1990-03-12

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-9, an act to amalgamate the two corporations known, respectively, as "The Governing Council of The Salvation Army, Canada East" and "The Governing Council of The Salvation Army, Canada West", and to make necessary provisions regarding the charter of the amalgamated corporation, as reported (with an amendment) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, I have advised both opposition parties that the hon. member in whose name this bill is has been unavoidably detained by airplane schedules. I ask the consent of the House to move this particular bill so that we can proceed with debate today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: that Bill S-9, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Albert Glen Cooper: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-THnity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to make some comments on this particular bill.
The organization that is the subject of this particular bill is represented very strongly across Canada. In fact, I did some research on its background. It is a very rich background that I will not go through here, although I think it is worth while to recall some of the dates involved, to give some indication of just how steeped in our history the organization called The Salvation Army is.
It first came to Canada in 1882. It was introduced by a group of very dedicated people. The corps first really sprung up in smaller towns in Ontario.
As an indication of the kind of movement that the Salvation Army had, just five years later the religion, as I would prefer to call it, was being practised from Victoria, British Columbia to St. John's, Newfoundland. In relative terms, that was a very short time for a religion or a particular movement to spread across any country.
There are a number of milestones worth pointing out. In 1886, the organization was a rescue home for fallen girls, as it was called. In 1891, the Salvation Army opened its first prison-gate home. In 1905, a Salvation Army officer became the first Dominion Parole Officer.
This is an organization of great stature in our country. Today, the Salvation Army maintains both a social and a religious or evangelical purpose. It is a recognized church with close to 130,000 members.
In my travels across Canada, in the Bermuda area and other parts of the world, I have been very impressed with the kind of work the Salvation Army does. If I may be permitted a personal aside, the very first duty I had to perform after being elected in the riding of Bonavista- Trinity-Conception was to attend a dinner given by the

March 12, 1990
Private Members' Business
Salvation Army in my hometown of Bonavista. It was at that dinner that I committed my assistance to the movement and some of the projects it is interested in because of my belief, faith, and the way I have been touched by what it has done in its time in Canada, especially in the smaller villages and towns of Newfoundland where the movement is particularly strong.
Across Canada there are parole supervision agencies, the well-known Harbour Light Centre for alcoholics, Sunset Lodges, Grace Hospitals, fresh air camps for youngsters and programs for drug addicts. In my riding there are two camps which the Salvation Army through hard work has put together. It continues to supervise the youth activities. In fact, some of these camps double for activities which involve senior citizens and other like organizations of a recreational nature.
To summarize, the indication that the Salvation Army has put across is that it is a willing hand in a time of need. I am familiar, as I am sure anybody who has been associated with the organization is, with its motto, "With heart to God and hand to man". I think all of us have a lot of time for the kind of work that this particular organization does. It is for that reason that it has such great stature in our country.
My concern in reviewing the information that I had on this bill was that we simply did not make amendments to an existing organization that could come back and perhaps make life difficult for the Salvation Army. I just had to review for my own benefit precisely what this amendment was doing.
The Salvation Army as a church has what is called the core managing board, which does not have the ownership of the property within which it performs its function. All that ownership rests with the corporation which is called the governing council of the Salvation Army. In simplistic terms, I understand that this council has to be set up in order to have ownership of the property and the many organizations which represent real estate to which I have made reference. This is opposed to the Salvation Army movement itself, which as a religious movement would not have title to these particular properties.
The governing council was split in two in 1916 when there was formed a separate territory called the Canada West in Winnipeg, which was a special regional organization.
In 1930, because of severe economic conditions and, once more, because of the business of trying to amalgamate and save administrative dollars, the army amalgamated this group. The senior leadership moved to one centre in Toronto without having made the change in the legislation.
In simple terms the legislation, as I understand it, has never caught up with the reality of the reorganization that took place in 1930. The officers of the governing council are the same for Canada West and Canada East. For purposes of tightening up the structure and ensuring the tidying up of the corporate legislative details, the Salvation Army brought forward this bill, which it hopes to see passed as soon as possible.
It is my privilege on behalf of my colleagues, and I hope all members of the House, to say that any reservations we had have been discharged. I hope that in passing this bill we will allow an organization that is running for the good of mankind to run a bit more smoothly from the administrative and legislative side. We are quite happy to proceed with this bill.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to offer my appreciation to the hon. member for York-Simcoe who has worked so hard on this bill. It is very unfortunate that he got caught in the plane delays which affect every one of us who are here trying to serve this House. I appreciate his giving me the consent to proceed with the motion.
Second, on behalf of all members of this House, I wish to say how much we appreciate the work of the Salvation Army or, as it is more affectionately called, the Sally Ann. It has definitely created an attitude in this country of credibility, of kindness and a spirit that all of us would do well to imitate and reflect upon.
I often think of one soldier I talked to who is about as hard and cynical a man as I know who regularly referred so kindly to the Sally Ann officers who had cared for him and helped him during the times of war.
I also want to say that I appreciate the co-operation of both the Liberal and NDP members and how much they have helped us in proceeding with this bill. I know that the House does want to express to the Salvation Army our continued support for its work and our appreciation for what it does for so many Canadians who, from time to time have suffered hardship. It has demonstrated leadership.
March 12, 1990

On behalf of all of us in the House, I pay a special thanks to the Salvation Army. We are honoured to be able to proceed with this bill.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will suspend the sitting until two o'clock this day.
At 1.18 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have had it with the government's misguided industrial policy that makes them victims of a rather perverse economic strategy. More workers lost their jobs through layoffs last year than in any other year since 1982. That alarming increase in plant closings means that over 9,700 jobs lost last year will be gone for good.
Moreover, anticipated workforce reductions is greater than in any similar period during the last decade. To make matters worse, new jobs in generally low paying service sectors accounted for 93.7 per cent of all jobs created.
More and more Canadians are forced to take on additional part-time jobs to make ends meet. Those holding such jobs increased by over 45 per cent in the last 10 years. Good jobs are being lost and little is being done to replace them.
The 550 workers at Inglis in Toronto are a case in point. Fewer than 100 have found jobs since the plant moved operations to Ohio. Where are the adjustment policies for them? Where is the industrial strategy to reintegrate them into the economy? They and others want work. Why is the government deliberately creating conditions for increased unemployment?


ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has started implementing an environmental clean-up program in the Arctic.
About 5,000 old fuel drums were collected and shipped south, as part of the first clean-up phase.
General waste management practices in the Arctic are now being reviewed. The federal government will consider and test practical methods for waste reduction, waste treatment, incineration, recycling and waste removal.
There is a wide variety of activities in Canada's North isolated though it may be.
Environment Canada maintains a network of weather stations, air pollution monitoring posts and a national park reserve.
Now that research has shown that air pollution from the temperate zones is now contaminating the far North, Canada is trying to deal with pollution on a much broader scale.
For instance, the federal government has concluded co-operation agreements with the U.S.S.R. concerning the Arctic, reduction of air pollution and environmental problems in general.
Mr. Speaker, we are now working on a new agreement with all Arctic countries in order better to protect the environment in the North.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, there was very good news from Ottawa for Canadians this past weekend. Because it was good news, it did not show in the headlines.
This February, employment increased and unemployment actually decreased to 7.7 per cent, even though February is usually a low point in the labour cycle. Two conclusions can be drawn from this. First, while Canadians may not be enjoying boom times right now, we have not had to face the severe recession that many have been predicting.

March 12, 1990
Second, we should all remember that when the previous Liberal government left office in September 1984, usually a month of maximum employment, the unemployment rate was 11.6 per cent. Now, the unemployment rate is down to 7.7 per cent in mid-winter. What this proves is that whatever the doomsayers and negative nigglers might say during Question Period, this government is following the proper economic course for Canadians. Also, any connection between headlines and reality is slim, at best.


FORESTRY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the most severe forest fires to hit Canada this century happened last summer in northern Manitoba. In all, 2.6 million hectares of land burned in Manitoba. Forests, lakes and wildlife population were all devastated. There were 23,000 people evacuated from their homes and communities. At that time, the Prime Minister went on record on television with an offer of generous help from Ottawa. He said Ottawa would help to cover the enormous cost of fighting fires and evacuating people.
I want Canadians to know that now that the bills are coming in, the Prime Minister is backing off. The fires in 1989 cost the people of Manitoba $72 million. Under normal disaster relief formulas, Ottawa should pay half of that cost, which amounts to over $36 million. Instead, the Prime Minister is offering to pay only $17 million.
What happened to the Prime Minister's generosity? Did it vanish when the cameras were turned off? There is no question that Ottawa should pay its fair and generous share of the cost of fighting last summer's fires as promised. The people of Manitoba, after all, are still watching and they will not forget.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women is holding its annual symposium today and tomorrow on the theme of Women's Place in the Economy. The President of the council says: "We are at a crisis point.
Women are under siege". The President of the National Employment Network, calls this an anti-woman government on the attack to the feminist movement.
This is a good time to recall the record of this government on issues that keep women poor. A national day care program has been abandoned. Bill C-21 cuts unemployment benefits and hurts women disproportionately. The Minister responsible for the Status of Women refuses to accept an amendment that would have given equal access to training programs for women.
The government, which should be leading the way in enlightened employment and pay policies, instead is perpetuating sexual stereotyping and negative attitudes. It hurts women by withholding pension reforms that are its obligation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For months it has left the Court Challenges Program in limbo. After cuts last year to women's programs, the latest blow is the slashing of federal funding to women's centres while hundreds of thousands of women across this country are beaten daily. Women are not deceived by empty rhetoric. They want action.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the sports community is reacting to the "English-only" trend, and Quebec francophones involved in cross-country skiing feel very strongly they have been humiliated.
At a committee meeting, it was decided that from now on, Quebec would withdraw and stay away from all competitions, whatever their size, held in cities that had passed unilingual resolutions.
The city of Sault Ste. Marie, which has given the "English-only" trend new importance, hosted a Canadian championship two years ago. In the present circumstances, the winner, Pierre Harvey, would have been unable to take part.
The Quebec federation wants to remind the Canadian association it has a duty to ensure that Quebec is respected as a province. In future, it will be up to the executive to make sure it selects sites where our rights will not be trampled on.
March 12, 1990

Mr. Speaker, last summer I attended the Saskatoon Games where I saw a fantastic organization that functioned in both official languages.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this week, throughout Canada, around the clock, Canadian men and women will dial 1-900-720-6052 to object to the goods and services tax.
I urge Canadians to support the national campaign against the goods and services tax which will take place from March 12 to March 16.
This telephone petition will enable all Canadians to vote against the GST and express their dissatisfaction. Vote massively againts the GST!
Say no to the GST by dialing 1-900-720-6052.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the issue of acid rain. Last June the President of the United States, George Bush, introduced legislation that would see acid rain emissions from industrial sources cut back nearly half by the turn of the century.
More recently the United States stated in principle that they were ready to agree to that legislation after successful negotiations were completed between the White House and the Senate. This is only the latest in the long list of successes for our government since 1984 on the issue of acid rain.
Our own country set a prime example. Agreements were made with the provinces affected by acid rain to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by 2.3 million tonnes per year. Lead is to be removed from gasoline emissions by December 1, 1990. New emission standards have reduced the amount of pollution from cars and trucks. The list goes on.
This is evidence that all the time and effort put forth by this government and especially by our Prime Minister to address this problem to the President of the United States is finally meeting with success. Only by Canadians
and Americans working toward the common goal of acid rain reform can we realize a cleaner, healthier environment for all North Americans.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, today my colleagues and I met with representatives of labour groups from across this country. They brought the message once again that the government's plan to destroy unemployment insurance will not be accepted.
The government's response to the Senate does nothing to respond to the serious concerns of people from across the country who have appeared before committee after committee.
Bill C-21 is bad legislation. At the very time when workers most need income protection, whether they live in Canso or Saskatoon, the government is cutting benefits and increasing hardships for thousands of families.
The Senate amendments do not go nearly far enough toward maintaining the kind of program this country so desperately needs. This government should listen to the people, do the honourable thing and withdraw this bill.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard from friends and fellow members of the Ogden Branch of the Royal Canadian Legion who support recent changes to the board and lodging charges for long term care for Canada's veterans. They know that these changes correct an inequity where the majority of veterans pay $240 a month while others pay nothing for the same service.
Veterans across the country will now be treated equally. Veterans with low incomes or disability will pay less than $240 a month or nothing at all. Veterans will continue to pay the lowest rate for long term care in Canada because the maximum amount is set at the lowest rate charged by any province. These changes do not affect veterans' pensions and allowances which continue to be generous and fully indexed. For example, married veterans are guaranteed $1,185 a month before deductions, and single veterans are guaranteed $585 a month before deductions. Veterans also receive Old Age

March 12, 1990
Oral Questions
Security and, if they are eligible, Canada Pension Plan benefits.
I am proud to acknowledge that no nation-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians can now vote against the proposed goods and services tax. Starting today the Liberal party is calling on all Canadians to join a week long electronic telephone campaign against the imposition of this regressive and obscene tax grab.
You can register your opposition to the GST by dialing the anti-GST hot line, 1-900-720-6052, 24 hours a day from today until Friday, March 16. For a mere 50 cent toll charge Canadians can personally count themselves in to the growing movement across this country that is saying no to this unprecedented raid on their pockets.
The Liberal party is now giving Canadians from coast to coast an opportunity to tell this government once more with feeling "Axe this tax". Just dial the anti-GST hot line at 1-900-720-6052. That is 1-900-720-6052. Do it today!



Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, more and more Canadians are starting to ask the very simple question: where does the Liberal Party stand in terms of the GST if they are elected after the next election campaign? We have one candidate who says she will scrap the tax. There is one candidate who says a flat tax. There is one candidate, Jean Chretien, who says: "Well, I don't know what I would do". Now, according to the Winnipeg Free Press, there is a prominent Liberal leadership candidate who says he would retain the GST. "It would be irresponsible to repeal the tax at that point", says Tom Wappel, a leadership candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest Canadians should telephone the Leader of the Opposition's office to ask where the Liberal party stands on the GST. The phone number is
Area Code 613, number 996-5084. Call the Leader of the Opposition. Ask where to call.


COMMONWEALTH DAY
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate Commonwealth Day and it is very fitting that we welcome the joining of Namibia on March 21 as the fiftieth member of the Commonwealth.
Her Majesty, The Queen, is head of the Commonwealth. I would like to read two brief paragraphs from her message:
Every year, when we celebrate Commonwealth Day, it reminds me that we are celebrating something which is quite unique. Nothing quite like the Commonwealth has ever been created or evolved before. Its comparative lack of rules, its human richness and its geographical diversity, make the Commonwealth as hard to define as it is easy to criticize-it appeals to the young as much as to the old, to peoples and nations at all phases of political, economic, cultural and social development, to reformers and lovers of tradition alike.
On Commonwealth Day especially we greet each other as members of the biggest and most unusual family on earth.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister and it relates to the government's policy for improving Canada's science and technology performance, in particular the role to be played by the National Research Council of Canada.
The new president of the NRC wrote last month to the Chair of the Science Council that the National Research Council: "intends to limit its involvement in basic research-to that required to maintain a minimal scientific insurance policy for the nation".
Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with his new NRC president that the NRC should play a minimal role in science and, at this time in Canada's history, why is the government forcing the NRC to play such a minimal role?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, the government is not forcing the National Research Council to do anything. The National Research Council is doing exactly what it should do. It should review its mandate from time to time. It should recog-
March 12, 1990

nize that universities now exist and are the main thrust for basic scientific work in this country. The National Research Council will do what is required in terms of basic research so that it can fulfil its general mandate to support science and technology in this country.


John Paul Manley: I hope the minister has heard about the transfer cuts.

Mr. Speaker, in the same letter, Dr. Perron, president of the NRC, proposes a policy and strategy for privatization of the National Research Council. Is the government prepared to let the National Research Council be privatized?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, the National Research Council of Canada is not going to be privatized.
I think what may hurt my colleague so much is that the National Research Council of Canada is prepared to sell some of its services to industry if industry wants to buy it. That seems to me to be a good deal.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, if that is the policy of the government, I suggest that the minister head the president of the NRC off at the pass when he is writing letters that say he is proposing a policy of privatization.
As recently as the budget last month, the government cut science and technology spending by $39 million and cut transfer payments for post-secondary education by over $2 billion. Canadians are left wondering what has happened to the Prime Minister's promise of increasing Canada's R and D spending to 2.5 per cent of Gross Domestic Product?
Does the government still intend to fulfil the Prime Minister's promise to increase R and D spending to 2.5 per cent and, if so, can the government explain how it intends to increase R and D performance while cutting spending?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows as well as anyone in this House that if we are going to increase R and D total spending in this country, industry must pick up a fair part
Oral Questions
of it. Let me remind the hon. member that in 1980, the government of the day was spending, excluding debt payments, 4.65 per cent of total program spending on science and technology. That government let that run down to 4.46 per cent. This government brought it back up to 4.89 per cent, the highest it has been in 10 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LITHUANIA
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and pertains to the historical events happening in Lithuania.
It is clear that the situation in the Baltic States is very different, indeed very unique from that of the other republics in the Soviet Union. Successive governments have refused to recognize the illegal annexation of those states.
Will the minister bring a long-standing policy of non-recognition to its logical conclusion by supporting an all-party resolution that recognizes Lithuania as a fully independent, sovereign republic? I can tell the minister that I have had discussions with the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona and he, on behalf of his party, would be willing to support such a resolution.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to look at the resolution that was proposed by the hon. member and the member for Winnipeg Transcona. Certainly, that would be a resolution that would be acceptable to me and to members of the government.
We join with the hon. member in recognizing as historic the democratic decision that has been taken by the people of Lithuania, and now by their Parliament. The position of the Government of Canada, as he has correctly said, has been to recognize the political sovereignty of Lithuania.
We now enter into a very important phase in which there will be a discussion as to how the de facto occupation by the Soviet Union will come to an end.

March 12, 1990
Oral Questions


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that co-operation and leadership. I am wondering if he could go a step further because yesterday my riding which was linked by telephone to Vilnius where the newly elected Lithuanian Parliament voted unanimously to change the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic to become the independent democratic Republic of Lithuania.
In addition to the resolution, would the minister today give full recognition to the Republic of Lithuania by giving it full diplomatic recognition?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the House was pleased that the hon. member, his colleague from Winnipeg Transcona, and the member for Scarborough Centre were able, in private capacities, to be in Lithuania to watch the elections and report back to their caucuses.
I have had some conversations with some of the members respecting those developments. This is an historic day. I have discussed with Soviet leaders, prior to the vote, the attitude that they would take.
I have received specifically from Mr. Shevardnadze can undertaking that there would be no crackdown. I think all members of the House would agree that we should encourage the Soviet Union and Lithuania to move as speedily as possible toward a situation which recognizes the de facto and de jure sovereignty and independence of Lithuania.


SCIENCE
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for Science who has been recently elevated, for which I congratulate him.
I wonder if he would elevate himself to answer this question. The Prime Minister is to receive an award tonight for scientific leadership from the Weizmann Institute.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, those on the other side seem well informed. Perhaps they can tell us why this award was received. Is it for cutting Canadian expenditures for research as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product from 1.4 per cent in 1985 to 1.32 per cent in
1989? Is it for cutting the government's share of science and technology expenditures by 4 per cent over four years? Or is it for cutting the EPF transfers in support of universities? Which of these constitutes scientific leadership?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his congratulations. In turn, I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister on receiving this award.
There are no doubt many reasons why the institute decided to award the Prime Minister this distinguished award, many of them no doubt are centred on the fact that this is a Prime Minister who established the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology and chairs it for the first time ever in Canadian history.
This is the Prime Minister who, working with that board, established the Canada Scholarship Program, the Centres of Excellence Program, and who managed to put in $350 million or more into the industry-university matching grant program. This is the Prime Minister who ensured, as I said to my hon. colleague just a moment ago, that we went from 4.46 per cent in 1984 to 4.89 per cent of total program expenditure on science and technology in 1989. That is not a bad record.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the quality of excuses is not strained, and I can understand why there was such a lack of enthusiasm on the other side with respect to the award. But let us look at the record.
On February 8, the parliamentary secretary to the hon. minister promised that there would be no new cut-backs at NRC.


An Hon. Member:: What is the supplementary?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Do not get too agitated over there, you will get your turn some other time. We have a document to which my colleague in the Official Opposition referred which states that in this correspondence between the head of the NRC and the former head of the Science Council the next five year plan for NRC will propose a strategy of privatization and divestiture and planned reductions in permanent employees at NRC. How can he reconcile that to the statement of the parliamentary secretary to the hon. minister and to any significant thrust in the direction of building up Canada's R and D capacity?
March 12, 1990


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague makes the same mistake that many others do: if you cannot build it up in an government institution, then it does not count. There are many things that NRC does that could be done equally as well outside NRC. There are many things that NRC has been doing over the past 30 years that can best be done some place else. That is exactly what they are looking at.
I am amazed that the opposition does not want to see the National Research Council look at its future in terms of the reality of the present, but then it has never been one to face reality.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the minister's problem is that we understand and all of Canada understands what is going on in terms of science policy in this government. In fact, what he sees in the future is a past which is a good deal lesser in terms of expenditures and resources provided to NRC.
The new five-year plan proposes "-a limited amount of basic research at NRC". We already know that basic research funding in the universities has been suffering significantly. Where is it going to transfer it to? To save money at NRC-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister.


William C. Winegard: Again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not realize that the funding for the granting councils has gone up this year. The funding for the university research granting councils was one of the things that went up as they were supposed to. They are up 8.6 per cent this coming year. They have gone up every year since the government came into power. They will continue to be treated well on the research front.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, but in his absence, I shall direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Last Friday, we saw the good will of the House to the Meech Lake Accord. The Prime Minister said last week that there was nothing more he could do to save the
Oral Questions
Meech Lake Accord, and the Premier of Newfoundland, Clyde Wells, said that after consultations, he had discovered that there were no consultations, contrary to what the Deputy Prime Minister told us last Friday. I would therefore like to know whether the Prime Minister is doing something to save the Meech Lake Accord. If not, is he now prepared to enter into consultations and to schedule a meeting with all his fellow first ministers to try to save the Meech Lake Accord?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House on Friday, the Prime Minister, Senator Murray and indeed federal officials are working very hard on this particular issue. There is serious work that is going on.
I indicated last Friday that until such time as there appeared to be some move toward greater consensus among the divergent views of the three opposing provinces it would seem rather untimely to bring all the ministers together under the auspices of a First Ministers' Conference. That has certainly not been ruled out. It was not ruled out on Friday, and it is not ruled out today.
We hope that during the course of the discussions which will be ongoing that progress will be made. If sufficient progress is made that would result in bringing about a greater degree of consensus, to the point that perhaps it would be useful to bring all the ministers together in a formalized way, that is certainly a matter that is being considered.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Deputy Prime Minister is being contradicted by the Prime Minister himself, who said last week that he had done everything that he could and that there was nothing further that he could do. The Deputy Prime Minister is saying that there are consultations going on.
Can he assure us that in spite of what the Prime Minister said last week he is in fact leading these discussions and he is prepared to call his colleagues, the first ministers, together to try to save Lake Meech? To us it looks as if the Prime Minister is waiting to create a crisis or until a crisis emerges, and we do not want that to be the case.

March 12, 1990
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, let me make this abundantly clear. I think that all members of this House, including the hon. member's leader, the leader of the New Democratic Party, the chief spokesman for the New Democratic Party and members on this side of the House, would agree that the Prime Minister has provided outstanding leadership on this particular issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I could get political but this thing is too important, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister is still providing leadership and, in close consultation with all the key players in this particular issue, he is attempting to work toward bringing about a greater consensus and hopefully some form of an accommodation that will move the Meech Lake Accord ahead.
I do not share the pessimism the hon. member displays with respect to the question that he put. I can assure the hon. member that the senator, federal officials, the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's office and other members of cabinet are working very hard to make progress in this particular area, and I am convinced that we will.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue and concerns the conflicting stories about GST police.
On Friday, the minister denied that this department was recruiting a large number of RCMP officers as GST police. Yet, on the same day, Mr. Bob Quinn, a spokesman for the minister's department, confirmed that several hundred investigators were being recruited.
Was the minister aware of the bulletin circulated by his department recruiting RCMP officers for the GST and, if he was, why did he deny this information on Friday?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, we have asked two former RCMP officers to come and help us set up a unit that will look out for any
potential tax fraud possibilities within GST, as within any tax system anywhere in the world from the day the taxes came into being in this country and around the world.
I want to make it very clear that the bulletin to which the hon. member refers is a normal letter that we sent out in December, I believe, to the RCMP, asking it to provide us with names so that we could hire two people on a six-month basis to set up this unit.
I want to make it clear that the unit is strictly for the protection of the majority of Canadians for the reasons that the Minister of Finance outlined on Friday. There will be no tax police. That may have been the case in previous governments before the introduction of the taxpayers' bill of rights. That is not the case today.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
I refer again to the statement from Mr. Bob Quinn, a spokesman from the minister's department who confirmed that several hundred investigators were being recruited.
Why should we believe this minister who obviously is contradicted-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is stretching the question a little bit. I ask him to put the question briefly.


Jerry Pickard: There are conflicting pieces of information on how many people will be hired as investigators. Why is there conflicting information in this minister's department?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, there is no conflicting reporting in this department. The only conflict appears to be between the ears of the hon. member who just asked the question.
As the Minister of National Revenue I am telling this member, this House and Canadians that there will be no tax police. There is going to be an investigations unit, as any tax system in the whole world must have, for the various reasons outlined by the Minister of Finance and others on Friday and in the past and which I am confirming here today.
March 12, 1990

However, I am telling this member and this House that we have only asked for support on a six-month basis from two former RCMP officers to set up this unit.
There will be no tax police. I cannot make it any clearer than that.


EMPLOYMENT
Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Today I met with representatives of labour groups from across the country, a coalition representing four million people who were denied an audience with the minister, no doubt because they oppose the minister's plan to privatize the unemployment insurance program. This is just another symptom of the government's insensitivity to its critics and the real problems facing Canadians.
For example, the minister is well aware of the crisis-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to put his question.


Ron Fisher: Can the minister not understand that the Atlantic cannot afford to lose this support? Will she withdraw Bill C-21 today?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, not only will I not withdraw the bill, but the hon. member is clearly out of touch.
I quote from The Evening News of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, which points out that the proposed new legislation is sensitive to the various regions of Canada. "We have been questioning for a number of years now the actual value of the Canadian Senate and the huge price tag that goes with it. The new UI legislation is far from perfect but few government programs are. By delaying the matter any longer the Senate is only hurting average Canadians from coast to coast".


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. It is fairly obvious that the minister can score very high points around this place for being the best dressed female MP, but she does not score very high points-
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West.


HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
By his own admission outside the House, the Minister of Transport said he was not aware of the facts which called into question the blatant conflict of interest the chairman of the Harbour Commission has put himself in.


An Hon. Member:: That is last week's news.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: An hon. member next to me says that it was last week's news when his own minister did not know what I was talking about.
Now that he has made his inquiries, does he agree that the Prime Minister's appointee to the Harbour Commission must either resign his appointment or give up the listings on the property that the Harbour Commission is interested in buying?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this is the third day in a row that my hon. friend has chosen to raise this matter in the House rather than make his allegation outside. One should look very carefully at parliamentary privilege and treat it for what it is. It is a privilege not to be abused.
I said that I am reviewing the matter. I am reviewing the matter, and we will take the appropriate decision in the very near future.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, maybe I can help the minister along. The conflict is obvious to all. The harbour commissioner appointed by the Prime Minister cannot provide leadership as chairman and represent the real estate firm which is trying to sell land to the Harbour Commission. He cannot do both. He is in conflict.
The Prime Minister's own conflict of interest guidelines are being violated. The government's own act of Parliament is being superseded. Does the minister not agree that if he does not demand the resignation of the Harbour Commission chairman, the minister must request, at the very least, that the Auditor General investigate the relationship between the commission

March 12, 1990
Oral Questions
chairman's real estate firm and the Harbour Commission?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as I said we are looking into the matter. As far as the Auditor General's suggestion is concerned, I think one would find that the Auditor General does not go off on those types of investigations based on unfounded allegations.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
We in Atlantic Canada have for a period of time been demanding compensation for the current fisheries crisis. The government promised financial aid consistent with the aid given to western farmers. The farm aid was taken from a special emergency fund.
If there is an aid package, will the money come from the emergency fund? If not, where will the money come from?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I did not get that question.


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
We in Atlantic Canada have for a period of time been demanding compensation for the current fisheries crisis. The government promised aid consistent with the aid given to western farmers. The farmers' aid was taken from a special emergency fund.
If there is an aid package, will the money come from the emergency fund? If not, where will it come from?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the game I think it is more important to determine whether there will be a package than where the money will be coming from.
One thing is certain. When we came up with the first $130 million, members did not go around Atlantic Canada asking where it was coming from. When we come up with a response to the situation facing the
fisheries in Atlantic Canada, if it requires funds they will be made available.


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
Would the minister avoid robbing Peter to pay Paul and guarantee that financial aid will come from new moneys and not moneys that are currently in place?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I will never rob Peter to give to Paul. I am not a Liberal.


LITHUANIA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, as has already been brought to the attention of the House, there is an all-party agreement to pass a resolution recognizing the legitimate right of the Lithuanian people, as expressed by their elected representatives on March 11, to declare the independence of the Republic of Lithuania.
The right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned in his response to an earlier question that he had spoken to Soviet leaders before this event. Has he an intention to speak to them now, after the event, and will he be communicating any formal message to the Soviet Union with respect to the Canadian position on Lithuania?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very constructive suggestion. Whether or not I speak to Mr. Shevardnadze personally or directly, we will certainly communicate not only the decision of this Parliament, assuming the resolution discussed during Question Period is adopted by Parliament, but also some other comments that we think might be appropriate and helpful in achieving a situation where there is the de facto right of Lithuanians to control their destiny.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, will the minister be directing officials in his department to begin plans for economic co-operation and other relationships with Lithuania separate from the Soviet Union in the way that the department is now considering relationships with Poland, Hungary and other countries in east and central Europe?
Does he intend to give that sort of instruction to his department to lay the foundation for the day when this
March 12, 1990

independence is fully realized and economic co-operation with Lithuania which they will need can be established?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly instruct my officials to take account of the historic developments which have come to fruition and to a point over the weekend and to do that in a way that contributes in as constructive a way as we can to the de facto exercise of sovereignty that may soon be a matter to which Canada can make some tangible contributions.


FISHERIES
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Will the minister flex his muscles and do something about the zebra mussels which are infesting some of the Great Lakes, in particular Lake Erie, and Lake St. Clair?
They are plugging up some of the water intakes of the municipalities and also creating problems with the Walleye spawning beds in Lake Erie.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the hon. member that the Minister of Transport has issued new guidelines with respect to the dumping of ballast prior to ships entering the Great Lakes system. I am informed that these guidelines are being complied with much more effectively than they have been in the past.
We believe that if we can secure the co-operation of the ship owners and the ship captains in question it will do a great deal to reduce the amount of zebra mussels coming into the Great Lakes. That of course is veiy much in the interest of the ecology of the area.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Last week Denison Mines in Elliot Lake announced that it is going to be laying off 28 per cent of its workforce, some 450 people. This comes on top of the
Oral Questions
lay-offs announced recently by Rio Algom Mines where some 1,600 people will be laid off during the next 12 months.
Could the minister say what action plan the government has developed to cope with these lay-offs to assist the workers, the community and the families that are going to be so adversely affected by this bad news?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's sensitivity to this issue. I know that his area like some others has been harder hit than the rest of Canada.
The industrial adjustment service people are working very closely with both Denison and Rio Algom, with management and with unions in both cases. The management people of Denison will be meeting with the unions and with other levels of government, as well as ourselves, to formulate some ongoing programs and to take advantage of some of the programs that we have.
This is a designated Community Futures area, as the hon. member knows, and we will be doing our best. There is of course additional funding available as a result of the new legislation on unemployment insurance.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister knows that a community this size cannot lose over 50 per cent of its labour force without very extensive support from government.
Would the minister be willing to make a commitment today that the federal government would cost share with the provincial governments a special new action plan to save jobs, to create new jobs, and to provide for community adjustment?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, through FEDNOR there has been a number of plans developed in regions of northern Ontario that have run into particular economic difficulties. I am certainly quite prepared to discuss it with my colleague.
I should say as well that the programs we have in place in some of the other communities in northern Ontario have had a very positive impact. Nevertheless, I recognize that this is a serious situation for Elliot Lake. Between FEDNOR and my department there will be a

March 12, 1990
Oral Questions
number of things that we will be able to approach them with.


GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The National Advisoiy Board on Science and Technology recommended to the Prime Minister doubling the budgets of the granting science councils.
Also, federal funding of Canadian universities stands to suffer if proposed freezing of transfer payments to provinces proceeds.
Now that the Prime Minister is about to receive an international award for science, is the minister prepared to double the budget of the granting councils and to reconsider his plans to freeze further transfer payments for post-secondary education before the Prime Minister accepts the science award?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, every scientist in this country knows that the granting councils have been treated veiy well indeed under existing circumstances. Their budgets are going up next year. We have done the matching fund with industry and universities, some $350 million over the time period. The granting councils were given a $200 million injection over a time period. They have had a stable financial regime for the first time over the last five years. That is not bad.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The minister responsible for science appears to deny the precarious situation of scientific research and education in Canada as assessed by the National Consortium of Scientific and Educational Societies.
If the government's five-year matching grants policy is allowed to terminate this year, NSERC's budget for 1991-92 will effectively be cut by $79 million.
Would the minister commit the government in the House today to renewing the matching grants policy?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, there are really two separate questions there.
One is whether the funds that are in there for the matching grants will remain there. That is a question the Minister of Finance will have to consider next year. I think they will, but that is his problem.
The second question is whether that matching grant policy will be there. Does the hon. member really want this particular matching grant policy to stay in place? I don't because I don't think it is the right one. I want something else.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
As he knows, Nova Scotia Power Corporation plans to proceed with the Point Aconi coal fired electrical power plant. The project will produce acid rain as well as 1.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year and $500 million in long-term debt.
Since this project has not been properly evaluated for either its environmental impact or the energy alternatives to it, is the minister prepared today to request that these two matters be evaluated before any further contracts or consideration of the project are made?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Point Aconi plant is within the jurisdiction of the province of Nova Scotia. The province has specific environmental considerations within its jurisdiction. As well it has to deal with having constant and increased power needs.
In large measure the member's two-part question should be addressed to those provincial considerations.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are starting to wonder how we are going to get a 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide levels by the year 2005 if these kinds of projects continue to proceed and are described as being solely in provincial jurisdiction.
The Government of Nova Scotia provided funding to the same study that the minister did, "Study on the Reduction of Energy Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions". The study found a variety of measures which (1) reduce carbon dioxide emissions, (2) save energy, and (3) save money, $150 billion for Canada.

March 12, 1990

Why is the minister not encouraging the province of Nova Scotia which could in fact have billions of dollars in net energy savings rather than $500 million plus in long-term debt? What is going on?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the member again is very selective in what he does. It is correct that ministers of energy asked for studies in respect to reduction of C02 emissions. There was one study commissioned by the task force which made that claim, a claim which was turned down by the task force and its report to ministers. I think the member should first take a look at that.
Second, there are two points to make. Energy ministers will be meeting in Alberta on April 2, to look at these issues and at how we can move toward the targets relating back to the 1988 Toronto Conference.
I think it is also fair to Canadians that as we move toward those targets there has to be a blend. My colleague, the Minister of the Environment and I are concurrent on this issue, that is, what are the trade-offs? I think Canadians also have to know the trade-offs.
I say very directly to the hon member that I have heard his party and others-and that is valid-ask time after time what we are going to do about jobs, for instance in Cape Breton, and what we are going to do about the displacements we have in those economically depressed areas.
I am not going to accept a policy simply because some task force or some study rejected by the task force has said we can do it, before looking at what happens economically to those areas and to those Canadians as well. I do not think Canadians should expect any less from an energy minister than to do exactly that.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
On Friday and again today there were questions put to him as to whether the government was hiring tax police
Oral Questions
to deal with the GST. I noted his earlier response, but my question relates to the process involved.
Will the process for dealing with tax investigation, any fraudulent activities relating to the GST, be any different under the GST process than it is now under the FMST or indeed under the Income Tax Act?
Is the minister proposing to do anything that would infringe on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or indeed the taxpayers' bill of rights put forward by one of his predecessors, now the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no. We are taking precautionary measures against potential fraud, as is the case in any tax jurisdiction in this country and around the world. Any activities that we will be undertaking will be done in accordance with normal and regular procedures in this country. They will be done in accordance with the taxpayers' bill of rights. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.


EMPLOYMENT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to apologize to the Minister of Employment and Immigration if I said anything that was not correct.


An Hon. Member:: A sexist comment.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, for my sexist comments. I withdraw those remarks.
The minister has heard from many Canadians in eastern Canada who have problems with Bill C-21, as well as from the west and northern Ontario. The bill has come back from the Senate and it contains some good suggestions, but a lot of Bill C-21 is unacceptable.
Is the minister prepared to introduce a new bill in the House that will include all those good things which have been approved by the Senate and which we and many Canadians support along with variable entrance requirements?
Will the minister introduce a new bill and forget about Bill C-21? Let it sit on the shelf.

March 12, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the hon. member supporting suggestions that were made in the other place. It is certainly a new approach for him.
I would also suggest that public support for Bill C-21 is really very strong across Canada. There is support from the public and this shows up in a number of ways. There is support for our plans to shift unemployment insurance funds from passive to more active programs.
The misconceptions that are out there have been helped by the hon. member and others in his party. When he sees what we come up with when we respond to the requests from the other place, I hope he will be satisfied and will support us in what we are doing.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to several petitions.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to table the Standing Orders of the House of Commons dated February, 1990, which contains an index and which reflects the changes adopted by the House on Friday, February 16, 1990.



ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, an
Order in Council appointment which was made by the government. Pursuant to provisions of Standing Order 110(1), this is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.



COMMONWEALTH DAY


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, today I have the pleasure of joining with members from all sides of the House and one-quarter of the world's people in observing Commonwealth Day.
The modem Commonwealth has been central to the growth of Canada's role in the world and remains a key element in its external relations. It gives Canada partners in Asia and Africa with whom it shares a heritage of British political and legal traditions, and with whom it can communicate through the English language. It strengthens historical ties with the English-speaking Caribbean and widens ties in the Pacific. It deepens our understanding of the problems of developing countries and provides the opportunity to make an important contribution to technical and development assistance. It also provides inspiration for Canada to seek parallel institutions which would cement ties in the Frenchspeaking world.
Canada's annual contribution of some $40 million to official Commonwealth organizations chiefly serves to assist developing and particularly the smaller countries of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth connection facilitates Canada's own development aid program and the effective use of Canadian aid. In 1989-90, Canada will have directed close to $1 billion of bilateral and multilateral development assistance to some 50 Commonwealth countries or territories.
I also wish to draw special attention to the Commonwealth Distance Learning Agency based in Vancouver. This Commonwealth collaboration in distance education, created through a Canadian initiative at the 1987 Commonwealth heads of government meeting, promotes the exchange of information, training, technical assistance, and research in the application of distance education techniques at post-secondary and vocational levels in the developing Commonwealth countries.
;

March 12, 1990

The meeting of the Commonwealth heads of government in Kuala Lumpur last October reviewed the multi-faceted activities of the organization and addressed major international political and economic issues ranging from the situation in the Middle East to the world economic situation and the full integration of women in all aspects of economic, social and political life.
To further the Commonwealth's work toward gender equality, Canada will host the third meeting of Commonwealth Ministers Responsible for Women's Affairs. I am pleased and honoured to be able to welcome my counterparts from other countries to this meeting. In the spirit of Commonwealth co-operation, we will continue to work on issues such as structural adjustment and violence against women.

The meeting in Kuala Lumpur showed that the Commonwealth not only holds consultations on the major world issues but also takes concerted action to deal with them.

Considering recent events in South Africa, due credit has to be given to the leading role played by the Commonwealth in pressing for the opening that we are witnessing, particularly the unbanning of the African National Congress and the release of Nelson Mandela which we so heartily welcome. At Kuala Lumpur, heads of government expressed their hope for a negotiated and peaceful settlement in southern Africa and agreed to the maintenance of existing sanctions as a way of exerting continued pressure for fundamental political change.
I also want to take advantage of this occasion to praise the Canadian delegation which contributed so wonderfully to the enhancement of Canada's image at the recent Commonwealth Games in Auckland. I am particularly happy that Canada will remain active in this strengthening of Commonwealth sports through its participation and chairmanship in the working party that has been constituted by the Commonwealth Secretary-General. We look forward to hosting the 1994 Commonwealth Games in Victoria, British Columbia.
We all rejoice in the return of Pakistan to the Commonwealth last October, which can only strengthen Commonwealth collaborative action. In addition, Na-
Routine Proceedings
mibia's imminent entry, which will bring Commonwealth membership to 50, serves to reaffirm the value and relevance of the modem Commonwealth.
I have left to the end the tribute that I would like to pay to Secretary-General Ramphal. He will be relinquishing his post at the end of June after 15 years in office. Sonny Ramphal's leadership and devotion proudly strengthened the Commonwealth and its contribution to international stability, progress and justice. We are all in his debt and we wish him well.
Finally, I want to reiterate this government's support to Sonny Ramphal's successor, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, whose extensive record of effective service to the Commonwealth portends a mandate of achievement and success in the year's to come.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to deliver a statement on the Commonwealth on this special day of honouring it as an international organization.
The Commonwealth is a very unusual international organization. Once an empire, it has become an institution comprised of nearly one-quarter of the world's population. Almost every race, religious faith, culture and level of economic development can be found in the Commonwealth fold. Composed of 50 independent states, its members range from aligned to non-aligned and have all shades of ideological opinion.
The Commonwealth is an essentially multinational body of equal sovereign members with a common concern for international peace and a commitment to the economic development of member countries. Consultation and co-operation govern this association.
The Commonwealth's ties are informal and diverse. It possesses none of the attributes generally attached to an international political association. There is no constitution. The association does not encroach on the sovereignty of individual members, it has no common foreign policy and does not require its members to reach collective decisions or to take united action. There is nothing formally or legally binding the member states together.
Yet the Commonwealth is a very compatible organization. This can be traced to the fact that all member states were former British colonies in one way or another. Members share the basic traditions of respect for the

Routine Proceedings
British parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and the rights of individuals and minorities.
The Commonwealth has been doing for years what similar organizations are just starting to accept and to implement. Members do not strive to solve political problems, but work towards reducing strains and easing tensions in order to provide a framework in which differences can begin to be reconciled. The Commonwealth if definitely given to practicality. It can deal as effectively with the great problems of the day as it can with everyday problems.
The heads of government in the Commonwealth meet on a regular basis. These meetings are often the testing grounds for ideas. The results of such meetings are often noteworthy. For instance, the Declaration of Commonwealth Principles and the establishment of a fund for technical co-operation in 1971, the Lusaka declaration of 1979 opposing racism and racial prejudice, and the Melbourne declaration of 1981 expressing a determination to end global poverty and inequality.
Countries small and large have a voice within the Commonwealth. Twenty-six member states have populations that number less than one million. The Commonwealth is often the most significant link these countries have with the rest of the world. The Commonwealth is, as a result, the best advocate for the special needs and problems of these small countries. As virtually every region of the world is represented in the Commonwealth, it is easy to see that membership helps more than it hinders.
"India has contacts with southeast Asian states which no other Commonwealth country can match. Canada has an unrivalled knowledge of the United States; Britain has knowledge of Europe. Jamaica has a special advantage in understanding the countries of the Caribbean" and so can advises others. This becomes important as we move towards increasing global trade.
Both Canada and the Commonwealth have benefited from our membership. Not only have we helped to preserve the association in times of crisis and supported
all its programs, but we have been led to change some of our attitudes, especially those towards the Third World.
I recall attending a Caribbean Commonwealth Conference in 1973 as an observer with two former MPs, Senator Heath Macquarrie and the present Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, Lincoln Alexander. At the beginning of the conference, the chairman stood up and said: "We want our three Canadian friends who are here as observers to feel free to intervene in our proceedings any time they wish to speak, for Canada is the best friend the Caribbean Commonwealth countries have in the world. Great Britain is next. And after that we don't even enumerate them."
On that trip, I flew to a cadet training camp to visit with 30 Canadian cadets who were there to train for a month with other cadets from Commonwealth countries. The Jamaican pilot who flew me in informed me that he had received his training at Portage la Prairie in Manitoba. This is just another concrete example of the co-operation that goes on within the Commonwealth.
On that same day, we received word that the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent had passed away. I brought this to the attention of the chairman of the Caribbean meeting and the first item of business was a moment of silence in his honour. One could sense the sincerity and the warm feeling extended towards Canada.
In a world where division often reigns according to ideology, race, region, level of economic development or religion, the Commonwealth is necessary. It manages to ignore group interest and help bring about a global solution to common problems. The Commonwealth is proof that through consensus a great deal can be achieved. Prime Minister Nehru of India's statement in 1949 sums it up perfectly: the Commonwealth "brings a healing touch to a sick world."
Today we extend our best wishes to the other 49 members of the modem day Commonwealth. We extend the hand of friendship and co-operation to them in order to continue to help them make the Commonwealth a great human and political organization, and an outstanding example of international co-operation and friendship for the entire world.
March 12, 1990

The Commonwealth has a tremendous amount of wealth of knowledge and understanding to offer to the rest of the world and is a great basic factor in pulling various peoples of the world together in harmony.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise on behalf of my party and pay tribute to the Commonwealth on this Commonwealth Day, and to pick up where the minister speaking for the government left off when she extended her congratulations to Sonny Ramphal, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, for the work that he has done over the years. Mr. Ramphal is to retire, and we wish his successor well.
However, I also want to note in a personal way that I had the opportunity to hear Mr. Ramphal on a number of occasions and have always found his speeches and his analyses of the global situation to be among the best that I have ever heard. I listened to him last October at the annual meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I would recommend that speech to the minister and to all ministers of the government, because its analyses of the global environmental situation and what needs to be done, and done in a hurry, runs contrary to the policies of the government. It is one thing to congratulate Mr. Ramphal; it is another thing to pay attention to what he has to say. I would hope that someday we might see that kind of attention being paid to the policies which Mr. Ramphal advocated.
I am thinking particularly of the greenhouse effect and his concern about that, but also his concern about another Commonwealth country, Bangladesh, which stands to suffer a calamity if all the predictions about greenhouse warming and rising of the sea level are true. The delegates from Bangladesh become desperate when they contemplate what the possible consequences of the greenhouse effect might be. We should keep then-situation in mind when we are making decisions about hydrocarbon policy and various other things to which this government does not yet seemed to have caught on.
The British Commonwealth is the outcome of a process of decolonization. It is basically what is left over after the decolonization of all the former British colonies. As the hon. member indicated earlier, all members of the Commonwealth, with the exception of Britain, were formerly British colonies. What we need to keep in mind when we think about the Commonwealth, is that decolonization does not have to be the end of relation-
Routine Proceedings
ships. There can be constructive ways for former colonial countries to relate to their now decolonized neighbours or, for that matter, distant neighbours.
The process of decolonization with respect to the Commonwealth is completed with the independence of Namibia, something which all of us welcome and which a number of us have had an opportunity to comment on in the House.
The process of decolonization outside the British Commonwealth has not been completed. In fact, there are new and more recent forms of colonization that have to be addressed, whether it is the colonization of East Timor by Indonesia or Tibet by China. There are numerous examples of existing colonization, to which at this particular time in history, we should be turning our attention. Why not make it a clean slate, and let us pass into a new era of history in which nations are no longer colonies of other nations.
Presumably, later we will have an opportunity to pass a resolution with respect to Lithuania. I would invite Soviet leaders and politicians to think about new ways in which they might relate to the various parts of what has been called their empire, whether or not that is the appropriate way to describe it.
It seems to me that all those things should to be considered when thinking about the Commonwealth.
One of the things that I hope for the British Commonwealth as progress is made in South Africa, assuming that progress comes to fruition and we see the creation of a democratic, non-racial democracy in South Africa, is that then the Commonwealth might be able to turn its attention to other regimes in the Commonwealth, which have literally got away with murder. While every one has been preoccupied with South Africa, there is not a member of Parliament who has not been approached at one time or another about political oppression in various Commonwealth countries.
It does not serve anyone well to have the sort of idyllic view of the Commonwealth that was expressed just before me about this being a group of nations that respect British parliamentary tradition and British law, and all those sorts of things. That would be nice, except the fact of the matter is that in many of these countries in Africa and Asia, these kinds of things are not respected. I hope that soon the Commonwealth will proceed to a point where no longer will we turn a blind eye to some of these things and begin to address the

March 12, 1990
Routine Proceedings
human rights violations that are going on in various Commonwealth countries.
For example, I am reminded of the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan. The minister raised the question of Pakistan's re-entry into the Commonwealth. I think this is a good thing. It is also an opportunity for members of the Commonwealth to express to Prime Minister Bhutto and to others that the kinds of things which are going on in Pakistan with respect to the Ahmadi Muslims are unacceptable to Canadians, as are many other things that are being perpetrated by other Commonwealth countries.
The Commonwealth serves the purpose of being an opportunity to get together, to have an entirely different form of forum for communication and sharing of concerns, but it also ought to be a place where various governments are challenged, not in a self-righteous way, but challenged to live up to the very ideals which the Commonwealth itself says it holds dear. I would hope that the government would see its way to continue to use the Commonwealth in that way.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period there was a disposition, at the suggestion of the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park, that a motion could be put at this time, with the unanimous consent of all members, dealing with the situation in Lithuania. I wonder if there would be disposition at this time to proceed with such a motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



LITHUANIA


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the world witnessed another historic event when the newly-elected Lithuanian Parliament declared a reborn, independent, democratic Lithuania.
Therefore, it is a great honour for me to introduce this all-party resolution, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley North and the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.
The resolution reads:
Be it resolved that this House recognize the legitimate right of the
Lithuanian people, as expressed by their elected representatives on
March 11, to declare the independence of the Republic of Lithuania.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. With your permission, I would like to say a few additional words.
The Public Accounts committee today tables an important report on Emergency Preparedness Canada. The theme of the committee's report is securing improvements in Canada's peace time emergency planning measures.
The committee raised two major concerns: first, that emergency planning at the federal level clearly identify who is in charge; and second, that the responsible agency complete the development of comprehensive plans for national emergencies such as catastrophic earthquakes and chemical or nuclear accidents.
Among the committee's key recommendations are the adoption of a plan to designate lead agencies for specific national emergencies and the setting of clear deadlines for the completion and testing of all national emergency plans.
In particular, the committee called upon Emergency Preparedness Canada, in conjunction with the provincial governments involved, to complete the national earthquake plan. This plan, which has been brought to an
March 12, 1990

interim stage of completion, has been developed for British Columbia but would also be applicable to high-risk earthquake zones elsewhere in Canada.
Emergency Preparedness Canada has been requested to respond to the committee's report on March 31, 1991, because we want to see what action has been taken. This response is timed to coincide with the Auditor General's follow-up audit so that the committee can benefit from the Auditor General's assessment of the progress being made in implementing its recommendations.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour to present to the House of Commons a petition signed by more than 250 Canadians who are opposed to the government's legislation concerning the GST, especially with respect to books, magazines and newspapers.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am tabling today a petition from Lebel-sur-Quevillon in Abitibi, further to the recommendations of the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas.
Lebel-sur-Quevillon is undoubtedly an isolated community and for that reason, the signers of this petition consider the Brunelle recommendation to be discriminatory, unfair and inappropriate to the purpose of the northern tax benefit plan. It does not encourage settlement of the North and resource development there.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to submit a petition containing 549 signatures of women across Canada who are petitioning the Government of Canada in support of legislation which would effectively protect the life of the unborn and establish the principle of the sanctity of life and its protection without distinction as to stages of develop-
Routine Proceedings
ment. These 549 signatures are in addition to close to 210,000 previous signatures in petitions from women across Canada submitted earlier.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to present the first of many petitions with respect to gun control that are being circulated in my riding and throughout metropolitan Toronto.
The 620 petitioners request the Minister of Justice to revise the gun laws of this country; to ban the possession of all guns by anyone except for law enforcement officers, security and military personnel in the performance of their duties, and those other members of society who require a gun, other than automatic or semi-automatic firearms, for legitimate purposes and have successfully mastered a training program and a psychological test satisfactory to the Minister of Justice, the provincial attorneys general and the association of chiefs of police.
The police and the public overwhelmingly want tough gun laws.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from 45 of my constituents in the Southwest Arm area, from Southport to North West Brook, including Gooseberry Cove, and in the Clarenville area including Hillview, St. Jones Within and other areas.
My constituents are very concerned about the effect that the goods and services tax will have on them. They are particularly concerned about the 31 new tax increases that have taken place. In particular, because of the level of income that is represented in this part of my riding, they feel that the imposition of this new GST will cause serious and unfair hardships to low and middle income Canadians.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today. The first is from residents of the Prince George, B.C. area and the Dome Creek area who call upon Parliament to reject the recommendations of the

March 12, 1990
Routine Proceedings
report that was provided to this House on the northern tax allowance.
They call upon the Government of Canada which has stated in previous answers to questions that it will be studying the tax allowance and responding quickly, we trust.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the second petition relates to and is tied in actually to the most successful convention that New Democrats had this weekend in Vancouver under the leadership of Mike Harcourt.
This petition is signed by residents of Burnaby and Maple Ridge area who call upon the government and Parliament to renew the forest agreement between Canada and the Government of British Columbia. There are 19 days remaining in this agreement which the Minister of Forestry said some time ago he would have signed. It is time he signed that agreement today.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, the attached petition has been certified correct as to form and content.
This petition is from residents of the Creston and Wynndel area in my riding. The federal-provincial forest resource development agreement has advanced the regeneration of our forests and helped to provide employment for hundreds of individuals in the effort to replenish the forest resource for future generations. We the undersigned encourage the Parliament of Canada to renew this important agreement with British Columbia and therefore provide for renewed commitment to restock our forest lands, advance forestry research, promote silviculture and assist the forest industry to develop the new products and markets that will provide us with forestry jobs for the future. The petitioners urge that this agreement be signed now.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of farmers from Saskatchewan who are concerned with the orderly marketing system in this country and the direction that this government is taking with
respect to the future of agriculture. Specifically they are concerned with respect to the future of the Canadian Wheat Board and the fact that this government has removed oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The petitioners call upon this government to put a vote to the producers of this country to determine whether or not they want oats under the Canadian Wheat Board.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 210 and 227.


Mrs. Stewart: Are any EDC loans supporting purchases of military technologies and, if so, in each case (a) to which countries (b) for what amounts (c) what technology is being funded?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International TYade):: Insofar as External Affairs and International Trade Canada (EATTC)/the Export Development Corporation (EDC) are concerned, the reply is as follows:
EDC is currently financing a number of transactions involving military technology as described in Group Two of the Export Control List. In each case, the required export permits have been obtained under the authority of the Export and Import Permits Act. As the dealings of Canadian companies with EDC are exempt from public disclosure under the Access to Information Act, it is not considered appropriate to release specific details.


[Stage Direction]
1.	Was there any government expenditure for the 1990 British Columbia Product Show, which was held in Vancouver on January 29, 1990 and sponsored by Western Diversification Canada and, if so, in total, what amount?
2.	Was a contract tendered for the staging of this Product Show and, if so, by what method?
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. MacWilliam: March 12, 1990


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: 1. The total federal government expenditure for the 1990 British Columbia Product Show, which was held in Vancouver on January 29, 1990, was $50,656.03.
2. The "staging" of the Product Show was provided through a call-up against a Regional Individual Standing Offer (RISO). The standing offer was awarded by the Department of Supply and Services through a competitive tendering process based on price and technical merit.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions as enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call government orders I wish to inform the House that because of ministerial statements government orders will be extended 20 minutes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
Government Orders:
February 21, 1990-Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act.
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I rise to initiate the response from the government to the message from the other place respecting Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Government Orders
The message from the other place came back with some nine amendments. On behalf of the government I have to state that it objects to several amendments proposed by the Senate because it guts the bill, violate its principles approved by the Commons and it transgresses accepted constitutional boundaries of the Senate's role on government bills coming from the Commons.
First, I would like to note Standing Orders 79 and 80 of our House and Sections 53 and 54 of the Constitution Act, formerly the British North America Act.
Standing Order 79(1) of the House of Commons, which has been in place since Confederation states, and I quote:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
This simply states the long standing constitutional precedent that a Royal recommendation dictates and must precede any appropriation of funds and any deviation from that by way of amendments would, in fact, be out of order and not permissible under that Standing Order.
Standing Order 79(2) states, and I quote:
The message and recommendation of the Governor General in relation to any bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or of any tax or impost shall be printed on the Notice Paper and in the Votes and Proceedings when any such measure is to be introduced and the text of such recommendation shall be printed with or annexed to every such bill.
And 79(3) states, and I quote:
When estimates are brought in, the message from the Governor General shall be presented to and read by the Speaker in the House.
Standing Order 80(1) states, and I quote:
All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
That is a Standing Order of this House in place since Confederation. Standing Order 80(2) states:
In order to expedite the business of Parliament, the House will not insist on the privilege claimed and exercised by them of laying aside bills sent from the Senate because they impose pecuniary penalties nor of laying aside amendments made by the Senate because they introduce into or alter pecuniary penalties in bills sent to them by this House; provided that all such penalties thereby imposed are only to punish or prevent crimes and offences, and do not tend to lay a burden

Government Orders
on the subject, either as aid or supply to the Sovereign, or for any general or special purposes, by rates, tolls, assessments or otherwise.
In other words, it states absolutely and clearly in the Standing Orders that only this House, not the other place, only this House ,in all questions of supply, namely taking the funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund has the right to decide how they are to be spent, not the Senate, under any circumstances at any time since Confederation. That is a Standing Order of this House.
That Standing Order does not stand in isolation. Clause 53 of the Constitution Act of Canada states:
Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Thx or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.
Clause 54 states:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address or Bill is proposed.
Nothing could be clearer than that in terms of the constitutional authorities of this House, and solely this House, to deal with tax and spending.
Notwithstanding that, these rights and powers of the Commons vis-a-vis the Senate with respect to legislation and amendments to bills have been seriously and substantially breached by the Senate amendments before us now.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly obvious the Senate has exceeded its role and that on the whole, its amendments alter the very foundation of the government's changes as set forth in Bill C-21. The scope of these amendments and their financial impact on Canadian taxpayers are unacceptable, coming as they do from a group of non-elected senators who are not accountable to anyone for their actions.

It is absolutely incredible in this day and age when everywhere around the world non-elected bodies are being disposed of left, right and centre. In South America elected legislatures and executives are in place where
previously we had non-elected groups. In eastern Europe non-elected parties in power are being thrown out of their various legislatures.
But here in Canada, we have a non-elected group which cannot accept the results of the 1984 election stating that it will not let this elected Chamber do what it was elected to do, namely, deal with the spending and raising funds.
The hon. member-and I await his address with interest-says the Constitution can do it. He says that legally, the Senate can kill a bill. Legally, the monarch can kill a bill. Legally, the Governor General can amend and kill a bill. Legally, the Governor General can do that but never would because the Governor General learned in 1925 that this is a democracy and Governors General do not do that. We need to teach the same lesson to the other place.


An Hon. Member:: You have no mandate.


Harvie Andre: I hear talk of mandate. Would the hon. member tell me what mandate the Senate has to do what it has done? What mandate? From whom? What deity bequeaths to these has-been Trudeauites the right to decide the agenda of this country? What deity has prescribed that right to them? They are Liberals? Does that give them a right? The God-given right to say: "To heck with the House of Commons. The House of Commons amounts to nothing. We shall decide in the Senate. We, after all, are appointed by Pierre Elliott Trudeau. This gives us a moral authority beyond mere election in a ballot. This gives us the authority to decide. We may have been tossed out in 1984, but we are still in power, by golly, and we are going to exercise that power". Yes, Sir, only a Liberal could say that without blushing. I will admit the hon. member for Beaches is blushing a little bit.


An Hon. Member:: Broadview-Greenwood. Say it with respect.


Harvie Andre: Broadview-Greenwood. I am sorry. I am sorry you are not running. You are a lot better than the other bunch that is up there.
I am aware that the other place historically has not accepted the Constitution and our Standing Orders. It continues to claim and has continued to claim in the past that it has some authority.

March 12, 1990

If I may I will quote from a book by Mr. F.A. Kunz entitled The Modem Senate of Canada which deals with the period up to 1963. We have not had any political scientist look at the Senate since then and I can understand why not.
Page 338 of Mr. Kunz's book states:
While the right to refuse or reject is admittedly within the legal powers of the Senate, for the reason that public money cannot be spent or taxes imposed except under the authority of an act of Parliament -
The Senate claims that since it is a part of Parliament, that gives it the legal authority to reject. I would say again, as I said earlier, the Governor General is a part of Parliament as well. The Governor General has that same legal authority but, of course, would never exercise it.
Kunz continues:
-which implies the consent of the Senate, the House of Commons has taken the view that the provision in section 53 of the BNA Act which requires that the entire bill on which the ultimate law is founded must originate in the Commons prohibits the Senate even to amend money bills downward; for if the Senate amends, then the bill passed by the Senate is not the one that originated in the House of Commons. This attitude, which is incorporated in SO 63 -
That is now Standing Order 80.
- of the Rules of the House of Commons, in effect equates the financial powers of the Senate with those of the House of Lords at the time of Confederation, when the Lords were restricted by constitutional conventions but not as yet by the statutory provisions of the Parliament Act. In contrast, the Senate's stand crystallized in the so-called Ross Report of 1918, which served both as a summary of past practice and as a guide for future action, has always been that of the two restrictions on the rights of the House of Lords which the House of Commons by its Resolution of 1678 tried to impose, namely the denial of the right to originate and the denial of the right to amend money bills, the BNA Act adopted the first in Section 53 but did not mention the second and that this proved that the Fathers did not intend the Senate to follow the practice of the House of Lords and not to amend a money bill -
But these arguments and counter-arguments respecting the Senate's financial powers, although theoretically interesting, are now-a-days little more than examples of academic pedantry and to discuss the Senate's right to revise the Government's financial program in terms of conflict is really to present a very misleading picture of its functions in the modern state. On the contrary, the Senate has acted in full understanding of the meaning and implications of responsible government and accepted as binding upon itself the proposition that it should not unduly disturb what has come to be called "the balance of ways and means"; or, as Hopkins says, "that it would be inadmissible to tamper with the overall
Government Orders
financial program submitted by the Government in its budgetary proposals in such a way as to effect a material change in the budgetary surplus or deficit envisaged therein."
This applied to Senators in the other place right up until 1984. What big constitutional changed occurred in 1984? A bunch of Trudeauites got transferred from here over there and they forgot that there was an election which changed where the power should lie. That is all that happened.
In 1963 we have an authority saying that previous Senates have never acted in the way this one is acting. This one has gone back to pre-1678, and they are talking about a modem Senate!
The reality remains that the Commons must, at times such as the present circumstances, reassert its rights to the Senate. It is our responsibility to make such objection. We owe it to the democratic principles upon which the country is based.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: The absolute basic grounds on which the Senate must respond to the Commons' will is the fact that this House is elected and the other place is not. That is the foundation of our Canadian democratic system. The reality is in fact understood and accepted by the Senate, we believe.
In recent examples of Senate messages on bills, members will recall that ultimately the Senate acknowledged this truth. The senators proposed their amendments, they got our response, they may have made a second effort to ask us to accept some of their amendments, but, as Senator Frith, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other place, has put it so well, and I believe I quote his words: "There may be 100 reasons why we should not in the Senate yield to the House and only one reason why we should, and if that one reason is that the Commons is elected and the Senate is not then that is reason enough to yield".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Government is being firm on this principle because it is so absolutely basic to the integrity of our system of responsible government, with a capital R, within a bicameral federal Parliamentary system.

March 12, 1990
Government Orders
The consequences of allowing the Senate to proceed in its course unchallenged, essentially to change the parent Unemployment Insurance Act in sections opened up by Bill C-21, are horrendous implications for democracy and responsible government.
To give one example, in looking at Senate amendments 7 and 9, there is a fundamental deviation from, in fact a wholesale gutting of, one of the principles and the manner of funding which is at the heart of Bill C-21. The effect of implementing these amendments would be an additional expenditure by the government of $1.75 billion above what was planned for in the 1989 budget-


An Hon. Member:: Outrageous.


Harvie Andre: -and approved in votes by this House and as reflected in Bill C-21, and its royal recommendation. I urge hon. members to look at page 30, of the April 27, 1989 budget papers, where the finance minister is explicit about UI premiums financing all UI expenditures.
It would be an horrendous thing to imagine that this House would allow the other place to upset budgetary calculations and projections by almost $2 billion.


An Hon. Member:: What is democracy anyway?


Harvie Andre: The hon. member from the back row says: "What is democracy anyway". If the Senate speaks, who cares about democratic principles. The hon. member does not care much about democratic principles, obviously, by his bellowing from the back row there.
My point is simply that our Standing Orders and practices, and our Constitution and its history give the Commons the right and duty to set the spending priorities of the government of Canada. That is absolute. It is not, and never has been, the role of an unelected, unresponsible Senate to interfere with or override it.
Yes, the Senate can legally, perhaps, defeat, delay or amend downward a supply appropriation bill. But it never has. Just as the Governor General can legally kill or amend a bill. But the Governor General never has. The Senate can amend, and it has done so, usually with government approval, bills which had a royal recommendation, but never in modern history, if not earlier, in a
fundamental way, with dramatic consequences for what has been called in the Senate, the balance between ways and means. In short, never in defiance of the terms of a royal recommendation, and that is what has been done by the Senate in this case.
I want to focus on the government's position that Bill C-21 is a money bill, with a royal recommendation which appropriates money. The House of Commons must assert in messages to the Senate, when required as in the present case, that the degree of amendment to such bills, by the Senate especially if not just the Commons, must be properly circumscribed. Given the record of Senate practice in the past half century or so and learned commentary on it we must ask ourselves about the extent to which the Senate can alter, in opposition to the House, a government bill, particularly one based on a royal recommendation as Bill C-21 is.
Given the wording of the royal recommendation and the past interpretations by the Speaker of our Standing Orders 79 and 80 which deal with financial procedure, at what point in the specific content of a bill with a royal recommendation does a limit on its ability to be amended become clear, especially any amendment that would, if implemented, redirect the raising or spending of revenue, into or out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund? In other words, what limits, with an eye to impact on the CRF, are there to amendments to a bill like Bill C-21?
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands walking by muttered something about, not if it did not need a royal recommendation in the first place. He seems to be implying that the bill was out of order when brought in in 1921 by having a royal recommendation.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He did not say that. Those are your words.


Harvie Andre: The bill does need a royal recommendation.


An Hon. Member:: It doesn't. Your amendment does.


Harvie Andre: This is a money bill. An amendment to change the amount by $1.75 billion, to introduce a call on a Consolidated Revenue Fund by $1.75 billion does not need a royal recommendation? That is absurd.
March 12, 1990

My remarks are just an overture to what can be expected to be heard from the Minister of Employment and Immigration who will be talking in more substance about the details of the bill when she participates in the debate on a motion I will introduce shortly. But it is clear that what the Senate has proposed dramatically upsets the principles of the bill and dramatically upsets the financial posture brought forward by the Minister of Finance in the budget of April, 1989. It is beyond the purview of the Senate to do that.
I submit that this House is entitled to take exception to the extent to which the unelected Senate has tried to transform the bill sent to it into something fundamentally different. I am aware of the tradition from Westminster cited in Erskine May, Twenty-first Edition, on page 513. He states:
No objection can be taken to a Lords amendment on the ground of
being outside the scope of the bill, or otherwise as to its orderliness-
Then there is the provision-
-except so far as sanction by way of a financial resolution is concerned -
This was not a ways and means bill, but it did have a royal recommendation which limited money put into play by the bill. The appropriation of public revenue "under the circumstances in the manner and for the purposes set out" in the bill. The royal recommendation says that moneys will be appropriated and spent in the manner and for the purposes set out in the bill.
It is clearly out of order for the other place to say that it will spend it in a different manner and for different purposes than those set out in the bill presented to the Senate by this House. That is clearly out of order.
The principles or purposes of Bill C-21, were and are, to end government financing of the unemployment insurance, to restrict entry to and claim upon the program and to use money from the fund to purchase training programs. The Senate has gutted two of these three principles.
I do not create this submission about the Senate role. One of our prime reference works does. It is called, and I referred to it earlier, The Modem Senate of Canada by F. A. Kunz. It reviews specifically the period from 1925 to 1963. He says "The Senate's unique sense of political self restraint"-that was prior to 1963, not post-1984,
Government Orders
obviously-is the result of many factors, including "the self-consciously subordinate position of the Senate in the framework of responsible government, its remoteness from the real centre of political controversy-he means the hustings, the Commons, the ridings-the relatively high average age of its members, the feeling of security engendered by tenure and the intentional laxity of its party organization". He states:
The ruling spirit of the Senate is a spirit of moderation, of fair play, of due independence, of political self-restraint, with a latent determination at the bottom of all discussion and debates not to go beyond a certain limit, not to abuse the constitutional power which resides in the Chamber, giving way even when acquiescence is lacking, and abstaining from pushing the course or objection to the point of obstruction.
That is how this scholar described the Senate from 1925 to 1963. I do not know what words he would use to describe the Senate since 1984.
In his look at "The Senate versus the Executive" he concludes that the elected Commons has pre-eminence. He says: "The Senate as a parliamentary institution has made no articulate attempts to erect a defence for certain economic and social principles in contradistinction with the express wishes of the elected representatives of the people."
I would cite Bills C-27 of 1977 and C-14 of 1978, and the process of Senate disposition of them, as relevant precedents to this situation. The Senate passed them in all stages in one day. These were bills which made very significant changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Imagine, in 1977 and 1978 that august body down the hall passed those bills, in all stages, in one day, bills which made profound and significant changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Now, it does not seem to view that as the way to operate.
What has happened? The mere fact that an election or two happened to intervene is no reason why that same bunch should not stay in power. After all, they are Liberals, are they not? They have been given this authority by the deity to rule and mere elections do not change that. After all, they are members of the Liberal Party of Canada. They do not let mere elections of a bunch of commoners change what is going to happen in this country. That is absurd.

March 12, 1990
Government Orders
Later, Kunz reminds us that the historic interpretation made in the Commons about the weight of Sections 53 and 54 of the Constitution is this:
Public money cannot be spent or taxes imposed except under the authority of an Act of Parliament which implies the consent of the Senate; and the provision in Section 53, which requires that the entire bill on which the ultimate law is founded must originate in the Commons, prohibits the Senate even to amend bills downward; for if the Senate amends, then the bill passed by the Senate is not the one that originated in the House of Commons.
That is axiomatic. All bills which would spend money or raise taxes must originate here. That constitutional provision becomes ludicrous if in fact the other place is able to gut it and say that it will not pass anything but its gutted version. Then what of this authority that the House of Commons possesses by virtue of the Constitution and a few centuries of tradition?
I find it absolutely astounding that for the potential opportunity of short term political gain the opposition parties apparently-I say apparently, we will see what they say in debate; I do not want to pre-judge-are quite willing to dismiss and ignore a few centuries of democratic tradition because there may be an opportunity for some short term political gain.
As I said before, this discussion gets into pedantry because the Senate had not acted so. From 1925 to 1963 the Senate never acted so, and it did not act that way from 1963 to 1984. For 60 years, roughly, we had a Senate that recognized we lived in a democracy. But then the damn democracy went and elected people from the other party. It was an outrageous thing they did, and they did it twice. These protectors of the public in the Senate must prevent the mob in the House of Commons from getting its way.
All that remains is for me to establish that Bill C-21 is in fact a money bill. It is, and I will explain why. Section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1987, provides:
53. Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Ihx or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.
Bills referred to in Section 53 are commonly referred to as "money bills". That is to say that they deal with what is raised by way of taxes. We know that we need a Ways and Means motion passed by this House before we are able to raise taxes. They deal with what is spent, public revenue. We know that in order to do that we
must have a Royal Recommendation. The Means and Ways role and the supply role both must be established by this House of Commons, preceded in one case by Ways and Means motions and on the outside, if you will, a Royal Recommendation. We cannot raise money without a Ways and Means motion by this House. We cannot spend it without a Royal Recommendation.
It is very clear. This is a prerogative of the House of Commons and only the House of Commons, and not the Senate. To tamper with that in any significant way is clearly and absolutely unacceptable in a democracy.
Again, I can see that legally the Senate may be able to do this. The Government General legally can do that. But in a democracy it is intolerable for either element of Parliament to act against the wishes of a democratically elected House of Commons.
Section 53 prohibits the Senate from amending money bills. In this regard, Standing Order 80 of the House of Commons declares:
80.(1) All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, -
Only the House has the right to direct, to limit and to appoint.
- the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
That is from our Standing Orders. It would be in contempt of this House for hon. members to stand up and say that they do not care what Standing Order 80 says, they intend to agree with the Senate's butchering of this Standing Order.
As I have indicated, the term "money bill" refers to a bill that appropriates any part of the public revenue or imposes any tax or impost. Any appropriation, tax or impost is a money bill. In other words, Section 53 applies with respect of any bill that proposes to authorize an expenditure of public money or to impose any tax or impost. In the case of a bill authorizing the expenditure of public money, the authorization may be direct, as in the case of an appropriation bill, or indirect, as in the case of a bill that authorizes or requires something that entails the expenditure of public money.
March 12, 1990

If you see Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, Third Edition, 1903, at page 626, he states:
As a general rule, public bills may originate in either House or whenever; but whenever they grant supplies of any kind, or involve directly or indirectly the levying or appropriation of any tax upon the people, they must be initiated in accordance with law and constitutional practice.
Section 53 of the British North America Act, 1867, expressly provides:
Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue or for imposing any Thx or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.
Some instances of bills considered to be money bills are given in Erskine May Parliamentary Practice. I am referring to the 19th edition, page 758, 1976: (a) provisions extending or altering the purposes of a previously authorized expenditure; (b) provisions increasing the amount of a previously authorized expenditure, which is found at page 759; (c) remissions of amounts paid on account of debts, taxes or fees due to the Crown, which is found at page 756; and (d) provisions increasing a charge by the extension of time, found at page 757.
I think that should prove it, but people still argue is Bill C-21 a money bill? One argument that may have been expressed at the Senate or its offices was that since expenditures under the UI Act are paid from a special levy on employers and employees for that purpose and since no general tax revenues were appropriated to pay for these expenditures, there was in effect a separate fund which should not be regarded as public funds or the public revenue.
In response, I say that the UI account is not a separate fund from the CRF. All accounts received under the UI Act on account of premiums are paid into the CRF and all amounts paid as or on account of benefits and assistance under Section 26.1 are paid out of the CRF. I refer members to Sections 113 and 117 of the UI Act.
The CRF is public money or public revenue. In this regard it can be noted that the CRF is defined in Section 2 of the Financial Administration Act as meaning "the aggregate of all public moneys that are on deposit at the credit of the Receiver General". Public money, in turn, is defined as meaning:
Government Orders
All money belonging to Canada received or collected by the Receiver General or any other public officer in his official capacity or any person authorized to receive or collect such money, and includes
(a)	duties and revenue of Canada,
(b)	money borrowed by Canada or received through the issue of sale of securities,
(c)	money received or collected for or on behalf of Canada, and
(d)	all money that is paid to or received or collected by a public officer under or pursuant to any act, trust, treaty, undertaking or contract, and is to be disbursed for a purpose specified in or pursuant to that act, trust, treaty, undertaking or contract.
The point is this. The fact that money raised for UI Act expenditures is raised by a special levy on employers and employees does not mean the moneys are not public moneys or public revenue. There are several provisions in Bill C-21 that have the effect of either directly or indirectly imposing a charge on public funds. These provisions create special new and distinct charges on public funds. These include Clauses 2(1), 9, 14(1), 19(2), 20 and 50(1).
I expect that the Minister of Employment and Immigration will speak to these very important provisions which must be protected when she enters the debate later. The only point I underline now and again is that this money bill has been unacceptably gutted and perverted by some of the Senate amendments.

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall what the former Leader of the Opposition said a few years ago, when the Senate tried to force the government to amend the bill to amend the Patent Act. He said at the time:
That the House of Commons should prevail, and that this was the position of the Liberal Party.

Those were the words of the previous leader of this party who stated explicitly in this House that at the end of the day the will of the elected House of Commons must prevail. That is the clear position of the Liberal party. I hope that party with its great democratic tradition will remember those words when it comes to voting on this motion.
Therefore, I move:

March 12, 1990
Government Orders
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House agrees with amendment 4(A) made by the Senate to Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, but disagrees with amendments 2(A), (B) and (C), 3(A) and (B), 5(A) and (B), 6, 7 and 9 because this House believes that they contradict the principles of the Bill, and violate the traditional legislative role asserted by the Commons in fulfilment of its obligations under Sections 5 3 and 54 of the Constitution Act, as fitting for the unelected Senate on money bills, for the following reasons:
All of them are in contradiction of the fundamental principles contained in C-21, which are:
(I)	a shift to full financing of the UI program though employer and employee premiums;
(II)	a reduction of work disincentives in the UI program;
(III)	an increase in the Government's flexibility to meet the changing needs of UI claimants, to use UI funds to purchase training or provide ancillary income support and to provide access to other active employment measures in accordance with the rights and needs of claimants.

Amendments 2(a), (b) and (c) would restrict the innovative use of U.I. funds for developmental purposes by restricting the Commission's flexibility in purchasing training courses, providing mobility assistance, promoting self-employment and providing claimants with positive work incentives, including bonuses and temporary earnings supplements. This amendment offends principle (iii) mentioned above. It limits the govemments's power to provide active employment measures to claimants.

Amendments 3(A) and (B) would restrict the ability of the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission to design developmental uses benefits and to administer the referral process in ways which are sufficiently flexible to meet the evolving needs of UI claimants, while safeguarding the rights and entitlements otherwise available to UI claimants under the UI Act. Again, this contradicts principle (III).
Amendments 5(A) and (B) would relax the stricter penalties imposed on UI claimants who have quit a job without just cause. This alters principle (II).
Amendment 6 would require that costs associated with third-party training be charged to the new developmental uses portion of the UI account, thereby reducing the funds available to train UI claimants. This contradicts principle (III), as it reduces the government's ability to provide claimants access to active employment measures.
Amendment 7 reinstates Consolidated Revenue Fund responsibility for financing a portion of regional benefits. This contradicts principle (I) of Bill C-21, which requires employee and employer funding of all UI program expenditures.
Amendment 9 would maintain the current programs financing provisions for self-employed fishing benefits. This offends principle (I) above, which ensures that the program must be funded from employer and employee premiums.
And that this House agrees with the principles set out in parts of amendments 1, 4(B), (C) and (D) and 8, but would propose the following amendments:
Amendment 1 be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out line 40 on page 13 and substitute the following:
Appeal under Section 79 or 80.
(9) For greater certainty, the courses or programs referred to in subsection (1) include courses or programs in basic skills and literacy."
Amendment 4(B) be amended to read as follows:
''Strike out line 4 on page 16 and substitute the following:
Made under Sections 24 to 26.1, and
(III) showing the estimated or, where available, the actual expenditures made under this Act in each province for each of the three years preceding the year to which the plan applies, and"
Amendment 4(C) be amended to read as follows:
'Add, immediately after line 6 on page 16, the following:
(2.1) In the Estimates of the expenditures referred to in subparagraphs 2(A)(1) and (II), the plan may include the estimated expenditures to be made in each province".
Amendment 4(D) be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out line 18 on page 16 and substitute the following:
Day.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the plan for 1990 shall be laid before Parliament not later than three months after the coming into force of this section."
Amendment 8 be amended to read as follows:
"Strike out line 1 on page 33 and substitute the following:
53. Subsections 130(3) and (4) of the said Act are".

That is the motion I put to the House for consideration. I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that the end of the day has come and that it is time for the will of the House of Commons to prevail.
Just by way of information to give some indication of how much discussion has gone on so far in this matter, we have previously debated this legislation at second reading for 13 hours. We debated it in committee for 118 hours. We had report stage, we travelled and there were witnesses. We had report stage debate here for seven hours and third reading debate here, for 145 hours in total.
This committee had 233 persons representing 204 groups appear before it. They travelled to Sudbury, Toronto, Jonquiere, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Moncton, and Vancouver, virtually around the entire country.
The Senate has had the bill for some extended months. It also heard many, many witnesses.
I think it is time that the will of the democratically elected people of Canada as expressed by this House of Commons be allowed to prevail and that we move on to other subjects.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault)-Money laundering; the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Mifflin)-Veterans Affairs; the hon. member for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso (Mr. LeBlanc)-Fisheries.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it may be true that there were 13 hours of debate in this House on this bill last fall. We are starting today a debate and we have only had a little more than an hour on a message from the Senate which I think did a terrific job of looking at that bill, as rightly it should. It recommended to this House changes which it has a constitutional right to do. By constitutional obligation it has a right to look at this and give us its opinion. There is nothing wrong with the message we got from the Senate in terms of its constitutional acceptability. I do take exception to the minister wanting us to believe that there
Government Orders
have been 153 hours of debate. That is not what we understand debate to be. There have been 13 hours in this House, and that is about it. I hope he gives us that much time on this message.
First, before addressing the comments and reply of the minister, I would like to remind him that Bill C-21 is an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act. This is not, in our view, a money bill. It reduces the charge on the public treasury rather than being a bill that stands by itself. I will get to the arguments that were put by the department when I get to that question of whether indeed this is a money bill, yes or no.
I want to make a couple of comments before I get into the meat of the matter. We must remember that Canada, unlike the United Kingdom, is a federation. We do not have a unicameral parliament. We have the House of Commons that proposes and we have the Senate that can propose in certain circumstances.
In 1867 there were those in this country who opposed the establishment of the Senate. They wanted a Parliament constituted strictly on the basis of representation by population. Those persons, we will recall, were mostly from Canada west, which is now Ontario, my province. They did not prevail. They did not win their argument. The other provinces refused to agree to a Parliament in which one province, in this case Ontario, was expected to be dominant.
Those of us who come from Central Canada, as it is called, either Ontario or Quebec, must recognize, however, that members of the House of Commons are elected and have a most important role to perform, namely, to represent the people of the other provinces against a central majority dominated House of Commons. It is quite possible, and we have heard some arguments today, that an elected Senate could be far more effective than the present one. We are not debating that here today. I, for one, believe that an elected Senate would be more effective. However, until we do have an elected Senate, the Senate as now constituted must perform the tasks assigned to it by our Constitution.
I come directly to the question. Are the amendments before this House put by the Senate of Canada unacceptable to this House, either because they contravene our Standing Orders, as was alluded to by the minister, that

Government Orders
is, Standing Order 80(1), or because they contravene Sections 53 or 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867?
I could not find anybody in the Senate who said: "We accepted Standing Order 80(1) of this House". That Standing Order is quite clear. Standing Order 80(1) states:
All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of
Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for
granting such aids and supplies-
I underline the words "aids and supplies" because that is very important to my argument.
- ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
The question we have to answer is whether Bill C-21 deals with aids and supplies such as described in Standing Order 80(1). In my opinion clearly it does not. We need not to revive the old argument between the House of Commons and the Senate, the dispute over whether Standing Order 80(1) prevails.
If we go into the authorities and look at Erskine May, Erskine May says: "Charges upon the public revenue are of two kinds." I think it is important that people understand that there are two kinds of charges against the public revenue: charges payable out of money to be provided by Parliament, that is, moneys to be voted year by year. That is the ways and means motions and supply motion under which we operate every year. That is one way.
Then there are charges upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund as a second source of supply. The charges payable out of the money to be provided by Parliament under the moneys that are voted every year are authorized every year by the regular appropriation acts of this House. The charges upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund are called statutory expenditures. That is what Bill C-21 addresses. It is not the aids and supplies argument but the statutory expenditures.
Historically, the Crown was expected to pay the annual costs of the Public Service from the income from Crown
lands and the like. When this proved inadequate the Crown turned to Parliament for aids and supplies, that is, for financial supplements to make up the total requirements for each year. It is to the regular appropriation bills that Standing Order 80(1) refers.
At Westminster the bills granting aids and supplies are presented by Royal Assent by the Speaker of the House of Commons. The same thing happens here in Canada. A bill must have a royal recommendation to be called a statutory expenditure. Once we clear that up we must address the other kinds of charges I just alluded to as statutory expenditures.
They do not begin with a request for supply, nor are they dealt with according to the Standing Orders of the Business of Supply. Before 1968 they began with financial resolutions moved in a committee of the whole House. The terms of such resolutions were recommended to the House by the Governor General and in 1968 the preliminary resolution stage was dropped in Canada. Since then, the royal recommendation is communicated to the House in the manner prescribed in Standing Order 79(2).
Bill C-21 was introduced with a royal recommendation as prescribed by Standing Order 79(2), not with a royal recommendation presented in the manner prescribed by Standing Order 79(3). I think it would be of some assistance if I read Standing Orders 79(2) and 79(3):
(2)	The message and recommendation of the Governor General in relation to any bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or of any tax or impost shall be printed on the Notice Paper and in the Votes and Proceedings when any such measure is to be introduced and the text of such recommendation shall be printed with or annexed to every such bill.
(3)	When estimates are brought in, the message from the Governor General shall be presented to and read by the Speaker in the House.
I think one must accept that Bill C-21 is not a bill supplying aids and supplies. Standing Order 81 does not apply to it, but Standing Orders 79(2) and 79(3) apply.
Having said that we have to address the constitutional question. Are these amendments put by the Senate out of order because of Section 54 of the 1867 Constitution Act? Bill C-21 is a bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1970, 1971 and 1972.
March 12, 1990

I remind members that the original bill was Bill C-229. It became the Unemployment Insurance Act. It was read the first time on March 10, 1971. That is the original bill which this Bill C-21 wants to amend. The appropriation sought by the bill was recommended by the Governor General and there was an appropriate royal recommendation.
If we look at the clauses of Bill C-21 which the Senate proposes to amend, every one of those clauses could have been moved in 1971 as an amendment to Bill C-229 by any private member of this House. None of those clauses of Bill C-21 seeks to increase the amount or to change the purpose of an appropriation in any way in conflict with the royal recommendation of March 10, 1971.
It follows that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-21 do not offend that recommendation. If Bill C-229 adopted by this House on March 10,1971 were in order, we believe the Senate amendments before this House today, in 1990, which in no case go beyond the appropriation made by the bill originally are in order. Given the fact that all the provisions of Bill C-21 could have been moved in 1971 as amendments to the original Bill C-229, one must ask why Bill C-21 was introduced in this House with a royal recommendation. Bill C-21 was introduced into the House on June 1, 1989 and the royal recommendation attached to it read:
Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in the measure entitled An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act.
When the officials were questioned in committee on February 5, 1990 as to which clauses of Bill C-21 in their opinion required a royal recommendation-in other words, why Bill C-21 which is an amendment to the original bill required a royal recommendation-their reply was that no analysis had been made by either the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission or the Department of Justice to ascertain which of those clauses did indeed require a royal recommendation. If any clause required it, we did not find out. They did not know. If none of the clauses amended by the Senate require a royal recommendation in our view, it follows that in so far as those clauses are concerned the royal
Government Orders
recommendation of June 1, 1989 is irrelevant. That was the basis of the argument in the Senate.
The Speaker of the Senate found the arguments so convincing that he ruled squarely on Erskine May. He found that indeed the amendments were in order and that they did not impose an extra charge on the public treasury, that Bill C-21 was not a money bill but indeed reduced the charges on the public treasury and therefore was acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to talk about the amendments or rather the amendment that the government has accepted, Amendment 4(a), and a few more that they accepted with amendments at the same time that they rejected very important amendments which we thought would restore some fairness for Canadian workers in terms of their rights, as we see them, to unemployment insurance benefits.
I would like to talk about the nine amendments proposed by the Senate which we think greatly improve Bill C-21. We do not claim that these proposals are excellent. There is no pretention of excellence but we claimed, Mr. Speaker, that it was possible to improve the bill and it was in that spirit that the Senate made these nine amendments.
As I was saying, the Conservative government, through its minister, showed its intention to make very complex changes to three of these amendments: training, including literacy, the department's plan for regional benefits and fishermen's benefits.
Mr. Speaker, during the debate, Liberal members will elaborate on these amendments and give arguments for broadening them, we hope.
Amendment No. 5 on penalties and Amendment No. 7 on the government's withdrawal from UI funding were rejected by the government. The government intends to oppose Amendment No. 2 on training, the "Henry VIII" clause, Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 6, privatization, and No. 9, benefits taken over by the government.
For the Senate, Mr. Speaker, these nine amendments are an acceptable compromise on a bill which has many flaws. I need not tell you, Mr. Speaker, that most of those who spoke in committee and in this House tried

March 12, 1990
Government Orders
very hard to make the government understand the problems with this bill.
I shall explain to you, Mr. Speaker, not in numerical order but in my order of priority, the reasons for each of the amendments made by the Senate.
Concerning the government's withdrawal from the unemployment insurance program, Amendment No. 7, many witnesses who appeared before the committee on Bill C-21 were unanimous in saying that this measure was the most significant of all the proposed changes. Therefore, concerned about the considerable problems which this change might cause, the members of the Senate Committee have proposed Amendment No. 7 to keep section 118 in the Unemployment Insurance Act so that the government would have to fund not all but half the cost of extended regional benefits from general revenues and not the UI account.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that one of the reasons why the government withdrew from funding the program was the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. When it signed the agreement, the government either did not think, or simply preferred not to tell Canadians, that the United States might consider the unemployment insurance program as a kind of hidden subsidy. To observe its part of the agreement with our American neighbours, the Conservative government had no hesitation in withdrawing completely from the program's financing. To harmonize-that is the term being used-its operations with the United States, this government did not think twice about putting the whole financial burden on Canadian workers and by the same token, had no hesitation in shirking its social and economic responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge hon. members to read the latest issue of the magazine Relations. It contains an article on Bill C-21 by Henri Sader, "Le salaire de la peur". I won't have time to read it to you, but I strongly urge hon. members to read it. I think this article is very worthwhile, and if I had time, I would quote from it at length to make my case. However, I think all hon. members received this publication at their offices. I advise them to read it.
In 1971, the federal government started funding regional extended benefits, the extended benefits paid under section 25, job creation, and section 26, training, as
well as net benefits paid to independent fishermen. More specifically, the government started financing benefits to cover the difference between the real unemployment rate and a rate of 4 per cent. Under Bill C-21, the Unemployment Insurance Fund will pay benefits only when the unemployment rate rises above 6 per cent. The government will no longer finance extended benefits based on the regional unemployment rate, fishermen's benefits or its share of manpower programs. In the United States, Mr. Speaker, this bill would make Canada the only industrialized country with a system to which its government did not contribute a cent.
Bill C-21 repeals section 118 of the Act, which concerns government contributions to extended benefits, and also subsection 130(3) which concerns government contributions to net benefits paid to independent fishermen. This change, I think, is a sign that the government is not intent on improving the unemployment insurance system but on harmonizing with our American neighbours while trying to cope with the deficit.
In fact, what this Government has done is save $2.2 billion at the expense of employees who see their unemployment insurance premiums increase from $1.95 to $2.25 on each $100 earned and at the expense of the employers whose share is or will be 1.4 times that of their employees.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to remind the hon. members that, on November 8, 1984, the then Minister of Employment and Immigration, Miss MacDonald, stated, and I quote:
Any substantial increase of the premium rate would bring about
additional costs which would be difficult to bear for the businesses
and which would hinder job creation in the private sector.
Mr. Speaker, that leading Conservative cabinet minister was speaking for the government in those days.
In my riding, Ottawa University will be one of the first to be hard hit by such measure.
Indeed, Ottawa university will be forced to seriously review its budget for it will have to pay $400,000 more into the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Mr. Speaker, this may be peanuts for a multinational but, for a university operating on already limited budgets, additional expenditures of the sort have a devastating effect on the progress of an institution already hardly hit by
March 12, 1990

other measures as negative as the one imposed by this government.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote also a comment from the Ontario Coalition for Social Justice. Laurell Ritchie said and I quote: "One can raisonnably expect that, by 1993, when much bigger premiums will be necessary to sustain the Fund, the employers who are now contributing the largest share to the Plan will have managed to ask first of all for new reductions."
Another important argument was raised by Mitchell Kosney of the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, and I quote: "This bill removes a major and significant impetus for the government's commitment to full employment policies and on the unemployed and economically depressed regions and workers caught in the growing and ever-increasing number of poor quality, low-paid jobs."
Let us now deal with Amendment No. 8:

Let us deal with the fishermen's benefits amendment. The Senate committee also brought forth three amendments relating to fishermen's benefits. In 1956 the Unemployment Insurance Act was amended to extend coverage to self-employed fishermen. Section 130 of the Unemployment Insurance Act provides that the Unemployment Insurance Commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, make such regulations as it deems necessary to establish and operate a scheme of unemployment insurance for self-employed persons engaged in fishing or activities incidental to fishing.
Fishermen's unemployment insurance premiums go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and benefits are paid from that fund. The government therefore finances from general revenue the difference between the benefits paid and the premiums collected from self-employed fishermen. That is the government's contribution and in 1988 it amounted to $248 million. Some 35,000 fishermen benefited from this program.
By repealing Section 130(3) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, clause 53 of Bill C-21 ends all direct government financing. Fishermen's benefits would in the future be paid from the unemployment insurance account which will funded solely by premiums. The effect is to withdraw government funding of fishermen's benefits and to ensure that expenditure for these benefits is
Government Orders
treated on the same basis as expenditure for any other benefit.
There are dangers to the elimination of the status of self-employed fishermen and to cutting back the payments that they will receive. Since the unemployment insurance account would now be responsible for all fishermen's benefits, pressure could be expected to develop from other premium contributors to reduce these benefits and even possibly to eliminate the special status of self-employed fishermen under the act.
In 1988, fishermen paid approximately $18 million into the fund and received roughly $269 million in benefits. The government, therefore, made up the difference from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of some $251 million.
Mr. Earl McCurdy from the Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers Union stated:
Business groups will be fighting tooth and nail in the years to come
to take the position that, since the government is out, they regard
themselves as having to subsidize fishermen's unemployment
insurance-and they will say "that is not fair and we want out."
Therefore, the Senate is asking the government to continue to finance benefit payments in excess of premiums collected. We believe that would be justified.
The second part of the amendment proposed by the Senate would also have the effect of reducing the vulnerability of fishermen's benefits by making any change to the regulations dealing with self-employed fishermen, subject to the approval of Parliament.
At the present time regulations concerning fishermen's benefits can be changed without Parliament's approval. Unemployment insurance benefits to fishermen could be revoked by the approval of the Governor in Council only.
The amendment proposed by the Senate provides that to stop a motion which proposes to modify the regulations concerning fishermen's benefits, the signature of no fewer than 15 senators or 30 members of this House of Commons would be required.
Members of this House will remember that a similar clause was inserted in Section 87 of the Official Languages Act. We did that a year and a half ago. It was good then. Why can we not do that today? For regulations can be changed at any time by Order in Council, why not have public scrutiny? Why not have this transparence in regard to a program of such importance? We have it in the Official Languages Act. We think it would be a good

March 12, 1990
Government Orders
idea to have it in regard to regulations affecting fishermen.
The final part of the Senate amendment will repeal subsection 130(4) of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Subsection 130(4) provides that the whole section dealing with fishermen's benefits may be repealed by the government by simple proclamation. That subsection, originally introduced in the 1971 Unemployment Insurance Act, was intended to record the transitional nature of Section 130 of the act until:
-the plans being developed to protect self-employed fishermen against the uncertainties inherent in the primary fishing industry are ready for implementation.
That is from the White Paper on Unemployment Insurance in 1970, page 11.
Indeed to give the cabinet that power to revoke or to change the regulations without consultation with Parliament was supposed to be an interim measure. However the fishermen's special status, well deserved by the way, remained largely unchanged and still today is transitional. The proposed amendment to the act would make it permanent and would eliminate the uncertainties inherent in this act. To this effect the Senate committee report says:
Your committee believes that in view of the crisis in the Atlantic fisheries, concrete steps should be taken to protect the benefits now provided to self-employed fishermen and to provide assurance that the government is in fact committed to the maintenance of this vital program.

Mr. Speaker, in 1977, the Unemployment Insurance Plan adopted a variable entrance requirement which tied the number of insurable weeks of employment required for benefits to the unemployment rate. To be eligible, those who lived in a region where the unemployment rate was less than or equal to 6 per cent had to have at least 14 weeks of insurable employment. In all regions where the unemployment rate was greater than 9 per cent, a minimum of 10 weeks of work was required. Every year, the government presented legislation which was adopted by Parliament to extend the variable entrance requirements. In 1989, the Conservative government refused to continue with this formula, Mr. Speaker; it refused in the House to extend this variable entrance requirement for Canadian workers. The Conservatives refuse to pass this legislation, thereby penalizing thousands of jobless Canadians.
The Conservative government has contemptuous attitude towards unemployed Canadians. The Conservative government had a choice between maintaining the present support for the unemployed and adopting an attitude of confrontation with the Senate.
And good God, Mr. Speaker, with the minister's statement today, we know what decision they have made. They decided to go for a confrontation with the Senate.
The Prime Minister chose to abandon the unemployed, proving once again his indiferrence to the less fortunate in our society. If the Prime Minister were in good faith, Mr. Speaker, he would have allowed the bill extending the variable entrance requirement to pass as was proposed in the House not veiy long ago, in January.
Passing Senate Bill S-12 would have enabled workers who lost their job to still be eligible for the existing unemployment insurance benefits after January 6, 1990.
Mr. Speaker, we deplored it at the time and we still deplore the government's attitude to Canada's unemployed.
Bill C-21 proposes to introduce a modified version of the variable entrance requirement. Instead of 10 to 14 weeks, 10 to 20 weeks of insurable employment would be required. All regions with unemployment rates of 6 per cent or less would require as many as 20 weeks of insurable employment, while only those regions with an unemployment rate of more than 15 per cent would retain a minimum entrance requirement of 10 weeks.
Bill C-21 proposes a new, 62-region system. Under this system and the new entrance requirements, according to the report of the Special Committee of the Senate on Bill C-21, claimants in 45 regions would require more than 14 weeks of insurable earnings, while the minimum 10-week entrance requirement would apply only in 8 regions.
March 12, 1990

However, under the old variable entrance requirement rules, the minimum would have applied in 32 of these regions. Of the 13 regions in Atlantic Canada, only 5 would qualify at 10 weeks, under Bill C-21, as compared to 12 regions under the old rules. That is more than twice as much, Mr. Speaker.
Bill C-21 also changes the benefit structure. In most cases, the proposed change will reduce the maximum duration of benefit entitlement. For instance, according to the information given in the Senate report, claimants in central Nova Scotia, Sherbrooke, Hull right next door, St.Catharines, Sudbury, northern Ontario, southern Manitoba, and Regina would lose up to 13 weeks of benefits. More than 3 months of benefits would be lost by workers who are seeking employment.
Mr. Speaker, claimants in Halifax, Calgary and Vancouver would lose up to 12 weeks of benefits. Workers in St. John's, Newfoundland, Saint John, New Brunswick, Fredericton, Moncton, Quebec City, Trois-Rivieres, Montreal, Chicoutimi, Ottawa, Windsor, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Victoria and Vancouver Island would all lose up to 11 weeks of benefits.
Surprisingly, claimants in regions with an unemployment rate of up to 12 per cent would lose up to 11 weeks, while regions with an unemployment rate under 4 per cent would lose only 3 weeks. It is difficult to reconcile this outcome with the professed objective of Bill C-21, which according to the government, and I quote:
-was designed to ensure that there would no impact in areas where there was high unemployment.
I was quoting Mr. Barry Carin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Employment and Immigration, from his testimony on February 1, 1990, before the Senate Committee.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the amendments to entrance requirements and benefit duration provided under Bill C-21 will have a very definite impact on many of the regions I just mentioned.

Bill C-21 will hurt the unemployed in just about every region of the country. The federal government, in the document Success in the Works presents some estimates of the impact of these new measures. In Table 13 in that report, on page 25, we see that the age group hardest hit
Government Orders
by Bill C-21 is 25 to 34, absorbing a $450 million reduction in benefits or 38 per cent of the cuts. Table 15, at page 27, shows that 530,000 unemployed Canadians would be affected by the new bill to a total sum of $800 million. The government calls this "savings". This is the biggest attack on the backs of the least fortunate of our society.
Let me remind you of what the Prime Minister said in the last general election. I want to quote because this is very important. In The Sunday Star of October 16, 1988, he said:
As long as I am Prime Minister, social benefits will be improved,
not diminished, by this government.
So much for that. Now this same government is saying to Canadians that it will save $800 million on the backs of these 530,000 Canadians who would be affected by this legislation.
We must keep in mind that these government numbers are based on assumptions. What I have just quoted I have taken from the government's own books. We must keep in mind that they are based on assumptions which will affect Canadians more onerously than anticipated. We can certainly question these figures of the government. That is the role of the opposition.
I just want to quote the firm Global Economics which was commissioned by the Liberal Party of Canada to examine the proposed changes. The conclusions of this study differ significantly from the government's study.
Whereas the government predicts a $1.2 billion decrease in unemployment benefits-$800 million in benefits lost plus $450 million in penalties-the Global Economics study forecasts a drop of $1.5 billion, that 775,000 Canadians will lose benefits with an average loss of $1,486. This loss of benefits is most pronounced in Newfoundland, with an average loss of $2,429; Prince Edward Island with a loss of $2,373 and New Brunswick with a loss of $2,011. Atlantic Canada and Quebec will be the hardest hit. Quebec will lose $507 million as a result of this bill. Nationwide, 80 per cent of the net losers will be earning less than $25,000.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives also produced a study which yielded results much closer to those of Global Economics' than those of the government. This study concludes that the decrease in benefits

March 12, 1990
Government Orders
will amount of $1.8 billion, as opposed to $1.2 billion predicted by the government.
The regional impact on the Atlantic provinces will be much worse than the government predicts. The provinces are pessimistic about the effects of C-21. In Newfoundland, according to the provincial study, 19,000 people may not meet the new strict entrance requirements. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, Ms. Patricia Cowan is quoted as saying:
Bill C-21 is probably the most devastating thing to come our way in Newfoundland and Labrador, for a long time.
Without immediate attention, this bill will condemn not hundreds, but thousands of Newfoundland families to uncertain futures where poverty and welfare will be commonplace.
Since the last general election, the Conservative Government has slashed regional development to the Atlantic provinces, has dismantled VIA Rail, has done nothing about the crisis in the fisheries and has pushed, with all steam ahead, on Bill C-21, regardless of the consequences.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21 provides for a major transfer of funds from the Unemployment Insurance Fund to training programs. This is one of the major objectives of Bill C-21, which provides that eveiy year, the minister will table in Parliament a plan explaining where the funds will be spent.
The question is, and it is a very important one, where the funds earmarked for training programs will be spent. This question is particularly important since there is no provision in this respect in Bill C-21. No one knows where the funds will be allocated.
What happens if Nova Scotia loses $40 million in benefits when Bill C-21 is passed? Will the province recover those funds in the form of training programs? Will Quebec recover $507 million in lost benefits? Noboby knows. The Minister of Employment and Immigration is unable to answer these questions. The deputy minister said in committee that he did not expect any radical changes in the distribution of funds. The government does not seem to know one way or another and is not prepared to provide the necessary explanations.
The Senate committee proposes an amendment to provide more information on the transfer of funds from the Unemployment Insurance Fund to training programs. Amendment No. 4, which was partially accepted by the government, would make it possible to control distribution of funds, to determine how losses and compensation are shared among the regions. To simplify comparisons between previous expenditures and proposed expenditures, the Senate committee recommends that the plan should indicate expenditures for each of the three years preceding those to which the plan applies. That seems to make sense and it is not terribly complex.
Bill C-21 just says that the plan would have to be approved by the Governor in Council and there is no guarantee that parliamentarians could speak on the planned expenditures and the allocations of funds in the affected regions. The legislation should include a provision that parliamentarians could not only consider the plan but also approve it, Mr. Speaker.
Amendment No. 1, which the government has accepted in principle, concerns literacy training. Mr. Speaker, illiteracy, poverty and unemployment are closely related. Recent estimates show that one Canadian in four is totally or functionally illiterate. Nicole Boily of the Canadian Institute for Adult Education told the Senate Committee:
(The problem you raised of) young people who drop out of school and who are doomed to short-term, unskilled jobs without any security (is a very real one throughout Canada). -We cannot neglect those who already find themselves in this difficult situation.
Still quoting:
I think it is very important that we provide basic education for young people.
Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a strong negative correlation between education and unemployment. I want to quote Tracy Westell of the Ontario Literacy Coalition who said recently:
-there is a clear connection between lack of education and unemployment. In the regions in Canada where unemployment is high, the rate of illiteracy is also very high.
Mr. Speaker, according to Bill C-21, unemployed people who receive UI benefits will not be eligible for literacy courses; if they took such courses, they would lose all their benefits. This defies all logic. How can the workers of tomorrow face the technological challenges
March 12, 1990

of tomorrow if they cannot acquire the most basic knowledge?
I think that the government, by saying that it supports the principle, is changing Bill C-21 a little and we will see what happens in the coming days, Mr. Speaker, so that we can comment further on this change.
Senate amendment No. 1 would allow workers entitled to unemployment insurance to enrol in basic training courses, including elementary level proficiency courses, while remaining eligible for benefits. They propose that Bill C-21 lines 37 to 40 be striken out and replaced by the following, and I quote, Mr. Speaker:
For greater certainty, the words "course or program of instruction
or training* in subsection (1) include a course or program of
instruction or training in basic skills or literacy.
Again, Mr. Speaker, to me this seems logical and essential.
I now go on to amendment No. 5. Some of the Unemployment Insurance Act provisions prescribe that a claimant is disentitled for a given period of time for refusing suitable employment or quitting the job without valid reasons.
Under the existing statute a claimant may be disentitled to benefits for a maximum of six weeks. Bill C-21 provides for a much stiffer penalty, ranging from a minimum of seven weeks to a maximum of 12 weeks, double the current maximum.
Mr. Speaker, there is no minimum under the existing law. In addition the proposed legislation would authorize the UI Commission to reduce the rate of benefits to 50 per cent of insurable earnings, down from 60 per cent now. Finally, any part of the disqualification period which has not been served might be deferred for six years.
According to the government figures the new provisions would make it possible to save-Mr. Speaker, I imagine that means "saving" for the government-$450 million whereas 250,000 unemployed workers will lose a minimum of seven weeks of benefits. How can the government justify such drastic treatment of the unemployed? How can the government justify forcing an unemployed worker to wait for up to three months- twelve weeks-before drawing his UI benefits?
Government Orders
Doesn't the Minister know that the big losers in her reform are poor, that 80 per cent of them earn less than $25,000?


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Three months without pay can be very difficult when one does not have any savings, Mr. Speaker. Isn't it a little too long?
Maybe the minister can live for three months without any income coming in but the unemployed Canadians she proposes to penalize unfairly cannot afford it. That is why we hope the government will change its mind and accept the Senate amendment.
Harassed workers will be afraid to quit their jobs. Harassed workers who know they will lose everything if they quit their jobs or look for employment elsewhere will certainly hesitate and even suffer from fear of losing all benefits and other forms of income for themselves and their families for three months. We find such a severe penalty on families earning less than $25,000 unfair and almost inhuman.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed by the Senate would set the maximum disqualification period at six weeks and the period for carrying forward any portion of a disqualification not served at two years instead of six.
We know it is not perfect but we think it is reasonable since there is no definition of just cause in the legislation to determine whether workers have valid reasons for leaving. Moreover, the disqualification period is two weeks on average in the case of a resignation.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to talk about Amendment No. 2, allocations of funds from the Unemployment Insurance Fund to training. Although we approve of the idea of offering workers some form of occupational training to increase their capacity to earn a living, we nonetheless find absurd that the government would have to draw from the Fund in order to finance training. We suggest that the govemement should not finance training programs by cutting Unemployment Insurance benefits.
As Mrs. Helene Chauvigne, from Mouvement Action-Chomage de I'Outaouais quebecois, pointed out when appearing before the Committee: "Nothing assures us that the people whose UI benefits will be reduced are

March 12, 1990
Government Orders
going to benefit from the training they will be paying for".
To quote another witness, Mrs. Shirley Carr, president of the Canadian Labour Congress: "If the Bill is adopted, we believe, and we have grounds to believe, that the $2 billion in UI premiums which would be redirected to training programs will be used for a large part to replace the Canadian Jobs Strategy. Worse still, that money could be used to finance the relocation of the unemployed, the wage subsidies for businesses and other programs that will be of no help to the unemployed or to the communities".
Mr. Speaker, the first objective of the unemployment insurance plan is to provide income support to workers temporarily out of a job. To use the funds of the plan to buy "training courses" or to strart a business is, in our opinion, contrary to the first objective of the plan. In all fairness, these initiatives should be financed by general revenues, that is to say out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
That is the reason why the Senate committee proposes to strike out lines 13 and 14, as well as lines 38 to 45 on page 14 of Bill C-21. To strike out line 8 and substitute "graph (l)(b) may provide that" on page 15. Amendment No. 2 would prevent the allocation of moneys from the unemployment insurance fund to training.
Furthermore, the fact that the government is prepared to give up to $15,000 to people willing to relocate in areas where unemployment in lower is evidence of the importance, for the government, of "relocation" of people out of regions which are less developed or where industry is cyclical. This approach in Bill C-21 would lead to depopulation of the regions most affected by unemployment. What the gouvernment is proposing is exile from underdeveloped areas.
What is even more troubling, if we follow the rationale of the government, is that claimants would be financing their own moving with the savings realized by cutting benefits. That is why the Senate is opposed to this clause and proposes to strike out lines 34 and 35, on page 14, and substitute the following: "tunities for employment are greater, or moving to".
Mr. Speaker, the Senate Committee also found unacceptable that in Bill C-21 the normal appeal procedure should not apply to the administrative decisions governing the new training methods. We felt that this provision could prove detrimental to the victims of discrimination and minorities. To grant a right to appeal decisions made on the basis of these provisions would be to respect the principles of justice and fairness normally accepted in this country. Therefore, lines 44 and 45, on page 14, as well as lines 1 and 2, on page 15 of Bill C-21 should be struck out.
Mr. Speaker, I come now to amendment No 3, the so-called "Henry VUI" clause. If the Government intends to adopt a policy requiring the unemployed to finance their training programs, it should make sure that the regulations are consistent with the essential provisions of the legislation in this area. We suggest that granting of such discretionary powers on a fund approaching $2 billion is unjustified. The provisions respecting the establishment and operation of the assistance scheme described in Paragraph 26.1(C) are an important component of Bill C-21. They represent the main benefit for which the unemployed would foot the bill following the very significant cuts in their benefits. Yet, the unemployed could not rely on the new schemes offered because under clause 26.1(3), the Unemployment Insurance Commission would have full authority as far as the detailed definition of these schemes is concerned.
This paragraph states that "any scheme established under subsection (1) may, with respect to any matter, be different from the provisions of this Act relating to that matter". If it is called the Henry VIII amendment, it is because there is nothing in this bill which makes it possible for the administration to legislate when there is no provision authorizing it.
As was mentioned by Nicole Boily, from the Canadian Institute of Adult Education, "this paragraph opens the door to infinite possibilities the limits of which would come apparently from the fund's budget".
So, amendment 3 would strike out lines 1 to 6, page 15, of Bill C-21.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to talk about amendment 6 as it relates to the contracting out and privatization of certain activities.
Bill C-21 would give the Commission the power to delegate to third parties certain tasks under the Unem-
March 12, 1990

Government Orders
ployment Insurance Plan. According to clause 49 of the Bill, any amount payable by the Commission for such services would be considered implementation costs, not subject to the 15 per cent limit applicable to training courses. Inevitably, this would further reduce the Unemployment Insurance Fund moneys used to guarantee income security for the unemployed and constitute a further step towards privatization.
While denying that the privatization of UI is a priority, the government is privatizing it by the back door. Moreover, after imposing a 15 per cent limit on expenses other than income security benefits, why would the government create a loophole through which one could circumnent its own policy? Currently, payments to third parties come from the Labour Force Development Strategy. With Bill C-21, these expenses would be paid for by the Unemployment Insurance Plan.
The Senate Committee recommends to strike out lines 37 to 43, page 31, and lines 1 to 6, page 32. Amendment no. 6 would not prevent the making of agreements with third parties but would insure that expenses incurred under such an agreement would be paid for by the unemployment insurance account reserved for expenses not related to income security.

In conclusion, we have heard from many groups and organizations. Today the Liberal caucus heard the joint statement of the labour coalition of unions on Bill C-21. I recommend this reading to all members of the House. I think it is a very interesting position.
I was hoping a government member would ask me to read that, but since they do not insist on me reading it, I possibly could table it for their edification. I could have it printed as an appendix to Hansard, if they will give unanimous consent.
As my friend says, those who can read may want to read this document. It is a very interesting one, put out by the coalition on Bill C-21. If you insist, Mr. Speaker, I could read it into the record. I will leave it to a member of my caucus to do that and to comment positively on it some other day. I am sure there will be unanimous consent for us to recognize the importance of the contribution that the unions play in opposing Bill C-21.
Although many groups, organizations and Canadians from every section of Canada, have maintained that Bill C-21 should not be adopted, the Senate has proposed those amendments which the government should take into consideration and accept for the benefit of all those who would be affected by the proposed legislation.
These amendments brought forward by the Senate would assure a continuation of government contributions to the Unemployment Insurance account and recognition of the federal government's responsibility for regional unemployment. They would also ensure that self-employed fishermen are given continuous protection under the Unemployment Insurance program, and that claimants residing in high unemployment regions are granted better income protection.
By way of these amendments, Liberal Senators sought to reaffirm the principle that unemployment insurance should be used for income maintenance and not for training courses and financing entrepreneurial activities which should be provided in our view, by the government.
I want to thank the Senate for its very important contributions. We will participate in this debate in the hope and with the wish that the government will see the light, will find its way to accepting all of the amendments. To that effect, I move, seconded by the member for Kingston and the Islands:
That the motion be amended by
(1)	deleting the words "amendment 4(a)" in the first paragraph and substituting the words "amendments 1,2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 5A, 5B, 6, 7, 8, and 9" therefor; and by
(2)	deleting all the words after the words "Commission Act" in the first paragraph.


@Acting Speaker: I will take the amendment under advisement and rule on it later.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the main body of my speech, I cannot help but comment on the choice of words of the minister when he introduced the motion and the way he referred to the Senate and what he perceived the Senate as having done to Bill C-21. He referred to gutting and violating. It is no surprise to me that those are words he

March 12, 1990
Government Orders
would choose after having gutted the Unemployment Insurance Act and violated the Canadian public.
In my speech after the introduction of this bill, I referred to the Dalton gang of Barbara, Michael and Brian riding into town to loot the UIC vault. Now it appears that they are having a shoot-out with the Liberal Senate and unemployed Canadians across the country are running to get out of the cross-fire.
The government response to the Senate does nothing to respond to the serious concerns of people across this country who appeared before the House committee. They told the government that blaming the unemployed for unemployment just is not acceptable. They told the government that they had believed the government when it promised during the last election campaign that it would not touch unemployment insurance. They felt betrayed and that they had no recourse but to look beyond the House of Commons for assistance.
It is not surprising then that the government finds itself in this position. It did not listen to the groups that told it of the devastating and harmful impact of Bill C-21. It did not listen to recommendations of an all-party committee, after the Forget Commission, nor did it listen to the minority report to the Forget Commission itself. The government did not even listen to the minister's own advisory committee which, in report after report, recommended enhancing the UI system, not destroying it. That this government does not listen will be no surprise. It should also come as no great surprise that the Liberals do not listen very well either.
Granted in this package of amendments we do find some things which could be supported, such as allowing people to collect UI during basic literacy training. That is something the New Democratic Party has supported all along. Extended benefits for fisheries during this time of crisis is also something we could support. But these amendments, taken as a whole, still represent a fundamental cut to benefits and support for the unemployed.
The government is tinkering, it is putting sugar coating on a poison bill, to quote the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. Therefore, we cannot support it.
Had the Liberals really wanted to offer an alternative to Canadians, they had the opportunity. Hundreds of
groups appeared from across the country and offered good and solid advice. The Liberals have never been friends of unemployment insurance and during their mandate ushered in cuts to benefits and significant withdrawal of federal money from the program.
Let us review some of the Liberal record. In 1976, the Liberals reduced the maximum coverage from 75 years of age to 65. The Liberals also reduced the benefit rate for claimants with families from 75 per cent of insurable earnings to 66 and two-thirds. In 1977, they increased the number of weeks needed to qualify for UI from eight weeks to between 10 and 14 weeks. In 1979, they further reduced the benefit rate to 60 per cent.
The Liberals also began to require that some people pay back UI benefits and made a further increase to entrance requirements for new workers and people who had been laid off in the previous year. Finally, in 1980, the Liberals began to withdraw funding from UI and to shift more and more of the costs onto workers and employers.
Everything contained in this government legislation before us was ushered in by our Liberal colleagues in this House and by their colleagues in the Senate. There is no real friend of the unemployed there.
The Dalton gang, Barbara, Michael and Brian, have not spent much time riding the range since the bill was introduced. Perhaps the sun got into their eyes and has clouded their vision as to the desperate situation workers face in all parts of the country due to their free trade giveaway, tax grabs and cut-backs. Let us clear away the mist.
Since this bill was introduced, we have seen a crisis in the Atlantic fishery. Here the government proposes to get out of funding benefits for people engaged in fishing. The government proposes to use part of the premiums it collects in the Atlantic to pay for the Community Futures Program, a program the minister's own advisory committee says does not work very well. The minister, in defending her bill before the Senate, tells us that, according to her own experience, people in Newfoundland could find jobs if they had to. Maybe the minister has spent time looking for a job in Newfoundland and maybe she could share her experience with the Newfoundland Deputy Minister of Labour and tell him
March 12, 1990

where the jobs are, because he has said categorically that his studies show they do not exist.
In Ontario, with free trade sucking jobs south of the border, this government will put people off the UI rolls and onto the welfare rolls. That is not much of an improvement. It is not an improvement at all, because this government has just decided to cut payments for welfare because these people live in a rich province. I suspect that the people living in the rich province who will not be receiving unemployment insurance and who will be on welfare are really not aware how well off they are.
In Quebec, we have seen a significant rise in unemployment, but if this bill were in place today, thousands of workers there would have less time to find a job before their benefits ran out. In the west, in my own province of Saskatchewan, Premier Grant Devine has felt it necessary to put forward his own aid package as it is clear that the federal government has nothing to offer farmers in distress.
As I see it, this government has only one option. It is time to stop playing cowboys with the Senate and start taking responsibility for the mess they have made in this country. They should stop trying to blame unemployed workers for the crisis the government has created. This government never had a mandate to change UI legislation in the first place. It should introduce variable entrance requirement legislation to give relief to workers in areas of high unemployment. The government should accept the federal court ruling on parental benefits and introduce extended maternity benefits as well.
If it truly wants to support basic literacy training while people are on UI and support special benefits for people who fish, we will support it, providing that these initiatives are tied to variable entrance requirement legislation and not this harmful, poisonous bill.
Finally, the government and the Liberals should pack up their toys and call it a day. The Canadian people are tired of their games and, frankly, so are we. Someone has to tell this government enough is enough. Someone has to say no to a bill that cuts benefits to people who need them most, and no in response to the Senate, no to the
Government Orders
Liberals who have not listened and are no real friends of the unemployed, and a final no, because it is the fourth time closure has been introduced on this bill, an unprecedented disregard for democracy.


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like to rule on the admissibility of this motion, just in case the hon. member may have a subamendment. If he would please take his seat for a minute.
I believe the motion is in order. I will rule it admissible.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Ron Fisher: An hon. member from across the way stated: "the safety net of unemployment insurance and welfare programs is there just for the times we are now experiencing. Let us leave that safety net in place and recognize that there will be an increase in cost there". That is the quote from the hon. member across the way.
Will Michael remember his words, sit down with his colleagues, Barbara and Brian and stop trying to turn the social safety net into a tightrope?
In conclusion, I would reiterate that this bill must be withdrawn.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member who just spoke for some clarification. I am having a little difficulty understanding the position of the New Democratic Party on this. The member on the one hand disagrees with the Liberal Senate and on the other hand disagrees with the government and says the bill has to be withdrawn. That is very nice and we agree with him that the bill has to be withdrawn but the fact is the government is not withdrawing it.
We are dealing with a motion now to go back to the Senate. If the member had listened to the motion that was read he would realize that we are dealing with a government motion that purports to approve one of the Senate amendments but disapproves of the others. While we are reluctant to say that the Senate amendments are all that are needed to this dreadful bill, and we agree that it should be withdrawn, we have to deal with the motion now on the floor.

March 12, 1990
Government Orders
I am wondering if the member of the New Democratic Party by his participation in the debate today is urging the Senate of Canada to reject this bill and if he feels that that is an appropriate course.


Ron Fisher: I thank the member for the question, Mr. Speaker. What I am urging is that the government listen to what the Canadian public has said. I know the minister went through a long litany: "No, no, no." Repeating words three times can become a habit I guess. It is contagious.
The Canadian public told the government over and over again that these changes to unemployment insurance were absolutely unacceptable. The Canadian public told the government that to reduce the benefits which people would receive under unemployment insurance and to increase the amount of time a claimant had to work in order to qualify for them was unacceptable.
These changes, together with a smoke and mirrors explanation that education was going to be increased, left the implication that anyone who was unemployed, even anyone who never had a job, would be able to seek training now that the government was making these changes. Of course, that is patently untrue.
Although there may be a slight increase in the number of people who will be able to receive training as a result of the changes to the unemployment insurance, there was no assurance that anywhere near a significant number of people would receive any amount of significant training at all. As a matter of fact, if anything, it came to a point where they were dividing those who had never been employed and were hoping to find employment through training, and those who were insurably unemployed. The government is actually I think seeking to divide and conquer that way.
Certainly, for those who had never been employed the money that the government is now purporting to have available for them is money that it had previously put into unemployment insurance. It is now going to be giving to these people with no assurance that any significant number of people would be trained as a result of that, and no assurance that they would be able to find jobs as a result of that training. It is just the old game of smoke and mirrors.


Albert Glen Cooper: As I understood the question,
the hon. member was asked whether or not he thought the Senate should reject this bill. I am really curious to hear the NDP position. It is a simple, straight question and I am wondering if the hon. member would answer it for us.


Ron Fisher: Imagine this, Mr. Speaker,is it at all possible that we have a collusion here between the Liberals and Conservatives on the issue of unemployment? Obviously not.
I would be more than pleased to answer the question and I now will. What we are saying and what the groups of people who spoke to you this morning said, these changes are nothing but cosmetic. They will not suit the situation at all. They are unacceptable. Bill C-21 is the issue and Bill C-21 has to be defeated.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have quotes from the joint statement of the labour coalition on Bill C-21 and I am sure the member was given a copy this morning. I invite him to read it attentively. This is signed by Shirley G.E. Carr, President, Canadian Labour Congress; Louis Laberge, President, Quebec Federation of Labour; Jim McCambly, President, Canadian Federation of Labour; Gerald La-rose, President, Confederation of National Trade Unions; Kitty O'Callaghan, President, Canadian Teachers Federation; Lorraine Page, President, Quebec Teaching Congress; Kathleen Connors, President, National Federation of Nurses' Unions; Louis Lacroix, President, Canadian Conference of Teamsters. They state:
The Senate amendments improve the Bill, but they do not go
nearly far enough.
If the government does not withdraw the legislation, we believe
the Senate should kill the bill.
Does the member understand that? Does he approve that the Senate should kill the bill?


Ron Fisher: I think it is an excellent idea if the Senate kills the bill. Kills the bill. The amendments which the Senate has brought in do not go anywhere near far enough.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the hon. Minister of State for Employment and Immigration.
March 12, 1990


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, first, I have notice of closure to deliver:
I give notice that at the next sitting of the House, immediately before the Order of the Day is called for resuming debate on the motion of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons in relation to amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, and on any amendments proposed thereto, I will move that the debate shall not be further adjourned.

Mr. Speaker, in recent months you have been exposed to impassioned rtheoric on Bill C-21. You have heard all kinds of comments, ranging from very objective on one side of the House to more subjective on the other. You have heard the worst epithets one can address to a piece of legislation. And a special committee of the other place was appointed to study our bill.
As was to be expected, a majority of the members of this committee condemned the intent of the changes we want to make in the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Some of the proposals from the other place, Mr. Speaker, may be very worthwhile. In fact, this government has once again shown its flexibility by offering to accept certain amendments, including those on fishermen and literacy, areas we consider to be among our top priorities.
Unfortunately, a number of other recommendations were made without any thought for Canada's financial resources. It is easy to make commitments, especially when one is not elected and when managing Canada's economy is the least of one's concerns. This reminds me of the 1984 election campaign. In fact, Mr. Speaker, some of the senators who are opposed to Bill C-21 were part of the same government that left us with government finances in a very precarious state. Fortunately, since 1984, Canadians have opted for responsible government.
As I was saying, I remember the 1984 election campaign, when a party leader who has since left the House resorted to similar arguments during a televised debate: No, he said, not $30 million to improve the status of
Government Orders
women, but $300 million. Of course the Prime Minister's answer was: My friend, where is your magic wand?
You will recall that our ex-party leader quickly changed the subject.

Whoever said that history repeats itself was perhaps capable of time travel, because that is exactly what is happening in this House. Once again, our hon. colleagues in the other Chamber are suggesting a solution that would contribute to increasing the national debt: spending public funds wastefully. They have a regrettable tendency to assign a monetary value to a problem rather than seeking the problem's true cause and applying sound and lasting remedies.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit I have trouble understanding the logic of the liberal majority in the other place. On February 14, Senator Jacques Hebert told La Presse that the Liberal senators had no intention of having a long, drawn-out debate on Bill C-21.
In the same breath, Mr. Hebert said that personally, whatever his colleagues would do, he was ready for a long, hard fight. I simply don't understand.
Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that the House of Commons has a duty to consider a matter that concerns the majority of the citizens of this country. It is not a place for flaunting one's moods in front of the whole country.
Mr. Speaker, instead of designing strategies to break down the democratic process, the senators would have been well advised to really scrutinize the Bill before them. All of us on this side of the House know that political and economic observers in this country, while reasserting the need for training our manpower, recognize that the proposed changes will make unemployment insurance into the scheme it was intented to be in the first place. These observers recommend that we go ahead with Bill C-21. Opinion polls show the majority of Canadians are also in favour of this bill.
Unfortunately, we are back to where we started four months ago. In the meantime, our government had to abandon the idea of approving throughout the country variable entrance requirements for unemployment in-

March 12, 1990
Government Orders
surance benefits to claimants, wherever they live in Canada. Consequently, every worker must have worked 14 weeks before being eligible to benefits.
Mr. Speaker, every day, hundreds of people are denied their legitime right to UI benefits, because of little schemes like this, because of this obstruction which paralyzes the regular business of the House.
I simply cannot accept senator Hebert's comments about Bill C-21 not taking regional disparities into account.
The more the senators delay Bill C-21, the more harm they do to areas in Canada where unemployment is very high; the more they delay implementation of programs to reduce the gap denounced by Economic Council of Canada, the more the workers in these very regions will be penalized. Mr. Speaker, do we have to remind members that with Bill C-21 workers in regions with a high unemployment rate will be eligible to unemployment insurance benefits after only ten weeks of work?
If Bill C-21 had been enacted before January 1st, I know full well that the unemployed in areas with high unemployment would be treated more fairly.
Again, our reform is sensitive to fluctuations in the unemployment rate.

For example, in Comer Brook and Gander, Newfoundland, where the unemployment rate is in excess of 17 per cent, the variable entrance requirement prescribed by Bill C-21 would be reduced to 10 weeks instead of the 14 weeks currently in force. The same thing will apply in at least 14 other regions across the country.

Meanwhile, the democratically elected government has to wait for the other house, composed of non-elected senators, to let go of Bill C-21 and to let us take our responsabilities as members who have been elected to represent and manage this country.
By accusing the government of not taking regional disparities into account, the other house pleads ignorance and refuses to accept the democratic and economic changes that have occurred in our country over the past 12 years.
Again, the variable entrance requirement, which is one of the main amendments proposed in Bill C-21, takes regional disparities into account. One really has to wonder if senators have read the bill.
Mr. Speaker, when we announced our intention to end the tripartite funding of unemployment insurance, the Liberals in the other place once again tried to stir up the masses. Without going into the reasons why we were stopping our contributions to the UI Fund, they cried treason and claimed that the government was "abandoning ship".
I just heard an explanation that is totally false. Our decision to withdraw from UI funding has absolutely nothing to do with the free trade agreement that we signed. Once again, it is obvious that they have not done their homework. How can the government fund UI? Go on borrowing year after year, thereby increasing the deficit and the taxes to pay this growing debt? That is totally absurd and irresponsible. Another falsehood coming from my colleagues opposite and in the other place is that UI will be cut. That is really overstating and misrepresenting it. How many times do we have to repeat that Bill C-21 will not reduce the scope of the UI Plan at all? We are not cutting anything. Instead, we want to reallocate $800 million from the UI Fund to training programs and assistance for relocation, entrepreneurship and re-employment. This is no doubt the measure which best illustrates the distinction our government makes between funding active and passive measures. Providing funds to maintain the dependency of recipients on the state is a passive measure.

Upgrading advisory services, providing access to courses, and paying extended benefits to those who participate in training programs: such measures are what we mean when we talk about giving an active aspect to one of the most important programs in Canada. We believe that it is unacceptable for employers to be short of qualified labour at the same time so many people are looking for fulfilling jobs.
Even in my riding we are searching for these kinds of people. We are seeking to introduce strategies and mechanisms designed to encourage beneficiaries to get off the Catch-22 and achieve financial independence. As
March 12, 1990

many people have understood, we are stressing longterm lasting solutions.

The late Felix Leclerc appreciated the irony of a certain kind of government we will have no part of. "The best way to kill a man" he used to say, "is to pay him for not working". Our mandate is to find ways to help the unemployed find in themselves the resources that will change them into more dynamic individuals, because the challenges ahead require the involvement of this country's total human resources.
Mr. Speaker, if that political will of ours keeps on being labeled an abdication of our responsibilities, as the other place suggests, this is bad faith and bad partisanship.

I would like to mention another set of changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which millions of Canadians are impatiently waiting to see adopted. I am talking about the in-depth changes to the current maternity, sickness, and parental benefits program. These matters are of special importance to me. Because of the important human dimension of the relevant measures in Bill C-21-

The bill provides for the maintenance of 15 weeks of maternity benefits during the period surrounding childbirth. Added to this are an extra 10 weeks of parental benefits to natural or adoptive parents. Under the flexible provisions of the new legislation in some cases the total period of combined maternity, parental and sickness benefits available to parents could be extended up to 30 weeks.
What did the special committee of the other place have to say on that? A lot of good, blended with the cynicism that permeates the whole report. The government should have done so much sooner, or so they said. My answer is that this government works seriously, using in depth analysis and, more importantly, consultations with all the parties involved. When the government decides to bring in amendments, it does not do so within the narrow context of a single aspect of the Act. This is
Government Orders
because, quite simply, all the provisions in the Act are interdependent.
Our concern as far as the unemployment insurance is concerned, goes back many years ago, following the tabling of the Forget Commission's report whose findings did not probably meet the expectations of the time. Then there were the Grandpre Commission's recommendations which greatly inspired the government's Labour Force Development Strategy. The very thorough consultations carried out by this Commission throughout Canada had emphasized the urgent need to intensify the training and retraining of our labour force, in order to fully benefit from all the opportunities created by the Europe 92 free trade accord, in short, the globalization of world markets.
Our Labour Force Development Strategy is made up of an admittedly rather complex package of measures the scope of which compels us to look beyond the beginning of the 21st Century. It would be asking too much than to expect the unconditional support of the other place whose members include many who have been influenced throughout their lives by governments whose views did not go beyond their constituents' immediate concerns. That was really the issue over these past few months, during the endless debates surrounding the proposed amendments to the unemployment insurance legislation.
As other government speakers, I have tried to convince the elected and non-elected oppositions that all our actions dealing with labour-related issues will now be interconnected. The amendements to Bill C-21, therefore, are no exception, because they are consistent with the main themes which presided over the establishment of our Labour Force Development Strategy.
Employers' and employees' organizations have all expressed almost the same concern. Morally, we do not have the right to let our labour force lag behind that of other industrialized nations. As competition intensifies, it would be a mistake to close our eyes to the reality of world markets.
Training, retraining, skill improvement, increased flexibility on the part of both employers and employees are all vital concerns shared by public and private sector major representatives. But how could we meet their demands if the other place puts us in a totally disabling legislative straitjacket?

March 12, 1990
Government Orders

The time for discussion is past. It is time to act. We are trying to implement the principle which we have stated but, yet again, the other place is blocking us at every turn.
I deplore that we are being prevented from taking our responsibilities as the lawfully elected government. Time is running out and we are still not doing enough to give Canadians the tools they need to handle the challenges of the 21st century. It is unacceptable that for months at a time we should be forced to discuss the spirit and the letter of any proposed amendment to an act. I feel that we are currently being forced to take part in a pointless masquerade. I am very much afraid that this endless argument is making a mockery of the democratic exercise of power.

Ultimately, the government alone must be held responsible for actions it takes with full knowledge of the facts.
If time proves us wrong, we will bear the consequences according to the rules of the game. But our policies will have to be judged by the people, not by an unelected partisan group who tarnishes the reputation of an institution.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleages to make every effort to bring this debate to an end as soon as possible.
Thousands of people, employers, unemployed, unemployment insurance claimants, workers over 65, workers who desperately need training, in short the whole working community, are watching the House of Commons.
I am confident that if we take the proper decisions, in the interest of the majority, we will make up for the time that has been lost and help give Canada back the dynamism that has so often and so eloquently marked its history.


Mrs. Maheu:: Madam Minister, we have met this morning in caucus representatives from all Canadian labour unions from coast to coast. You mentioned earlier that workers seem to support the government regarding this Bill and asked us not to allow the Senate to block the passage of the Bill. This morning however, the unions and their representatives begged us to make sure to ask the Senate to kill that legislation which they consider as
somewhat prompted by the US because they see it as a subsidy. What do you think of all the unions in our country stating that you are yielding to US entreaties on account of the free trade deal? Does that not bother you that all the workers in this country have asked for the opposite of what you have asked this House?


Monique Vézina: First I must say that we are not reacting to what the United States are asking us to do. When we began the unemployment insurance reform we knew full well that skilled workers are in very short supply and that the reform would enable us to improve the skills of workers while they seek employment. I have here an article from my riding where the unemployment rate is unfortunately too high, 15 to 20 per cent, and where people say it is not easy to find skilled labour. They are trying to get a paper mill going and looking hard for workers, carpenters, welders and plumbers. Everybody wants them, but there are not enough qualified men and women. We are talking about plumbers and welders, and these are trades for which workers could be retrained. The government is aware that we need direct training.
We know very well that our system is too passive, that we must make it more active. And we also know full well that we need this reform to create longer-lasting jobs for the future to be able to compete on tomorrow's market. The reform has to be a concerted effort on the part of employers, employees and the private sector, and that is what we are working on. It is a reform, and in its latest report the Economic Council of Canada again stressed the need for more training, and they even suggetsed that our active unemployment insurance scheme be turned into a work insurance system. As a responsible government that is what we have been working on since 1984. At long last this reform will enhance the skills and abilities of Canadian workers. Wherever the unemployment rate is high our reform takes into account the particularities of each region. There is no reason why we should apologize for a bill which comes to grips with the reality and which was drafted after consultation with the various interests of the private sector, the employers and the employees.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the minister referred to helping workers in her last response. I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions. One, how will the forcing of workers to pay for training benefits help those workers in the future?
March 12, 1990

The government pays a share of that training cost and it is now talking about privatizing. In fact, Bill C-21 does privatize training and puts the burden of training on the backs of the workers and their employers. That may be the kind of active, as opposed to passive, effort the minister is talking about, the workers cariying that burden on their shoulders as opposed to the government sharing that burden.
The minister referred to the Economic Council of Canada asking for these changes. I have heard suggested today that the Canadian Labour Congress and the labour coalition are interest groups that do not represent what the government wants represented. Second, I would like to ask whose interests the Economic Council of Canada represents and why the government is listening to them instead of the four million workers the coalition of unions represents who presented their views today and the government would not hear?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, we are listening to the workers. Before going into politics in 1984,1 worked with employees in the professional sector. There is a growing need for training across Canada. With unemployment insurance reform, we are trying to put in place a labour force development strategy.
Unemployed workers do not pay for their own training. On the contrary, it is employers and workers who are paying for an insurance against future hardships.
As we know full well-and I'm sure you will agree with me-, all social workers admit that training must be provided and that co-operation is essential. That is what we are trying to do. We must ensure that the government has a role to play but that the strategy is defined by the private sector. That is why we have set up advisory committees to give us a training strategy. We are trying to meet current needs while preparing for the year 2000. We, Canadian men and women, must be competitive in the new markets and be ready to face these new challenges.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I am really at a loss for words when I listen to the minister give an explanation of what should be taking place in the employment sector. She has been represent-
Govemment Orders
ing the government sector for five years and recognizes the problems of underemployment, lack of skills training, and lack of skilled workers. She can stand there for five minutes explaining that now, after the government has cut out $770 million over the last five years in training programs, it has seen the light and is going to talk about what it is going to do with our labour market.
I cannot believe that the minister actually has an ounce of sincerity when talking about what we have to do in the country with our labour pool. She admits that in her own riding she has an unemployment rate of approximately 15 per cent. The only thing I can say is shame on her and shame on the government for the kinds of conditions that she is decrying. She has been in a position to do something about them over the last five years. It is a lot of poppycock and claptrap that we are hearing from this government.
One thing that should be made very clear, and there is no one in the House who does not believe it, is that we have to become more competitive by having a better trained labour market and that the government has to be proactive. It does not become proactive by turning around, cutting training programs, getting out of the labour market, getting out of its contribution and commitment, its fiduciary trust that it has in this particular program, and then stand up before this House, saying say that it represents all kinds of Canadians. A coalition that represents 4 million labourers in the country asked us to do something to get the government to pay attention.
Members of the government stand up and read the same speeches we heard at second reading, report stage, and third reading. I can see the parliamentary secretary to the minister here doing the same thing. He listens to the same stuff that we have been listening to over the course of the very little bit of debate that we were allowed.
I cannot believe that a government which asks for support at the same time turns around and, at the very first instance that we can have an opportunity to discuss this on substance, says: "We are going to impose closure once again". Let's stop this nonsense. If we are going to have a debate on substance let us get onto it. Let us get busy and talk about what we have to do with the unemployed.

March 12, 1990
Government Orders
Maybe, just maybe, it would be instructive for members on the government side to understand who the unemployed are in this country. If we are going to be talking about doing something with our labour market, then let us see what we have to do. Let us take a look at the figures that it has to address if, in fact, it is going to have any basis for making some of the assumptions that it is going to make.
Quite frankly, over the course of the last five years we have seen an enormous decline in the creation of good jobs. I pointed this out earlier this morning in a statement in the House. The government refuses to recognize that the free trade agreement has anything to do with the realities of the moment but we have lost 9,700 full time, good, solid jobs. These are the kinds of jobs that the minister says are lacking in her own riding. She cannot get plumbers, she cannot get welders. Where in the heck has she been for the last five years as a representative of the government? If the government is going to do something, do something worth while. Do not give us this garbage saying: "We are going to put $800 million into training".
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what that $800 million represents? It is coming out of premiums that are paid by both employees and employers. The government is washing its hands of the whole affair. What it is doing is increasing the proportion of moneys that it is going to take out of those premium payments in order to finance the obligations that it should have been meeting under Canadian Jobs Strategy programs.
For the edification of the members opposite, I add that the Estimates indicate that funding under CJS is approximately $1.5 billion. If the government goes through with Bill C-21, it will make itself a predator of up to an additional 15 per cent of funds from those premiums, funds that will equal $1.8 billion.
I dare say that if we are going to be talking about confidences and trust, then the parliamentary secretary opposite will attest to the veracity of what has been going on. Moneys have been removed from government contributions and taken from premiums to be allocated where? To those same programs that are still being cut. The government looked at a surplus in the unemployment
insurance scheme last year, ruled that is was surplus and said: "We are going to remove our contribution".
The parliamentary secretary knows that quite well. His minister stood up before the House and said: "You know what? We have to reform the unemployment insurance system". Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because we are in a deficit situation, not because we need to develop our labour market nor because we are getting together with private enterprise and labour.
Madam Minister might pay careful attention that those groups who called for complete withdrawal of Bill C-21 this morning represent 4 million Canadians. She does not need them. Her party does not need them. Her government does not need them. It does not need anybody. It is standing at 19 per cent in the polls, but that is okay. They are non-believers anyway. Maybe, in the next election, many of those people of the 4 million and up will take a look at what is going on with this particular bill, and the debate on this bill, and will decide to teach the government a lesson in numbers.
Certainly the government has indicated that it cares not a whit about literacy programs. It cares not a whit about preparing those workers who are in a disadvantaged position throughout the entire country. I do not know how many times we have stood before the House and pointed out to the Minister of Employment and the Minister of State that the illiteracy rate in this country among adults is one of the highest in the western world. We cannot possibly be competitive unless we address it.
What does the minister do? What does the Minister of Finance do in his latest budget? Cut programs. Where? Where they hurt most and where they do the greatest damage. We had an opportunity to do something for native Canadians, for Canadians of all origins and for Canadians who are crying for some kind of government program, direction and vision that says: "Look, we are going to provide a job". What kind of job? This is the government that five years ago said: "We are going to create jobs, jobs, jobs". What kind of jobs have we got? We have a 45 per cent increase in the kinds of jobs that are part-time, dead-end, marginal, seasonal and rely on help agencies.
The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism ought to be interested in this. He is one of the guys who is defending a 7 per cent increase in the goods and services tax that is going to do a heck of a lot to destroy
March 12, 1990

even those types of jobs that are maintained by an unemployment insurance system. They give an opportunity to provide people with the occasion to live in their area of origin and preference in this country, and maintain the population in the regions of Canada not close to Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and some of the other major centres.
We have to do something reasonable and worth while to maintain the opportunity of Canadians to move around the country, Canadians with full rights, full opportunities and full access to the equalities of the occasions and opportunities provided by our government. If our government is to make a sincere effort to ensure that all Canadians have equality of access then it has to be serious about an educational training program that takes into consideration the obligation to do what is right, to do what it must do in order to develop an industrial labour policy for all Canadians. My colleague from Saskatoon-Dundurn, who served on the legislative committee with me, knows very well that even those skilled labourers in Saskatchewan have very little opportunity in terms of finding a job in their own areas, even if they are skilled.
In times of recession such as this, there are, on average, 2,000 labourers per month leaving that province looking for greener pastures elsewhere. They will not find those greener pastures in Toronto where the average house costs $272,000 and where one needs a $70,000 down payment to qualify for a mortgage.
I do not know if we can take seriously some of the arguments we have heard from the other side of the House. The House leader talks about the illegitimate nature of the resolution of the Senate which states that the bill is fraught with problems and it is going to make the bill a little more palatable.
The minister says that the Senate has the legal and constitutional right but should not exercise it. I have never heard such garbage in my life. This government must think that everybody is stupid. It is certainly operating as if Canadians do not care. Canadians have a stake in this country and they want to see the government take action to ensure that their future is secure, that their future looks auspicious down the road and provides an opportunity for their kids as well as for every other person's kids.
Government Orders
There is a lack of concern and arrogant disdain with which the government treats all arguments regarding the variable entrance requirements, absolute scorn which it heaps on members on this side of the House, and I dare say from the NDP as well, who indicate there are some positive ways in which this government can give some kind of direction and purpose. That kind of scorn cannot be allowed to continue, especially under the guise of fighting members of the other place who have a duty, an obligation and a constitutional right to throw this bill back into the lap where it belongs. The Senate says: "Look, get it done and get it done right".
The government refuses to acknowledge a constitutional obligation in law, as well as in practice. Since 1941, the Unemployment Insurance Commission, our whole social security system, that income maintenance system that is the unemployment insurance, requires three parties: labour, industry and the government. But our government cavalierly opts out of its obligation. I do not know of a Canadian who would turn around and say "Yes, I applaud that because it allows you to pilfer some money out of the fund and to reduce a deficit which you have been so lax and incompetent in handling over the last five years".
I cannot believe that there would be one Canadian who would say that this government recognizes constitutionality. It pompously indicates through the House leader that it is the oracle of truth and that it understands constitutionality.
I cannot believe that there would be one Canadian who would for one moment accept a government that takes more than 3 per cent from the contributions to the fund and raises that to 15 per cent and accepts that that would be a constitutional, legal or moral thing to do. I am sorry if I mention morality. It is something that obviously is not in the vocabulary of members on the government side. Members opposite are probably ignorant when it comes to looking up that definition in the dictionary. Lest I become too sarcastic and I do not want to stray from the item at hand, the purpose of this particular debate is to point out that the other House has done the House of Commons and the people of Canada an enormous favour by suggesting that this bill be reviewed in its entirety. We should not be concentrating merely on the variable entrance requirement. This thing is flawed in principle because it does away with the whole

March 12, 1990
Government Orders
concept of government responsibility in the area of income maintenance and social security.
Government members opposite have laughed and they have scorned. They have put down any interventions by members on this side of the House who have suggested that perhaps there has to be a reason, a rationale, some sort of philosophy behind the government's desire to kill a system that has been an integral part of the Canadian character.
What is that objective? What is that philosophy? My friends on this side of the House, I think know only too well. They read the papers, but we are not allowed to accept them as any source of veracity. They read all the documentation that comes forward from the government researchers, from government institutions, from government departments, but we are not allowed to accept those as any sources of truth. The Minister of State for Employment and Immigration just told us: "Well, listen, none of that stuff matters". We cannot go to those areas. We cannot talk to our own researchers who tell us what Americans tell us, that is, with this bill the government is intending to ensure that our social security system falls in line with the American system.
What is it designed to do? It is designed to take into consideration all the negotiations regarding subsidies and to pre-empt any discussions on subsidies that we should be conducting sincerely and properly for the interest of all Canadians.
If there is any other reason, then all we have to do is listen to the minister's own words when she said: "We are only doing this because we have to cut the deficit". It is either one or the other. They are going to cut the deficit on the backs of all those Canadians who have relied on this because they have contributed to it. They have paid taxes to maintain a system of social security because they felt that was an obligation on their part as taxpayers and Canadians. They have done that as employers and as employees because they felt that was their obligation under this tripartite agreement.
We have a government with such arrogance that it turns around and not only walks away from the deal but then spits in the plate from which it has eaten and says: "We are doing this for your own good". If it is doing this for our own good, the best thing that it could possibly do
is to pack up and resign. Passing bills such as this in jack-boot fashion, closure after closure after closure, and then coming in here and giving us this poppycock about a hundred hours of debate across country is just absolutely mind boggling. There is not a Canadian out there who actually believes for a moment that these people are capable of telling the truth. There is not a one.
At no time like the present do we need pro-active legislation by a Government of Canada. I see none in this bill from this Government of Canada. I see none coming out of that ministry, that department which says that it shall create conditions, not only that will decrease unemployment but improve the level and quality of employment.
The minister sits here and tells this House that because there is 15 per cent unemployment in her riding and because there are one or two positions available for plumbers and welders that this is absolutely shameful. She says that we are going to make sure that over one million Canadians who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being either underemployed or unemployed bear the brunt of the government's desire to cut the deficit at the expense of all those who rely on a system in order to maintain whatever lifestyle that they have in whatever part of Canada.
I am not talking about people who live in St. Paul's or Forest Hill or Rosedale. I am talking about average Canadians, average Canadians who are quite happy to work daily, to take on part-time jobs. I pointed out that there has been a 45 per cent increase in the types of jobs being taken by people who feel a need to take on a second job to maintain their lifestyle.
Those people are crying for an industrial and economic strategy that is sorely and evidently lacking in this legislation. Yet the department, the government, the Prime Minister and his cabinet have decided they are going to take this club called Bill C-21 and with that club they are going to beat into submission all of us who are so unfortunate as to find ourselves at the mercy of those who would give us, at their whim and their will, the kind of jobs that are going to decrease in number progressively, as we have seen with the increase in the unemployment rate steadily over the course of this year, and in quality.
March 12, 1990

I thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that my time is running out. I would have loved to have given more to the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where to begin. I want to ask the hon. member three short questions and then he can fly for 17 minutes.
First, I want to ask him about the Global Economics he is wont to quote when he speaks about unemployment. Global Economics appeared before the Senate committee and recommended, contrary to what the member has said, that Bill C-21 be passed. It weighed the goods and the bads and said: "There is more good in this bill than there is bad". Therefore it urged the Senate to pass it. I would like him to comment on that in view of his previous comments about Global Economics.
Second, I want to ask him about the comments he made concerning the reduction in moneys for the Canadian Jobs Strategy. If he looks at the Main Estimates, Part III, 1990-1991, he will find there is $1.7 billion, the same as there was last year. There is no reduction in the Canadian Jobs Strategy at all.
Third, he mentioned something about Liberal researchers doing a comparison between the Bill C-21 legislation and the American system, and somehow it is all going to work out. I would like to see an analysis. We have an analysis of that. There are 52 different systems in the United States. I would like to see that Liberal analysis. I do not think he can put his money where his mouth is.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I do not think if we are going to wax in oratory we need to take the bait from every tick that falls upon us.
However, since we were talking about moneys in the Estimates, Bill C-21 refers and is directly relevant to the Estimates of 1989. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary would take care to take a look at the context under which we are actually debating this bill.
The parliamentary secretary may wave papers around, but it is not going to change what departmental officials and his own minister said before the committee. What they said before the committee in substance is what I repeated to you just a few moments ago.
Government Orders
As for Global Economics recommending that Bill C-21 fraught with evils as it is be accepted, it is one of those cases where you are either given a gun or a knife and you are asked to do yourself in; you are told to do the quicker of the two.
There is an organization, a coalition of labour representing four million Canadians that said this morning absolutely we should not accept the bill. Should I as a member of Parliament who is supposed to be attuned, like the hon. parliamentary secretary, to the whims of people be listening to Global Economics and not to four million Canadians? Is that what he wants me to do?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member with a great deal of interest. He certainly laid into the Conservatives, and rightly so.
The question I want to put to him is this: Is it not a fact that there is not a single principle in Bill C-21 that the Liberals themselves did not violate between 1974 and 1980?
Is it not a fact that in 1976 the Liberals reduced the maximum age for coverage from 70 to 65? Is it not a fact that the Liberals in 1976 reduced the benefit rate for claimants with families from 75 per cent of insurable earnings to 66 and two-thirds per cent, and they followed that up in 1979 by reducing it to 60 per cent?
Is it not a fact that they reduced the maximum weeks of benefits from 51 to 50 weeks in 1977? Is it not a fact that they removed the eight-week minimum attachment, the variable entrance requirement, from 10 weeks to 14 weeks in 1977? Is it not a fact that the Tories learned from the Liberals how to chop unemployment insurance and how to create hardship for the unemployed in this country?
The Tories did not learn that all by themselves. They had the models right across from them for 10 years, and now they are just carrying out the Liberal agenda. Is that not a fact?


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can say is out of deference to the age of the hon. member: I can only assume that he has done his research and that he is talking about historical events. If he is talking about historical events, we might perhaps take a look at what happened in 1789 and 1848 and then take a look at the reasons people from his party had to play second fiddle to the organizations which he purports to represent but which came to our party to look for assistance. Four

March 12, 1990
Government Orders
million Canadians coming to the Liberal Party for assistance on unemployment insurance must be a good sign that we are doing the right thing.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, my esteemed colleague has just spoken rather eloquently. When he was questioned by my colleague from the NDP, who should be known as the pope of the north, I guess we should be reminded that over the weekend the New Democratic Party sold its environmental principles so it can put on whatever hat it needs as it goes along.
As far as our colleagues on the other side are concerned, they can wave all the papers they want. They know what they can do with those papers. They can take them and put them on that part of their anatomy where paper belongs.
As far as my esteemed colleague over here is concerned, I know that he wanted to say more in his speech but because he ran out of time he did not have a chance to address the very pressing issue of education and training. He did not speak on that as much as he wanted to.
I would like to ask him how will Bill C-21 affect the training of our young people so that they can come into the job market and take their rightful places Canada. Would my esteemed friend please address that?


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the deference which he shows me.
In a word, not a whit. Not only does Bill C-21 not address the problems of education and training. What it does is wash its hands of the whole affair and says that the department will have an opportunity to determine what it will at some time in the future subject to some consultation, consultation which we have yet to see. No proposals have come forward. The minister herself has thrown up her hands and has said that the government refuses to do anything until this bill is passed and that until this bill is passed the government will be unable to come up with any kind of solution.
What my hon. colleagues knows, because of his former career, is that education is important and absolutely fundamental to creating a competitive labour force. The minister addressed this and admitted it in her introduction of her labour force development strategy way back
last April when said that 60 per cent of all jobs in the coming five years will require five years of post-secondary education and training. She does not address that in Bill C-21. All we have is some airy-fairy statements of some proposals that may emerge somewhere down the road, but it does not address the fact that the problems exist here today and have existed for five years.
What the government has to decide, and I can tell my hon. friend through you, Mr. Speaker, that it is no longer a question of simply saying, as my esteemed colleague opposite says: "This is a provincial matter. We wash our hands. Let us be Pontius Pilate about this". It is not a factor any more. It is not going to solve the problem by simply going off and buying some training programs over which it has no control and with which it has abdicated all interests in the development of the economy and labour.
The government has to have the courage to get involved in the training, get the programs together and do the proper consultation, but do not tell me it comes out of Bill C-21. Get your act together and do not give us a line.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is nice to speak in the House where there is a little chat-back and a little bit of action.
I rise in support of the motion put forward by the government House leader. While there are some ideas which we can agree with in the message from the other place, there is a basic conflict between most of these amendments and the intent of Bill C-21.
Bill C-21 has been held up long enough. The needs it addresses are too important to justify prolonged argument over detail. For this reason we believe that the responsible course is to recognize valid concerns of the Senate. However there are recommendations proposed by the Senate which we cannot accommodate. I want to discuss these briefly now, starting with amendment 2(a) (b) and (c).
The government is determined to do more than passively accept unemployment. We must help unemployed people get back to work and make it possible for them to contribute to the growth of this country. For this reason we have proposed to expand the present uses of unemployment insurance to provide training for more people, to allow for more people to retrain their skills
March 12, 1990

while unemployed and to help people get back to work faster.
Basically the Senate amendment says that it is okay for the government to use unemployment insurance funds to write income support cheques but not for anything else. In other words, they close the door on the so-called developmental uses. To put it less bureaucratically, they close the door on helping people to do more than just survive on unemployment.
A main goal of Bill C-21 is to assist the return to the workforce of people for whom unemployment is not an unchangeable fact of life but a condition which could be changed if certain obstacles were removed.
For instance, people who live in depressed areas where there are no jobs could move to areas where there are jobs, if they could only come up with the money to do so.
For instance, there are people who could find work in their own communities, if only they had the necessary skills.
For instance, unemployed experienced, energetic UI eligible people could realistically be self-employed if they could only get the helping hand to get started, people who in the long run might create more jobs for others.
Under Bill C-21 the government should have the option of using money from the UI funds to help people over these hurdles-to pay for training, to help with moving expenses, and to help launch small businesses.
Let us all be clear on two points. First, the funds spent this way would be well invested. A few thousand dollars spent in one year conceivably could save tens of thousands of dollars in future claims over the years. Second, given the deficit, this funding cannot be financed out of general revenues. The Liberal Senate amendments before this House obstruct these-


Mr. Samson:: And you are putting them out of work.


William James Kempling: Do you want to rise and speak? Why don't you not get up on your feet and speak?
Government Orders
The Liberal Senate amendments before this House obstruct these principles in general and in detail by insisting that we fund them from the central revenues where no money is available, and they would kill them at birth. In the case of relocation assistance, they require that no one be helped to move to an area with better opportunities until there is a firm job offer on the table, but this creates a catch-22 situation. How likely is it that an unemployed worker at one end of the country will be able to line up a definite job at the other end of the country? We would like to be more flexible and more realistic in this regard.
Amendment 3 from the other place deals with the right of appeal. We have such a right at the present time. If you believe you are a victim of an unsound decision about UI benefits you can appeal to the board of referees. This amendment goes further. It would extend the right of appeal beyond the benefits to the new developmental uses.
This is mixing apples and oranges. The question as to whether I entitled tox number of dollars for* number of weeks under the act when it arises lends itself to a judicial resolution.
Questions about whether a move to a given area at a given time will improve job prospects or whether training will be productive involve the informed judgment of counsellors in consultation with applicants. They must relate to the circumstances which vary. This amendment would complicate decision making. It would obstruct counselling. It would slow down the process to no useful end. The people who would be hurt the most would be unemployed Canadians trying to get back to work.
Amendments 4(B), (C) and (D) from the other place are also for the most part unhelpful but with modification provide basis for agreement. The Senate wants us to specify year by year, province by province, economic region by economic region, what we will spend on developmental use, and where we will spend it. They want an accounting after the fact that we can provide. They want a detailed account before the fact not only for each of the 10 provinces but for each economic region. We believe in planning too, and Bill C-21 allows for it within the limits of practicality and reality. It is pretty difficult to look into an area before the fact and in some of the remote areas in particular to try to estimate what is going to happen there.

March 12, 1990
Government Orders
The reality is that between the time you make your plan and the time the new fiscal year comes around situations can change, and they can change quite dramatically. Markets can change. Product lines and skill requirements can change. Superimpose that on the fact that for UI planning purposes there are no less than 62 economic regions in Canada, each with different needs and situations. Locking yourself into too detailed a blueprint, one drawn up a year in advance, is not the way to meet those needs effectively. To be truly and effectively responsible we need the flexibility that Bill C-21 provides.
It comes to this: we cannot agree to a proposal that would set plans in stone a year ahead and which in any case would be speculative. We are prepared to meet the concerns expressed in the Senate amendment by elaborating the yearly plan to incorporate more detail but not beyond the limits of what is practical. That means an estimate, not a plan covering the 10 provinces and the 2 territories.
Amendment 4 (D) would make the planning process a political football. Each plan each year would be the subject of a debate in both Houses subject to rejection by either or both.
Furthermore, we note that if either House does not act within 10 sitting days the regulations would expire. In short, we are asked to approve not only the hobbling of the planning machinery, but to sanction a veto by the other place on regulations that can affect the livelihood of thousands of Canadians who need our help.
Amendment 5(A) from the other place concerns the qualification period for people who, without just cause, leave one job to go to another.
Here again distinctions are essential. Many people who quit their jobs in this way do so because of intolerable conditions or other compelling circumstances. There are many reasons a person should be allowed to leave a job without a penalty. That is not the issue. The issue is not even the right of anyone at any time to quit a job without just cause. The issue is whether the people who do so should be supported by all the people who pay unemployment insurance premiums, whether these people should pay a bill which has been running at more than $1 billion a year.
The related issue is whether the deterrents now in place to discourage this practice are effective. Bill C-21 will increase the deterrents. One way it will do it is by setting the disqualification period at seven to twelve weeks. The amendments proposed by the Liberal senators on the other hand favour the status quo. They would keep the deterrents at their present inadequate level. In effect they support those who want to use UI as a free ride at everyone else's expense.
Amendment 6 from the other place is about third party contracting. Bill C-21 envisages the use of third party contractors to services such as training administration. Logically, we say, their operations should be funded from the same source as Canada Employment centre administration, from the general UI fund. The Senate amendment would require these administrative expenses to be paid out of the 15 per cent portion of the UI fund earmarked for training relocation and other development uses. Obviously every dollar spent on administration would be $1 less for developmental measures. We do not think that is a good amendment.
Amendment 7 from the other place runs counter to one of the main goals of Bill C-21, namely, to train more workers and counter the wider consideration of reducing the federal deficit. In the April 1989 budget the government announced its decision to put UI on a self-supporting basis. Continuing to support it from general revenues is not an option that is consistent with cutting the deficit. The money just is not there.
In effect Bill C-21 says that those who benefit from the UI program should pay for it. That means not just Canadian workers but Canadian employers. The Senate amendments reject that approach. It says that drafters are "mindful of the government's stated goal of deficit control". Mindful or not, it requires that the government, a convenient euphemism for the Canadian taxpayer, should shoulder 50 per cent of the cost of what are commonly referred to as regional benefits.
This amendment is inconsistent with deficit reduction. It contradicts the principle that programs should be paid for by those who benefit from them; in this case employers and employees. We have an even more basic problem with this proposal. The House of Commons cannot accept an argument which essentially says that although the government has the constitutional right to reduce the deficit in abstract terms, the right evaporates
March 12, 1990

when we get to specifics, that the Senate can stop the government from cutting the deficit by reducing spending on any given program. We cannot tolerate that.
I pass now to Amendment 9 from the other place. The situation of commercial fishermen in Atlantic Canada particularly is virtually unique. Their work is seasonal. Their resource base and their markets are fickle. The industry is plagued with overcapacity. The uniqueness of the fishing industry is recognized in the unemployment insurance system. Special regulations cover the people who work in it. The continued existence of these regulations is not in question. The issue is whether we should accept the proposition that these regulations be subject to review, debate and approval or rejection in the House of Commons and the Senate. The issue is whether we give the Senate a new power under the Unemployment Insurance Act, the power to veto these regulations. That change is neither necessary nor desirable.
Senate amendment No. 9 concerns the funding of fishermen's UI programs. At present, fishermen put in $1 of UI premiums for every $20 they draw out in benefits. That is a function of instability, which it goes with the territory. The issue is which particular funding source the money should come from.
To sum up, some of the ideas coming to us from the other place merit consideration. We can accept them without difficulty. Others run 180 degrees counter to the intent of this government and, more important, to the will of this elected House. We want to move to a solvent soundly-based system and do so in ways consistent with reducing the deficit. These amendments obstruct that effort.
We want to modernize the system to meet current needs. These amendments cling to the status quo. We want a more flexible system and these amendments would entrench rigidity. We want to remove disincentives from the system and these amendments would perpetuate them. We want the UI to function both as a bridge back to employment, and as an important income support. These amendments run counter to that goal. We want to address the urgent national need to develop our human resources to meet the needs and the challenges of the decade ahead. These amendments ignore that issue.
Government Orders
Finally, we want the will of the elected members of this House to prevail. These amendments would frustrate that will. For all these reasons, I support this motion by the government House leader and I urge my fellow members to do the same thing.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I just cannot see the hon. member if people rise around her. The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam.


Joy Langan: I am standing, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. The hon. member travelled across this country with the committee and, on many occasions, turned his back on the workers who were making presentations. It is in the transcripts of the committee hearings that he felt that these workers were vested interest people and were not really representative of Canadians.
We just heard the Minister of State telling us that in fact this government listens to the workers. If the government does indeed listen to the workers, could he indicate to us which workers in this country it listens to, when and how?


William James Kempling: I hardly know where to begin, Mr. Speaker. There is a fallacy out there-


Joy Langan: If you listened at the committee you would know.


William James Kempling: Do you want me to answer the question? There is a fallacy out there with people in the NDP. They think every worker in Canada belongs to a labour union. They don't. The vast majority of workers in Canada do not belong to a labour union.
We did listen to the brief put forward by the CLC. We listened to it about 75 times across this country.


Joy Langan: You didn't hear them.


William James Kempling: We heard what they said because the same brief was repeated 70 times, I am sure, from coast to coast, by every local labour council in the country. We heard what they said. We did not agree with it. The bulk of what they had to say was based on an interpretation of some figures by Statistics Canada that were interpreted by Global Economics. They all quoted that.
The hon. member who asked the question spent endless time in committee pirouetting on the head of a pin trying to get people from Statistics Canada to agree with her interpretation of the numbers put forth by

March 12, 1990
Government Orders
Statistics Canada. She tried to get a member of the staff of Statistics Canada to agree with her and he said he would not put that interpretation on it at all.
The reason why I did not take too much account of some of the things that were said was because they were based on a wrong interpretation of the numbers that we saw. We had a different interpretation. We believed what we read into it. We did not believe the interpretation put on it by the member, by the CLC or by many others who came before us.
What amazes me is that when Global Economics appeared before the Senate committee, they went through all their brief and as it states in the record, said: "After having said all this, in the final analysis we think the Senate should pass this bill. There is more good in it than there is bad and it is better for the country to get it passed and into place."


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the Canadian Labour Congress and the other unions that asked to speak to the government today represent four million workers. If you take the average number of families in this country, we are talking about 14.5 million Canadians for whom those people were speaking.
I would like to talk about the numbers that the hon. member has dismissed out of hand, saying that his interpretation was not the same as other people's interpretation. Not one time, in the House, in the committee hearings or in the hearings in the other place, has the government been able to prove that the Canadian Labour Congress, StatsCan figures are wrong. Not once has the government proven that any one of the figures given to us were incorrect.
I would like to ask the hon. member if the Canadian Labour Congress and that group of union leadership represents 14.5 million Canadians, and his government cannot specifically disprove the CLC's figures, how he can stand in this House and say that he is representing the needs of the people of Canada.


William James Kempling: That is the most disjointed question I have ever heard. The member should go back to the hearings we had here in Ottawa. She was there. She spent endless time questioning the deputy minister and the representative from Statistics Canada and they gave her the interpretation they put on those numbers. They
certainly did not accept hers. Hers are the same as those of the CLC and we just do not accept them.


Joy Langan: Disprove them.


William James Kempling: Can you give proof? You have not given any proof at all. All you have done is take some numbers which have been interpreted by the CLC and say that is truth. I say it is not truth.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to clarify what he has said about the whole question of benefits for self-employed fishermen. This is one of the very key elements of the Senate report, as I understand it, and basically the intent is to preserve, as the parliamentary secretary knows, the government's contribution for this component of UI benefits.
What is the parliamentary secretary's view and what is the government's commitment to unemployment insurance benefits for self-employed fishermen. Are these fishermen going to remain part of the unemployment insurance program or is this the first step toward getting them off the program and off benefits? I would like to ask him that, in light of the crisis which is facing the fishery in Atlantic Canada.


William James Kempling: Everyone knows there is a crisis in Atlantic Canada with the fisheries. We are all aware of it. We all regret it. Fish do not vote. We cannot tell them where to come. We have accepted that amendment in the Senate proposal to put the regulatory portion of fishermens' benefits into the statute. That is one of the amendments we have accepted, and I think that is a good amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, just a few words concerning the resolution before the House today. I must say the reaction of the Government of Canada to the Senate proposals is really one that says it does not care about the unemployed in Canada. The Government of Canada, by reacting the way it has to the Senate proposal, is saying that it wants to cut people out of the unemployment insurance system.
March 12, 1990

The Government of Canada wants to discriminate against people from one part of this country. It does not care about the high unemployment areas of Canada. Bill C-21, should really be entitled "What side of the line do you live on"?
The government has refused to address the issue in its response to the Senate. Under the previous legislation, a repeater, which is what the majority of people are, and if they lived in an area where the unemployment rate was higher than 11.5 per cent, in order to qualify for unemployment insurance they needed only 2.5 months in a qualifying period.
Under this bill, if you live in a region of Canada in which the unemployment rate is below 15 per cent, you need more than 10 weeks to qualify. That is quite a basic change, is it not? That is quite a saving of money by the Government of Canada.
Under the existing law, if you live in an area in which the unemployment rate was below 11.5 per cent, you need more than 10 weeks to qualify. Under this bill, if you live in a region in which the unemployment rate is less than 15 per cent, you need more than 10 weeks to qualify.
The Senate objected to the fact that the government has rewritten the unemployment insurance boundary lines in Canada. In other words, when a person now walks into the unemployment insurance office, under this legislation the unemployment insurance officer will ask where that person lives. Never before was that question asked in a high unemployment area. The unemployment rate in high unemployment areas undoubtedly was always over 11.5 per cent. But now, with this change, in an area that has less than 15 per cent unemployment you need more than 10 weeks; over 15 per cent, you need 10 weeks.
The government decided to rearrange the lines. It put a metropolitan area in the middle of a zone so that if you live two miles away from a city, then you are going to need what they need in the city to qualify. Then it drew other lines in each province in such a way that it separated economic zones.
Let us look at high unemployment areas, for example. People there work on a boat on the high seas; a lake boat in central Canada; an airplane that flies over the ocean.
Government Orders
They work in the woods in the middle of nowhere; or in a mine somewhere. That is regional employment. Mr. Speaker, I have just told you what the vast majority of people do in the high unemployment areas. They do not work in their community. They work in areas away from their community. Invariably that is the case.
Now, under this new legislation, you qualify depending on where you live. Let us take, for example, a group of people who are working in the forests and have to apply for UI under this new legislation. If they live along a short stretch of road at Northern Arm, one small community and Phillips Head, another community a mile away, the qualifying UI rate varies. You qualify in one community but you do not qualify in the next community.
It is discrimination based upon where you live. It neglects the fact that the majority of people in rural areas of high unemployment do not work where they live. That, Mr. Speaker, is what the Government of Canada failed to address in the proposal from the Senate.
The Senate, in its response, went half way and said there is too much of a problem in making qualifications depend on each province and on which side of the line one lives on.
The Government of Canada drew the lines in a very unusual fashion. In Newfoundland it drew it along the old roadbed of the railway. We have heard the expression, "Which side of the tracks do you live on?". That expression, under this new legislation, really hits home because now it is "which side of the roadbed do you live on?"
Depending on what side of the line one lives, if you do not have enough weeks to qualify, the government has a training program in which you can qualify. That is, if you have not worked for the previous 30 weeks you can qualify to be trained for something. Someone who works in the woods cannot go into the training program to learn anything about the woods. That person has to learn about something else like carpentry, or electricity for the next 16 weeks, at a low wage.
For those who do qualify under this legislation, the government will apply clause 21 of this legislation, which is not insurable employment at all. You end up at the end of the system, on welfare.

March 12, 1990
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue a question I raised in this House concerning criminal organizations that use modem financial services to hide the illegal source of their funds, and the means at the disposal of governments and financial institutions to control to some extent those transactions by making money laundering activities more difficult for criminals and to help enforcement bodies.
Mr. Speaker, billions of dollars of drugs profits cross the Canada-US border each year in order to be laundered in this country's financial institutions.
The process will accelerate as the United States strengthen their money-laundering control legislation in their jurisdiction.
As you know, the existing legislation in Cqpgda does not address that problem. The Banks Act includes some provisions on setting up and maintaining information files, as do the acts regulating other financial institutions.
However, the kinds of information kept in those files are those required by banking practices, rather than those that would indeed point to typical money-laundering transactions.
The Act includes no disclosure provisions, and under the current legislation, financial institutions that would disclose information would be in violation of banking confidentiality or other such rules concerning the disclosure of personal financial information.
This means that existing provisions serve to protect the banks rather than help law enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, over these last 15 years, studies on organized crime done mainly in United States but also in Canada, the United Kingdom and the Australia by those
who are seeking ways to control the power and wealth of criminal organizations have emphasized the important role of financial institutions in this regard.
In order to make use of the enormous sums of money they earn illegally, criminals must go through financial services, and in fact they have turned to financial institutions that also serve legitimate businesses.
It is extremely difficult to differentiate legal funds from illegal funds when a series of financial transactions are quickly processed through international financial networks.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the tradition of bank secrecy which surrounds financial transactions contributes to the problem, especially when funds arrive in countries where their identity is protected by strict laws on bank secrecy.
In 1970, the U.S. Congress passed a law obliging financial institutions to keep certain files and to declare certain financial transactions, namely monetary transactions of over $10,000 and the entry into or exit from the United States of amounts of $5,000 or more.
As you know, there are civil and criminal penalties for violations.
Bill C-61 contains measures to fight the laundering of the proceeds of organized crime as well as serious drug offences and the possession of goods obtained as a result of such offences.
The decision to criminalize the laundering of drug money and seize the bank assets of persons suspected of drug trafficking has made it possible to reduce the flood of hundreds of millions of dollars that were going through banks in Toronto and Montreal but, as you know, implementation of these control measures remains inadequate.
According to a recent report tabled in the U.S. Senate, last October American banks pointed to a surprising difference between the outflow of funds to Canada, estimated at $1.5 billion and the inflow of Canadian funds into the United States, which totalled over $4.5 billion.
This Bill does not oblige banks or other financial institutions to register and report to the authorities all major cash or foreign currency transactions.
March 12, 1990

Without ways to detect transactions involving major sums of illicit money, it is difficult to implement legislation against money laundering.
According to a report from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, corruption in the banking system is not unusual.
An unscrupulous bank manager even helped a major group of heroin traffickers buy bank drafts for a value exceeding $40 million. These drafts where then deposited in various financial institutions abroad.
In other cases, lower-ranked employees open and manage bank accounts at their place of work in order to launder drug money. The city of Drummondville even seconded a member of its police force to the RCMP to protect a mafia informant who testified on Canadian and Quebec television that it was very easy to transfer money between American and Canadian banks.
Consequently, whatever the means used, once drug money gets in the banking system, it can be tranferred almost immediately, anywhere in the world by the sophisticated electronic equipment used by financial institutions. The police is aware of such transactions, but has no power to act. As for the financial institutions, they prefer to turn a blind eye than to risk loosing a client to a competitor. So, the minister announced on January 18 the establishment of a joint government and private sector advisory committee on money laundering. Such initiative certainly is a step forward in the battle against traffickers. In Switzerland, as you know, they have what they call the "Convention de diligence", a kind of gentleman's agreement between bankers. By virtue of that agreement, they are required to ascertain that their client is truly the holder of his capital and to know its origin.
However, to work around the agreement it only takes a lawyer or a trust company to open an account on behalf of their client using the protection provided by professional secrecy.
So, flaws still exist in spite of measures put in place. Mr. Speaker, my question to the Hon. Minister of State for Finance is this: to engage a real fight against the power and the wealth of criminal organizations, what action will Canada consider with regards to regulated and non regulated financial institutions, the small cashing services and currency exchange facilities insceasingly
Adjournment Debate
used by those organizations, along with international electronic fund tranfers?


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the government believes that money laundering constitutes a very serious problem. I can assure the hon. member that we will continue to use the most recent technology and the most efficient methods to fight this curse.
The government already took some initiatives. For example, Bill C-61, concerning proceeds of crime, recently came into force. This new law makes it illegal to launder the proceeds of crime, it allows duly authorized police officers to search and seize any property suspected of being illegally obtained, and it relieves the banks of all responsibility when disclosing information on activities they believe to be related to money laundering. Also in accordance with this Act, criminal assets can be confiscated.
Our government has also passed a law concerning the implementation of cooperation treaties in criminal matters in order to further cooperation between Canadian judicial authorities and their foreign counterparts. The Treaty on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between Canada and the United States was concluded, ratified and came into effect on January 24, 1990. We have signed similar agreements with Australia and the United Kingdom, and negociations with other countries, including the Group of Seven, except Japan, are going very well.
In December 1988, Canada signed the UN Convention of Illicit Drug and Psychotropic Substance Trafficking, which puts great emphasis on international cooperation for tracking down and confiscating revenues from such trafficking.
The Bank for International Settlements has also examined the question of money laundering. In January 1989, Canada and other countries represented on the Cooke Committee of the Bank for International Settlements signed a document entitled "Prevention of the use of the banking system for the laundering of proceeds of crime". This agreement provides for a better identification of clients, a greater compliance with foreign laws, cooperation with judicial authorities and adequate training of people involved in the financial system.
At the Economic Summit held in Paris in July 1989, heads of states vowed to fight against drug trafficking, insisting that financial measures would be a concrete and encouraging approach towards this goal. They decided to

March 12, 1990
Adjournment Debate
create a financial task force composed of representatives of countries participating in the summit and of other industrialized countries. Canada has taken an active part in the work of this task force, whose mandate is to evaluate the results of the cooperation measures already taken in the fight against the use of the banking system for the laundering of money and to examine other preventive measures in this area. Members of the task force have met several times and their recommendations will be made public soon.
On February 9, 1990, the Advisory Committee on money laundering created under the National AntiDrug Strategy held its first meeting. This committee's mandate is to review our mechanism to prevent money laundering, to identify areas where improvements could be made and to inform the government on the benefits of the different alternatives to deal with money laundering. Another mandate of the Committee is to act as an advisory link between industry and govemement in technical matters and to publicize the steps taken by Canadian financial institutions.
At its first meeting, committee members took the opportunity to unanimously endorse a statement affirming their complete support for the fight against money laundering and undertook to keep all the accounting records on financial transactions needed by the RCMP and other police forces to investigate and take moneylaundering cases to court. In its coming meetings, the Committee will be asked to deal with various ways to fight money laundering. The decisions on solutions to the problem of money laundering and their implementation will be made in the light of the Committee's recommendations.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak on behalf of veterans with respect to the recent budget. I am speaking on behalf of veterans not just because I am the veterans' affairs critic or because I am associate defence critic or because I have spent most of a lifetime in uniform myself
but because I want to put on the record the concerns that have been expressed to me.
I do not want to mince words and I do not want to play politics with this particular issue, but the fact is that some veterans will have to pay more and some veterans will lose specific benefits as a result of the over-all budget. I appreciate what the hon. minister has said in that regard. He should also know that tremendous representation is being made to me as the critic. It is very important to represent the views of those veterans who are concerned about what is happening.
I said I served in uniform, Mr. Speaker, but I did not serve in war and I was pleased that I did not have to. Shortly after I was bom, in September, 1939, World War II was upon us and our country was passing through what was described by many to be the shadow and the storm of war. This dark hour was illuminated by the white light of human courage. The bitterness of suffering was alleviated by the inspiration of patriotism, and the dark cloud overhead carried a silver lining that foretold the brightness of a coming dawn. That brightness was the 1.75 million Canadian men and women who saw service in wars in this country.
I use the beginning of World War II as an example. I can also use World War I as an example and I think I can do no better than to refer to a veteran who happens to be in my riding. I know him very well. He is 93 years of age and he served in Gallipoli and at Beaumont-Hamel. This gentleman's name is Mr. Ronald Dunn. He has just written a letter in which he points out that he is 93 and that he is paying $240 a month but expects that is going to change before too long. He goes on to say that: "you are now tiying to save money by raising our rent to $420 a month."
There is a rationale, if you look at it as a chartered accountant or as a financial expert, which I suppose could make sense. I am not too sure it makes a lot of sense to Mr. Dunn who has a limited income and who now sees his rent being doubled with, to my understanding at this point, not much of a chance of phasing in.
To add to the feeling that is behind this, I want to quote some of the things that Mr. Dunn described from when he was serving as a young boy in Beaumont-Hamel, where as many people remember most of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment was wiped out, and in Gallipo-
March 12, 1990

li. I have only seen movies of Gallipoli and Mr. Dunn's description is very vivid.
He said: "We had a hard time of it, no question about it. You had to be iron to stand it. In the trenches were millions of black flies and crawlers swarming over the men's bodies. There was very little to eat. Toward the latter part of November, the rain came and filled the trenches. Following this, the snow fell and the freezing temperatures came. The men suffered from dysentery, diarrhea and lice. Some men died while others had to be taken from service to recuperate. These are the things the men had to face, besides fighting the Turks".
I could go on. I hope I have left a vivid thought of what our veterans went through. I am sure the minister will be happy to know I am not going to go into a long dissertation about how heartless and callous this particular cut was. I appreciate the position the minister must have been in when he had to give up his share of the budget because I understand that everybody was told they had to give something.
That is fair enough. But I think you draw a line at a certain point in time where you cannot give up something. In the case of veterans who are not represented except by politicians in the House of Commons, they cannot defend themselves. Thus it is up to the opposition to make the point that this was not a smart move. Morally, it was not a smart move in the sense of care. Quite frankly, I do not think it was even a politically smart move.
I want to quote now from a song or a verse. The members in the House may recall there was a song with the chorus: "And the band played Marching Matilda. I remember it. It is a very striking song and a very striking poem about a young boy who served at Gallipoli and who came back home to live. He had no legs when he got home. When he sat in his house and remembered all these things, he wished he had not lived. But he did write the song in which he talked about his joining as a boy and the hardships such as those which Mr. Dunn went through.
The last verse is very vivid. He talks about his memories now, as an old man. The last verse goes something like this: "And now every year I sit on my porch and I
Adjournment Debate
watch the parade pass before me. I watch my old comrades, how proudly they march, reliving their deeds of past glories. I watch my old comrades, tired, stiff and sore. They are forgotten heroes of a forgotten war. And the young people ask, 'What are they marching for'? And I ask myself the same question".
Mr. Speaker, they are marching to remind us that we have had peace, liberty and freedom for so long that we may forget that the price of that was blood. It is not any accident that the colour of the poppy is red. They are marching to remind us of their comrades who did not come home. They are marching to remind us, I suppose more than anything, to pay attention to letters like the one that we got from Mr. Ronald Dunn from Bonavista, who served at Gallipoli and Beaumont-Hamel. He ends up his letter by saying: "You are going to charge now $420 a month. Is this not a strange way of showing your appreciation for what we did? The money you save, will it be worth hurting us again? Haven't we suffered enough during and since the war? It seems to me as if we have to pay our debt all over again".
That is what we are marching for. I am quoting what the man himself said.


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the opposition critic for, once again, allowing me the opportunity to put some facts on the table for the public and to get the facts on the record as I did in the House on Friday.
I am finding that the more the veterans hear of the reasons for the changes, the more they understand why the changes were made. The Dominion President of the Royal Canadian Legion and the Chairman of the National Council of Veterans Association consider the charges we will be making for board and lodging to be fair and reasonable. They know the facts. I think it is important that we try to explain that tonight.
The changes in the charges for room and board are in the interest of ensuring equality of treatment among our veterans. More than 70 per cent of all non-pensioned veterans are presently paying $8 a day for room and board. The other 30 per cent are paying nothing because of inconsistent regulations. A lot of veterans have objected to this unequal treatment, and rightly so.

March 12, 1990
Adjournment Debate
On April 1, 1990, everyone will pay the $240 a month. Every veteran will be treated the same in every province of Canada. I think the veterans would appreciate that. Once more, I must emphasize that all those in an institution because of war-related disabilities pay nothing now and are going to pay nothing after April 1, 1990, or in the future.
When the rates rise in April, 1991, they will be the lowest rates in any jurisdiction in Canada; $14 a day for room, meals, laundry, recreation and nursing care, and all the rest that they receive. That is nothing close to the $130 a day it really costs on average to maintain a veteran in a chronic care bed in Canada. That is $4,000 a month, or almost $50,000 a year.
I repeat the promise that veterans will not be worse off financially should they have to move out of their own homes and into an institution. Our income protection features will take care of that.
With regard to the Veterans Independence Program, I again appreciate the opportunity to tell the House with pride that our VIP payments have increased by 60 per cent this year alone. They will double in another four years. That is hardly what I call scrimping on our veterans.
I also want again to put to rest any fears veterans might have over the consequences of the removal of heavy housekeeping from our lengthy list of services under VIP. Should there be any legitimate health and safety requirement on the part of an individual for the provision of a service presently available under heavy housekeeping, we will make sure that particular service in reinstated.
I believe that even the hon. critic for the opposition will agree that no veteran need be alarmed by the removal of this one item from an extremely generous and far-sighted catalogue of services. I certainly hope he realizes that the changes which have been made are in the interest of fairness, equity and justice for our veteran community.
As Doug Fisher, who was a member of Parliament in this House and a noted columnist now, himself a veteran put it: "No nation has treated those who served in its wars more generously than Canada". That was true yesterday, it is true now and will be true in the future.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to elaborate on my question of February 7 to the Prime Minister. My question, which the minister responsible for ACOA addressed on the Prime Minister's behalf, dealt with the so-called rescue plan worked out by the federal and Nova Scotia governments with National Sea Products for the fish plant in Canso.
This agreement, which was made without consultation with the people of Canso or the fish plant workers there, essentially contributed some $3 million to National Sea Products, in return for which the company was going to keep the plant open at a bare minimum, employing some 150 workers for four months of the year, after which they would give up their work for another 150 for four months of the year and then they would all go on unemployment insurance. This is a reduction from an 800-person workforce.
The trawler port was to be closed and fish was to be trucked in to Canso. One element of the plan was to allow the company to not pay the severance benefits which were to be paid to workers, because previously the plant was to be shut down. The bail-out essentially allowed National Sea Products to improve its assets in Canso and to allow a certain portion of the workers to draw unemployment insurance benefits. As one of the local commentators described it: "If this is a rescue plan, heaven help the town they decide to abandon".
The deal was rejected by the labour unions, the representatives of the fish plant workers and the trawler-men, and it has been rejected as a cruel hoax by the people of Canso. More recently it has been repudiated publicly by none other than the Premier of Nova Scotia himself, which led many to wonder after reading the comments he made to the press two weeks ago if he was, in fact, awake when the so-called rescue plan was being worked out.
Now we have a new Minister of Fisheries, who began in a promising way by visiting Canso and who won high praise in the local press for doing so. He has since become, however, infected with the disease of his predecessor which is touting the company line and saying: "The problem is too many fishermen chasing too few fish, and there is nothing more that the government can do about it".
March 12, 1990
[Stage Direction]
The implied message, of course, is: "Sorry, Canso, but this government does not believe that you have a future in the fishery. You will simply have to go the way of Schefferville." That is not good enough. It is not good enough for the fish plant workers in Canso. It is certainly not good enough for the trawler workers in Canso whose port will be closed as a result of this deal. That is the point that I want to address in the remainder of these remarks.
The minister for ACOA replied to my supplementary on February 7 by saying that I was advocating what he called an entirely new concept to fisheries port quotas. This is a good place to set the record straight on what I was advocating.
In fact, it is quite unnecessary to institute a whole new concept of fisheries management in order to satisfy the simple basic requirement that Canso trawlermen be allowed to land their fish in Canso. It merely requires that the Minister of Fisheries exercise his responsibilities under the Fisheries Act.
Section 7 of the Fisheries Act states subject to Section 2 the Minister of Fisheries may, in his absolute discretion, wherever the exclusive right of fishing does not already exist by law, issue or authorize to be issued leases or licences for fisheries or fishing wherever situated or carried on.
Under the enterprise allocation program, which is one of the components of the allocation of fish and fish licensing and which determines the allocation for offshore vessels, the minister can and in fact does attach conditions to the issuance of enterprise allocations.
In fact, he specifies the kinds of vessels and the number of vessels which can be fished under the licences. He can and does specify the fish that can be caught and where they can be caught, and the fishing gear.
He specifies a number of other matters. In the time remaining, the point I want to come to is that what is required of this Minister of Fisheries is simply that he attach a condition to the enterprise allocation which would oblige the fishing trawlers that fish out of Canso to land their fish in Canso, rather than land their fish somewhere else and truck it into Canso. That is entirely consistent with the Enterprise Allocation Program. The minister can do it. It is one of the simple recommendations which would preserve the Canso plant. It is the
Adjournment Debate
form of leadership which has been conspicuously lacking in this government.
We should not forget that when the Liberal government restructured the fishery back in 1982 it had a lot to say about National Sea Products and helped that company out in order to allow a fish plant in Canso to be maintained viable. What we need from this government is a commitment to communities such as Canso and to use a little bit of imagination in coming up with a program to save communities which have no other alternative but to remain in the fishery. That is what I am counting on the new Minister of Fisheries to provide.
Mr. Howard Crosby (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by responding to the remarks the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso made with respect to the closing of the plant at Canso in the province of Nova Scotia.
I want to remind him and the people of Canso that when National Sea Products Limited announced the closure of the plant in December of 1989, there were to be no jobs at all. As a result of negotiations by the federal government, by the government of Nova Scotia with National Sea, a new arrangement was made whereby 150 jobs to be shared by 300 plant workers were created and were to be continued on a long-term basis.
Nobody suggested that this was an ultimate solution, but what it did was breathe hope and some life into what otherwise would have been a closed fish plant.
I want to remind the member, too, that in 1970 this same difficulty occurred when Acadia Fisheries closed down in Canso and the plant was left unoperated. It was only when the Government of Nova Scotia and other governments intervened to again breathe some life into the fish plant that a new life was created and the fish plant continued until this latest crisis.
I want to remind the member that there is some passage of time that has to be taken into account when one is being so critical of these attempts to revive what is obviously, by all agreement, a difficult situation.
Everyone has said since the beginning of this difficulty that there are no magic solutions. You do not need to take my word for that. That was the subject of a column in the Toronto Globe and Mail by Jeffrey Simpson who commented on the emergency debate on the Atlantic fisheries held in December of 1989. He pointed out that rhetoric provides no solution. He said:

March 12, 1990
Adjournment Debate
Rhetoric aside, the opposition's major alternative seemed to be to force National Sea Products-to spare the closed plants by spreading fish supplies around. How that could and should be done with a 1990 catch 45,000 tonnes below that of 1989 remained unaddressed, for the good reason that there is no answer.
That is the problem. There are no magic solutions. Do not take my word for it. It has been confirmed by a great many experts.
Let me deal very briefly with the matter of community quotas, or port quotas as the member called them. This arrangement has been dismissed by his own colleague in the Senate, Senator Michael Kirby, who was the author of the task force on Atlantic fisheries back in 1982. He said:
The community quota scheme is completely irrational from an economic point of view since it implies, first, that all plants must be subsidized, and second, that capacity adjustment would not take place anywhere.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is not the government that is turning down community quotas or port quotas, it is his own
colleague in the Senate of Canada advising against it. Notwithstanding that, the government is looking at this as it is looking at all solutions.
Let me end on a positive note. The Prime Minister of Canada was in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on March 6, 1990, and he reiterated his promise that there would be an assistance package for the Atlantic fishery. It will not just help Canso, it will help Lockeport and all the other areas that are suffering under this current plight in the Atlantic fisheries.
Let us get positive about this thing. Let us come to the House of Commons with solutions, not with empty rhetoric.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.53 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 13,1990