, in its gutless approach to regional development, has refused to renew those agreements.
For what the Government has done to the fishery, all Members opposite, particularly those from Atlantic Canada, should hang their heads in shame. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) likes to pretend that he even knows where the East Coast is. I do not think he would know the Atlantic Ocean if he fell in it head-first. Every time he is asked about the East Coast fisheries, the Minister tries to mimic the Minister for International Trade. He is certainly no match for anyone
Unemployment Insurance Act
from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. or New Brunswick. We know the fisheries in those provinces. We know the devastation that has been wreaked by the mismanagement of the fishery by the Minister.
The Government has taken a dwindling resource and allocated it to the foreign fishing fleet. Time after time, people say that we have to look after fishermen and fish plant workers, those very individuals who work in a fragile industry, a seasonal industry. What has happened to the fishery? A headline in The Chronicle-Herald of Friday, May 12, 1989, says: "NatSea pulls plug". Where will the fish plant closures occur? Seafair Enterprises Limited, Wood's Harbour, closed, 60 seasonal workers lost their jobs. Medway Fisheries Limited, Port Medway, closed, 50 seasonal workers lost their jobs. NatSea Canso, closed altogether, 625-


An Hon. Member:: What about full-time jobs?


Ronald MacDonald: Do you want to know where they have lost full-time jobs? I will tell Hon. Members that if they will just listen. NatSea in Canso, closed June, July, reopens August and will close for good, and 625 full-time jobs will be lost. There is a fish plant in Lockeport that has been closed by the Government's mismanagement of the fishery. Lockeport closes June, July, reopens August, September, permanent closure October 1, 450 full-time jobs lost. The Hon. Member wants to know where the job losses are. I will send this over and maybe he can edify himself. He will be able to tell where they are kicking the you-know-what of the people of Atlantic Canada. The fishery policy has put in jeopardy those very jobs that the ERDAs sought to protect and the Government has refused to renegotiate those deals.
In ACOA, $1 billion of new money was supposedly put in, announced with much fanfare by the Prime Minister on his way to Europe in 1987. He announced in Newfoundland a five-year program, $1 billion in new money. After the Budget came down and after the Minister opposite could not hide the real figures from the Opposition and the public any longer, we found out two or three minutes before he appeared before a committee that he changed the rules on ACOA. He told us that there would be minor modifications. He took a five-year program and stretched it out into a seven-year program. That is a cut of 25 per cent in the moneys available on a

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
yearly basis, and it is a reneging on the commitment the Government made to that program for Atlantic Canada.
I have talked to people in the industrial sector, individuals who were looking to take advantage of ACOA dollars. They wanted to create real wealth in Atlantic Canada. Those individuals will not be able to do that any longer. There will be more unemployment in Atlantic Canada as a result of the policies of the Government.
Let us go a bit further and talk about the base closures that have taken place in Atlantic Canada. In Summer-side, 1,300 employees will lose their jobs, devastating the economy of that small island. The people of Prince Edward Island spoke when they re-elected a Liberal Government and left only two Members in opposition. This Government would not listen. It has plugged its ears. It does not want to hear the bad news. It knows that the job it has done is a dirty deed and it does not want to fess up to it.
The Government has inflicted more despair in places like Barrington. The Hon. Member opposite has done his very best to try to keep the people of his riding from going down the tubes, but his own Government does not listen to him. Over 300 jobs were lost at CFB Sydney. Those are the kind of economic policies the Government has been inflicting on Atlantic Canada since it was re-elected. I could go on forever. I could talk about Established Programs Financing and about the $15 million that are gone in Nova Scotia as a result of the cut-backs in education transfers and transfers for hospital care.
I could also talk about the At and East program. There is a Bill currently before the House which, when passed, if it does pass, will jeopardize 295 jobs at the Halifax grain terminal. Those employees will be on unemployment insurance, if they qualify under the new regulations.
The Government is stripping and gutting VIA Rail. It is pulling up the tracks on VIA Rail. Nowhere will that be felt harder than in Atlantic Canada. For Members opposite who do not think that 300 or 400 jobs are a lot of jobs, I ask them to look at how big Nova Scotia is. It has 875,000 people. I have probably already chronicled approximately 2,000 jobs lost in Nova Scotia as a result of the Government's policy. If that was translated into
Montreal or Toronto, the Government would not have the nerve to pull that off in those centres because it would be thousands or tens of thousands of jobs lost.
However, it picks on the Atlantic provinces where government Members think that they can just plug their ears and do not have to listen to people from the Atlantic provinces, and that they will deal with the centre. TTiat is exactly what the Government has intended all along. This Government is going to dismantle the country piece by piece and it started in the Atlantic region.
That was the backdrop before Bill C-21, amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, was introduced. This Bill tries to help reduce the deficit that the Government has brought upon itself on the backs of those Canadians who can least afford to pay for the Government's mismanagement.
The Government thinks that there are cheaters in the system. I ask government Members to check the statistics from their own Departments. The number of people who have abused the unemployment insurance system is extremely small. Every time a Minister opposite rises to talk about the changes, the first thing he states is that he is trying eliminate abuse of the system.


Mr. Arseneault:: Less than 1 per cent.


Ronald MacDonald: My hon. colleague states that it is less than 1 per cent. Therefore, 99 per cent are pummelled in order to get rid of 1 per cent. Not one Canadian believes the Government for a second. Nobody in Atlantic Canada does, anyway.
Under this Bill the Government is going to increase the qualifying period and decrease the benefits in Atlantic Canada. It is going to decrease the amount of time that unemployment insurance can be drawn. But, by God, when things get so bad that the unemployment rate jumps up to 14 per cent, 15 per cent, or 16 per cent, the Government will be a little less tough and a little nicer. However, what will be done in the meantime? After the fish plants have been closed, the people working on the military bases have been thrown out of work, virtually shut down the tourism industry in Atlantic Canada, put in peril the fisheries in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, P.E.I., and New Brunswick, and VIA Rail has been shut down, the Government comes in and cuts the safety net that was supposed to be there to ensure that Canadians are not pushed off a diving board into a pool with no
June 21, 1989

water. The very social safety net has been cut with the changes proposed in this Bill.
At the same time, the Minister opposite states that the Government is going to put some of that money into retraining. Time and time again she was asked if $200 million in benefits is taken out of Atlantic Canada, was she prepared to rise in the House and tell us that $200 million in new training dollars will go in? The Minister has yet to give us that assurance, because the political will is elsewhere. She has been asked a number of times in the House, as has the Prime Minister and we cannot receive that commitment.
I could go on for days about what the Government has been doing to the economy of Atlantic Canada. I certainly hope that Members opposite will listen intently and find it in their hearts, if they can find their hearts, to say that this Bill is the final act of humiliation by a callous and cruel Government hitting those people who can least afford to look after themselves, and hitting those regions that can least afford to be kicked in the manner that they have been kicked.
I urge Members opposite to get hold of themselves, come to their senses, and to say no to this dastardly Bill.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this evening. I was interested in some of the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth (Mr. MacDonald), on the other side of the House.
We certainly do realize that there are areas within the regions of Canada that have more difficulties than other areas. That is exactly what the Government has been striving to overcome in the past four years.
Atlantic Canada has had the greatest economy during the past four years since World War II. Over the past four years there have been 108,000 new jobs created on the East Coast. Since we came into Government the unemployment rate has fallen in P.E.I. from 13.8 per cent to 11 per cent; in Nova Scotia it has fallen from 13 per cent to 9 per cent; in New Brunswick it has fallen
Unemployment Insurance Act
from 14 per cent to 10 per cent; and in Newfoundland it has fallen from 24 per cent to 13.5 per cent.
In 1984 the Liberal Government that was then in power put $185 million into Atlantic Canada for regional development. This year the Progressive Conservative Government will be contributing $420 million. That is almost three times the amount that the Liberals put in. Equalization payments are up 40 per cent in Atlantic Canada. Over the past four years, we have increased equalization payments by 40 per cent.
There are other areas in Canada that also have difficulties, it is not only Atlantic Canada. I want to tell Members what we have done in western Canada. In August, 1987, we developed the Western Diversification Fund. This Government set aside $1.2 billion to be used for diversification. Up until today, we have approved 1,006 projects for a total of $574 million. That is going into Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia.


Guy H. Arseneault: When?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: They started at Christmastime in 1987, nearly two complete years ago. It is continuous and extremely successful.
In 1984, when we came into power the unemployment rate in my Province of Alberta was 13 per cent. Today it is down to 8 per cent. We have created 70,000 new jobs in the Province of Alberta, and I am proud of that.
There are also areas such as the Husky upgrader where we are investing moneys to refine heavy oil so we can then ship it as light crude either to eastern Canada or to the United States. We are also putting funding into the OSLO area in which we will be able to utilize the oil sands in regard to security of supply.
Over the past four years, CIDA contract awards going into my Province of Alberta have more than doubled. Procurement contracts that we never had before we are now starting to receive. We are now building the infrastructure so that we in western Canada can also participate.
It is a privilege for me to speak on Bill C-21, a Bill that provides statutory authority for the implementation of certain provisions of the federal Government's labour force development strategy. I was reviewing the labour force development strategy and how we are reinforcing

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
private sector training through human resource planning and training. We are putting in an increase of $65 million to expand the current services. Obviously, as science and technology change, and as our jobs and our goals change, we have to develop the human resources.
For entry level skills development, there is an additional $100 million for training, including a new program to meet the needs of growing industries, especially those in the service sector. It is very interesting how we note that the service sector will be far more important in the years to come. For too long we in this country have rested on our laurels. We have been a resource driven country. Canadians have developed and depended upon their resources to maintain and improve their standard of living. We have oil and gas in the province from which I come and also a great deal of coal. In Canada there is a great deal of nickel, gold and iron ore. There is uranium in the Province of Saskatchewan. Of course, there are fish on the east and west coasts which, too, are natural resources. Our forestry areas also represent a tremendous resource.
In Canada we have been doing so well that we have not been looking ahead at how we will meet the markets as far as efficiency and global trading in the next decade are concerned. I guess what I could say is that we have not been sharpening our wits. We have to change our habits. Changing our habits is as important as changing the UI program and setting aside funding to retrain people so that they can meet the demands of the next decade. In this way we can go into the 21st century competing with our colleagues, not just those south of the border but those internationally.
We have to change our habits. We have to re-educate ourselves and change our direction. As I said, the best way to change our direction is through training. That must be the main way.
Another interesting development that has happened over the past few weeks is in terms of Bill C-3, which had to do with the development of the new Department of Industry, Science and Technology. We can see that the Progressive Conservative Government along with our Minister of Industry, Science and Technology (Mr. Andre) and the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Winegard), who is in the House tonight, are very much aware of how much science and technology, and research and development mean to the future development of our country. I do not know whether the Minister has ever said this, but I think he means that they are probably the weapons that will maintain and improve our economy. The Minister would very much like to see alliances formed with the Government, universities and industries right across Canada, working together to spend better what moneys we have. We are under deficit reduction. All of us on this side of the House realize how important it is to bring down the deficit and, indeed, the debt. It is not "our problem", it is everybody's problem. We do not want to be spending today, putting that on the backs of the youth of tomorrow.
In terms of initiatives to help the unemployed and in terms of training for the unemployed we have increased funds to $350 million under Section 26. The Government will consult. It will consult with the private sector and with the provinces on how best to implement this proposal. This is something we have been doing over the past four and one-half years. Instead of making unilateral decisions, national reconciliation and co-operation with all levels of Government, be they our provincial counterparts or municipal counterparts, are very important. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) say that she will work with these particular areas.
Through employment assistance in the Canada Centres for Employment we will offer more intensive assistance to unemployed workers by directing job seekers to the services that they need and at an earlier age in an area of unemployment. There will also be help for social assistance recipients. There will be an additional $100 million made available which is contingent, of course, upon matching allocations from the provinces.
There will be help for displaced and older workers to the tune of $100 million. This money will be for special measures to assist displaced and older workers to re-establish themselves in the labour force.
In terms of self-employment, entrepreneurship and mobility assistance there is a provision for $45 million for UI recipients to capitalize benefits in one lump sum. This money could be used for start-up costs, subject to a viable business plan, or for mobility assistance up to a maximum of $10,000. This is exactly the way we should go in terms of assisting people in different regions of our country who are at different levels of employment,

people with disabilities and people who have to move in order to obtain jobs.
When this country of ours was created geologically some of the regions received some resources which turned into tremendous wealth benefits. Other regions did not receive any. Therefore people have to go to where the jobs are. We will tiy to assist them in every way that we possibly can.
As I said, I am very pleased to speak on this Bill that improves the unemployment insurance program. As Members of the Elouse are aware, these adjustments are an integral part of the Labour Force Development Strategy. This strategy signals the Government's determination to help Canadians, both employed and unemployed, as well as to help Canadians adapt to a changing labour market. Fundamental to making the transition is mobilizing and preparing our human resources.
It has been estimated that by the year 2000 almost 80 per cent of Canadian jobs will demand professional, white collar skills, compared to today's figure of 40 per cent. The traditional blue collar job is disappearing. Even those people on the shop floor are now being expected to have reading, writing and numerical skills to deal with the complex, high-tech machinery around them. We have seen that over the past five to ten years cash registers which have been computerized and which provide stock taking as well. It certainly makes conducting inventory a lot easier. However, again, we recognize that people working in the retail area will have to be better educated and better trained. That is why the thrust of this strategy is to improve the amount and quality of training and, in the private sector, to help Canadians attain skills in demand. In this regard the co-operation of business, labour and Government is essential.
Through this strategy we are encouraging the private sector to take on a leadership role in training, as the private sector has done in many other countries. The example in many other countries has proven that businesses must constantly help their workers to upgrade their skills in order to keep their businesses competitive. For instance, 1987 figures show that while U.S. firms spent about $30 billion annually on formal training and
Unemployment Insurance Act
retraining, the Canadian private sector devoted only $1.5 billion a year to skill development activities. Adjusting for the relative size of our economies and differences in survey design, the result is indisputable that Canadian firms spend barely one-half of what their American counterparts commit to improving the skills of then-employees. Herein lies the rub. We certainly have to call upon the private sector to partake in more of the retraining and, indeed, in the cost of retraining people, for people are the greatest resource of the country.
As we move into the next decade and the next century it is up to all of us, not just to the Government, to be retraining our best resources. We have to do better if we are going to be successful and compete in the international market. In this way we can ensure that Canadians will continue to enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world.
Almost 50 years ago, when Mackenzie King's Government passed the first Unemployment Insurance Act, the intention of UI programs was to encourage industrial stability and social security. Today, the purpose of unemployment insurance programs is the same. The goal of our Government is still to protect people out of work and to maintain economic stability.
In 1989, however, the structure of the labour market is changing before our eyes. No longer does our economy depend almost entirely on a resource based industry. No longer does a high school education ensure a young person a good job.
If Canada is to keep up with the pace of expanding global markets and world competition, it is imperative that we prepare for it now. It is evident that our unemployment insurance programs, while continuing to protect workers, must evolve with the times. The Labour Force Development Strategy means a shift toward programs and services that in the future will help Canadians get back to work as quickly as possible. Clearly, training and other active employment programs are the key to preparing Canadians for the future and, to that end, the Labour Force Development Strategy outlined a wide range of initiatives designed to help these people get back to work.

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
Some of these programs which I outlined earlier include entry levels skill development programs, human resource planning and training programs, the Industrial Adjustment Service Program, Community Futures. These are initiatives to help the unemployed. These are all very meaningful ways that we will assist people get back to work as quickly as possible.
The amendments in Bill C-21 give effect to these changes and will see the resources committed under the UI program for active assistance increased from $405 million available today to more than three times that, an estimated $1.4 billion in the first full implementation year. These funds will be used to train and provide financial assistance to help UI claimants get job training, experience, or work.
Since 1977, some unemployment insurance money was used to provide training for those receiving benefits. Last year, for example, 74,000 claimants were trained under Section 61 programs.
The Labour Force Development Strategy proposes to extend training to an additional 60,000 trainees. Funds will be earmarked for skills training and education upgrading for displaced and older workers. This strategy recognizes that training involves much more than school costs.
Government programming has long ensured that adequate income support is available to those who need training but encounter financial barriers related to dependants, care or travel and commuter costs. We will also be making funds available for relocation assistance for an expected 5,000 claimants so those who want to travel out of town to look for work or those who want to move where job prospects are better will have income support available.
The Bill also considers those claimants who want to start a business. Assistance will be available to support the entrepreneurial ideas of those on unemployment insurance. As well, some UI funds have been set aside to provide incentives to the unemployed to find work quickly. This may be in the form of bonuses or temporary earning supplements.
Forty-nine years ago the Unemployment Insurance Act was passed to help workers in a changing labour market. Today, market transformation is again our impetus for amending the Unemployment Insurance Act. Providing a safety net for unemployed workers remains paramount. The unemployment insurance program continues to be an integral part of Canada's social system.
The size of the over-all UI program will not change. What is different is the direction of our unemployment insurance program.
Out in the domain of the unemployed, life is getting more difficult and the strategy is based on the principle that a more pro-active approach is needed by business, by government and by labour to address these needs. Clearly, the positive steps we are talking about today address the needs of workers and of the market. This will ensure Canada's prosperity tomorrow.
[Translation}


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this evening to take part in the debate on Bill C-21.

Bill C-21 should be renamed the Tory broken promises Bill, because it implements once more the exact opposite of what the Conservatives promised the electorate during the last election campaign.
Lest one thinks that I am merely making a partisan remark, let me remind Members opposite what the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) said during the last election campaign.
On October 14, 1988, as quoted by the Evening Telegram of St. John's Newfoundland, the Minister for International Trade said: "No one is planning any changes in the unemployment insurance program. There hasn't been any change proposed to us since we dealt with the Forget Commission and we are not contemplating any changes".
Of course, one has to bear in mind that this particular statement was made by a Tory. When quotes are made by Tories, sometimes one has to interpret them as being exactly the opposite of what was said. As Winston Churchill once put it: "The opposite to the truth was never stated with greater accuracy".
The Tories have been reducing funding for job development since they came to power.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: That is not true.


Don Boudria: A Tory Member across the way is shouting that is not true. The Tories have reduced funding to the tune of $700 million. Now it is claiming that it is contributing $800 million, but that is almost the amount it took out. Furthermore, this does not take into account the fact that the $800 million they are contribut-
June 21, 1989

ing is being taken from the funds of the workers. They are taking it out of the UI fund.
The Member across says that is not true. Let me give her a few examples of what is happening in my constituency this year. I ask those Members to pay close attention. In the great constituency of the Glengarry- Prescott-Russell here in eastern Ontario we had a job re-entry project in Rockland, Ontario and one in Haw-kesbury, Ontario. This year they applied for four smaller programs under job re-entry.
For those people who may be listening to this debate, the job entry and job re-entry programs are designed with a particular emphasis on women who have not been in the workforce for some time or who have never formed part of the so-called active workforce. It is designed to give them skills to find a job.
Those programs in my constituency have a success rate of 90 per cent to 100 per cent. The program at the high school in Vankleek Hill had a placement rate of 100 per cent. Every woman who started the program finished and got a job. I congratulate the people who put this program together for my constituency.
This year we applied for four smaller programs totalling slightly more than what was applied for last year. Three of those programs have been refused because of lack of funding. That is the kind of commitment we see from the Tories who say that they want to train workers in order to get jobs.
About a month ago the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) sent us a large press kit inviting us to inform the population of our ridings about the great new co-op program with the schools. The very same day that I received this press kit on my desk I received a refusal from the same Minister for one of those co-op grants. It is the only one for which we applied in the constituency that I represent. That is the Government's commitment to the riding that I represent to assist toward retraining and the training of people to find productive jobs.
Let us look at what the Conservatives have done for the great region of eastern Ontario. There is a misconception that just because Toronto is doing veiy well economically, all of Ontario does extremely well and
Unemployment Insurance Act
there is no such thing as unemployment in our great province.
That is not true. For instance, the riding I represent in Prescott County has an unemployment rate that nears 14 per cent. That is only about 60 miles from Parliament Hill where we are standing right now. The unemployment rate in my area is very high.
I think I heard someone across the way suggest: "Why don't they get a job?" That is very typical of the sensitive Tories. It is surprising that they got 19 per cent of the votes last time in my riding with that kind of a mentality. That is all they received and it is about 15 per cent more than they deserve.
Let me read from the Throne Speech wherein in indicated:
The new federal approach to regional development is working.
That is very debatable. The Throne Speech of April 3 continued:
Decentralized decision making, through the regional agencies in Western Canada, Northern Ontario and Atlantic Canada, has been instrumental in stimulating both entrepreneurial endeavour and business investment. Funding for regional development in Quebec and for these agencies will be continued, and the government procurement policies will become increasingly responsive to regional considerations.
Do you notice something missing from that statement, Mr. Speaker? eastern Ontario is not there. Now under previous programs there was the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board, a component to assist high unemployment areas of eastern Ontario such as my riding. Under the Industrial Regional Development Program, IRDP that expired last summer, northern and eastern Ontario were considered equally.
They were considered because both of those regions have economic difficulties. This time the words "northern Ontario" appear, which is fine, but the words "eastern Ontario" are missing from the Throne Speech. That was the first indication that eastern Ontario to get a kick in the pants from the Conservatives across the way.

I would like to recall, Mr. Speaker, the doctrine formulated by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkam), who said, a few days after the last election campaign, that because Eastern Ontario voted for the Liberals, it could no longer expect anything from the Conservative Government and would get nothing from a Conservative Government. That was the Conser-

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
vative philosophy and attitude expressed in no uncertain terms a few days after the election campaign by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South. We now see that this theory is being applied, that this statement is becoming fact, Mr. Speaker.

Let me give a few indications of what this Bill would do to the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. As I said previously, the unemployment rate in the National Capital Region is in the order of 5.6 per cent to 5.7 per cent.

I say: good for the people of Ottawa if things are going well in the National Capital region, with an unemployment rate of 5.6 or 5.7 per cent. The trouble is, Mr. Speaker, that the National Capital Region is grouped together with neighbouring regions into one economic zone. In other words, the ridings of Stormont-Dundas, Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Renfrew, Hastings- Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, and so forth, and the City of Ottawa are considered as one unit. Statistics Canada takes the figures for this region and uses them to calculate the regional unemployment rate. So on that basis, the unemployment rate for Eastern Ontario is 5.7 per cent.
This may be true for the region as a whole, but it certainly is not true in Hawkesbury or in Prescott County which has an unemployment rate of 5.7 per cent. In Cornwall, Stormont-Dundas and Glengarry, the unemployment rate is 10.9 per cent. It does not apply either to the Renfrew area, which unfortunately has an unemployment rate as high as 11 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, Ottawa has been regrouped with the neighbouring regions, even regions that are pretty far away, for the purposes of these statistics.
I raised this point in a question in the House of Commons on April 17, 1989, and I received an answer that was not very encouraging, I would even say frivolous, from the Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) (Mrs. Vezina). A few days later, I spoke in the House during the adjournment debate, and I again asked the Government to give me guarantees that they would revise the map of economic zones before implementing this legislation. This is what the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Kempling) told me:

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration whom I see sitting across the way, as reported at page 955 of Hansard, said:
With respect to regional boundaries, I want to inform the Hon. Member about the study initiated by the Hon. Minister of State for Employment and Immigration (Mrs. Vezina) in August, 1988.1 can assure the Hon. Member that this study of regional boundaries is still taking place. I am positive it will be completed long before the legislation passes the House.
Does the Member across the way remember that? I see him nodding his head. Presumably he still believes that that is true, and he at least remembers having made the statement.
I want to draw the following to Your Honour's attention. At the Standing Committee of Labour, Employment and Immigration one of my colleagues asked the officials of the Department about this very topic that had been raised in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary in answer to one of my questions. This is what he said:

Mr. Barry Carin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy and Planning, Department of Employment and Immigration, said, and I quote:
If it is at all feasible, our intention is to complete the study in time. The way I believe it will develop is that there will be more regions than we currently have. We will probably move to somewhere in the low 60s from 48, so our intention is to complete the study and, if at all possible, to do the implementation.
It wasn't all that clear. Further on, Mr. Speaker, the same DADM said, and I quote:
Then there is a second stage, where Statistics Canada has to draw a new sample frame for their survey. They have to decide what the design of the survey ought to be in order to produce very reliable results. The existing labour force survey is based on the existing boundary structure. It is a complex matter and there is a lot that depends on this coming out right, so Statistics Canada will want to do this right.
Mr. Carin went on to say that it might take three to six additional months, which means even later, after this Bill is passed. The Government expects to get second reading through the House in a few days. The Bill would
June 21, 1989

then be considered during the summer and passed next fall.
So you see, Mr. Speaker, that the answer I got from the parliamentary secretary, although he probably thought he was telling the truth, was wrong. Either the Minister or the Department gave the parliamentary secretary information that was inaccurate, and he passed it on to the House.

I am not the only one who is concerned about the effects of this particular Bill on eastern Ontario. The Town of Renfrew is nowhere near my riding. It is approximately 75 miles from where I live. It adopted Resolution No. 89-4-77 which in part reads:
WHEREAS the inclusion of Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton in the same Employment and Immigration Canada Economic Region with such Counties as Lanark, Leeds & Grenville, Prescott & Russell, Renfrew, and Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry implies that the level of local economic activity characteristic of metropolitan Ottawa is also characteristic of these Counties; and
WHEREAS the level of local economic activity characteristic of metropolitan Ottawa is not characteristic of the Counties of Lanark, Leeds & Grenville, Prescott & Russell, Renfrew & Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry; -
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Town of Renfrew hereby petitions the Hon. Barbara McDougall, Minister of Employment and Immigration, to revise the boundaries of the Eastern Ontario Economic Region to more accurately reflect the economic realities of Eastern Ontario; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Town of Renfrew further petitions the Government of Canada, as an interim measure, to afford the same treatment to employers located in, and the municipalities and residents of, the Counties of Lanark, Leeds & Grenville, Prescott & Russell, Renfrew, and Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry as that enjoyed by other parts of Canada with comparable levels of local economic activity;
In other words, the Town of Renfrew was asking for relief for its area which has high employment, as does mine does, and not to be considered with Ottawa-Carle-ton for the application of this Bill.
I will tell the House what the effect of this Bill would be on the riding that I represent, why I am so upset about it, and why the Town of Renfrew and all the other municipalities, which have signed the resolution I have in hand objecting to these changes, are so upset about this.
Unemployment Insurance Act
The unemployment rate in Ottawa is supposed to be 5.7 per cent. The new rules lengthen the number of weeks that a person must work before receiving UIC. Perhaps there is some validity to that in an area with very low unemployment, sometimes but not all the time. On the other hand, the Bill proposes that the number of weeks of unemployment insurance that a person can receive will be shortened.
Here is the case, Mr. Speaker. Under the current system the number of work weeks needed is 14. Under the new proposed system one will need to work 20 weeks before receiving unemployment insurance. The number of weeks of benefit right now is 46. Under the new system it will be 45, all because the zones are tightened up.
Let me say what would happen if the Government were to amend these rules to recognize the true unemployment situation of Hawkesbury in my constituency. Hawkesbuiy has a rate of unemployment ranging between 13 per cent and 14 per cent. The highest rate on this schedule is 11.7 per cent. I know it offends the Member across the way when I speak of eastern Ontario, but she can pay attention and she will learn something from it.
If the rules were applied properly, my constituents would be eligible for 50 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits; not by applying a different criteria, just by recognizing the reality, just by recognizing that Hawkesbury does not have the same unemployment rate as Ottawa or Toronto. I am not asking for special consideration. I am just asking that what is there be recognized by the Government across the way and that instead of being eligible for 35 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits my constituents would quality for 50 weeks.
In terms of the number of weeks to qualify the rate would go from 20 back down to 14, which it was before this new Bill would apply. Some Tories ask what that would do. That would create a situation whereby my constituents would not have to go on welfare. That is the important thing. My constituents are fed up with that kind of a situation. They are fed up with seeing the Government take away what they have had for so long. Why should these benefits be cut back from my constituents?

Unemployment Insurance Act

And the Tories opposite keep telling us that they are going to allocate additional funds for manpower training. Well, that is not true, Mr. Speaker. They cut funding, but they are going to put back the funds they cut, and we are supposed to be ecstatic! We are supposed to be eternally grateful to the Tories. Well, we are not, because it is not enough. What we want Mr. Speaker, is to play according to the rules of the game, and "we" means the constituents of Glengariy-Prescott-Russell, for starters.
Furthermore, we need a regional development program for Eastern Ontario that recognizes the economic realities of the region I represent. Until the Tories decide to do that, Mr. Speaker, they will never enjoy the support of the people I represent.

If this keeps up, not only will the Tories be extremely unpopular in my riding but "Tory" will become no more and no less than a four-letter word.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed very much the lecture of the Member for Calgary-Southwest (Mrs. Sparrow). I found it very interesting that she gave us a litany of program titles. I think it would have been very nice if she had talked about the UI Bill and about real people.
She said that traditional jobs were disappearing, and she is absolutely right. High skilled, well paid jobs are very much disappearing. They are being replaced by jobs in the fast food industry and low paying jobs, many of them still reasonably high skilled.
I will use my industry as an example. In the printing industry, due to technological change hundreds of journeymen and women printers who have spent four and as many as six years serving apprenticeships and were extremely highly skilled are finding themselves, in increasing numbers, unemployed and deskilled. In fact they have gone from highly skilled men and women in highly skilled jobs to being button pushers.


Some Hon. Members:: Not true, not true.


Joy Langan: I obviously struck a chord with Members opposite, Mr. Speaker, because they are finding it necessary to tell me that I do not know what I am talking about.
Have they ever worked in the printing industry? Do they know anything about what has happened in that industry? Do they know what is happening with technological change across the country to men and women who have worked for 20, 30 or 40 years in highly skilled jobs and are now finding themselves in deskilled jobs?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Then they had better be retrained.


Joy Langan: Yes, they had better be retrained, but what are we going to retrain them for? We are going to retrain them to work in fast food restaurants. We are going to retrain them to work in the service industry. We are going to retrain them during the very best working years of their lives, the last five or six years before they retire, to work in low paid jobs in the service industry. I thank very much those on the opposite side of the House who have made my point for me.
It is important that we talk about the sweeping changes announced on April 11 which we are debating tonight. The strategy includes massive cuts to UI regular benefits, an expansion of UI training benefits, a new 10-week parental benefit, the stacking of sickness, pregnancy and parental benefits, and an expanded role for labour and business in labour adjustment.
Clearly the most important feature of the Government's strategy is the proposed massive cuts to regular UI benefits. Regular UI benefits account for 86 per cent of the $10.9 billion in UI benefits claimed last year. The Government has estimated that the new benefit structure will cost $1.3 billion from regular UI benefits. Workers will not only bear the cost of UI changes in reduced benefits, but beginning January 1, 1990 the entire cost of UI benefits will be financed from worker and employer premiums. Worker premiums will be increased from the current level of $1.95 per $100 of weekly earnings to $2.25 per $100 of weekly earnings to replace the nearly $3 billion per year which the Government contributes, or did in the past, for regionally extended benefits. The 15 per cent increase in worker UI benefits will cost a worker making $400 a week $62.40 in increased UI premiums.
The Government will also increase the penalties for fraud by workers or employers. There are about 200 fraud cases a year out of 3.2 million claimants. This is clearly part of the Government's broader strategy to create public hostility toward UI and UI claimants. The Government's justification for massive cuts in basic benefits is to reallocate 10 per cent, or $1.3 billion, of UI
June 21, 1989

funds to training and to cover charter cases; $750 million to training; and $500 million to cover the Charter cases which the Government lost.
The cuts in regular UI benefits are not necessary to finance those changes to UI. At the current premium rate of $1.95 per $100 earned, UI premiums would generate $900 million more than the expenses currently charged to premiums. Had the 1988 rate of $2.35 remained in effect this excess or surplus would have amounted to $4 billion. Premiums could still have been substantially reduced while providing improved special benefits and better training coverage for UI claimants.
Certainly it could have happened if the Government had not chosen with the introduction of this Bill to opt out of unemployment insurance. A feature of the Government's strategy is to shift the cost and burden of unemployment and adjustment to workers, including unemployed workers. In shifting the burden, the power of employers will be increased in shaping conditions of work and wages. A more subtle aspect of the strategy is to highlight penalties of voluntary quits to create a public impression that unemployment is voluntary and to whip up public hostility to the program.
The proposed restructuring of regular UI benefits threatens the viability of UI as a social insurance program for which it was founded. Millions of workers will be required to pay premiums to a plan in which they will never be eligible to receive benefits because of the increase in required weeks to qualify. Workers who most need the benefits for a long duration will have their benefits terminated prematurely.
For example, older workers, to whom the Member from Calgary referred, who have very long spells of unemployment will have little protection because of the very sharp reduction in the duration of weeks of benefits. Well over half the claimants who qualify for UI will have their maximum weeks of entitlement reduced by 13 weeks.
The 1971 Unemployment Insurance Act struck a difficult but workable balance in sharing the burden for unemployment among workers, employers, and the Government. This balance was reflected in the UI benefit structure and in the formula for financing those benefits.
Unemployment Insurance Act
The current benefit structure has three phases. The first two phases relate benefits to a claimant's weeks of work. When I say "current", I am talking about the one we are about to vote out of existence tonight by the other side of the House. The third phase extends UI benefits by two weeks for each half point the regional unemployment rate is above 4 per cent. The three-phase structure worked and worked well.
The over-all maximum duration is 52 weeks less a two-week waiting period. The maximum duration of benefits for most workers in the 48 UI regions has been 40 weeks to 52 weeks over the past 15 years because the unemployment rate in veiy region except two, Toronto and Kitchener, in recent years has been well above 4 per cent. Currently, as of March 1989, the entrance requirement in 22 regions is only 10 weeks for the same reason. The regional unemployment rate has been very high through the 1980s.
Under the new program, in Mission-Coquitlam, my riding where unemployment is 9.8 per cent, the number of weeks needed to qualify will go from 10 weeks to 16 weeks, a 60 per cent increase in the entrance requirement.
In addition to increasing the entrance requirement, the Government is reducing the duration of benefits. The duration of benefits will still vary with the regional rate of unemployment. Under the current system, a worker with 15 weeks living in Mission-Coquitlam, for example where the unemployment rate is between 9 per cent and 10 per cent, could collect 39 weeks of UI benefits.
The same worker, under the proposed system, does not even qualify. Sixteen weeks would be required. If the worker is able to get an extra week to qualify, the maximum weeks of benefits under the Government's proposed system is 27 weeks, 20 weeks less than the current system. A worker in Mission-Coquitlam at the current regional unemployment rate with 52 weeks of work, under the proposed system, I repeat, is limited to 49 weeks, one week less than the 50 weeks under the current system.
The closest we have come to defining a full employment measure in any Canadian statute is the 4 per cent unemployment rate used in the Unemployment Insur-

Unemployment Insurance Act
ance Act to determine the number of weeks UI benefits should be extended as unemployment increases.
It also defines the portion of the Unemployment Insurance Program which should be financed from general government revenues. It explicitly accepts that when unemployment is high the unemployed worker will have a longer job search and that the cost should be borne by government which should manage the economy such that the unemployment level not be greater than 4 per cent. In insurance parlance, it is a form of third party liability. It is a form which is about to be removed.
Much has been made about the extent of training under this program. I just want to say briefly that despite the strong consensus on the need for training-and I agree that training is needed-the Government training programs have been dismal failures. If we talk to anybody who has gone from a well paid job into a training program to being trained for jobs that do not exist or for low paid service industry jobs, they will tell you that first of all the wait is too long, that second the jobs are not there when they are done and, third, that they cannot live on the salary they earn in those jobs. Most Canadians, although they believe that the Government has a responsibility for training, are becoming very cynical. They do not trust that the Government is serious about filling the training gap.
The Government has not been satisfied with getting the so-called free trade deal through. The Government now launches an attack on the very workers whose jobs were lost by making huge cuts in the length of benefits workers are eligible to collect and increases in the time these workers must have worked to qualify for unemployment insurance.
The most offensive is that these same workers are forced, along with employers, to pay the increases in premium for the decreased benefit. Why? It is because the Government is getting out of the unemployment insurance business.
It is interesting that at the same time the Government is running around the United States, the corporate U.S., saying "Canada is open for business", it is running all over Canada saying "the Government of Canada is getting out of business".
Let us examine how Canada is going out of business. The Government is getting out of the UI business. The Government is getting of the passenger rail business.
The Government is getting out of the airline business. The Government is getting out of the oil business. The Government is getting out of the post office business. The Government is going out of business in area after area, and now it is telling Canadian workers: "Tough beans".
In my community, rail workers have been laid off because of cut-backs. Airline workers have been laid off because of mergers from deregulation. Child care workers will be laid off because of lack of funding. Help care workers will be laid off because of lack of transfer payments.
I would like to go on to the forestry workers. The Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Oberle) and the forestry workers in my riding and a number of other ridings in British Columbia are losing their jobs because of the abysmal record of this Government. It promised a full Ministry of Forestry, and we did not get it. It is not in the Budget.
There are hundreds and hundreds of jobs in my riding, including hundreds of forestry jobs. I would invite the Minister to join me in my riding, to visit those forestry workers, and to tell them the sky is falling.
It is a cruel joke. It is vicious and it is vindictive. However, most of all, it is a complete abandonment of a social contract entered into between the Government and the Canadian people.
There is impact on the municipalities, for example, as employers. The Hon. Member for Calgary Southwest referred to infrastructure. Let us talk about what the Government is forcing municipalities to do as employers. Taxes, that is what it is forcing them to do. What about small business and unemployed workers? For example, the Surrey municipality will face an extra expenditure of $814,000 due to the increased UI premiums. This includes the municipality and the school board. In effect, the changes will result in a shift in the tax burden from federal to municipal government.


An Hon. Member:: That is the Tory plan.


Joy Langan: That is the Tory plan.
I would like to close my remarks by setting a scenario. Many of us have taken the opportunity in the House of Commons, those of us from the House of Commons, to go out on to the lawns of this great building and watch the light show. It is not the night show; it is the light show. I would like to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, if you

recall, any of you who have been out see it, there is the rock, the forest, the river, and Queen Victoria.
The rock says:
"I'll tell you what was aggravating. The Great Depression was aggravating."
Voice 1 says:
"The man in charge actually shot one of the men who came in looking for work!"
Voice 2 said:
People cannot be left to starve to death with suicide as the only alternative.
The parliamentarian said:
Conditions are such that men are getting out of control and anything is likely to happen.
Voice 3 said:
I saw about 150 labourers hanging around the door of the Salvation Army waiting for a crumb of bread while millionaires were feasting five minutes walk away.
The parliamentarian said:
What ferments of hatred are growing in the hearts and minds of Canadians of all races.
Voice 4 said:
Surely these are wonderful conditions when the police have to guard the city's dump to keep Canadians from living there!
Voice 5 said:
I feel afraid of what another winter may bring, especially if these awful dust storms continue. Rain might at least give us food.


Mr. Oberle:: The sky is falling in.


Joy Langan: The Hon. Members might want to listen to this. The parliamentarian said:
Strict economy on the part of this Government will mean less work and more unemployment-more hunger, more destitution, more want, more disease, more crime, more insanity, more suicides and more human deterioration.


Frank Oberle: More socialism.


Joy Langan: I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, those words are as true and real today as they were as this great country was being depicted by the Light Show. I think it is a very sad statement that we can laugh and say the sky
Unemployment Insurance Act
is falling in and joke about the plight of the unemployed as we snatch away benefits and withdraw from the business of a social contract. Rather than laughing, Hon. Members on the other side of the House should be apologizing to Canadians, the working men and women, the unemployed, who they are now disregarding.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak in this debate on Bill C-21, the Conservative Government's mean-spirited and ill-conceived reform of our unemployment insurance system.
During the 1988 election campaign, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) said that his Government was not planning nor contemplating any changes to Canada's Unemployment Insurance Act. The Minister said one thing and his Government did another. The list of broken promises keeps getting longer and longer.
The purpose of the Bill we are debating today is to cut back our unemployment insurance system drastically. The Government's proposed reforms are designed to place the entire burden of Canada's $12.6 billion unemployment insurance program squarely on the shoulders of this country's employees and employers.
Both labour and business groups have predicted that the inevitable result of this Bill will be higher unemployment. Nowhere will this effect be felt more strongly than in Atlantic Canada. It stands to reason that in times of austerity or economic downturn employers will think twice before hiring workers if they are forced to contribute a greater amount of money to unemployment insurance.
The Government plans to turn its back on the workers of Canada. Its arguments for doing so do not stand up to the crucible of careful analysis and reason. The first argument used to justify this reform is the alleged necessity of reducing the deficit. All this rhetoric about deficits plaguing the Canadian economy is just a smoke and mirror screen used by the Government to hide its true agenda, which is to cut social spending. Economists do not even agree among themselves as to whether or not the deficit and debt constitute a serious problem for our country. Moreover, a careful study of history tells us

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
that our country in the past lived with high deficits and high ratios of debt to gross domestic product.
The second most obvious reason for the Government's introduction of the legislation is that as part of its delivery system for the Free Trade Agreement it has given in to the Americans who believe that our unemployment insurance system constitutes an unfair trading practice and that it should, therefore, be curtailed if not completely eliminated.
We of the Liberal Party warned Canadians during the last election that the Conservatives would dismantle the essential public services in this country for the sake of free trade. The Government's actions have confirmed our dire warnings. It has cut regional development grants, unemployment insurance tonight, provincial transfer payments, grain transportation subsidies, CBC funding, VIA Rail, and the list goes on and on. The Government made cuts to social programs as well as to a variety of other services in order to create conditions which would permit American businesses to compete with their Canadian counterparts on what the Conservatives call a level playing field. If a level playing field means plant closings and hundreds of people thrown out of work, including 975 workers at Northern Telecom in Aylmer, Quebec, 139 workers at Pittsburgh Paints, 600 Gillette Canada employees in Quebec and Ontario, then I would suggest the Government has succeeded very well indeed.
What Canada needs right now to deal with all the lay-offs caused by free trade is a more progressive and compassionate unemployment system. Instead, the Government tables this legislation which makes it more difficult for displaced workers to obtain unemployment benefits. Where is the logic in all of this, Mr. Speaker?
The third excuse which the Government uses to denigrate Canada's unemployment insurance system is that it believes workers to be fundamentally la2y and that a progressive unemployment insurance system encourages this nasty tendency. For anybody with at least a modicum of common sense and understanding of human behaviour, this argument is nothing more than vapid rhetoric. Individuals take pride in and get satisfaction from gainful employment. People use unemployment insurance benefits out of necessity, not choice. If the
Tory Government does not understand this, then it had better do some more homework.
Statistics show us that only an infinitely small percentage of unemployment insurance claimants either cheat or abuse the system. According to figures supplied by the Department of Employment and Immigration, only 5,507 people were caught cheating in 1987-1988. During the same period, 6,215 people refused a job while receiving unemployment insurance benefits and thereby lost their rights to the benefits.
If you tally up these figures, the number of people who either cheated or refused a job while claiming benefits is negligible. Only 0.45 per cent of all claimants can be said to have abused the system. Think of it, Mr. Speaker, that is less than 1/2 of 1 per cent of the 2.4 million people on unemployment insurance. If the Government thinks a progressive unemployment system encourages laziness, then I would have to say that the Government's thinking is muddleheaded because figures do not lie.
There is absolutely no relationship between a progressive unemployment insurance system and a high level of abuse and cheating. In fact, countries which have the most progressive unemployment systems, as the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) said in this House on June 6, have the lowest rates of unemployment in the world. For example, Sweden, Switzerland, West Germany, France and Australia all have unemployment rates of less than 5 per cent. Moreover, the average rate of unemployment in Canada between 1965 and 1980 was 5.6 per cent, a very low figure indeed. Therefore, it is a fallacy to assert that a progressive unemployment insurance system encourages sloth.

Mr. Speaker, the Unemployment Insurance Act was brought in by Mackenzie King's Liberal Government in 1940, following the great economic crisis of the 1930s. The basic purpose of this law was to ensure that all Canadians could meet their essential needs when they were laid off against their will. Unemployment insurance is only one of the features that makes our society more compassionate and fairer.
The Bill that we are debating today is clearly contrary to the spirit of that law. The Government intends to reduce its contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Program by $1.3 billion. Furthermore, it will use this money to offset the cuts of over $700 million that it made
June 21, 1989

in the last five years. Instead of using funds from general revenue, the Government will take this money from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. From now on, all workers will have to pay for the special training programs.
Mr. Speaker, we completely agree with the principle that the unemployed should have access to better training programs. Nevertheless, the Government should not take money from the Unemployment Insurance Fund to finance these programs.
The present Unemployment Insurance Act provides that 2 per cent of the Fund is to be used to finance special training programs. With the reforms proposed by the Government, the main burden of financing these programs will fall on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. This is a regressive tax. Everyone will lose: workers who receive training, companies hiring the workers so trained, and the economy which benefits from these new skills.
A crucial problem arising from this ill-conceived reform is that the Government can give people in regions of high economic disparity no assurance that they will benefit from this training. Will New Brunswickers who receive high technology training be able to work in their province or will they have to move to Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver?
Mr. Speaker, I get tired of hearing the Government say that it is creating all sorts of economic opportunities while the Atlantic provinces are getting a very raw deal. The Government is closing military bases, abandoning rural post offices, thumbing its nose at regional development agreements and drastically slashing VIA Rail's budget. This Government is deliberately laying off hundreds of workers and it has the nerve to say that it is contributing to this region's economic development. To top it all, the Government is limiting access to benefits.
To set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, unemployment in the Atlantic region remains much higher than the national average. Many of our young people must leave this region if they want to have interesting careers. I know that this suits the Conservatives very well. But
Unemployment Insurance Act
the people of the Atlantic provinces want this exodus to stop.

The national unemployment rate is 7.8 per cent, down from 11.7 per cent in 1984. However, this 7.8 per cent comes five years after the last recession. There are still over one million unemployed Canadians. With all the Government's claims of jobs, jobs, jobs, one would think that it could have brought that level back at least to where it was before the recession, 7 per cent. Need I remind Hon. Members that in the 15 years prior to the recession, under a Liberal Government, the average unemployment rate was 5.6 per cent?
The rate of unemployment in Atlantic Canada is staggering. For all their fine promises, the Tories have let Atlantic Canada down. Instead of helping the region with a more progressive system of unemployment insurance, the Government has hardened the blow by increasing the number of weeks needed to qualify for benefits, by reducing the duration and by increasing penalty periods.
The Government's proposals for reform are terribly short-sighted. It has increased the number of weeks needed to qualify because it believes that work, any work, is easily available. I hate to break it to the Government, but that is simply not the case for Atlantic Canada. In many instances, work is seasonal and when it runs out, there are only two alternatives, unemployment insurance or welfare.
The changes proposed by the Government will be devastating to the Atlantic region. Failure to obtain the number of weeks needed to qualify for unemployment insurance will mean that many people will be forced on to the provincial welfare rolls. That is not a very pleasant prospect, I assure Hon. Members.
The unemployment rate in the riding of Restigouche, which I represent, is 15.6 per cent, nearly twice the national average. Under the current system, people need 10 weeks of work in order to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. The duration of benefits is a period of 42 weeks. Moreover, the penalty for people who quit without proper reason is six weeks. The revisions the Conservatives are proposing will considerably alter the system. The duration of benefits will be reduced by five

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
weeks, from 42 to 37 weeks. Finally, the penalty period for people who leave their jobs without proper reason will be 12 weeks.
The Government tells us that its reforms will benefit workers. What effrontery. Will workers benefit from longer qualification periods, shorter durations of benefits and training for jobs that do not exist? Certainly not.
Money from the unemployment insurance fund is very beneficial to Canada's less developed regions. The money that is spent goes back into the community and helps local businesses. The Government's proposed unemployment insurance reform combined with cuts to regional development programs, post office closures, army base closures and VIA Rail cuts will be devastating to the Atlantic region.
Unemployment insurance benefits have always served as a stabilizer in communities where there is high unemployment. Reforms to this system should be to improve, not worsen economic conditions.
The Government is clearly shifting its share of the financial burden to the provinces. They will be forced to extend their make-work projects in order to permit workers to obtain the necessary work weeks to qualify for benefits. Failing this, the provinces will be obliged to increase their social assistance programs in order to provide for those individuals who are unable to find enough work to qualify for unemployment insurance.
In both cases, the provinces will be forced to make additional expenditures without any prior warning. The Government has not done any impact studies to ascertain how many workers will be harmed by the changes. Two provinces, British Columbia and Quebec, have already acknowledged that the Government's proposed changes will result in increased social assistance expenditures.
Changes to the unemployment insurance system will seriously harm the economy of rural Canada. Local industries which employ seasonal workers long enough to permit them to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits will be faced with the choice of either laying off workers who do not have enough weeks to qualify or retaining these employees long enough to permit them to qualify. The additional weeks needed for workers to qualify will force these firms to make additional wage expenditures, thereby reducing and limiting their competitiveness. Since these companies will have to compete
more and more on an international basis, they will be severely hampered by these increased costs.
The Government has said that the main thrust of its reform was to provide more training. While we believe job training to be very important, we also believe the Government's initiative to be seriously flawed. In many cases, rural communities have only one main industry, and the options workers have are very limited. It is more than likely that the training the Government wishes to provide will force these workers to move out of their regions to find employment. Instead of creating a comprehensive regional development policy, the Government has chosen to increase mobility funds to help workers relocate to regions where employment opportunities are plentiful, away from Atlantic Canada.
I believe this Bill to be very important, and it should be examined as fully as possible. However, the Government seems oblivious to this notion. First, it sabotaged a decision of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration to travel throughout Canada to consult broadly on Bill C-21. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) said that she did not consult nor did she intend to consult. Second, after only a few Members had spoken in the debate, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) gave notice that he intended to invoke closure. Not only does the Government not care about unemployed workers, not only does it use spurious arguments to justify its heartless reforms, it is making a mockery of Parliament and democratic debate.
Mr. Speaker, we looked at the reasons the Government uses to justify its reform of the Unemployment Insurance Act and we must conclude that these reasons make no sense. It has built a house of cards to excuse its harsh treatment of workers. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the house of cards does not stand up. So I must force the Government to reconsider the Bill and do all it can to provide the workers of Canada with a decent unemployment insurance system.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. Unemployment insurance, regrettably I must say, is an extremely important part of the economy of Atlantic Canada, and indeed of Nova Scotia and the
June 21, 1989

South Shore which I am honoured to represent in the House.
Unemployment insurance has an extremely important role in our society, serving as a safety net in the social system of any civilized society of which ours is one. There are three characteristics which, in my judgment, typify an effective unemployment insurance program. First, the recognition that it is, first and foremost, insurance. It is not the same type of program that we have under the Canada Assistance Plan, for example, but it is insurance. It is something of which one never wants to take advantage. I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to collect on my life insurance- I cannot, of course, speak for my wife. I have no desire to collect on my automobile insurance, and similarly I have no desire to collect on my unemployment insurance. It is insurance. It is something that properly structured and organized is something that we do not want to have to use, but regrettably and unfortunately from time to time we have to use.
Second, it is important to recognize that an unemployment insurance scheme is but part of a network of support systems that exist within a sane and civilized society. It is the particular one that responds to the circumstance that people find themselves in from time to time when they are faced with what one would hope to be a temporary situation of unemployment. The unemployment insurance scheme should not be looked upon as the panacea that will solve all the social evils in society, but should be recognized as performing a function of providing support and assistance to individuals who find themselves in an unemployed circumstance.
Third, an unemployment insurance system is intended to be temporary. It is not supposed to be the basis for a lifestyle. The idea is that if people find themselves unfortunately unemployed for a period of time, there is a safety net to assist them until they have the opportunity to find themselves usefully back into an employed circumstance.
In this context, what role does unemployment insurance play in Canada? I believe, first and foremost, that the intent of our unemployment insurance system is indeed, as I have suggested, to serve as that safety net for persons who find themselves unemployed. That is the primary purpose of our unemployment insurance
Unemployment Insurance Act
scheme, and that should remain the primary focus and purpose of our unemployment insurance system.
If we examine the history of this country in recent years, we will find that it also serves a second purpose. It serves as an income support system. My hon. friend opposite was just speaking about the role it has played as an income support system in Atlantic Canada in recent years for people who find themselves unemployed on a regular basis. It is particularly true in Atlantic Canada that some of the industries that exist function on a seasonal basis. For example, fish plants operate on a seasonal basis. Employment within our forestry and agricultural sectors operate on a seasonal basis. Of course, fishermen are only able to seek to harvest the seas for limited periods of time during the course of the year.
This income support function is an extremely important function, not only in Atlantic Canada but indeed in many parts of Canada. It would be my hope that we will see the day in the not too distant future where the unemployment insurance scheme will be reserved as an unemployment insurance scheme, and that there will be another more appropriate type of income support, such as a guaranteed annual income system, put in place in this country. However, for the moment we do not have such a system and we must therefore continue to see and recognize the legitimate role of the unemployment insurance program as an income support system for Canadians who have need of that assistance on an annual basis.
What should be the key objectives of an unemployment insurance system? I have already made the point that first and foremost it should provide a safety net, or protection against the circumstance of unanticipated and undesired unemployment.
Second, an effective unemployment insurance system must be readily accessible to those with a legitimate need to take advantage of it. I cannot stress the importance of that. It is no good if a person cannot get it when he or she needs it.
Third, it must provide a reasonable level of support. Not a level of support that is so attractive that people ask themselves whether or not they should continue to work diligently and hard when the alternative arrangement is to work for a certain period of time and then go on the unemployment rolls, relax and enjoy life or follow other pursuits. It must provide a reasonable level of support

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
for people who legitimately require the assistance that is provided through that system.
As with any form of insurance-and let us not forget that first and foremost we are talking about a system of insurance-it should be essentially self-financed. It should not be put as yet another service provided at the cost of the taxpayers. We join it, just as we choose to have automobile insurance, life insurance and various other forms of insurance. This is a form of insurance and insurance is something that we have to pay for. We have the good fortune in that the unemployment insurance scheme that exists in this country is not totally paid for by the individuals who benefit from it, but indeed employers contribute, and contribute substantially, to that system. From time to time, as the costs of the system go up, so also does the cost of the premiums, and they have to be met. We have seen in the Budget, which is not directly related to this Bill, increases in those premiums.
From time to time I have heard suggestions made, spurious suggestions I might say, that the increases in the tariffs for unemployment insurance are to be borne by those who are unemployed. One does not have to study the situation very carefully to realize that those who are unemployed are drawing the benefits. They are not paying the premiums. The premiums are paid by the people who are employed, as well as by the employers. That is the way it should be, so there is no disadvantage. Premiums should be raised to reflect the costs of providing the service, but they should not be put upon as a burden for those who have the unfortunate circumstance to have need of the service and the assistance it is providing.
Fifth, participation in the unemployment insurance scheme should be mandatory. I thought long and hard about this. I used to work for the teachers' union in Nova Scotia. Some of us were very annoyed when participation in the pension plan was made mandatory. After a while, I came to realize that if it was not made mandatory people would rather use the money for some other purpose, and the same would apply to insurance. Then the time of retirement comes and they do not qualify for a pension and they are extremely disappointed.
I have a friend who is a life insurance agent. I am sure a number of Members have friends who are life insurance agents. When I was going to buy life insurance I told my friend that my wife said we did not need any more life insurance. She does not want me to be paying any more premiums for life insurance. He said to me: "I tell you what, you go back and tell her this. I have been an insurance agent for more than 30 years. I have met a lot of wives who did not like paying life insurance premiums, but I have never met a widow who did not think it was a valuable way to spend money".
The same thing applies with unemployment insurance. We cannot take a chance on people being short-sighted. It is too easy in the short term to say: "I can use those extra few dollars", and when the problem occurs you find yourself unable to meet the demands. At that point, there is an interest in society as well because people who have not protected themselves appropriately then become a burden on society.
The sixth point that should typify an unemployment insurance scheme is that it should not be readily open to abuse. How often have we as Members of this House had constituents come to us and say: "I know so and so who is cheating on unemployment insurance. I know so and so who is drawing pogey"-as we call it in the Mari-times-"who could be out working". A good, effective scheme seeks to eradicate abuses. It has stiff penalties for those who want to cheat the system. After all, when they cheat the system they are cheating every single one of us who honestly and with integrity contribute to that system. They force our premiums up. That is certainly not fair.
Similarly related to that is the seventh point I would make. It is that the system is one that should not encourage people to quit. There should not be incentives for people to quit their jobs so that they can go on a paid vacation compliments of the unemployment insurance scheme.
A friend ran a company in northern Nova Scotia which pulled up rail lines. He told me he had a devil of a time. People were employed for 12 weeks, then they would sit down on the job or go home. Maybe they would go hunting or do a little farming. They had no interest at all in working beyond the 12 weeks. They would sit down,
June 21, 1989

wait for him to fire them and then go and draw unemployment insurance. A system that is effective should not be conducive to that form of behaviour.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: .02 per cent are cheaters.


Peter L. McCreath: We should have a reasonable expectation that people will in fact take advantage of the system when they find themselves in the condition of being unemployed and that they will reasonably seek alternative employment during the time that they are unemployed.
Something about which we hear a great deal is that people are drawing unemployment insurance but that they are not seeking alternative employment. A good scheme is one which not only protects the individual while they are unemployed but provides incentives, encouragement and assistance to get them back into the labour force as soon as possible.
The next point I should make is that the system itself should provide assistance to individuals to assist them in finding alternative employment. Indeed, if there is no readily available alternative employment, it should provide them assistance and opportunities for retraining so that they can prepare themselves to qualify for other useful long-term employment opportunities.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: So you have an employment strategy?


Peter L. McCreath: One example that we have in our social systems and our social nets in our country to which I think improvement needs to be made is with respect to disabled persons. I have the privilege of serving as a member of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. Yesterday, we visited Toronto-I almost hesitate to say the word. We visited Toronto and heard from a significant number of groups which came before us to talk about the difficulties and the challenges faced by persons who for one reason or another have to learn to live with disabilities. One of the frustrations they had was that if they seek to overcome their difficulties and find alternative employment, even if it is only on a part-time basis, they are penalized for doing so by the social system and the tax system.
These people should be encouraged. They should not, as should no person, be encouraged to continue in a condition of unemployment if in fact there is an opportu-
Unemployment Insurance Act
nity for part-time or otherwise employment. We need to have incentives built into the system in that regard.
Finally, any system has to be a fair system. It has to be a system that reflects equally the needs of all Canadians, that provides equal access to all Canadians and that effectively provides equal benefit to all Canadians. We must not make it attractive for people to look to unemployment insurance as a preference to satisfying self-fulfilling and, indeed, financially rewarding employment within Canadian society.
Nevertheless, the best way to deal with the problem of unemployment is exactly what I might say this Government has done for the last four to five years. It is to have a sound economy, to have approaches from Government that facilitate the creation of jobs. We have seen the creation of a million and a half jobs during the less than five years that this Government has been in office. I might say that the same applies in my own area of Atlantic Canada. I hope we will continue.
We have some problems in Atlantic Canada with our fisheries. The Government cannot create fish. However, this Government is doing a marvellous job in providing incentives to create jobs. For example, we have seen in the last four and a half years of this Government the creation of over 108,000 jobs. I am not talking about make-work projects. I am talking about the creation of jobs, jobs that give people sound incomes, secure futures and a sense of self-fulfilment and self-reliance. At the same time we have seen a reduction in unemployment.
My hon. friends opposite raise some skepticism about this. However, the facts can speak for themselves. What have we seen during the first term of this Government? We saw a reduction in unemployment in Prince Edward Island from 13.8 per cent to 11 per cent. We have seen a reduction in New Brunswick from 14 per cent to 10 per cent and in Newfoundland from 24 per cent to 13.5 per cent. Indeed, in my own Province of Nova Scotia, we have seen a reduction in the unemployment rate from 13 per cent to 7 per cent. That is the kind of performance that we need. That is the kind of performance that goes together with an effective social network to assist Canadians.
Let me take a look at the Bill before the House and assess it against those criteria that I have set forward. What are the principal thrusts of the Bill and what are their implications? Let us face it, the unemployment insurance system is a living organism, like any other system of Government. These things are not set in time intended to be there forever and ever. As circumstances and times change, development opportunities occur. The

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
first and most important thing is that this Government has recognized that unemployment is not supposed to be a permanent way of life but that people must have an opportunity to get themselves back fully participating in the labour force. Consequently, we see a greater emphasis on retraining and on assisting individuals to find alternative job opportunities.
As I said before, we see also a targeting attempt to deal with the abuses that have been present in the system that have drained some of the funds from time to time. There are stiffer penalties for quitters. There are penalties for those who seek to avoid work. There are stiffer penalties against cheaters. That is as it should be. This may not apply to my friends opposite, but I will tell them that in the part of Canada I come from we believe that a person should do a day's work for a day's pay. We do not believe that systems like unemployment insurance exist to be ripped off by those who do not share the values that we hold high and that are the basis of what is good in Canada.
This Bill and the budget that goes with it seeks to make this system more self-financing which, as I said before, is the way any insurance system should be, noting that those premium increases that come with the budget are not going to be burdened upon those who are unemployed. The unemployed do not pay the premiums. Those who can afford the premiums are being taxed with them.
There are some changes. There will be an increase in some qualification periods. There will be reduced periods during which people can collect. That is exactly the way the system should go.
First, the extended periods of qualification are to be applied to those areas that do not suffer from extreme or high unemployment. Similarly, studies have shown that the people who draw to the extent of the system are the people who are not really intended to be served by the system.
Once again we find that the amendments to the Act being brought forward are clearly in accord with common sense, propriety and wisdom. They preserve the safety net which is the fundamental important aspect of an unemployment insurance system. I am not saying that
there might not be a need for a little bit of fine tuning along the way.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter L. McCreath: I look forward to the fact that we may see some of that done at the committee stage. Indeed, I may have a word or two to say about it myself.
However, on the whole, what we have here is a revision of the Act that moves it in the right direction. I see Mr. Speaker waving to me so I must wind up briefly. How will this affect Atlantic Canada? Unemployment insurance will continue to respond to the regional disparity circumstances that affect Atlantic Canadians. The increased qualifications will not hit Atlantic Canada, providing we have changes in some of the boundaries by which the unemployment insurance rates are computed. That is absolutely essential, and I am sure the Government has heard what many Members, particularly rural Members, have said in that regard. Implementation of the Bill should not precede the implementation of the change in those boundaries so that they will reflect actual unemployment rates in different parts of Canada.
The unemployment insurance system, while one of the most controversial aspects of Canadian life, is an extremely important aspect of Canadian life. We must continually mould and modify that system so that it meets the needs of Canadians and remains consistent with the priorities of Canadians. That is the direction in which this Bill goes. I am proud to support the Bill and commend the Government for its introduction.
[Translation\


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to express my objections to the legislation before the House, Bill C-21, which contains proposals for major changes in the unemployment insurance program. Unlike my colleague from Nova Scotia who just spoke, I believe that these changes are certainly not what is best for the people of the Atlantic provinces.
Over the years, the unemployment insurance program has been able to provide families in the Atlantic provinces with some measure of security. Of course we would rather work, we would rather have jobs, we would rather work all year round instead of working only 10,12, 15, 20 or 25 weeks. We would like to work all round, year first, because it pays better, and second, because we want to work and we enjoy working. However, since the jobs just are not there, the unemployment insurance program provides families with income security. This means that families can depend on a fairly stable source of income
June 21, 1989

every month. It means that families that are not as well off as their neighbours can still have a decent standard of living. It isn't luxury, but we have food on the table, clothes on our backs, a roof over our heads and we can heat our homes. It means that our children, the children of families that are less well off, can go to school with other children without feeling any different. The kids from poor families have to go to the same school as kids from rich families. They have to buy the same books and of course they want to dress the same as everybody else, and that costs money. And in many cases, in the Atlantic provinces the unemployment insurance program has been able to provide these families with a secure family income.
If you visit the Atlantic region and happen to go to Beausejour, stop at the comer store and ask the clerk what the unemployment insurance program means to him and to the families who are his customers. He will tell you those families are able to live decently thanks to the unemployment insurance program.
It is often said that people abuse the program. Some people do, but they are a minority. There will always be people who abuse the system, it doesn't matter what kind of program we come up with. I repeat, these are isolated cases. And I think the unemployment insurance program should continue to provide families in the Atlantic region and across Canada with this form of family income security. Mr. Speaker, thanks to this program, our people managed to survive the recession in the early 1980s.
This was followed by a period of economic recovery in Canada generally, and of course the Tories who came to power in 1984 are inclined to take a certain amount of credit for this prosperity.
However, if we look at the Atlantic region, what do we see? Our unemployment rate went down a little. Nevertheless, there is still a gap between the standard of living of people in Canada's more prosperous regions and
Unemployment Insurance Act
people living in the Atlantic region, and this gap is unacceptable because it is far too wide.
Throughout this period of prosperity, as I said just now, the unemployment rate went down somewhat. However, we still lost jobs, many of which were subsequently replaced by part-time jobs-the money wasn't as good, but it still helped to reduce the unemployment rate.
Then in 1988, we had the election campaign and all those wonderful promises. It was fantastic, what they were going to do for us in the way of regional development. There was going to be more money. If I remember correctly, the great-

The great J.C. himself told the people of Atlantic Canada: "There will be no changes, no cuts to unemployment insurance. Maybe later, in two years, we will look at the program but there are no changes planned in UI".

Mr. Speaker, the 1988 election campaign will be known as the great lie, because we were led to believe all kinds of things.
And of course, the Tories were re-elected. Then we got the Wilson Budget, which was all over Ottawa before it was tabled in the House. Well, that was a disaster. Cuts, cuts, cuts. Regional development programs, the Atlantic Opportunities Program, which was supposed to get $1 billion over five years, new money that was going to be put into regional development and was going to create jobs. And now we find that they are going to dilute that billion dollars to extend it over 7 years. That means a lot less money.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) told his Cabinet colleagues: You will all have to cut your budgets. Of course, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Ms. McDougall) said: Sure, I could cut funding for the unemployment insurance program. The Government doesn't have to be involved in the program any longer. And here we are discussing the program and the proposed changes. This Budget, gave us a raw deal, but the Minister told us not to woriy because even if there were changes, the people who needed unemployment insurance would get it.

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
We were talking about regions and the Minister was aware of the problems we had in the regions, as defined for the unemployment insurance program. Here I want to talk about rural regions and urban regions because we are affected in our area.
In the Beausejour region, the unemployment rate is between 15 and 30 per cent in the rural part. But in the neighboring city, Moncton, the unemployment rate is steady at around 8 per cent. When the urban and rural rates are combined, we get 11, 11.4, 11.5, which means that according to the law, we must have worked 16 weeks.
Last June, the Minister assured us that she was reviewing the whole matter, because she realized that combining urban and rural areas could cause problems in some regions.
I asked several times and always got the same answer: the matter was under review. When the Minister announced the unemployment insurance program, she also said that a study was being done and should be completed by January 1990, when the changes to the unemployment insurance program would take effect. But we read in the newspapers recently: U.I. Boundary System may miss deadline.
Once again, people are disappointed. They are promised changes that will benefit them, but the studies are not done and there is foot-dragging. However, the Government cannot say that it was not aware that such a problem or problems existed. People had been promised that the necessary changes would be made, because for us, the difference between 10 and 16 weeks and between 10 and 14 weeks, as this Bill proposes, is a major problem. Why? For the simple reason that we depend greatly on fishing. And where we live, fishing is seasonal. The lobster season in my part of the country is only 10 weeks. There is no question of making the season longer, because if the season were extended, it would be disastrous for lobster stocks; the same thing is happening in the crab industry where this resource was used as the basis for income support programs. This resource was used to provide weeks of work. This year, there was no more crab. There had been overfishing. So the people
working in the factories were not even able to work their 10 weeks.
All this to tell you that where we live, fishing is very, very seasonal. Of course, if the fishermen can only fish for 10 weeks, the factory workers are also limited to 10 weeks, not in all cases, but in many cases.
So this change from 10 to 14 weeks as proposed in this Bill is a major change that threatens some families and the stability of their income.
Of course, maybe only one person in the family will be affected, but in our area, as here and in many families, both parents have to work to "make ends meet".
And if one of the two can't qualify for unemployment insurance, they will have to live on one income because it also means you can't qualify for welfare benefits either. Which means that the family's income will be cut in two, when their income was already stretched to the limit, so we can't ask these people to make do with less money. People would rather work!
The proposed legislation is supposed to enable the Government to put a lot more emphasis on training. That is fine with us. If you are unemployed and you qualify for an unemployment insurance program or a training program, this is as good as a winning ticket and in fact they should literally offer you a ticket so you can move to a more prosperous part of this country.
Why? Because, Mr. Speaker, you can have all kinds of training programs, but if you can't get a job after all that training, you are back to square one.
In fact, one of the shortcomings of this program and all these changes is that there is no full employment strategy. But what did they do? Instead of giving us job opportunities, they went and cut the programs that could have helped us create jobs.
Earlier, I mentionned ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had promised $1 billion over five years. And now we find it isn't five but seven years. The money for development agreements and sub-agreements on fisheries, forestry, tourism- Today I heard that the subagreements on tourism won't even be renewed and that the amounts earmarked for these sub-agreements will now come out of ACOA funds.

It was supposed to be new money for all regional development programs, and now the few opportunities, the few resources we had to create new jobs are being eliminated.
Earlier, I heard my colleague from Nova Scotia say people were abusing the system and that changes were necessary.
Mr. Speaker, people in the Atlantic region would prefer to work if we could at least give them some way of creating jobs that would then help them take advantage of training programs. However, it's no use training them if there are no jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I tell you that without a ticket, because it takes a ticket, by the time the workers are trained, VIA Rail will no longer be there. They will not be able to take the train to leave. Because that was also cut. Just in our area, the Province of New Brunswick, over 250 jobs will be lost because of the VIA Rail cutbacks. Add to that the 1200 jobs that we lost in the CN shops last year, although we were promised that they would not be cut!
Mr. Speaker, you understand why I must oppose this Bill, because, Mr. Speaker, this BUI is contrary to the best interests of my constituents, the people of Beausejour. That is why I support the amendment of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), who wants to amend the BUI, so that Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, is not now read a second tune but is read a second time six months from today.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this BUI with some unhappiness and discontent with the fact that we have to be debating it because it is going to wreak havoc on the people of this nation. This BUI comes from a Government which says it has compassion for Canadians, that it is caring of Canadians, and that it is acting in the interests of all Canadians. The Government is certainly not a friend of the underprivileged in this country, the workers in this country, the seniors in this country, and certainly not of students in this country. In fact, Canadians right across the land are very concerned about this BUI.
Unemployment Insurance Act
In fact, with regard to students, a student by the name of Christopher Wayland from McGUl University in Montreal, certainly nowhere near my riding, is so concerned about this BUI and is so fundamentally opposed to it that he made a point of contacting the House tonight to ask that his name be put on the record of this House as being publicly opposed to this BUI. That says a lot for Mr. Wayland and a lot for Canadians right across the land.
This BUI reflects the true agenda of the Government. To paraphrase an old saying, this is a Government by the privUeged few, of the privileged few and for the privileged few. Twenty minutes is only time to barely scratch the surface of the effects that this BUI wUl have on Canadians.
I would like to talk about the Free Trade Agreement. Before the election the Government was stating that the Free Trade Agreement would have no effect on social programs, would create a level playing field on which our social programs would be secured, that they would be not touched. Yet this BUI has, in effect, lowered the standard of social programs, it has affected the unemployment insurance program. Our unemployment insurance system is vastly superior to the United States but this BUI brings us much closer to harmony with the U.S. The Government is quick to say that every sparrow that falls is going to be blamed on the Free Trade Agreement. Well I think a jumbo jet is crashing on the nation today.
Just to give two examples, in the lower mainland of B.C. where the unemployment rate is approximately 11 per cent, unemployed people formerly received 50 weeks of unemployment insurance and they wUl now receive 39 weeks of insurance. What a surprise to find that if you go south a few mUes to Seattle you wUl find that unemployed workers in that area of that country receive 39 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits. Workers who quit or are fired from their jobs wUl lose seven to 12 weeks in benefits. Their insured earnings wUl be cut to 50 per cent from 60 per cent. This again is in harmony with the U.S. As the free trade BUI takes effect, as the free trade fall-out falls upon us, we find our playing field srnking down into the mure. This is exactly what the Government said would not happen.
I have been listening to the comments which some Members opposite have been making. I am appalled at some of the comments. The Member from South Shore (Mr. McCreath) indicated that there have been increased numbers of jobs and that this BUI wUl work toward increasing jobs. I do not know about his region of the country, but I certainly know that there are actually

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
15,000 fewer people living in the Province of Saskatchewan. We are losing population because of the lack of jobs and the lack of commitment of the Government to regional job development.
The Member for Elk Island (Mr. O'Kurley) says that his Government knows that Canadians will take advantage of the opportunity not to work. The Member from South Shore put it even more bluntly, he said that he did not like to see the unemployed rip off the country.
I would like those Members and other Members who have the same attitude to tell that to the working poor of this country, to tell that to the 40 per cent of families living below the poverty line who have both husband and wife working. They are not ripping off the country. They are trying to survive. Tell that to the people who are living below the poverty line and are paying taxes. I think it is outrageous that people who live below the poverty line actually have to pay taxes. Is that a compassionate government? Is that a government that cares for people?
Less than 1 per cent of the unemployed are so-called ripping off the system. The unemployed in this country have a better record at not committing fraud than the members of the PC caucus, a far better record. The Member may be tired of unemployed ripping off the country, but the people of the country are tired of the PC Government ripping off the country.
A Member opposite made the comment that Canadians want to work and I certainly agree with that, certainly with respect to small businesses. I would like to focus on that group for a few moments. Small businesses create more jobs than does any other sector of our economy. Small business people often work 50, 60 and more hours a week to make ends meet. They are the industry in this nation that is, in many areas, keeping the economy moving. And what thanks do they get from the Government? Small businesses are suffering under high interest rates. In my region of the country small businesses are having a difficult time and high interest rates are certainly making it more difficult. That is true in other regions of the country as well. They have been hit with bank charges. The Government has introduced a Bill supposedly to deal with bank charges but it certainly did not think of small businesses when it dealt with bank
charges. The governing Party says that it is a friend of small business. Well, you do not need many friends like that.
That Party should take a lesson from this Party, the New Democratic Party, which is in fact looking after the interests of small business. It is our Party which recently introduced a motion calling upon the Government to make small business its first priority. It was this Party that introduced a motion recently which received the unanimous consent of the House, which called on the Government to make small business the first priority of the Federal Business Development Bank.
That is a direction that the Government could take. It could begin to implement some changes to help create some jobs in this country, because Canadians do want to work, but they need the opportunity to work. Unless the Government is going to create an environment in which there are opportunities, then people will not work, and certainly small business needs opportunities. Small business often works on a low-profit margin and works long hours. Small business is the industry in this country which is creating jobs, they are the ones who should be having some advantages.
We are waiting, Mr. Speaker. We hope that the Government will take some direction regarding our motion with respect to the Federal Business Development Bank. We are still waiting. We are not holding our breath but we are waiting.
In the meantime, what has this Party done to small business? It has introduced an unemployment insurance Bill and budget cuts which are going to directly affect small businesses. We have heard all sorts of speeches and all sorts of very valid comments about the effect that this Bill will have on the workers in this country and about the disadvantaged in this country. Certainly small business fits into that category.
This is a Bill which is going to put the burden of social programs directly on the backs of workers and small business employers. That is a sad comment to make in this day and age. This is a government which is cutting some $3 billion that it took from general revenue to put into the unemployment insurance program. That is
June 21, 1989

where the money should be coming from. It was a distribution of income and funds which were transferred more equitably across this nation. That is now gone.
Small business will not notice it immediately because the unemployment fund has a surplus. That is simply because the rates were increased last fall. When the rates go up the following November, it is going to be the workers of this country and it is going to be the small business employers who are going to be fuelling that increase directly and dramatically.
The Government will say that it is throwing hundreds of millions of dollars of new funds into job creation. These are neither new funds, nor are they for the benefit of small business. The Minister of Finance removed these funds from the unemployment insurance program-when he brought down his Budget. Small business is not in a position to take advantage of those programs. They are designed for big business. They are designed for the friends of the Party opposite. It is tragic for the people of this nation.
If this Government would like to do something for small business, then it should be acting in a manner which is going to be responsible to small business. It should consider passing legislation that is going to allow small business to survive in this country. It should be creating an environment whereby small business can function. It should be using the Federal Business Development Bank to provide loans to small business. It should be having an unemployment insurance program whereby the employer is not burdened with carrying the weight of the social programs on their backs. It should be providing an interest rate policy which is going to assist small business.
This program affects dramatically the very regions of our country. This is not unlike other Bills this Government is passing. Certainly there have been tremendous cuts in provincial transfer payments. There have been tremendous cuts with respect to regional programs.
There have been base closures. The base closures alone are a disgrace. The Government has closed the base at Summerside in Prince Edward Island which employed some 1,100 people. These are 1,100 direct jobs lost in a city of some 8,000. That is going to be devastating for that community.
Unemployment Insurance Act
In Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, the Government has taken a town of some 15,000 people and removed 700 jobs. What is the response of the Government opposite? The Minister of National Defence (Mr. McKnight) said: "We are not in the business of creating regional jobs". The Minister from Calgary Centre said that we have to look at the bottom line. This is a nation which has been built on regional development. This is a government which is turning its back on the regions of this country with cuts to VIA Rail and the whole transportation system. This is a government that is ignoring the regions.
This Government states that this Bill has some benefits for this country. It does have some benefits. It points out that it will enhance the maternity, the paternity and the sickness benefits. It is going to improve benefits to those over 65 years of age. That is true.
This Government opposite would like us to believe that the reason that those aspects of the Bill were implemented was because of its compassion for this country and its desire to help Canadians. This was one of the slickest moves which I have seen this Government do. This is a Party which is very good at being slick. It runs a slick operation.
The reason that these measures were put in place was because they were going to be forced on the Government anyway. He was already facing court actions on many of these areas. It simply decided to cut their losses and put them into this program to try to embellish itself and appease Canadians for these dastardly cuts which it has made in other areas.
I do not believe that Canadians are that gullible. I do not believe that this Government is going to get away with this. This Bill may pass but this is a Government which is now in a second majority mandate and it is feeling a little comfortable and a little arrogant. Those are attitudes for a government which finds itself in trouble when an election comes by.
This Bill affects the regions of this country. It affects Atlantic Canada. It affects northern Ontario and northern Quebec. It affects western Canada. They have all suffered under this Government. This is a Government which is failing to regard the welfare and the needs of this country.

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
I am truly sad to be in the House this evening because we will be voting on second reading of this Bill in a very short time and unfortunately, with a majority government on the opposite side, we are going to lose this vote.
Canadians will long remember this. Canadians will not forget this. Certainly we on this side of the House will do our best to remind Canadians of the dastardly approach and the dastardly deeds which this Government is perpetrating on this nation.


Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are very fortunate to live in this high-tech era. We can enjoy wonders of technological ingenuity today that were inconceivable even to the last generation.
Personal computers, VCRs, word processors; all of these conveniences have become part of our daily existence. They are the result of technology which was non-existent 30 years ago.
This technology is enhancing our personal, lives but it is also affecting us in the workplace. Canadian workers must meet an unprecedented demand for skills. That demand will only increase in the years ahead.
That is why I support this legislation to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. Bill C-21 is a major component of the Government's Labour Force Development Strategy. The key to this strategy is that it will help train Canadians in the skills they need now and in the future.
Bill C-21 has three objectives. The first is to prepare Canadian workers for existing and future labour market challenges. The second is to right some longstanding wrongs by ensuring that the Act meets the Government's commitment to employment equity and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The third is to ensure that UI benefits are improved and preserved for those who need them most.
I would like to concentrate my remarks on that third area, Mr. Speaker. This legislation proposes fundamental changes to the UI program which affect the amount of time people must work to qualify for UI benefits and how long benefits will last. It also introduces new control measures. Canada is a very generous country. This generosity extends to its social programs, including
unemployment insurance. As it now stands people need only work 10 to 14 weeks to qualify for benefits depending on the local unemployment rate. These entrance requirements are among the lowest in the world. In Japan and France people must work 26 weeks during the previous year in order to qualify. But the generosity can sometimes have detrimental repercussions.
As a Member of Parliament in my riding of Simcoe Centre many constituents often tell me that this is the case with the UI program, that our UI system is a disincentive to work. Many people believe that UI encourages some people to work just long enough to qualify for assistance who then quit and collect benefits for up to a year. Now I know that the vast majority of Canadians do not fall into this category and I would never imply that they do. But it is an irrefutable fact that some people are trying to take advantage of this system and those that do think that they are beating it.
We are proposing to increase the number of weeks of employment needed to qualify for UI in most areas of the country based on a local unemployment rate. My constituents in Simcoe Centre believe this is a very reasonable approach. This means, for example, that people living in communities where unemployment is at 6 per cent will need to work 20 weeks to qualify for UI instead of the current 14 weeks. At the same time the Bill remains sensitive to the needs of those people in areas of high unemployment. People living in areas where the unemployment rate is more than 15 per cent will need only ten weeks to qualify. Where the unemployment rate is 10 per cent only 16 weeks is needed to qualify.
For seasonal workers these new provisions may sound threatening. Let me assure them that they have no reason to be concerned. You see, Mr. Speaker, seasonal workers by the very nature of their employment often collect UI twice within the same 52-week period. A current clause in the Act requires people who have already collected benefits within the past year to work from 16 to 20 weeks in order to qualify again. This is six weeks more than when they first qualify. This is known as the repeater clause. It was an onerous condition for seasonal workers and we are now eliminating it entirely. This means that seasonal workers will, generally speaking, now find it easier to qualify for UI.
June 21, 1989

This move will of course simplify administration of the UI program and as you can imagine anything that simplifies the complex administrative structure of a program like UI is welcomed by everyone involved. In fact, this legislation contains other measures that will make the program run more smoothly. One of them involves calculating the duration of benefits. The present method used to determine how long people will receive benefits is a very complicated three phase system based on a week's work and the local unemployment rate.
The proposed legislation fortunately will streamline this progress. It continues to base the duration of benefits on the number of weeks worked and the local unemployment rate but it eliminates that three phase complexify and substitutes it with a straightforward table.
We have also made necessary adjustments to the number of weeks people can collect benefits. These adjustments are again dictated by the unemployment rates in different areas. A person in Barrie where prospects abound should not need to collect UI benefits for 50 weeks. Someone on Cape Breton Island where opportunities are limited is entitled to as much income support as possible.
As well, the Government is proposing measures to deal with people who quit their jobs without just cause. It may surprise you to know that more than a billion dollars is paid out every year to people who quit their jobs without just cause. Obviously we must do something about this. The legislation deals with people who quit their jobs voluntarily, who are fired for misconduct or refuse to take a job. Under current legislation these people lose their benefits for six weeks. Under Bill C-21 they stand to lose them for between seven and 12 weeks. When they begin or resume collecting benefits they will also find their benefit rate lowered from 60 per cent of their weekly insurable earnings to 50 per cent. I think it is veiy appropriate that I bring up EIC at this time. As you know EICs, Canada Employment Centres, have an exemplary record in finding jobs for people and people for jobs. In my riding the staff work diligently to provide guidance and to arrange interviews and training course for clients.
Some clients do not take advantage of these opportunities and those who do not will find their benefits cut off for one to six weeks under the legislation. I must also tell you that people who find jobs before their disqualification period is up may receive a surprise if he or she
Unemployment Insurance Act
collects UI down the road. The Bill also allows for any weeks of a disqualification period not served because work was found to be carried over to any future benefit period over the next six years.
Let me add that these disqualification periods may be deferred if the claimant is eligible for sickness, maternity or parental benefits. Let me also make it clear that people who quit their jobs for valid reasons such as hazardous working conditions or harassment will not be subject to these penalties.
We are also introducing new measures to discourage UI fraud. It is a matter of opinion but perhaps the worse abuse of the UI program is perpetrated by those who knowingly give false information. Unfortunately it is a fact of life and it must be dealt with. Under the Bill, employers who submit false employment information will now be penalized up to nine times the maximum benefit they pay weekly. Also anyone penalized for minor infractions can have the penalties deducted from future benefits they receive over the next six years.
As you know, people who commit major acts of UI fraud are subject to prosecution. In the past anyone convicted of the crime received a maximum $500 fine, six months in jail or both. The new legislation raises the fine to a much stiffer maximum of $2,000. These are necessary measures which will serve to make the UI program fairer and more efficient. Instituting these measures will free up $1.3 billion that will be rechannelled directly into the UI program in ways that I have indicated before. It will help thousands of Canadians who are willing to work. That is what the labour force development strategy is all about.
I have just outlined the benefit structure and control measures proposed in Bill C-21. We hope to implement the new legislation early in 1990. Only then will the funds for training programs and the new charter improvements be accessible. I trust that my colleagues in the House and the Members of that other place will give it full and due consideration.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said, "We shall maintain all our social programs without fail." At the same time, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) promised that there would not be any changes to the unemployment insurance system. Let me read an October 14,1988, article in

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
the St. John's, Newfoundland newspaper, The Evening Telegram:
Changes in UI Program? 'Nonsense', retorts Crosbie.
The federal government has no plans to make changes to the unemployment insurance program, Hade Minister John Crosbie said Thursday.
"It's complete nonsense", he replied to questioning by reporters at Hotel Newfoundland following a Progressive Conservative rally for Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
But Mr. Mulroney was quoted by the Financial Times as saying the Tbries will take another look at reforming the $10.4 billion a year unemployment insurance system if it wins the Nov. 21 election.
Mr. Crosbie said that he had asked the prime minister about the report and he said no the government has no plans to make changes to the plan.
"You're damn right I asked him (prime minister) about it.
Once again, there is another broken Tory promise. The Government has broken its promises and has cut back on unemployment insurance benefits.


Mrs. Dobbie:: We have not.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Of course, they have been cut back completely.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: They have not been cut back.


Robert (Bob) Speller: They have been cut back. The Government is using this money to replenish the programs it cut back over the last five years by $700 million. Rather than using funds from general revenue as is normally the case, the Government is taking it away from the unemployed. I call this shameful.
This means that all workers will pay for training without any assurance that they themselves will benefit from that training. It means that labour-intensive industries will subsidize training for high-tech industries which are often capital intensive. It means that low-paid service workers will help pay for the training of high paid-high tech workers.
The Government is hypocritically using the pretext of adjustment to finance its deficit reduction plan at the expense of unemployed Canadians. The Prime Minister and his Government are taking away $2 billion from unemployed Canadians. While the unemployment insurance expenditure reduction will be effective almost
immediately, the entry level training program will be phased in over a four-year period.
Under the present unemployment insurance program, workers in firms pay into a fund knowing that money will come back to them in the form of benefits if they become unemployed, sick or pregnant. Now, under this proposal, they have no assurance that money will be paid back or that any money will come back to them at all.
According to the program, for example, $230 million will go for training activities in the private sector. Part of this money, $65 million, is for human resource planning. This is a good thing and one wonders why it has not been going on over the last four or five years. Once again, money will be used from the unemployment insurance fund, money that was available for workers when they were laid off, to pay for the human resource planning.
A strong labour force development strategy depends on a sound full employment policy that supports research and development, post-secondary education and literacy initiatives. The more basic education a person has, the easier it is to train him or her. That is just common sense. Given that, in the near future, almost half the new jobs will require more than five years of combined education and training beyond the completion of high school. The Government should be developing a comprehensive full employment policy and increasing, not decreasing, its support for research and development, post-secondary education and literacy.
The Government has announced new training initiatives without consulting with the provinces and without any kind of mechanism to monitor this training. Without such consultation, the Government cannot satisfy Canadians that the training programs will meet the needs of the economy and that the quality and standards of the training will be high enough to meet the challenge.
The Government is shifting the financial burden to the provinces. This is clear throughout this Bill. The provinces will be required to extend their work projects in order for workers to become eligible for unemployment insurance benefits or will need to extend social assistance to those unable to find additional work to qualify for unemployment insurance. In either case, the prov-
June 21, 1989

inces are faced with additional expenditures without any prior warning.
The federal Government has yet to make available impact studies which would indicate the number of workers who will be adversely affected by these changes. It is no wonder. I believe that the numbers would be staggering.
Already, British Columbia and Quebec have acknowledged that the changes could result in increased social assistance costs. Mr. Buchanan from the Province of Nova Scotia has said that this will definitely increase his province's costs.
The changes to unemployment insurance will adversely affect the rural Canadian economy. Let us take, for instance, my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk. There are towns in my riding in which the unemployment rate is staggering. It is nothing like the southwestern Ontario unemployment rate of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 8 per cent. There are places in my riding with unemployment rates of anywhere between 15 per cent and 20 per cent. Under this Bill, my riding is considered to be part of the Niagara Peninsula so the number of weeks required for eligibility will be increased. That is shameful and nowhere in this Bill is this problem addressed.
These additional wages that firms will pay because of this Bill will increase their costs, and as a result will increase the cost to consumers. These firms will be less competitive as well. If they compete on the international market, firms could suffer economically because of these increased costs.
Unemployment insurance benefits have always served as a stabilizer in communities where there is high unemployment. Unemployment insurance benefits stimulate local economies and keep local businesses alive. A reduction in these benefits will adversely affect local businesses and entire local economies.
While training is a good thing in itself, one cannot train someone for a job that does not exist. Often in rural communities, there is one industry. Alternatives are not available. If these people get trained, they will have to move out of the regions to find employment. The Government has chosen to increase mobility funds to help workers move to areas where there are employment opportunities rather than to create a comprehensive regional development policy. As my friend from Dartmouth said today, the Government is asking people to move west or to Toronto, to move where the jobs are, instead of bringing in creative, innovative programs
Unemployment Insurance Act
which will help address the needs of the unemployed. The Government should have examined the entire unemployment insurance program in depth and considered changes in the context of comprehensive income security instead of adopting such punitive measures.
On page 30 of the budget papers, the Government stated that it will continue to contribute to the financing of programs in difficult economic times when it is inappropriate to raise premiums and prudent to allow deficits to build in the unemployment insurance account. We should not have to point out to the Government that we are in poor economic times now and that to aggravate the situation, the Government is shirking its responsibilities by absolving itself from contributing its share to unemployment insurance benefits.
Let us examine current employee-employer contributions and then compare them with the changes announced in the Budget. Currently employees pay $1.95 per $100 of insurable earnings to a maximum of $11.80 per week. Currently, employers pay $2.73 per $100 of insurable earnings to a maximum of $16.52 per week.
As of January 1990, the Government will no longer contribute to the unemployment insurance fund. Employees and employers will pay extra to cover the increased costs. In 1990, employee contributions will increase to $2.25 per $100 of insurable earnings to a maximum weekly contribution of $14.29. This maximum weekly contribution is $2.49 more than employees are currently paying or $129.48 more per year.
In 1990, employer contributions will increase to $3.15 per $100 of insurable earnings to a maximum weekly contribution of $3.48 more than employers are currently paying or $180.96 more per year. We know who is paying for the mismanagement of the economy over the last few years. It is the employers and the workers of the country, and that is shameful.
Let us analyse the situation in light of the new changes. The premiums paid by employees and employers have increased substantially. The Government points out that the increase from $1.95 to $2.25 per $100 of insurable earnings is still lower than the rate employees paid in previous years. That is true. It was $2.35 over $100 of insurable earnings paid in 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988. However, the Government has failed to show that it has also substantially increased the maximum weekly insurable earnings so that the maximum weekly contribution by employees will increase substantially. This is shame-

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
ful.. Employees will now be paying almost $130 more per year in unemployment insurance premiums.
The Government predicts that the cost of its unemployment insurance expenditures for 1989 will amount to approximately $2.9 billion. By abdicating its responsibility to pay unemployment insurance contributions, the Government is forcing $1.2 billion in additional premiums to be paid by employees, and $1.7 billion in additional premiums to be paid by employers. By eliminating its contribution, the Government has stated to people in regions most in need, and particularly to fishermen, that it can no longer contribute to their well-being. The Government has cut adrift those most in need.
My friend, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth (Mr. MacDonald) explained that quite adequately in his speech earlier. I thought it was a wonderful speech, and one of the best that we have heard in the House on this matter.
During the 1988 election campaign, Tory Members of Parliament went across the country and stated that social programs would not be affected, that free trade would have no effect on our social programs or on our unemployment insurance program. We have seen the results. This Government brought in a program which, quite frankly, I believe was made up by the Minister for International Trade at the whim of the Americans who stated that we could not have government contributions to the unemployment insurance system in Canada. The Minister for International Trade said: "Yes, Sir, Mr. President". Once the Government had made all those promises, the promises are broken.
Employees will now pay higher premiums and receive benefits for a shorter duration. Typically, with the Government it is now pay more for less. It is Tory math.
Ordinary Canadians cannot afford this increased burden. Those Canadians earning less than $30,000 a year paid 58 per cent of all employee premiums in 1986. Those earning $50,000 to $100,000 paid only 7 per cent of all employee premiums in 1986. Is that what the Government calls fair? I do not call it fair. Again, the Government is reducing the deficit on the backs of those least
able to pay, and on the backs of those regions less able to vote in the number of Members that will help defeat the Government. That is Toryism. The Government picks on eastern and rural Canada. Those people will be most affected by this program.
The unemployment system is regressive by nature. In 1990, the premiums are capped when income reaches $33,020. Even with this range, the tax is not progressive, since it is set at a flat rate.
Instead of increasing the rates on low and middle-income workers, the Government could have funded the unemployment insurance program by removing the cap on the premium rate, so that a person making $100,000 would pay $2,250 a year in premiums instead of the current $784. We believe that a person who makes $100,000 should not only have to pay $784 as a maximum premium.
Where will corporations get the money to pay the tax? From reducing payments to shareholders? Not likely. Raising prices and getting it from customers, or cutting costs and getting it from employees seems more realistic. Those in the weakest economic position will bear most of this tax. Of almost $7 billion of tax increases, including the unemployment insurance changes, less than $1.5 billion are progressive. The rest are regressive, and sometimes seriously so.
The Government and the Prime Minister have termed social programs as a sacred trust. The Prime Minister has now reneged on his word with a brutal attack on the unemployment insurance system. It has taken $1.3 billion from the unemployment insurance fund and has not said how many workers will be affected. We have not seen any studies. I doubt if the Government knows what the studies show. In fact, I do not know if the Government has conducted any studies. Perhaps the Government is hiding them.
How many will lose benefits? How many will go without unemployment insurance? The Government has not stated what regions of the country will be hint the most.
June 21, 1989

It is interesting to note that between 1984 and 1989 employment and training programs were cut by some 30 per cent by the Government, from $2.2 billion in 1984 when the Liberals left power, to $1.5 billion in 1989. That is a reduction of some $700 million.
On April 11, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) announced that she was putting $800 million back into the program, almost the same amount that the Government had taken out. We have yet to see a penny. The Government is fixing a problem that it created in the first place.
Time after time Members of the House have heard petitions from one coast to the other that we ought not to proceed with the proposed changes to the unemployment insurance fund which will disentitle up to one million Canadians from receiving unemployment insurance benefits.
Canadians are opposed to the so-called harmonization of unemployment insurance to conform with the Free Trade Agreement. This will destroy the historic role of unemployment insurance in this nation. Our system is the envy of many countries around the world, including the United States. The present Government is dismantling the foundation of our social structure which was built upon a sacred trust.
Canadians will not forget what the Government is doing. Next time at the polls, Canadians will not let the Government forget what it has done to them.


Mr. Ken G. Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this evening to speak on this most important piece of legislation.
Last fall, as I campaigned throughout my riding of Macleod, people frequently asked me: "When is the Government going to do something to reform the unemployment insurance system?" I am proud to be able to say to my constituents in Lundbreck, Pincher Creek, Vulcan, and other communities that the Government has taken positive, concrete, and well-considered steps to change the UI system to make it more responsive to the real needs of Canadians.
Bill C-21 in a very progressive way changes the nature of our unemployment system. Now, unemployment insurance will be used to train and prepare workers for a job. As the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated: "The best social program is a job". My constitu-
Unemployment Insurance Act
ents and I fundamentally believe that this is an essential principle.
The world is changing. I know Members and colleagues opposite do not like to admit that, but we are entering a time of truly global change.
We are entering a truly global economy and Canada's workforce must be prepared to meet those challenges. In coming years Canada is going to require a highly skilled workforce. We are going to need a well trained and highly productive labour force if Canada is to achieve her rightful place in the global economy.
My constituents recognize that we need a better educated work force and more skilled employees. However, according to a study performed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business last year, almost one-half, about 43 per cent of Canada's small businesses complain that they cannot find appropriately skilled help. Indeed, Canada currently spends half as much on training and skill development per capita than does the United States. We cannot allow this situation to continue. We must begin a vigorous program to educate and help Canadians train themselves so that we can compete with the rest of the world.
Bill C-21 goes a long way toward addressing this very serious problem. Currently only 2 per cent of UI expenditures are on training Canadians and preparing them to find a job. This Bill proposes to shift the spending priorities of the UI fund to direct up to 15 per cent of spending to preparing Canada's labour force, giving individual Canadians the chance to learn, to build their future through training and skill development. That is for moms, dads, sons, and daughters. I think that is a very positive initiative.
Indeed, through our labour force development strategy the Government will work with and stimulate the private sector to double its commitment to training from $1.4 billion to nearly $3 billion by 1994. That is double the investment in Canadians, double the investment in skills. That is a real commitment to people.
We are talking here about reallocating UI funds. We are talking about renewing Canada's priorities and looking to the future. I know that my colleagues opposite do not always like to look to the future. They like to paint a much more bleak future. We are talking about preparing

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
Canadians for the challenges that a competitive workforce is going to create.
This Government is not creating that international competition. It is simply allowing Canadians the opportunity to respond to the pressures which we face internationally.
This Bill proposes to change the schedule of benefits under UI to make it more responsive to varying regional unemployment rates. Not only will this legislation achieve this goal, but it will also free up resources within the UI fund to be spent on training. Almost $1.3 billion will be redirected toward training, providing benefits to older Canadians, and increasing maternity or parental benefits. I am sure all Members of the House will agree that these are important and laudable goals.
At present, once an employee reaches the age of 65 he or she is no longer eligible for assistance from the UI fund. Indeed, if an employee turns 65 while collecting benefits, those benefits are immediately cut off. My constituents have expressed to me that they found the situation intolerable. I am pleased to see this Bill before the House since this unfair and previously discriminatory provision in the UI system will finally be removed. This Bill will extend UI coverage to older Canadians who choose to delay their retirement.
More than this, the changes as a result of this Bill to the UI system will enable the Government to develop a $100 million program to help displaced older workers. We will be assisting older Canadians to advance their skills, to retrain, and, if necessary, to upgrade their education.
I cannot stress enough how important this issue is. I have talked to constituents on the streets of High River and other communities in southern Alberta. I cannot count the number of people who have mentioned the special difficulty faced by older Canadians seeking work. This is a very fair, compassionate and practical measure.
This Bill will also provide much needed assistance to Canadian families. These are challenging times in which to raise children. I know that the Government should continue to provide support to Canadian families. Changes to our tax system have allowed parents more flexibility in choosing how to care for their children. This Bill and the changes it will bring to the UI system reflect
the Government's continuing commitment to help strengthen Canadian families.
A full $450 million has been earmarked for maternity or parental benefits. Like other initiatives the Government has taken, parents will have more flexibility in how they choose to care for their new-born baby. Canadian families will be able to count on having as much as 30 weeks of UI benefits to help them through the financial struggle of having a child. It will also provide more flexibility to the system so that potentially both parents will have an opportunity to be with their youngster during those exciting first few weeks.


Mr. Wappel:: What a joke!


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: My colleague mentions jokes. I note this for interest because colleagues opposite talk of how reallocating UI funds is not acceptable to them. It is nothing new. The Opposition which today is so strongly against this idea are members of the Party which was involved in changing the allocation of UI funds in the first place.
Let us go back to 1976. The Minister of Manpower, Bud Cullen, said: "Amendments will also allow us to take a more positive approach to unemployment through resource allocation. It will permit experimentation with the use of unemployment insurance funds for programs of training, work sharing, and job creation". Today, the crowd opposite tries to oppose these very kinds of principles. It is remarkable.
I turn my attention to another important aspect. As part of this Government's efforts to assist areas experiencing unreasonably high unemployment, the Community Futures Program was developed. In my riding of Macleod, just as one example, there are areas, as there are in other parts of the country, in real need of economic development and diversification. The Government has made long-term substantial commitments to provide assistance to these areas.
For example, in the Crowsnest Pass, which includes a number of communities, the Government has committed over $2 million to the Business Development Centre of the Crowsnest Pass Economic Development Board.
The Government has also committed $400,000, approximately, to the Crowsnest Pass through the SelfEmployment Incentive Program, a very practical
June 21, 1989

program designed to help unemployed workers test new business ideas.
In the northern end of my riding, the Highwood Economic Development Corporation, which serves the Municipal District of Foothills as well as the County of Vulcan, is administering and investing $1.9 million over five years from the Community Futures Program. These programs are providing realistic responses to genuine needs.
The Government has renewed and invigorated its commitment to the Community Futures Program. The changes we are proposing to the unemployment insurance system will result in an extra $50 million every year for the Community Futures Program. This will ensure that this very important program will continue to provide areas of higher unemployment with assistance to diversify and develop their own economies.
I know how important this program has been in my own riding. I am sure that all Members of the House are pleased that the Community Futures Program will now have more resources.
I confess, my constituents have often told me that they feel the UI system is being abused. This is regrettable. They feel cheated and angry when they see some Canadians quitting their jobs without just cause and taking advantage of UI benefits.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: These voluntary quitters cost the UI fund and the people of Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Come on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Even the Speaker is cutting you off.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know it is the summer solstice and I realize that this will be the longest day. I hope we could get finished without getting too warm in this Chamber. The Hon. Member for Macleod has the floor for another nine minutes.


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: This may be the longest day, but this will not be the longest speech.
It is regrettable that Canadians should feel cheated and angry when they see others taking advantage of the
Unemployment Insurance Act
system. I think the people of Macleod are justified in getting angry.
This Bill will amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to make it more difficult and less tempting for people to take advantage of the system.


An Hon. Member:: Less tempting?


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: The Bill proposes that workers who voluntarily quit their jobs will not only have their benefits delayed, but they will also receive a reduction in the over-all level of benefits. As a result of this Bill, people seeking to take advantage of the unemployment insurance system will be disqualified from receiving benefits from seven to twelve weeks. Once their disqualification is over, they will receive benefits of only 50 per cent of their insurable earnings.
This Bill also substantially increases the penalties for both employers and employees who try to defraud the UI fund. This is as it should be.
When the unemployment insurance system was set up in the 1940s, it was designed to provide temporary assistance to unemployed workers. The UI fund was not created to replace other forms of social assistance. It was created to assist workers in getting through tough times of unemployment. This Bill represents a return to some of the fundamentals of the unemployment insurance system, and the people of Macleod whom I represent are pleased that these changes are taking place. They are pleased that there will be less abuse of the system. They look forward to the training programs, the economic development programs, and the maternity parental benefits provided by this Bill.
They are pleased that the UI system will no longer discriminate against older Canadians. They are glad that the Government has had the guts to undertake these reforms and start to put the UI fund to work for all Canadians.
The people of Macleod firmly support this important initiative of the Government. The Government is taking positive steps with these unemployment insurance changes. We are talking about investing in individuals. We are talking about investing in moms, dads, sons, and daughters. We are talking about Canadians who have aspirations to get ahead and use their own strengths to earn a living and meet their own challenges by investing in themselves to make a constructive and a real contribution to Canadian society.

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
If Canadians seize this opportunity and take up this challenge, the result will be that all Canadians will share in a greater wealth and a stronger future.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate the Bill before the House of Commons today. It is with great sorrow that I witness one of the cornerstones of Canada's social fabric dismantled, or should I say destroyed, by the Conservative Government. It is painfully clear that the purpose of Bill C-21 is to cut back radically on Canada's unemployment insurance system and, in effect, privatize our oldest social program which has served Canadians well since 1940.
One must not forget that the UI system was brought into being as as result of the devastating effects of the Great Depression of the 1930s on our society, to ensure that no Canadian would have to suffer such hardship ever again.
It is because of this compassion toward the human condition that Prime Minister Mackenzie King instituted this national insurance scheme. Unemployment insurance was brought into being to make absolutely certain that no one would starve, lose their home or loved one as a result of losing a job. This deep caring for humanity is deeply embedded in the Liberal Party tradition.

It would be wrong to say that we in the Liberal Party do not want the Act changed, amended or improved. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in 1955 and 1971, under Liberal Governments, amendments were made to bring this legislation up to date with the needs of the time.
However, Mr. Speaker, that is not what this Bill proposes. As presented by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, this BUI threatens one of the main pUlars of this country's social security network. Indeed, the Minister dares to go ahead with this Bill, even after she claimed in the last election campaign that if she and her party were returned to power, no social program would be privatized.
Mr. Speaker, it is really a shame that Canadians have been misled by this Minister and her party, and I can assure you that next time, they wUl not be fooled.

MUlions of Canadians are asking themselves why the Government has decided to go back on its election promises. People are asking themselves why Canada's sacred trust has lost its sanctity with the Progressive Conservative Party.
In my opinion and that of my Party, there are three reasons why the Government has adopted this policy. The first reason is rather clear, given the contents of the Minister of Finance's leaky Budget. In an inappropriate manner, the Government is using the proposed BUI C-21 as a means of cutting Canada's national debt, 50 per cent of which was accumulated during the time the Conservatives have been in power. That is a fact Members opposite would conveniently like to forget.
We have frequently seen the Government's total lack of caring or understanding of average Canadians. The provisions of this BUI are the worst example of that fact. What the Minister is doing, along with her colleagues in Cabinet, is attempting to cut the deficit on the backs of the unemployed. Instead of strengthening the Canadian unemployment insurance system, the Government is cutting its commitment in a futUe deficit reduction exercise. Instead of choosing a more logical means of cutting the deficit, such as taxing profitable corporations and cutting back on waste and inefficiency of government, the Minister is attacking those Canadians who have the least to offer.
The Minister is taking the money that would have gone to pay for the rent, food, and other basic necessities and allocating it for training programs. I would have been supportive of the creation of new skill training programs, but not at the expense of funds that are supposed to help people survive whUe looking for employment.
It is a strange set of priorities that the Minister is displaying. Instead of understanding the cyclical nature of poverty and the fact that basic assistance is needed to sustain life whUe individuals are unemployed, she is offering obscure and abstract training programs that wUl some day enable people to sustain themselves. What these people need is assistance to get by untU they can find real jobs with real potential.
June 21, 1989

The second reason this Government brought forward this Bill has unfortunately become too clear following its election. Undeniably, Bill C-21 is a first step leading to a plan for the giants of the business world to move to free trade. By withdrawing from the unemployment insurance program, the Canadian Government is doing what the American Government wants, because the U.S. Government will not be able to take reprisals against us on the pretext that Canada uses unemployment insurance to subsidize its workers.

The Bill will be even more damaging when considering it in the light of free trade. By pulling out of UI, the Government of Canada has asked Canadian workers and employers to fill the $3 billion void caused by its absence.
This will result in either a higher unemployment rate, caused by employers reluctant to pay this hidden payroll tax, or it will lead to a powerful lobbying effort on the part of big business to be exempt from paying the unemployment insurance premiums because of their need to have a balanced playing field with their United States counterparts.
While corporations get larger and more profitable, average Canadians have to pay the price in terms of wages and social insurance. Knowing how close big business is with the Conservative Party, one can only wonder how long it will be before unemployed Canadian workers will be asked to foot the entire bill for unemployment insurance.
The last reason the Government has decided to implement this new unemployment insurance policy is its misguided Conservative ideology. Unfortunately, the majority of the Members opposite believe that a caring and compassionate social welfare system will lead to a greater degree of laziness. This archaic view of individuals who must take advantage of various social schemes is reprehensible in a country like Canada.
The majority of Canadians are tired of listening to the rantings of the dinosaur club and its talk of welfare bums when the actual number of people abusing the system is far below levels articulated by Members of the Government.
Unemployment Insurance Act
The statistics speak for themselves. The number of individuals caught cheating on the unemployment insurance was 5,507 out of 2.4 million Canadians who use the UI system. This represents only 0.2 per cent of the total number of Canadians who use the system. This is to edify the Hon. Member for South Shore.
Only 6,215 people have refused jobs found for them through UI. This represents only 0.25 per cent. Both these categories together represent less than half a percentage point of all individuals using the system. Despite this fact, the Conservative Government is still intent on characterizing by its statement that abuse is rampant in the system all people dependent on government assistance as ungrateful welfare bums.
That ideological bend is a major force behind this Government's withdrawal from unemployment insurance and a strong motivater for the severity of this Budget. This Government should learn from international examples that progressive unemployment insurance schemes go hand in hand with low unemployment rates. Social democratic countries such as Sweden, Austria, and Switzerland have some of the most progressive UI plans in the world and an unemployment rate below 5 per cent.
In fact, the average unemployment rate in Canada during the 15 years of Liberal Government preceding the global recession was 5.6 per cent. That puts into real perspective the fact that the Conservatives have not been able to bring the unemployment rate below 7 per cent once in the five years they have been in power. So much for the Government's record. The only place in Canada where full employment exists is in the overheated economy of Metropolitan Toronto.
It seems that this Government would be more than pleased if people from Comer Brook and Sydney moved to Halifax. They would be more than pleased if people from the Gaspe and the Saguenay moved to Montreal. The provisions of this Bill will make staying in the economically depressed regions of the country even more difficult.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration has stated that Bill C-21 still maintains the regional sensitivities to allow people from remote areas of Canada to stay in their homes. This is simple nonsense. If we look at the figures, we can see that in every region of the country the requirements for eligibility have increased. Also, the Tory Government seems to be sending an odd signal. In previous years, in an area of low unemployment, one needed 14 weeks to qualify for benefits. Now 14 weeks will qualify one only in regions where the unemployment

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
rate is between 11 per cent and 12 per cent. How absolutely scandalous. Instead of facilitating an easy transition back into the workforce, the Tories are going to penalize you if you do not take the first employment opportunity that comes your way. It does not matter if you are a skilled professional, the Conservative Party would rather see you flipping hamburgers than looking that little bit extra longer for work that will lead you to a career in which you will be best able to contribute to Canadian society.
When is this Government going to create those jobs that will help sustain families at a decent level, instead of perpetuating their misfortune and increasing the number of working poor?

Now see how Bill C-21 will affect Quebec. Under the present system, Quebecers paid $2.5 billion in premiums and collected $3.3 billion. Obviously, on looking at these figures, we must revise and improve this program. By withdrawing from the unemployment insurance program, the Government is forcing employers with a large labour force to make up the difference.
In Quebec, this will mean $100 million more will have to be spent by the Government, given the large number of employed workers.
Mr. Speaker, again, taxpayers, particularly those in Quebec, will pay the bill for the lack of federal financial assistance in this area. All employers in Quebec will have to pay more, to compensate for the measures in the Bill.

No matter which way we look at it this is a bad government policy. By shortening the number of weeks for benefits and increasing the necessary time for people to qualify, the Conservatives are offering Canadians more options.
When benefits are cut and the person is still unemployed, he or she will either have to go on provincially funded welfare programs or join the increasing number of Canadians who must rely on bread lines and soup
kitchens for food and shelter. Unfortunately, that is going to be the legacy of the Conservative Government.
I know that Members opposite are going to claim that I am against job training programs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Liberals are not opposed to job training. In fact, from 1984 to 1989 the Tories have cut the funds for training programs from $2.2 billion to $1.5 billion. It is only now that they have taken from the funds designed to pay for the necessities of life that the training spending is back to its original level. As a concerned citizen I find this option most regrettable.
In an interview the Minister for International Trade said last October that the Government had no intention of cutting the unemployment insurance system. He even told the press that the Prime Minister was in full agreement with this position. I would like to know from the Hon. Minister what has changed between then and now to prompt such a devastating attack on our social programs.
It is obvious that the Conservatives have broken yet another of their election commitments. Might I add that Canadians will not forgive them again. The people of this country are tired of listening to the empty rhetoric of this Government. Canadian people need a Government that cares about their needs and is willing to respond not merely through words but through actions.
Bill C-21, if passed, will be disastrous for Canada. It will contribute to a greater division between the rich and the poor and will lead to a tremendous burden on our provinces. It creates a situation in which government is withdrawing from UI and, by doing so, privatizing one of the most important aspects of Canada's social security network.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, and I conclude on this point, the only recourse, the last resort for Canadians will be welfare. It is scandalous, Mr. Speaker, to force people to such a solution!


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight to debate Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Com-
June 21, 1989

mission Act. First reading of the Bill was on June 1 of this year. We in the New Democratic Party oppose this Bill and will oppose it with all that we have throughout this debate and for as long as we can. Of course tonight closure has been imposed and in just a few hours we will be voting on second reading of the Bill.
The Government has introduced what I believe to be two very important and negative pieces of legislation since I was elected on November 21. The first of those important and negative pieces of legislation was the Bill to implement the free trade deal. I remember standing in this House about nine o'clock on one of those evenings before Christmas speaking to a lot of Canadians who I know were not watching because of the time of day. Once again I find the same thing on a very important piece of legislation affecting a great number of people. I am standing here in the House late at night debating something that the people of Canada should be hearing during the normal course of the business day.
I am very happy to be talking about this Bill because there are a lot of things that I think need to be changed which are not addressed in this piece of legislation. I am a veiy active Member of Parliament. I have a lot of contact with my constituents. I deal with their cases on a very personal basis, be it unemployment insurance, immigration, visa matters or even social assistance cases. I am more than happy to sit down in my office and help them through their problems.
I have dealt with quite a few people who have difficulty with the unemployment insurance program. I have a lot of contact with the unemployment insurance offices in my riding, one in North Battleford and one in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan. The people who work in those offices are very dedicated individuals working hard to administer a very difficult and flawed program. This legislation is going to make their job much more difficult, and it is going to make the people they are dealing with much more angry.
I have listened to quite a number of speeches tonight from government Members who have talked about the need to change the legislation because of the way in which the current system is being abused. I have heard Members on this side of the House correct Members on the other side of the House by indicating that the abuse
Unemployment Insurance Act
rate of the unemployment insurance program is less than 1 per cent. I know from dealing with people in my office that the people who are having difficulty with the unemployment insurance program as it exists today are not abusing the program. They are in desperate need of the program, and they are in desperate need of improvements to the program.
I want to cite a particular case with which I am just finishing. It first came to my attention on April 27 of this year. A young woman in my riding had left her place of employment in early April. She had a veiy good reason for leaving her place of employment, but there was some difficulty in communicating that information to the people at the Canada Employment Centre who were administering the unemployment insurance program. To make matters very simple, it was a dispute with her employer.
On April 27, after a couple of weeks of receiving no satisfaction in dealing with the office and getting her claim settled, she finally achieved eligibility for benefits under the program but was disentitled in her first week of benefits because the workers at the unemployment insurance office questioned her about her child care arrangements in her family circumstances. She lives on a farm a few miles out of town and on one day she had difficulty getting a caregiver to look after her young infant when she had a job interview. Canada Employment disentitled her for benefits because, they said, she had inadequate child care arrangements. That was on April 27 when she came to see me.
After we investigated her claim and discussed it with the people at the Canada Employment Centre, she was put back on the benefit roll, but because of her disqualification she was penalized four weeks. Since she could not serve the disqualification at the same time as the disentitlement, she served the four weeks from April 28 and then had to serve another mandatory two-week waiting period, which has to be served by all UI claimants before the benefits would be paid.
If we add this up we find a young woman in an area where jobs are hard to find with a young child at home, unemployed, with no income at all for 10 weeks as a result of the problems with the existing program. She is back on benefits and she will get her first cheque on June 23. The Canada Employment Centre has recognized that

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
she is entitled to benefits and she should have been entitled to them on April 27.
The current program has failed this individual and the changes in this legislation would further penalize my constituent, whose case I am only now managing to get on to the entitlement roles. Clause 21 refers to subsection 30(1) of the Act. It talks about penalties for disqualified claimants, and we find that they have increased substantially. We also find that in a case of sexual harassment if a person quits without complaining loudly, simply walks away from the job because the person does not want to go through the hassle of laying sexual harassment charges, the penalties are imposed even though this is considered a good enough excuse to quite one's job. Under the old system the maximum penalty was six weeks. Under this Bill the maximum penalty is from seven to twelve weeks.
My constituent, a young woman with a child, living on a farm, looking for employment in an area where employment is hard to find, would have been without funds not just for 10 weeks but maybe up to 20 weeks. I think that is a very mean-spirited and horrendous situation. That is what the Government is doing to some people in this country.
I listened with interest to some of the speeches which were made on the other side of the House tonight. The Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. McCreath) earlier mentioned about those who cheat the system and the necessity of stiffer penalties. The problem is that if there are people out there who are cheating the system, we should have people who are employed by the system to find the cheaters and deal with them. Nobody in this world or in this country believes that cheaters should profit.
What we have is a public service which is not well supported. It is dealing with a very poor program, with too many people. It does not have time to deal with those people who are cheating the system. We should not penalize the needy in order to find those who are abusing the system. We should maintain the system, improve the system, and go after those few people in this country who are abusing it. If less than 1 per cent is abusing the system, we should not make it difficult for the other 99 per cent who need the program.
The speaker who spoke before the speaker ahead of me made an interesting comment. He said that this legislation was going to benefit all Canadians. I certainly hope not because that would mean that the Tory policies are working and we all be unemployed. There will be 100 per cent unemployment in this country. If that is what the people on the other side are looking for, then certainly they need legislation to benefit all Canadians.
There are quite a number of things I wanted to say tonight for the benefit of some of the people in my constituency who I know are very interested in what this program is all about. I have a few things to mention on the development of the Unemployment Insurance Program in the country. Before doing that, I wanted to remind the House of the words of my Leader of not too long ago, the New Democratic Party Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). He said that it was funny the way this Government operates. You have to give money to the corporations to keep them working, but you have to take it away from the poor to keep them working. It is an interesting comment which fits right into the nature of this legislation in front of us today.
The Unemployment Insurance Program in Canada was originally introduced in 1935 with the Bennett Government's Employment and Social Insurance Act. The Act was struck down as unconstitutional in 1937.
In 1940 a provincial agreement was obtained to have the measure accepted as a federal responsibility. From that point on, 1940 until the early 1970s, the program generally expanded with new criteria such as regional benefits, sickness and maternity benefits, and other benefits added to the program.
From the mid to late 1970s the Liberal Government began to undermine that program. General benefit levels were reduced. Family benefits were eliminated, and obstacles placed in the way of new entrance and re-entrance to the workforce.
Not surprisingly, prior to the Conservatives taking over from the Liberals in 1984, the Conservative Government made no mention of the unemployment insurance system during its successful 1984 election campaign. The present Prime Minister's strongest statement on social policy at that time was made during the Leaders' debate when he indicated that no programs protecting
June 21, 1989

people would be touched by a Government under his control.
After the election the unemployment insurance system became more important to the Government and was mentioned both in November in an economic statement and in the May 1985 Budget. The 1984 economic statement sliced $300 million from the program through changes to definitions of income and other changes.
In July 1985, the Government announced the creation of the Forget commission to provide an assessment of alternatives to the unemployment insurance system. The commission had both business and labour representation. When the commission reported in December 1986, it was utterly split with the labour representatives submitting a minority statement of unprecedented proportions at that time.
The two key recommendations from the commission's majority were the loss of regional benefits and the annualization of benefits. The commission claimed that these changes would make the system fairer by giving all Canadians access to 50 weeks of benefits. These benefit levels would be based on average weekly wages over the past year, rather than on average wages over the previous 10 weeks.
The actual impact of these changes would have been drastic cuts in benefits. This system would have seen an over-all cut in benefits of 30 per cent. Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island would have seen their benefit levels fall by more than 50 per cent. We have heard some statements tonight about the impact of this current legislation on Atlantic Canada. The commission suggested that these cuts be replaced by a completely undefined set of income supports.
The Government was clearly not comfortable with these recommendations or its timing. Its major power base in Quebec would have lost $1 billion under those proposals presented. The Government reacted by referring the recommendations to a standing committee which completely rejected the commission's proposal in its March 1987 report. The committee Members had to go home to their constituencies and face real problems with real people. They actually recommended improvements in the system.
In the end the Government whose mind was focused on an impending election did nothing. Not surprisingly,
Unemployment Insurance Act
the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) also chose not to make the Forget report nor unemployment insurance reform a part of his election platform in 1988.
The New Democratic Party position on unemployment insurance is reflected in a presentation by our colleague for Nickel Belt to the Forget commission entitled Back to the Future. That document generally called for the liberalizing of the program and an improvement of benefits.
We have also called on the Government to pay for the training programs out of general revenues and not out of the funds submitted by employers and employees. To a large degree, unemployment insurance is an insurance program paid for by workers and employers. As a tax measure to pay for other programs it is extremely regressive and should not be used.
The New Democratic Party supports both of the cases which came out of the courts and led to some of the changes which we support within this legislation. We previously opposed the elimination of those over 65 from the program. We have consistently called for better parental benefits as they are envisaged in the Federal Court decision dealing with the rights of natural fathers.
I touched briefly on the insurance program. Let us make no mistake that at its core unemployment insurance is an insurance program. It is not a social assistance program. It is designed to ensure that working Canadians are able to look after themselves and their families during personal difficult economic times. It is with this in mind that employees have permitted money to be deducted from their cheques.
In so doing working Canadians believe that just as the money they contribute to pension programs will be there when they retire, money they contribute to the Unemployment Insurance Program will be there for them and their families should they lose their job. It is also with this in mind that we should examine carefully all that is within this Bill C-21 now before us in the House of Commons.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight, Mr. Speaker. I see you are motioning that my time is up. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I wish everyone well here tonight in convincing the Government to withdraw this Bill and go back to the drawing-board.

Unemployment Insurance Act


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House this evening to speak to Bill C-21, even if it is already 11.40 p.m. and today happens to be my 20th wedding anniversary. However, my wife said I could work late.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to the House.
Bill C-21 is adapted to the 1990s. It is adapted to today's needs.
Since 1984, this Government has been working very hard and very sensibly on training and job creation programs. Since 1984, we have created 1,500,000 new jobs in Canada. This proves our Government is doing the right thing, and I can assure you that Bill C-21 is a piece of legislation that will pursue this sensible approach, as we said during the 1988 election campaign.
I want to congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) who this legislation has given a new stimulus to job creation, and I will explain why in a moment. Canadians want to work. Canadians don't want to be on the pogey and they don't want to be on welfare. Earlier, I heard the Minister for Saint-Laurent say that only 2 per cent-


An Hon. Member:: The Member!


Nic Leblanc: The Hon. Member for Saint-Laurent (Mrs. Maheu) told us only 2 per cent of the unemployed did not want to work and were constantly Shifting from unemployment to employment and would rather be on the pogey than work. However, 2 per cent of the unemployed equals $1.1 billion the federal Government can save. And I think these people don't deserve to be on the pogey. As a Conservative Member, I say that is very important and I think it is worth considering.
Mr. Speaker, for better or for worse, we are part of a system that is undergoing major technological changes. I say for better or for worse, and unfortunately, jobs are being lost as result of advanced technological change, but on the plus side, we need more highly qualified workers.
I will give you an example of administrative jobs. Typists are often replaced by computers or word processors, and of course these jobs have to be replaced. But where? Is there any connection? There is, in that computers have to be manufactured.
However, different skills are needed to build and manufacture computers. That is why we have to retrain people who need jobs, and the problem also appears in the manufacturing sector. In plants, machines are replaced by robots, lathes are replaced by computer-operated lathes, and so forth.
This advanced technology enables Canadians to have a better quality of life, but it also has a number of drawbacks. As I said earlier, we must adjust to these realities in our present society.
Bill C-21 enhances our quality of life. We are all proud of the fact that we can earn a decent living, and our pride arises from the work we do.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian markets and international markets are becoming more and more open, and that is a fact of life. We are experiencing problems from time to time, and that is because to a certaine extent we have to do business with countries like Japan, the Common Market, Korea and many other countries. If we want to continue to sell our products and compete with the rest of the world we need highly skilled labour so we will be in a position to produce goods at competitive prices, otherwise our market will be flooded with foreign products. It stands to reason that Canadians will go for products available at the best possible prices. It is therefore imperative that our workers be able to face the challenge and turn out good products.
Free trade with the Americans has to be the best opportunity Canadians have ever had. Take the Montreal region, for example, and draw an 800-kilometre circle around Montreal or Longueuil and you have a population of 75 million consumers, 75 million people who would buy Canadian products, particularly products made in the Montreal region. Imagine the opportunities which free trade affords us to sell our products and to create jobs. We will be able to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. But, again, only on the condition that we can compete. We will be competitive if our workers are properly trained. And it is for that purpose that Bill C-21 is aimed at retraining our workers with a view to providing business and industry with competent employees.
June 21, 1989

Bill C-21 will enable us to upgrade the skills of workers to meet business needs. We need first-class employers, teachers and workers or else we are doomed to failure.
We absolutely must base our efforts on training; otherwise, unemployment and social assistance will go up and we will see more poverty and more social problems in our beautiful country. We will have a vicious circle and our economic system will suffer tremendously.
You know that if more people are unemployed, more companies make less money and our governments will probably collect less tax. If we collect less tax and have more unemployment, we are headed straight for an economic recession. That is why it is very important to retrain our workers so that we can produce and be competitive and keep our businesses thriving.
Mr. Speaker, another advantage of this Bill C-21 concerns workers aged 65 and over.
Many people who are 65 or older are in veiy good health, have great talent and a lot of experience, but they almost had to stop working. With this Bill, we let these people continue to work, to contribute to unemployment insurance and to collect UI benefits. These people 65 and older will be treated like anyone else. And that is a great advantage for our businesses that need these talents, these experienced people 65 and over who will be treated like ordinary citizens-like first-class citizens, in many cases.
We will convince private enterprise to invest more, and that is in the Bill, we will try to convince private companies to invest one and a half billion a year to train their workers, and I quite agree.
We will also try to work a little more with labour, business and the provincial governments. This is really essential in today's world in which we live, with the tremendous competition that we face. Labour, management and the provincial governments, the three of them together with the federal Government, must work together to develop low-cost job creation strategies.
We will also allow people 45 and over-because you know, Mr. Speaker, a lot of people 45 and over come and see me in my office. They have lost all hope because they have no jobs anymore and often they are not re-employable. They are told they do not have the skills needed and there is no way they can find a job. Why? Because
Unemployment Insurance Act
they are told they only have grade 9 or grade 8. But 20 years ago grade 9 was pretty good. And now, they are expected to go back to school, to go through the five years of high school. They are asked to go back to school for three or four years. You know, Mr. Speaker, nobody 45 or over has the courage to go back to school for three or four years.
So what we want to achieve with Bill C-21 is provide programs that are adapted to those people. Instead of starting over high school, they can learn, retrain directly on the job. The motivation and the rewards will be much greater for those people.
Mr. Speaker, we know of course there is a natality problem, there often are family problems. We will provide for an increase on UI benefits and medicare benefits, which was not allowed before, medicare benefits, in terms of maternity leave and sick leave. Now, this will be increased from 15 weeks to 30 weeks.
This project will cost the federal Government $450 million. I think it is worthwhile- I warn the Opposition they should mention it every time they make a speech because it is a unique measure that will help our professional workers who want to keep their jobs while raising a family.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is adapted to today's world. That is basically what the Bill is all about. It is adapted to today's society. The Opposition said earlier that no changes should be made in the Bill because historically, it had served Canadians well. However, bills are made to be adapted, and I can inform the House that this Bill is truly adapted to today's society. It is a Bill for today's people and today's businesses.
Mr. Speaker, thank you very much, and I am proud to support this Bill today.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, this is truly a sad day in parliamentary history. Not only is the Government ravaging one of Canada's major social policies, but invoking closure. Only allowing seven hours of debate on this issue is an insult to every working man and woman in Canada.
I have just heard Government Members say that we must become more competitive. Why is it then that the Government has reduced R and D funding, has cut training and retraining programs over the past five years, and has cut post-secondary education payments? What

Unemployment Insurance Act
has it done for people and for small businesses? It has taxed, taxed and taxed.
Bill C-21 represents another in a long list of broken promises by the Government. Unemployment insurance was called a sacred trust by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie). In fact, three days before the election, they promised Canadians that it would not be touched.
Bill C-21 also represents another attack on working men and women. Free trade was the first; higher taxes was the second and this is the third.
We also heard a Government Member indicate that the reason these changes are necessary is because those who are receiving unemployment insurance benefits are nothing but a bunch of cheats and people who do not want to work. That is representative of an 18th Century philosophy that the Government wants to move into the 21st Century.
Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, is, I suggest, an attack by the Government on the very social fabric of the nation, one that distinguishes us from other countries, particularly the United States. We are a more caring and compassionate country, as evidenced by our history, and we have over the years built social pillars with programs and policies that form the foundation of this great land.
The withdrawal of federal Government funding to UI and the abdication from the program and its responsibilities is reprehensible. The Government is washing its hands of its responsibility to bridge the gap for the men and women of Canada who are in between jobs and are looking for jobs. On the one hand, the Government wants to take all the credit for creating jobs, but on the other takes no responsibility when its policies cause the hardship of unemployment and causes unemployment itself to increase.
Most men and women must work to maintain their standard of living and the quality of their lives and their children's lives. No one wants to lose his or her job. One's financial and psychological security depends on it. However, through no fault of their own, individuals are sometimes laid off as companies close their doors or move to new locations. Unemployment insurance is there to help on a temporary basis. It is not welfare, as some Government Members would have us believe. It is there to soften the financial blow and to aid in the
transition period that occurs when one loses one's job and has to find another. It is there as a safety net.
Let us not forget that the workers pay in part for this insurance plan. Yes, it is an insurance policy one hopes to never have to collect. Business, as a partner in this social contract, also pays a part of this insurance policy for its employees. What has the third party, the federal Government, done about this social contract? It has absolved itself of any responsibility and in so doing is now telling the workers that they must pay more and that the employers must also pay more.
Small business, the engine of our economy, is already faced with high costs due in large part to the Government's support for high interest rates, high taxes and a mountain of Government red tape. Small business, which now contributes to more than 50 per cent of our Gross National Product and provides over 60 per cent of the jobs, cannot now be asked to pay the Government's share. A payroll tax raises the cost of labour. When premiums increase, the relative cost of labour rises and this induces employers to reduce the costs by substituting capital for labour, or by moving to a lower-cost environment.
In short, any way one looks at it, the Government is increasing unemployment and is not becoming more competitive but is becoming less competitive. There is no doubt that the system can be improved because, let us face it, any system can be improved. However, let us improve it, not gut it. If those who quit voluntarily without just cause are a problem, then make some changes, positive changes, to deal with this specific problem. If people are refusing to take jobs that are available, or if people are not available for work, then let us make the positive changes that would correct the program.
Let us look at the figures. There were 6,215 people who refused jobs and therefore lost their benefits. This is out of 2.4 million beneficiaries, which means that .25 per cent were disentitled because they refused jobs. The Hon. Member on the Government side indicated that all people on unemployment were abusing the system. If it is cheats we want to deter, make those changes so that it is impossible for them to take advantage of the system. The figures point out that there were 5,507 claimants who were caught cheating under the unemployment insurance system. That was 5,507 out of a total of 2.4 million beneficiaries. That means that the number of

cheats represented .2 per cent of the total number of beneficiaries in that year. That is a very low number.
If the Government wanted to change the system to make positive changes, then it should not punish the majority of honest, hard-working men and women who want to work, need to work, and need the protection if some unforeseen problems arise. Furthermore, employers should not be punished after they are invited to be good corporate citizens by hiring as many people as they possibly can. Do not ask partners in this social contract to pick up the whole tab after the Government has enjoyed the fruits of their labour.
For instance, in London, the new regulations indicate that a person who loses a job through no fault of their own will have to work longer to qualify, will receive fewer benefits, and will receive those benefits for a shorter period of time. That is not fair and equitable to honest working men and women, especially at a time when there will be massive changes due to the Free Trade Agreement, and as companies restructure. These proposed changes are punitive and discriminatory to honest working men and women.
The Government insists that it is shuffling money from unemployment to training, and that some $800 million will go to training and retraining. The Government's new found responsibility and interest in training is truly amazing. After cutting training and retraining programs by $700 million in the last four years, it is now putting back what it took from those programs over the past five years.
Did Canadian workers not need training in the past four years? Did employers not need skilled workers over the past four years? The Government wants to take from the unemployed, and it wants all workers and employers to pay for the training programs without having to give any assurances that they themselves will benefit from that training.
Where has the Government been for five years? Waiting lists for training and apprenticeship programs have ballooned, while government funding has dried up. Employers have had severe problems finding skilled workers, yet welfare rolls in most municipalities have
Unemployment Insurance Act
remained high. All this is at great economic and social cost to society. Where has the federal Government been for those people? Where has the Government been for older workers when their plants were closed down with no adjustment programs? Stringent requirements were needed to qualify for retraining, yet few spots were available in any case. Most people found themselves at the bottom of a long waiting list.
A strong labour force development strategy depends on a sound and full employment policy. That includes not only strong emphasis on training, retraining and worker adjustment programs, but on strong support for research and development, education, and literacy programs for our people. Unfortunately, all those positive steps have been cut back by the Government in the past, or have little token support now.
The Government should not move on its unemployment insurance plan as it is now written, nor should Parliament approve this Bill until such time as the Government has tabled the boundaries for the new labour force economic regions. There are indications that those new boundaries will not be ready in time and that there are certain to be inequities.
Second, the new training programs that government Members speak of have not been tabled, nor have there been any consultations with the provinces. These changes will likely result in shifting additional financial burden to the provinces and in turn to municipalities at a time when we should be looking at ways to make the three levels of government more efficient and co-operative in a collective manner in order to make the maximum use of all moneys collected by way of taxes from our citizens.
If the Government wants to introduce positive changes to unemployment insurance, benefit packages to improve its effectiveness, and if the Government wants to introduce measures that will improve the special benefits for maternity and paternity leave, sick benefits and old age benefits, we on this side of the House will look favourably upon those changes. However, if the Government insists on dismantling and cutting down one of the most important social pillars of a country that has reached our level of maturity and social well-being, then we will have absolutely no part of it.

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
We know that we cannot stop the Government from passing this Bill on second reading tonight. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House intend to fight tooth and nail during committee meetings, as we cross the country from west to east to hear from working men and women, municipal leaders and small business people, and we intend to let them know exactly what the program and the changes will do to them.
In Canada, 80 per cent of the people who qualify for assistance programs receive those benefits. In contrast, in the United States only 25 per cent of the people who qualify receive any benefits. I do not have to tell Members to look at the increasing problems the United States has with crime, drugs, homelessness and dying on the streets. Is that the type of country that the Government wants us to become? Good social policy is good economic policy. I do not believe that Canadians want to go backward, either.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this evening, even at this unearthly hour, to speak on this most important topic. I am particularly pleased to speak this evening after hearing such a lot of contradictory balderdash. I have never heard so much confusing rhetoric and contortion of the facts in my life.
The fact of the matter is that we are dealing with a very simple issue, one that has to do with people, and I would like to put it into perspective. The saddest thing in the world is a healthy, productive individual who is unable to work but wants to. The only thing sadder than that is a healthy, potentially productive individual whose will to work has been sapped by a forced diet of social assistance. These are the hopeless and defeated souls who have forgotten the joys of self-sufficiency, who have been actively discouraged from efforts to be productive by counter-productive programs of social assistance which attempt to make work less attractive in terms of take-home dollars than existing on the efforts of others.
Earlier I heard one of our friends opposite speak with a great deal of eloquence about the sanctity of our unemployment insurance system. I concur with my hon. friend, and agree with this. The unemployment insurance system makes a lot of sense. It is a reasonable and
commendable way to provide sustenance for those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own.
However, surely the thrust of an unemployment insurance program should be to encourage re-employment in industries and jobs that offer security from future gaps in employment because the employee now has the skills or the ability to acquire those skills to grow with the job and adjust to healthy change in the workplace.
Such a program is the one being introduced by the Government today. This program offers hope for selfsufficiency. It offers hope for new horizons to thousands of unemployed people who are aching to get back into the productive and rewarding workplace. This is a program which sees Canadians as having the potential for independence and having the potential to be productive members of this society. This program is one that sees Canadians as having the potential to learn to change, to grow, to do better, and to improve their lifestyles.
Hon. Members opposite have a very sad, distorted and negative view of the Canadian worker. I say shame on those Hon. Members. Ib hear them tell it, our workforce is incapable of doing anything but going from one dead-end job to the other, with lengthy periods of unemployment to spare in between. That is what they say. As a consolation prize for the lack of a plan, for the lack of the creative energy to solve the problem, Members opposite would offer only easy, insensitive and uncaring answers of a few more bucks.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Money is a cheap answer. Money does not answer the long-term problem.


Ronald MacDonald: But it puts food in your belly and a fire in your stove.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: To continue, sadly, there is never enough money to serve the needs. There never can be enough money, as my hon. friends very well know, to make up for the lack of hope, the desperation, the loss of dignify and the erosion of self-worth that comes from not having a job and, worse, that comes from knowing that one will never have a job because one lacks the skills and training to compete in the job market.


Ms. Clancy:: Or there is no market where you live.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: This program offers that hope. This program addresses the underlying problem of the chronically unemployed.
Currently, more than one million Canadians indicate that their lack of skills is a significant barrier-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think if the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary would be able to complete her speech we might be able to hear a couple more speeches before 1 a.m. I hope Hon. Members will give courtesy to those who are speaking between now and 1 a.m.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. friends opposite have wakened up. I must be saying something right.
Currently, more than one million Canadians indicate that their lack of skills is a significant barrier to finding employment. As one of my colleagues mentioned earlier, this is backed up by a number of studies done by, for example, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which found that 50 per cent of its members cited a shortage of qualified labour as a problem.
In addition, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association found that 36 per cent of its member manufacturers expressed difficulty in finding skilled trades people. As one who has spent time as a printer, a small manufacturer, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, from my own personal experience that this is very true.
What we are trying to do is address this problem. The number of people who are currently trained under the UI program number 75,000. It is our goal to double that to about 140,000, or about 5 per cent of UI beneficiaries.
To make sure that this training is relevant, we will be seeking the advice of labour and business, which is an appropriate thing to do, in the further design of UI support for training.
We are hearing a great deal from Hon. Members opposite about so-called mythical cut-backs to the UI program. I do not know from where they are getting this. The total funding for the program remains the same. It is not being reduced.


Mr. Allmand:: You have not read the Bill.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Dorothy I. Dobbie: What we will do is make training more effective by allowing for a longer duration of training periods-up to three years-and by assisting persons who are on UI to obtain high school equivalency certification to allow them to qualify for available jobs or to pursue a skills training program.
Mr. Speaker, you have heard the facts and the figures over and over again during this debate. However, there is one area that seems to continue as a question of misunderstanding by members of the Opposition who seem to have a hard time understanding a number of things. This one has to do with the number of weeks of work required in order to collect insurance. I would like to set the record straight by saying once and for all that people living in areas of high unemployment above 11.5 per cent need only log 10 weeks of employment in order to trigger benefits. That is to say that a person in one of those areas must only work two and a half months to collect. That is as it was before.
Second, another point which should be registered with those who have a hard time absorbing information across the way, is that those people in seasonal jobs-in fact, most of the people who rely on UI most frequently and who trigger benefits more than once in a 52-week period-will find that the qualifying period is unchanged. Construction workers in Manitoba, for example, who collect more than once in a 52-week period must work 18 weeks in order to collect. This is no different from what it was before.


Mary Catherine Clancy: How about the fish plant workers?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: The program has been made more relevant and more responsive to today's needs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken) on a point of order.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, we are here discussing a Government Bill and there is not a single Minister of the Crown in the House. I think that there should be a Minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member is out of order. There are Ministers in the House.

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
I would like to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the fact that there has been an agreement made here. There are Ministers in the Chamber, whether they are in the Chamber or outside. There are also other Members outside the Chamber. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands should know whether or not he should bring to the attention of the House who is or who is not in the Chamber.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milli-ken). He could see that I was growing a little tired and needed a rest.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: You need a long rest.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Unemployment insurance at its best and in its purest form is a program that permits people to bridge the gap in tough periods. It allows them to do that without attaching the stigma of welfare to their temporary misfortune. However, let us not kid ourselves for one minute into believing that we can hide welfare programs under the umbrella of unemployment insurance for very long. We are not fooling anyone, least of all those poor souls who are forced to eke out their existence in short-term, dead-end jobs that ultimately land them back on the UI rolls. They know that their sustenance is predicated on a form of welfare, no matter how euphemistically pretty the label given to it.
Therefore, the Government's revised program makes good sense. It offers hope to countless Canadians for a better tomorrow. It holds out a promise to all who despair in finding work for lack of qualifications. It holds out a promise that they, too, can share in Canada's bounty and that they have not been abandoned or forgotten.
I commend the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) for her courage and far-sightedness in devising a strategy that respects Canadian workers and offers a new hope to the many who have none today.
This is an excellent program. I am proud to be a part of a Government that has the honesty and integrity to deal with the real needs of Canadians and to deal with the needs of the unemployed by seeking to help them in a manner that leaves them with their dignity and provides them with hope for the future.


Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this legislation. However, I must begin with a confession.
Before being elected, my occupation was senior policy analyst in the UI Analysis Directorate of Employment and Immigration. That places me in the dubious category of being the only Member in this House, I think, who has had three Tory Ministers as former bosses.


Some Hon. Members:: And you're still alive?


Derek Vincent Lee: My discomfort at this blot on my past is eased somewhat by the election of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken).
I want to say that although the unit in which I was previously employed was probably involved in the analytical work for Bill C-21, I would not want that to imply any collaboration or even support for this legislation on my part.
Quite the contrary. However, the background may be useful in terms of the perspective I can add to the debate this evening. Several of my colleagues have raised some of the more obvious flaws in the legislation. They have said, for example, that Canadian workers will pay more for less unemployment insurance protection under the Minister's proposed changes. That is true. When we see the increase in the premiums and the fact the Government is withdrawing from the program, combined with the new benefits schedule proposed by the Minister, there is less UI protection and higher premiums that workers will have to pay.
The second obvious flaw with the package is that the extra weeks that will be needed to qualify will cause major hardships in many of the rural communities in Canada. In my riding of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, many communities depend on industries which are basically seasonal in nature. All that sustains these industries in the off season is unemployment insurance which provides income support for the people who work in the industries, and provides income to the businesses that are in those communities to keep the economy moving. Without unemployment insurance during that off season, unemployment would spread throughout the communities. Furthermore, there are no alternatives in
June 21, 1989

those isolated communities to unemployment insurance protection.
That brings me to the third obvious flaw in this legislation. It concerns the training programs which have been offered by the Minister as a substitute for UI protection. These training programs are fine for the urban areas like Toronto, where someone who is unemployed can train for a multitude of other industries and sectors. However, for someone living in eastern Nova Scotia who is unemployed, the only option is to leave home for somewhere else, either in Nova Scotia or in another part of Canada. It means giving up one's home and moving to another part of the country.
Since the Minister claims to be so confident about the benefits of her training programs, why does the Government not finance these programs from general revenues? Why does the Government place the risk of the success or failure of the training programs on the unemployed worker? Why will the unemployed worker have to pay for the risk associated with these training programs? If the Government is so proud of these training programs why does it not finance them from government revenues? It is essentially an admission of the failure and lack of confidence of the Government in its own programs.
The fourth obvious flaw concerns the Budget more than the changes to the unemployment insurance program that were announced by the Minister. It is the move to finance the total program out of employee and employer contributions. This is clearly a regressive tax measure. It is a tax on jobs which will apply to workers and which will discourage companies from hiring. It will also increase costs so that the tax not only contributes to unemployment but to inflation as well.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is supposed to be a well respected economic manager, at least until the release of the Budget. I cannot understand why he would allow such a measure to pass.
Another criticism to the changes to the UI program is that it essentially privatizes unemployment insurance. This is consistent with the Government's move to harmonization with the United States in the wake of the Free Trade Agreement.


Mr. Reid:: What are we changing?
Unemployment Insurance Act


Francis G. LeBlanc: Let me instruct the Hon. Member about what the unemployment insurance system looks like in the United States. The unemployment insurance program is a state financed program. States compete with each other in the United States to attract industry by offering lower unemployment benefits. Benefits in the United States are significantly less generous than in Canada.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: How do you attract industry if the state offers less money?


An Hon. Member:: It sounds like harmonization to me.


Francis G. LeBlanc: A third characteristic of the program is a feature known as experience rating. Industries or firms whose workers use the unemployment benefits more than others pay higher premiums over time.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: In this country the state pays for it. There is no corporate responsibility.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Go back to sleep.


Francis G. LeBlanc: I ask the Member to consider for a moment how experience rating would work in Canada. In Atlantic Canada with our geography and industrial base, we use unemployment insurance benefits relatively more than the rest of the country. This means we would pay astronomical unemployment insurance premiums for less benefits. Is that the system the Government wants to move us toward?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: No. It is quite clear that it is not.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: That is exactly where you want to take us.


Francis G. LeBlanc: They have taken the first step-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso has the floor.


Francis G. LeBlanc: The Government has taken the first step toward the American unemployment insurance system by withdrawing government support for the program. The program has always been a tripartite financed system in which there were three partners in financing unemployment insurance. They were the employers, the employees and the Government. We use the unemployment insurance program in our system to stabilize our economy and put income in areas of high unemployment. That is done

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
through regional extended benefits, which are being withdrawn by the Government.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Absolutely not.


Mr. Thompson:: You are dead wrong. That is the same speech you gave last fall.


An Hon. Member:: No it isn't.


An Hon. Member:: Good morning.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Put that man on a VIA train.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please there is still 30 minutes remaining. I would like to hear the Hon. Member's speech.


Francis G. LeBlanc: The flaws that I just outlined are obviously worth repeating because I believe Hon. Members opposite have not fully understood them yet.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: That is where you are wrong.


Francis G. LeBlanc: If they would speak to their constituents they would realize what this program means to Canadians. I would like to focus my remarks on some less obvious weaknesses in the program. It is interesting to note the lukewarm reception that the Minister's proposed changes have received from the business press. It is the business press that has been clamouring for UI reforms, clamouring to make the UI program more efficient, for ending abuses in the program, for making it more strict. It has been clamouring for this Government to make major cuts and changes to the unemployment insurance and to root out the so-called abuses in the program. It is interesting to note the kind of response that the Government has received. For instance, The Financial Post says that the reforms missed the target. The Financial Times says: "McDougall's plan may wind up satisfying neither those who want UI reform, nor people demanding expanded benefits for the jobless."
Claude Forget, who argued strongly for reform in his report, expressed amazement that the Government would introduce these changes without an appropriate rationale. In fact, the Minister's changes not only make major cuts to the program; they do nothing whatsoever
to correct any of the adverse incentives and inequities that motivated reform to UI in the first place.
Let us look at a few of these changes. First, let us look at the benefit structure. One of the criticisms that has been made of the UI program by those claiming that it encourages instability in the labour market is that one of the identified targets is the regional extended benefits and the variable entrancerequirements.
What has the Minister done? He has expanded the variable interest requirement. At the same time the regions of the country where UI benefits are the most difficult to get and where the economy is the least resilient, they have increased those minimum interest requirements substantially and widened the gap. Therefore, the unemployed worker is caught between a rock and a hard place. They reduced the number of benefits.
The second aspect is the repeater provision. The Minister has claimed seasonal workers will be better off because of the abandonment of the repeater provision. I would just like to enlighten Members on how much the repeater provision will affect unemployed workers. Essentially, with the changes in the benefit schedule, what it means, combined with the withdrawal of the repeater provisions, is that very few people will fall into the repeater category anyway. The benefits are more strict for everybody and the Government has-


Ian Angus Ross Reid: The penalty is gone?


Francis G. LeBlanc: Yes.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Well, the penalty is gone.


Francis G. LeBlanc: And
everybody else faces higher benefits. So it nullifies the advantage that repeaters might have got.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Of the parts of the country that need it.


Francis G. LeBlanc: You do not know what you are talking about.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Please enlighten me.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Let us compare the new rules for the fishing communities. Let us compare the application of these new benefit rules to the fishing communities. We know that there is a crisis in the Atlantic fishery motivated by this Government's failure to manage the fishery, the failure to prevent the overfishing by Europeans and a whole litany of problems

associated with the Government's management of this fishery. We have a crisis in the fishery and we can expect massive layoffs in this industry. They have already begun.
How does the UI program play in those communities? First, fish plant workers are going to face substantially higher entrance requirements and reduced benefits. However, self-employed fishermen will be treated the same way. They are not affected. What we have are two classes of unemployed, the fish plant workers and the self-employed fishermen.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Where is the change?


Francis G. LeBlanc: Over the years there has been substantial objection to providing benefits to self-employed fishermen and self-employed individuals generally. What can we expect from this Government? Are we going to expect that the other self-employed workers like small businessmen, truckers and farmers will now receive unemployment insurance benefits? No.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Would you take it away from the fishermen?


Francis G. LeBlanc: That is what we expect that you will do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There are still 25 minutes to go and there is a full moon outside. Let us enjoy ourselves. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.


Francis G. LeBlanc: The last point I would like to make has to do with older workers. The proposed changes will allow workers beyond 65 years of age to contribute to and to draw UI benefits. Several speakers opposite have made mention of this provision as if it was something that came out of the goodness of the Government's heart. However, I want to remind Hon. Members that this is really a very tardy response on the part of the Government to the parliamentary task force report on equality entitled Equality for All. It called for this part of the UI program to be changed in order to bring it into line with the Charter of Rights. Therefore, the Government has taken four years to implement that report.
Unemployment Insurance Act
I would just like to say a bit about UI for older workers in general. As we all know, Canada faces an aging workforce. At the same time we have a country where we will face major adjustments which are going to impact and cause layoffs among many of our older workers. We all know that older workers have a more difficult transition when they have become unemployed than the younger workers.
The Minister's statistics on this, I am sure, will bear this point out. However, the UI protection for someone who has been laid off at 45 or 55 is the same as for someone who has only been employed for 20 weeks. Someone who has worked for 20 years and becomes laid off does not receive any more protection than someone who has only worked for 20 weeks. I ask the question: Is this fair?
I suggest that dealing effectively with this aspect of the program would be a start toward developing a more comprehensive and humane package of changes. It might be a legislative package that would be taken seriously. Instead the Minister has offered us a Bill that gives us the worst of all possible worlds, a major reduction in UI protection for everybody and no improvement in the structure of the program. The changes do not follow from any thought of the role that the UI program should play in Canada's social safety net. What it is is a jerry-built contraption designed simply to save this Government money.
If the Minister is unwilling to withdraw this Bill now, my recommendation is that she let it die a mercifully quiet death over the summer. In the meantime, she should go back to the drawing board with her officials. If she cannot come up with a set of changes that address the real needs of Canadian workers in the 1990s, then she should follow her predecessor's lead and leave well enough alone.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. AI Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that Hon. Members opposite are motivated by the same desires as are we who sit on the Government side, namely, to build a solid economic and skills foundation in this country that will carry Canada with confidence into the 1990s and beyond. I also understand that

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
Hon. Members need assurance that Canadian men and women are not being left behind, that they are not slipping through our social security safety net as they go about building and adapting to post-industrial economic realities.
However, I would suggest to them, Mr. Speaker, that we are providing a greater service to everyone when we shift our energies from simple income maintenance schemes to training and retraining opportunities that will allow people to participate fully in a thriving economy. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we can best ensure a strong and competitive future for our country through an investment in human capital, and that is what the channelling of more funds into skill development measures represents.
We cannot disregard the change that is taking place in our economy. We must recognize that complacency in a highly competitive world amounts to a prescription for disaster. We have always insisted, both inside this House and in public fora across the land, that it is folly to underestimate the demands of a constantly changing and interdependent global economy. Indeed, we have always maintained that the failure to preserve a competitive workforce would have dire consequences for Canada's economic prospects.
That is why we have dedicated more dollars to job training and skill enhancement than any government in the history of Canada. The changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act are part of the dedication to training people to take advantage of the opportunities that are at hand.
We have not merely focused our resources and attention on those Canadians blessed with the wit and wisdom to attend our institutions of higher learning. We have also devoted resources so that people faced with the dead-end prospects of welfare can see a way out of their unhappy condition. These are people who, given the right kind of retraining and re-entry assistance, can get back into the job market.
We all know of examples in our own communities, such as my riding of Okanagan Centre, of single mothers anxious to get back into the workforce; of young people, often from disadvantaged backgrounds, who have dropped out of school and now face a bleak and troublesome future; disabled people with obvious intelligence and ability who are held back by the prejudices of an unappreciative job market; visible minorities and native peoples who too often face major barriers in joining the
workforce. These are the groups that have been traditionally left by the economic wayside, but these are the people who need some timely and effective intervention to help them become part of the economic mainstream.
The training and retraining funds available through this strategy and in existing programs are designed to help overcome the barriers that exclude people from the labour market. Each of the many components of current programming has targeted groups such as women, social assistance recipients, aboriginal people, visible minorities and people with disabilities. These groups have been identified to ensure that they receive the relevant training that will give them a chance to become part of the permanent labour force.
We are dedicated to helping these target groups gain access to the labour market so they can fully participate in Canadian society. That is a major motivation behind the federal funding of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. We see it as an investment in our future. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we merely give passive income support, without providing the prospect of joining the post-industrial economy, we are condemning people to remain on the outside of our social and economic system.
In order that Hon. Members appreciate our commitment to the development of a training ethic in Canada, I would like to outline some of the principal features of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. I will begin with the job entry component of CJS, a program that has served as an important means of getting people in our target groups back into the workforce. It provides, for example, on and off-the-job training and work experience for young people having difficulty making the critical transition from school to work.
Program co-ordinators under job entry have included businesses, public and educational institutions, municipal governments and Indian band councils. These co-ordinators are responsible for developing, designing and administering training plans that are designed to meet the specific needs of the job entry participants. They are responsible for identifying and recruiting the participants, selecting suitable training sites, monitoring the participants' progress and paying allowances to the participants.
However, the program is not exclusively designated for young people. The job re-entry component of the CJS has also been used to assist women who have difficulty making the transition from home to work outside the home. Both entry and re-entry provide training for those
June 21, 1989

people who face significant barriers in securing and maintaining employment.
In particular, job entry serves people who have been termed "severely employment disadvantaged". These are people who have had difficulty entering the job market because of functional illiteracy, poor social and communication skills, motivational problems and poor work habits, or people who have been institutionalized for long periods and have difficulties adjusting to the realities of the world of work. Special assistance is provided to people whose disabilities have been a barrier to entering the workforce. Funding may be used to provide services such as sign language interpretation, Braille reader services, or the provision of information on audio cassette.
The various components of the Canadian Jobs Strategy provide help where it is most needed and many of the objectives in the various components of CJS have, in fact, been exceeded. However, the willingness of the provincial and territorial governments to join with the federal Government in using CJS to enhance the employability of social assistance recipients is probably the best testimony to the usefulness of CJS programs. All provinces have entered into CJS agreements with the federal Government since the policy was first introduced. Mr. Speaker, the program is a great asset to my constituency of Okanagan Centre. Considering the results that CJS programs are generating, the eagerness of the provinces to join forces with the federal Government is understandable.
All participants in the various CJS programs are surveyed three months after they leave their project or training course. They are asked whether they found a job and whether the training provided under CJS was relevant to that job. Mr. Speaker, the results of our latest surveys are most encouraging. What is most encouraging is the "impact rate" of the CJS programs. The "impact rate" refers to the percentage of participants who are either employed or involved in further training three months after their involvement with CJS. Job entry was found to have an impact rate of more than 60 per cent and the skill utilization rate, or the percent-
Unemployment Insurance Act
age of participants using skills acquired during the job entry, was more than 64 per cent.
These CJS programs are already having an impact in the job market and as time goes by I am certain they will have an even greater influence for the good of the participants. The economic prospects for the people targeted under the Canadian Jobs Strategy clearly rest on our ability to train and equip them to enter a highly competitive job market. If we skimp on the investment in human capital that the CJS represents, they will likely never be able to secure lasting employment. The Canadian Jobs Strategy is a human capital investment that we all can be proud of.
It represents a major commitment to job training and retraining of the Canadian workforce. The changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act are designed to direct more resources to such training and retraining measures. Three hundred and fifty million dollars more will be available for training UI recipients for the job market. With the Labour Force Development Strategy, we have dedicated $100 million for entry level skill development to help people get into the labour market, an additional $15 million to an industrial adjustment service, to assist firms and workers facing major changes due to technological reorganizations, an additional $50 million for the community futures program, which is now being implemented in my riding of Okanagan Centre, an additional $50 million for social assistance recipients, and $100 million for displaced older workers, and the list goes on and on. Hon. Members are surely familiar with it.
The new improvements to the Unemployment Insurance Program maintain the existing safety net. They improve special benefits to certain target groups like older workers. Most important, they devote needed resources to the preparation of the unemployed for labour market opportunities they never dreamed possible. In other words, we are providing a foundation for building a strong and competitive future for Canada and my riding of Okanagan Centre.
Currently, older workers have access to EIC programs and services through the Canadian Jobs Strategy and employment services. In November, 1988, the Minister announced new services tailored to older workers. In my riding of Okanagan Centre, we have a lot of older workers. I am proud to be able to tell you about this

June 21, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
program at this particular time. These include retraining programs, job-finding clubs and an expanded self-employment incentive option within the community's futures program.
The Labour Market Development Strategy proposes to increase current services to displaced older workers by $100 million. The continuing employment option may receive an additional $40 million to provide up to three years support to employers who hire and retrain displaced workers. Some $50 million will finance skills training and educational upgrading through Section 26 of the UI Act in co-operation with the provinces.
Other avenues of assistance include the IAS, re-employment incentive pilot projects which subsidize early re-employment at lower wage rates, and Labour Canada's POWA program. In addition, older workers will be targeted for self employment and mobility assistance.
Currently, self-employment and entrepreneurship are supported mainly through community futures, a Canadian Jobs Strategy Program. This program is active in more than 200 non-metropolitan communities across Canada. Participating communities have access to business development centres, which provide technical advisory services to small businesses, and which can also fund loans of up to $75,000; and the self-employment incentive option, which gives unemployed persons who are trying to become self-employed $180 a week for up to a year, in lieu of social assistance or unemployment insurance.
Current mobility assistance is also provided through the Canadian Jobs Strategy. Workers who are in danger of losing their jobs or who have already lost their jobs because of technological or market changes can collect up to $5,000 to aid in relocation.
In 1988-89, as of January28, 1989, 4,308 workers received assistance for a total cost of about $6,369,000.
Earlier, the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Fontana) suggested that 2 per cent of UI payments are voluntary quitters without just cause. He implied that this is an insignificant matter. However, the cost to the UI account annually of voluntary quitters without just
cause is $1.1 billion. That is 10 per cent of the entire UI account.
The Liberal Party of Canada calls $1.1 billion insignificant, but Members on this side of the House have more respect for the taxpayers of Canada.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have a chance to speak, for what time is available to me, against Bill C-21, this Bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act. In fact, this Bill will do great harm to working people in Canada. It is a Bill which is important to the people of Trinity-Spadina in Toronto.
Some people have said that unemployment is low in Toronto. However, that is of course according to Statistics Canada which in fact leave out certain blind spots. They do not count the homeless, of which we have many in Toronto, because they are not at home to be telephoned by the pollsters to find out whether they have been looking for work that week. They do not count many of the people who have given up looking for work there. They do not count many of the under-employed or unemployed housewives who are not qualified to be called unemployed statistically. They do not count those who are seriously underpaid, particularly in the immigrant communities. They do not count the illegal immigrants who of course are punished for being illegal by being underpaid if they are able to work, but who are nevertheless considered very useful by many of the employers in Spadina. They do not count those who are hindered from working, and perhaps even from being counted statistically for lack of the English or French language. They do not count the fact that unemployed are quickly expelled from Trinity-Spadina and from downtown Toronto by the extraordinarily high cost of housing there. It is very difficult for an unemployed person to live in downtown Toronto, even if on unemployment insurance. We have all those people in Trinity-Spadina.
We also a few years ago had the story of a local junk dealer with his horse who used to make a small living for himself and the horse by collecting junk to sell it. The price of food and oats went up faster than the price of junk. He had to start cutting back a few grains a day on the horse's oats until one day he gave him no oats at all.

Unemployment Insurance Act
The next day when he went to the shed and found him lying on the floor, he said: "Look at that ungrateful beast, just when I taught him to live on nothing he goes and dies on me".
That is about the effect of this Tory unemployment insurance scheme. They did not consult the unemployed about it. They did not consult labour about it. They were very careful not to. The Minister of course made that point when she met with the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. They did not dare issue the impact studies which they had done prior to presenting this law because they knew, of course, that it would provide ammunition to people who objected to the law. They did not dare allow the Standing Committee of Labour, Employment and Immigration to do any travelling to visit the people of Canada to discuss the Minister's proposal before the debate in the House, which would have been the normal way to approach it.
In the previous Parliament, they made sure that the Minister violating the Standing Orders of this House gave no comprehensive answer at all to the very thorough report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration evaluating the Forget report.
It is clear that this Government, by refusing to consult the people most directly affected by this Bill, have decided it is not interested in helping the working people of Canada. It is interested in controlling them. That, of course, is the goal of many, many lobbyings by business groups such as the Business Council on National Issues which wanted this Government for years to cut back much more severely on unemployment insurance. In fact, it was cut for political purposes, not for budget purposes. If they wanted to save the deficit, they could have brought down the interest rate. They were rather more interested in increasing the wealth of the rich and in controlling the workers with meaner regulations than have been seen in this country since the Great Depression.


Mr. Deputy Speaker (M. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 67, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment and the main motion now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the 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 nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
Call in the Members.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I may be anticipating things a little, but I think you would find, Mr. Speaker, unanimous consent to apply the vote taken on the amendment to the main motion, but this time in reverse.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 1.30 a.m., this House stands adjourned until later this day at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 1.33 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 22, 1989