1990-03-13

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 the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), this Order in Council is deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee.


FORESTRY AND FISHERIES
Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries, in both official languages.
This report refers to the Fisheries Committee and to the report on aquaculture in Canada prepared by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans which was tabled in the House in July 1988. The report asked the government to respond pursuant to the Standing Orders but the House dissolved before a reply was tabled.
Believing that this report on agriculture in Canada is still current, the committee asks the government to table
a comprehensive response to this report, pursuant to Standing Order 109.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings. ]


PETITIONS
Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour on behalf of more than 2,000 farmers in southwestern Manitoba, most of them residing in my constituency of Brandon-Souris, to present a petition to the House of Commons noting that the crops in southwestern Manitoba were actually worse in 1989 than they were in 1988, the year in which the drought assistance program was available.
My petitioners very appropriately call for assistance either from the provincial or federal levels of government or preferably jointly, and they note that if this assistance is not forthcoming many farmers in our area will not survive. This, in turn, will have a very drastic impact of the whole of southwestern Manitoba.
In closing, I would like to add my very strong personal words of support to this very appropriate petition.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am today tabling a petition from Lebel-sur-Quevillon, Quebec, 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.

March 13, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to present to this House 10 new petitions signed by students from Ottawa University who simply point out that overcrowded lecture halls, deteriorating laboratory equipment, a lack of library resources, the student-teacher ratio, the elimination of some cur-riculums as well as deteriorating buildings and facilities are a typical feature of Canada's postsecondary education system today.
Mr. Speaker, these students put forward a number of other arguments. On this basis, these citizens call upon Parliament and government to commit to holding a top level federal-provincial conference in order to establish the financial responsibilities of both levels of governe-ment with respect to postsecondary education and to put an end to the shameful neglect higher education has been subjected to in Canada.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by Canadians who are strongly opposed to the goods and services tax proposed by the Conservative government. Thgy say that this tax is totally unfair and unjustified; that it will impose an extra burden on poor and lower income families; that it will raise inflation; that it will create serious difficulties for small business. Therefore, they humbly ask Parliament to reject this proposal to impose a 7 per cent goods and services tax on Canadians.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present several petitions from areas throughout the Algoma riding, including communities in Blind River and Elliot Lake, Espanola, Mindemoya, Tehkum-mah, and a number of other communities throughout the Manitoulin district of northern Ontario, in which they call on the government to withdraw the goods and services tax, even though it has been reduced from 9 per cent to 7 per cent. They point out that this will be very hard on senior citizens. It will increase the cost of goods and services in northern Ontario. It will be especially onerous to the tourist industry.
I hope the government will take these humble petitions from my constituents into account in its policy with regard to this tax.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions related to the northern tax benefit. They have different wordings, and I will be giving information to the House on the issue.
The first petition is from a number of people in the communities of Thompson, Pikwitonei, Snow Lake, Cross Lake, Ilford, York Landing, Norway House, Puka-tawagan and Princess Harbour. In this particular petition they call upon the federal government to reject the recommendations of the task force on northern and isolated areas. They believe that we should develop a fair and equitable tax benefit program which recognizes the financial needs of people in northern and isolated areas.
I also have a petition strictly from the people of Thompson, Manitoba, expressing their concern with the situation that Thompson and Wabowden and Paint Lake have been left out of the northern tax benefit, even though they are definitely northern communities. They have been prescribed, as have communities in other northern areas like northern Alberta, northern Quebec, northern B.C.. They believe that the federal government has not paid attention to the northemess of their communities and that it is time these communities receive the full northern tax benefit as their neighbouring communities do.
In addition to that, after the task force on northern benefits made its report, we have another 772 names from The Pas, Flin Flon, Cranberry Portage, Cormorant, Moose Lake and Gillam. The people in these communities say that the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas, released Friday, October 27, fails to address the realities of the north, the high cost of living and working in these areas-the whole cost of isolation. They call upon Parliament to reject the recommendations of the report and to develop a fair and equitable tax benefit program which recognizes the financial needs of people in northern and isolated areas.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there are people from The Pas, Manitoba who also set out a petition rejecting the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated
March 13, 1990

areas. They again talk about the need for real tax benefits for people living in northern and isolated areas.
They call upon Parliament to reject the proposal of the task force and call upon the government to act in this area.
I wish Tory Conservative MPs would get up with their petitions on this issue and express their concern and outrage with what the task force on isolated areas has recommended, which is basically denying thousands of communities in northern Canada from receiving this benefit.
I have another petition from The Pas. I will not bore the Speaker by reading it, but it is along the same lines. The petitioners point out that the federal government task force is ignoring the north and it is time that we had action from the government to reinstate the full tax benefit for people in northern Canada.
I do not want to go through all my petitions today, but I do want to indicate that certainly in northern Manitoba there is a drastic reaction to the federal government and the task force proposals. I would expect the Parliamentary Secretary for the Government House Leader to get up with his petitions on the northern tax benefit as well.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 36 to introduce petitions from two groups of people regarding child care. They are from the Canadian University Teachers. They represent 25,000 university faculty, professional librarians and researchers across Canada. They recognize the importance of child care for employment equity and accessibility to university programs and have a policy in their organization supportive of quality, accessible and affordable child care.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers has pleaded with this government to urge the minister to live up to the commitments of child care and to provide comprehensive, quality, accessible and affordable child care programs for Canadians.
These professionals are from New Brunswick to British Columbia. I am pleased to table this petition on their behalf.
Routine Proceedings GOODS AND SERVICES TAX


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of my constituents. They are concerned about the goods and services tax and all the ills of this particular initiative by the government.
Their main concern is that the imposition of this new general goods and services tax at any per cent will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle-income Canadians. Also many small businessmen and women in my communities are very concerned that the imposition of this tax will create an administrative burden and an over-all burden on small business so that many of them, in fact, will have to go out of business.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present two petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36, certified as correct. One of them asks the Parliament of Canada and the House of Commons to take immediate and effective measures to secure Mr. Leo's release from jail. Mr. Wih-Sheh Leo, is a Canadian citizen who was arrested unlawfully and sentenced to ten months imprisonment for exercising his right to return to his native land and is currently under indictment on sedition charges, facing a minimum term of ten years imprisonment.
These petitioners humbly ask this Parliament to issue a public statement expressing Canada's concern over a Canadian citizen's rights being violated and to instruct the Canadian embassy in Japan and the High Commissioner's office in Hong Kong to send a representative to Taiwan, to appoint a lawyer to handle the case, and to request Canada's allies which have representatives in Taiwan to assist with the case.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on behalf of many residents in Toronto in my riding of Eglinton-Lawrence who add their petitions to those I submitted to the Minister of Finance from Katz's Deli in my riding.

March 13, 1990
Routine Proceedings
They, too, object vehemently to the imposition of the 7 per cent GST, and they join with many other Canadians across the nation today and the rest of this week in calling 1-900-720-6052 to register their protest to the imposition of this most unjust of tax.


Mr. Allmand:: What is that number?


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: It is 1-900-720-6052.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. government House leader.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 57, I move:
That 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, and on any amendment proposed thereto, shall
not be further adjourned.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre in relation to the 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 the amendment of Mr. Gauthier (p.9099).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On debate, the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls. The hon. member has 12 minutes left for debate.
Government Orders


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, in moving closure, the Government of Canada has just moved closure on 1,090,000 Canadians who are now collecting unemployment insurance benefits that average $215.88 a week. The government has just moved closure on perhaps the poorest group of people in Canada, who cannot make ends meet, and this government, supported by these Tory members here today, has just approved of a bill that not only will increase the qualifying periods but will decrease the period of time that these people can collect unemployment insurance.
Just imagine, $215.88 a week, Canadian average, and the big bully Government of Canada is going ahead with this bill and moving closure in this Chamber. The government claims that it is going to streamline the unemployment insurance scheme and it is going to increase the training component. On the one hand, the government is out of touch and on the other hand it is out of mind.
The government, in moving closure, is saying that people throughout Canada will need to be living in an area of less than 15 per cent unemployment in order to maintain the repeater provision of 10 weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance. The present law is for 11.5 per cent unemployment. This means that now, with the drawing of all these lines, it will depend upon which side of the line you live on. That is what will determine whether you will collect unemployment insurance or not.
Just imagine the discrimination involved in that. The majority of the people who live in rural areas, in the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, do not work where they live. If they work as a group, either on the ocean, in a mine or in the forest, when they go to register for unemployment insurance the question that will be asked is "Where do you live?" because where they live will determine whether they collect unemployment insurance.
Prior to this bill, 11.5 per cent was the cut-off point. Now, under this Tory government, it is 15 per cent and that is going to mean three different rates in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Then the government says it is going to increase the money for training. What a silly proposal this government brought in in 1984. Since 1984 this group of Tories approved training programs that say that if you are an unemployed logger living in a logging community and there is a job-creation project in your community which has to do with cutting wood, you cannot go to work on it because you are already trained to cut wood. If you are laying a pipe under the ground that is a part of the water system in your community, as dozens of communities are

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
in Newfoundland, you put in a part of the water system and you apply next year for this so-called training program of the federal government. The government says: "Oh, no. They have already been trained as ditch diggers. You can't go to work two years in a row training to be a ditch digger, so your project does not qualify anymore."
In various places in Newfoundland and Labrador we have communities with half a waterline under the ground. Just imagine half a waterline under the ground. The pipe is half in in the community. It was put there prior to this government coming to office. I can name the communities for you, Mr. Speaker. The pipe is half under the ground in Whale's Gulch, Valleypond and Hillgrade.
This government came into office and said: "Every single job creation program funded by the federal government of Canada from this moment on has to be a training program. We can't train you again to dig a ditch so therefore you can't have any more money to put in your waterline." Shame on the Government of Canada for making a decision like that. Shame on the Minister of Employment and Immigration who stands in the Chamber and says: "We want more money to put into a program."
The government says to these communities which have part of a waterline underground: "If you want to build a building, you can build a building." The communities want to finish their waterlines, but they cannot do that. The Government of Canada says: "No. That waterline is half done under the ground. You already trained the workforce in the area to dig the ditches. Therefore we will now give you money to train them to be carpenters but you are not allowed to hire any carpenters."
Just imagine the upheaval in that particular community. Imagine the group of working people in that community for whom, under this new legislation, whether they will qualify or not for unemployment insurance depends upon which side of the line they live on. If they do not qualify, a fellow will say that he now needs 16, meaning
16 weeks. If he does not have enough for the 16 then he will have to go on a 26, which is a training program. If he does qualify, he will go on a 25. That is the Government of Canada today: If you need an extra two or three, you can go on a 26, and if you qualify, you can go on a 25.
When the Government of Canada came into power in 1984, under a Tory principle it said to every community in rural Canada that was developing its water system: "You can't get any more money for that, but we'll give you money to waste. We'll give you money to do anything else, but you can't do it two years in a row." That is the training program the government promised in 1984. It promised that under its training component it was going to give unemployment insurance to everybody who was in a registered school of instruction for a vocation. In other words, everybody who was in a post-secondary institution who qualified for unemployment insurance under the Tory plan in 1984 was going to be able to collect unemployment insurance.
What do we see today? Today we see one of the most discriminatory systems of payment for training ever in effect in the country. Two individuals sit in a vocational school. They worked together and both are laid off. One is receiving unemployment insurance and the other does not qualify. A full 50 per cent of those people who applied for unemployment insurance under a promise of this government in 1984 do not qualify for that unemployment insurance.
The Government of Canada now comes along and says: "Now we have got a new system. It is now going to depend on what side of the line you live on," because it is now 15 per cent unemployment in effect and not 11.5 per cent.


Mr. Reid:: Tell that to the people of Goobies.


George Baker: The hon. member across is saying: "Say that to the people of Goobies". It just so happens that the line is at a community called Goobies. People who live in rural areas are walking into unemployment insurance offices and being asked what side of the line they live on. I would suggest that with such a program the Government of Canada is encouraging people to buy mobile homes. This bill should not see the light of day.
March 13, 1990

Under Standing Order 26(1) I move:
That the House continue to sit during the lunch hour today for the
purpose of continuing debate on this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
And more than 15 members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Fifteen members having risen, pursuant to Standing Order 26(2) the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on April 11, 1989,1 rose in this House to introduce this government's labour force development strategy.
I rise now, almost one year later, to underline the continued commitment of this government, and of the people of Canada, to that strategy. I will not reiterate the extensive procedural views expressed by the government House leader yesterday, but I would urge all members to review his very clear statement outlining how the other place has transgressed all of its traditional constitutional powers with this message.
Liberal senators claim that they cannot pass Bill C-21 which the House sent them. They claim they have serious reservations about what the government proposes to do in the fields of training and unemployment insurance. What is it that we want to do as a government which so unsettles them? We want to improve the social benefits available through UI.
We want to ensure that unemployment insurance provides incentives for claimants to work. We want to adjust the financing of the programs so that those who benefit also pay a fair share and we want to increase the training available to Canadian workers. Those are our goals. What are their goals? Their goal is political theatrics.
[Translation\
The Liberal senators will say to whoever wants to listen that the government drafted this bill in the conviction that the unemployed are lazy and should be punished. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill is based on the assumption that people really want to
Government Orders
work and that they must acquire new skills to play a worthwhile role in a fast-changing economy.

Bill C-21 is based on the assumption that the strategy of throwing money at the unemployed denies them the chance to break out of a cycle of UI dependence that has gone on in this country through generations of Liberal governments. In a climate characterized by the sorts of political games which Liberal senators seem to favour, it is difficult to see their amendments as sincere attempts to improve this bill. Indeed, most of their recommendations are not even new.
However, the government has reviewed the message offered by the Senate and as stated by the leader of the government in this House, and we can support the intent of some of the recommendations. Identification of literacy as a training need, more detail in our development plan, more explicit protection for the system of benefits for self-employed fishermen are all amendments that we can support.
However, I think that hon. members will agree with me that many of the recommendations of the Liberal senators represent an assault on the taxpayer and an assault on the rights of this elected House. By their own admission, Liberal senators suggest that the most significant recommendations are those related to the funding of UI by the federal government.
Recommendations 7 and 9 would cost taxpayers at least $1.5 billion each and every year. Is this not an assault on the rights of the House? Of course it is. And I should not have to remind members that we simply do not have that kind of money as a government and as taxpayers and as the people of Canada. It is an affront to the rights of this House to have appointed senators attempt to dictate spending to us. Senators have no right to force us to raise taxes or increase the deficit.

While we must improve the skills of Canadian workers in order to compete effectively with other countries, we must also continue to put our financial house in order. The Liberal senators, however, want us to finance a major part of regular unemployment insurance benefits and the majority of benefits paid to self-employed fishermen, realizing all the while that this will only increase the deficit.

March 13, 1990
Government Orders

Now perhaps that understanding is lost on Liberal senators who only remember how to spend other people's money. It is not lost on this government that has proposed many improvements to UI within a context of fiscal reality. That is the reason we are asking employers and workers to fund the insurance system from which they benefit. It is not the unemployed who pay, it is the employed and their employers, and it is the latter who pay the lion's share.
I must also reject the scare stories spread by the Liberals that we are privatizing UI, whatever that may mean. The federal government will continue to play a key role in managing this vital program. As we consult with employers and workers on UI policies we will ensure that UI continues to reflect the legitimate needs of workers and employees, but we will also seek their input into the solutions. In short, recommendations from Liberal senators on these topics are completely unacceptable.
Let me now turn to the issue of increasing penalties for workers who quit jobs without just cause. Liberal senators have directly contradicted a basic aspect of this bill with their recommendation on this issue. Senators seem to have decided that anybody who quits a job probably had no choice. Let me quote Senator Norbert Theriault on this issue. He said:
Those are personal decisions and decisions that would only be
made with good reason.
But that is not why previous Liberal governments felt it necessary to impose harsher penalties on those who quit without good reason. It was a Liberal government that initiated this principle. However, members of this House understand that while some workers do have good reason to quit, others do not. That was the purpose for improving the just cause provisions in Bill C-21.
Strengthening the law to ensure that people who quit jobs without just cause cannot as quickly get unemployment insurance was a change which this House approved. That change alone will save $450 million per year, money which could be put to better use within the UI system.
But Liberal senators seem to believe that spending $1.1 billion a year in benefits to people who are fired for misconduct or who quit their jobs without just cause is an
appropriate use of UI funds. I may point out that we are almost the only country in the world that would tolerate such a thing.
The impact of this incentive and the general tightening of entrance requirements and benefit duration was best summarized by a witness before the Senate committee, Mr. Patrick Grady of Global Economics. He estimated that passage of Bill C-21 would result in reduction of the unemployment rate by up to 1 per cent. Now, is the other side not interested in lower unemployment rates in this country?
The next group of recommendations from the Senate that I want to discuss does three things. First, it rejects the decision made by this House to invest UI funds in developmental uses for people. Second, it rejects the decision of this House to recognize the difference between counselling decisions and financial or legal decisions. Third, it restricts our ability to be innovative within the UI program. Some senators think that everything that has been done in the past should be frozen there forever.
None of these recommendations is acceptable and I will explain why. A critical component of the Labour Force Development Strategy is the counselling of UI claimants that takes place in Canada Employment Centres. Employment counsellors work with claimants as partners to determine the best approach to meet individual employment needs. It is counselling that helps people find jobs, as I would point out to some of the shouting voices over there, who are not even prepared to listen.
Among the tools claimants and counsellors will use in this process are the developmental programs such as training and relocation and entrepreneurship that this bill would allow; training, relocation and entrepreneurship being things the other side is against. These are designed to use UI funds to give people a break, to give them the skills and opportunities to break out of the UI cycle. We believe that a small investment now is better for the individual and will save years of future UI costs.
The costs of training courses, the ability to capitalize benefits and the ability to help claimants move to areas of greater employment opportunities are all aspects of an active employment policy. That does not necessarily mean moving to another province. It does mean moving
March 13, 1990

within one's own region when there are opportunities available.
Our original decision to pay for support costs like these from the UI account was based on the understanding that these are costs that represent a short run cost and a long term saving to the UI account, and are a far greater benefit to the individual UI claimant. For that reason, we cannot accept the recommendations which would eliminate many of these investments from the UI account.

As far as the second question is concerned, the decisions made at the time of counselling are not legal ones. Counselling is a complex process which consists in helping a claimant make the right decisions about his future.
Referral to a training course is a major decision which costs taxpayers thousands of dollars. It is not like a routine purchase at the corner store.
The House showed it understood this when it agreed to simplify the Unempoyment Insurance Act and establish clearly that claimants cannot appeal decisions relating to training or other developmental uses.
This House also realizes that an arbitration board cannot possibly assess, during a 30-minute hearing, all the complexities involved in many hours of counselling, trial runs and reflection on the part of the claimant and the counsellor with whom he or she works.

The third flaw in this group of recommendations is the desire of Liberal senators to restrict our ability to develop new approaches in aiding the unemployed.
The UI Act is quite precise in its definitions and 50 years of jurisprudence have made that even more exact. However, if we want to encourage innovative and active programming, a basic belief in this bill, then we need some latitude for special cases, and that is what the senators want to restrict.
Let me give an example. Under the current law a claimant who loses her job and decides to start a business to use her skills would be cut off UI automatically. This bill gives us the flexibility that we need to implement new uses for UI funds which our trading partners are
Government Orders
finding so successful now and which is happening in other imaginative systems around the world.

The last group of recommendations should give all members of this House cause for concern. This is a very important matter.
Need I remind hon. members that in recent years, the Liberal senators have constantly sought ways to obstruct the work of the elected House. This message is a brazen attempt to increase their powers.
The Liberal senators want the power to impose changes in regulations and plans on the elected government. The Liberal senators sent us a series of recommendations that in effect would allow them to turn down the proposed amendments to the regulations on fishermen's benefits. They also worded their message in such a way that, with some clever parliamentary manoeuvring, they would be able to reject the government's plan to use unemployment insurance funds for training purposes.
This House cannot accept amendments that would give non-elected senators the power constantly to obstruct the wishes of the elected House.

The more pernicious action can be found inherent in recommendations 7 and 9 of the Liberals in the Senate. Members will know the parliamentary rule that the Senate may not increase taxes or expenditures, but the recommendation from the Senate seeks to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. Liberal Senators have decided that they have the right to stop the elected government from controlling the deficit by controlling government spending. Liberal Senators have decided that they can say and that they have the right to say that the government must continue every program, every legal obligation it has ever had but, if taxes have to go up to pay for it, it is not their problem.
Let me quote Senator Theriault again: "If the GST has to be 10 per cent then they must tell the people it has to be 10 per cent. They should not destroy a fundamental program."
This House must tell Senator Theriault and his unelected colleagues that the government, democratically elected, is accountable to the Canadian people and nobody knows that better than we do. It is accountable for the taxes it levies and for the programs it administers

Government Orders
and that government elected must have the ability to control its spending.
Let us be clear on one thing. Real leadership implies accountability, and accountability is what is at issue here. Canadians know the economic reality facing this government and this country. They have no patience for political games. Even The Toronto Star, my neighbourhood newspaper, recognizes the tactics of the senators for what they are. It stated: "To hog tie the government with billion dollar amendments that would wreak havoc on its deficit fighting strategy is little more than political grandstanding and obstructionism."

Unlike the Liberal senators, this government has made real decisions. It has chosen to consolidate the safety net that unemployment insurance provides and to improve the system, in recognition of the fact that Canada must do what all industrialized countries are doing.
I may remind hon. members that during all this time we have spent considering the bill, our economic partners have spent billions of dollars to increase the skills of their workers. If we accept this message, Canada will surely fall behind even more, compared with its competitors.

Let me conclude by reminding the House that 50 years ago unemployment insurance was developed to provide income to workers who had lost their jobs. The bill which is again before us continues that role. UI will still be there to provide income to workers who lose their jobs, but we wanted to do much, much more.
This government is well aware of the important challenges facing Canada in the international economy and facing the future of Canadian workers. It knows that a well trained workforce is a critical part of meeting that challenge and providing stability and security for Canadian workers.
We believe that the principles behind the proposed changes to unemployment insurance are sound. The changes themselves are moderate ones. I firmly believe that this House should reply to the message from the
Senate by saying that if it agrees that UI should become a more effective program which provides better benefits to parents and older workers, which increases incentives to work, which responds to the fiscal realities of today and which, above all, helps train and retrain Canadian workers to provide them with a better future, then pass the original bill which this House sent to you and let this government make those improvements now, nearly one year after we began this exercise.
I urge all hon. members to vote in favour of this motion by the government House leader.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the amendments proposed here by the other place to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
During the 1988 election campaign the Conservatives promised Canadians that the unemployment insurance system was a sacred trust and that there were absolutely no plans to change it. Scarcely six months later the Minister of Employment and Immigration confessed that yes the government would be making major changes to the system. Indeed the changes proposed were so major as to alter the face of the system altogether and divert it from its original purpose.
When Canadians appeared before the committee they pointed out the numerous flaws of the proposed new system. They tried to explain to the government how devastating the changes would be to unemployed workers all across the country, and they conveyed the sense of betrayal that Canadians felt knowing that the government had broken yet another promise but also that the government was not listening.
We have before us today the amendments proposed by members in the other place, changes that recognize the government's stated intention of deficit reduction but which also recognize the needs and the dignity of unemployed Canadians. Many of those Canadians who have special needs reside in Atlantic Canada, and it is on behalf of those people in particular that I speak today.
My colleagues and I have risen in this House countless times to voice the concerns of Atlantic Canadians, and I will do so once again because I hope that by dogged persistence we can finally make the government under-
March 13, 1990

stand what it proposes to do to these people as nothing else seems to be working.
Times have never been easy on Canada's Atlantic coast. The region has always depended on an overwhelmingly seasonal resource based economy. For instance, the economy of my province of Prince Edward Island is dependent upon fishing, farming and tourism. Because our economy is seasonal unemployment insurance is an integral part of that economy. We do not like it but that is the way it is.
For example, in 1988 Prince Edward Island received over $138 million in unemployment insurance benefits. That is approximately $1,076 for every man, woman and child in that province. Compare that to the $422 per capita on the average in Canada.
Approximately one out of every five Islanders in the labour force relied on UI benefits at some point during the year. As a matter of fact, the UI program contributes more money to the provincial economy than many of our industries. That gives some idea of the vital role that unemployment insurance plays in the lives of Islanders and indeed of all Atlantic Canadians. That is why, when the government announced its intention to stop its contribution to the fund as of January 1990, Atlantic Canada went into shock. That is why such a decision can be viewed only as yet another step in the federal government's gradual abandonment of Atlantic Canada. By cutting out some $2 billion from the program and by diverting remaining funds to vague "training programs", the government is removing a major pillar of the regional economy.
Members of the other place realized the devastation that the passage of this legislation as is would wreak. That is why they proposed in their report that the government continue to ensure regionally extended benefits. One-half of the value of those weeks of benefits paid when the regional unemployment rate is over 6 per cent would continue to be funded from general revenues, and not from the UI account which will consist of employer and employee contributions only. In this way the government will not be able to avoid its responsibility for high regional unemployment.
Bill C-21 proposes to divert funds intended for income maintenance to training programs. This is a praiseworthy
Government Orders
goal; no one would deny that. However Canadians want to see some substance behind those lofty words. They want proof that the government has devoted a great deal of thought to what achieving this goal really means. They want to see that the government understands how the Canadian economy is developing before they trust it to divert these funds for developmental uses.
What kind of economy is emerging in Canada? Last month the Economic Council of Canada released a study entitled "Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: Employment in the Service Economy". This respected organization concluded that Canada will experience a continued trend toward service industry jobs. The services which have the most potential to stimulate regional economies are called "dynamic services" that include transportation infrastructures, telecommunication systems, municipal infrastructures, financial services and business consulting services. These are the areas which will see the greatest job creation and the most growth.
However the council concludes that these dynamic services are overwhelmingly located in the large centres such as Toronto, Vancouver and Calgaiy. Perhaps jobs are being created every day in Canada. We know they are. but what the government does not like to admit when reeling off impressive statistics is that these jobs are located in just a very few centres.
For example, in Prince Edward Island unemployment has continued to soar. We currently have a rate of 16.2 per cent, the same as our neighbouring province of Newfoundland. We want to know: Where are the jobs that the Prime Minister loves to boast about?
The council goes on to state in its report that it expects that the good, well paying jobs will continue to be concentrated in large cities, a trend which will widen regional disparities.
Job creation tends toward the high skill, high paying jobs which we have already stated are concentrated in large cities. The low skill, low paying jobs, if we get them, these are the ones that the regions have. Are Atlantic Canadians supposed to be happy with the crumbs from central Canada's table? That is the message from a government which gears its fiscal policy toward the overheated economy of southern Ontario at the expense of the rest of the country.

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
Since the government has not yet proven itself capable of developing and managing a realistic, effective, full employment strategy, it will be understood why unemployed Canadians are skeptical and nervous when the government sings the praises of training.
Another sign that the government seems to have forgotten how the Atlantic Canada works is the changes it would make to the entrance requirements and the duration of benefits. Once again the seasonal economy dictates that it is almost impossible for many Atlantic Canadians to find full-time year-round work. This government's ministers should spend some time on the east coast, and then they would find out that it is virtually impossible to fish in the wintertime, to grow crops in the wintertime, and that the tourists cannot enjoy our beaches at that time of year. We did not plan it that way, but it is that way nonetheless.
As a result, many workers barely scrape together the number of weeks of insurable earnings they need to qualify for the benefits. When they have qualified they need all of the weeks of benefits they can get to see them through. This money does not go toward vacations in Florida or fancy cars, as the government's blame the victim mentality would suggest. No, no. Instead, this money goes to pay the rent, to buy food, to buy clothing, and to educate their family.
Almost as important is the vital role that UI benefits play in local economies. When central industries such as fishing, farming and tourism shut down for a great part of the year, individual workers are not the only ones who face lean times. Local businesses and service industries need the stimulation that the UI benefits provide in order to survive, much less thrive. If these businesses falter not only do the owners and managers and their families suffer; so do the people whose employment depends directly or indirectly on these industries.
I am saying all of this in an effort to make the government realize what an integral, essential role UI funds play in every aspect of Atlantic Canadian life. UI moneys are a vital link in our economy simply because of the nature of that economy. If that link weakens or disappears the whole chain will weaken or even disintegrate.
The government's proposed new structure for eligibility and benefit duration provides damning evidence that the government fails to understand the facts I have just outlined or, even worse and hopefully not true, it just
does not care. The proposed changes make little or no sense.
Under Bill C-21 the maximum duration of benefits would be reduced in most instances, except in cases where claimants have acquired a very large number of weeks work and reside in an area of very high unemployment. What are the chances of that combination? Virtually none. This totally unrealistic picture of the economy is further reflected in the relationship between benefit duration and regional unemployment rates which the government would impose. Three weeks of benefits would be paid for each percentage point interval of unemployment between 6 per cent and 8 per cent. This would increase to four weeks for each point interval between 8 per cent and 12 per cent. It would decrease to two weeks for each point interval between 12 per cent and 16 per cent.
What it boils down to-and I really wonder if the people who designed this new system bothered to test their model at all-is that the region of St. John's, Newfoundland with an unemployment rate of 12.4 per cent will lose up to 11 weeks of benefits, while the region of Toronto with a rate below 4 per cent will lose a maximum of three weeks. This makes absolutely no sense, and that is the bottom line.
The government must follow the recommendation of the other place and moderate these changes. As well benefits in regions with veiy high unemployment, which means most of the Atlantic region, must not be reduced.
One group of Atlantic Canadians who are especially concerned about the government's confusing plans are the fishermen. I should not have to remind any member of the House of the severe crisis that industry is already in. We need only think of Canso, Lockeport, Gaultois, Grand Bank, and Trepassey to call up images of the trauma afflicting the people who depend on the fishery for their livelihoods and for the life-blood of their communities.
Now more than ever fishermen and their families need the support of the unemployment insurance program. In 1956 the Unemployment Insurance Act was amended to extend coverage to self-employed fishermen. In fact fishermen's premiums are paid directly into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and not into the unemployment insurance fund. This means that they are not actually protected by the program. Rather, the government is
March 13, 1990

responsible for making up the difference between the premiums paid and the benefits collected.
Every unemployed person in Canada is fearing the loss of the UI support system, but no one has more reason to be worried than the fishermen. Bill C-21 would place the full cost of fishermen's benefits on the UI fund. By withdrawing its contribution to this fund, the government is placing the future of the fishermen's benefit at great risk. The government has promised that these benefits are safe. Well we all know how the government keeps its promises. If it truly wants to reassure the fishermen of Atlantic Canada, the government will not balk at taking concrete steps to protect the benefits as recommended by the amendments here today.
For that matter, if this government's true goal is positive reform of unemployment insurance, it will not balk at any of the amendments proposed here today. They are moderate, sensible and sensitive to both the government's professed goal of deficit reduction and to the needs and the dignity of unemployed Canadians.
It is for this reason that I fully support these amendments and I urge the government to support them as well.
I move:
That the House continue to sit through the lunch hour for the
purpose of continuing consideration of the motion now before the
House.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
And more than 15 members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Fifteen or more members have risen. Pursuant to Standing Order 26(2), the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.
Government Orders


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion by our hon. House leader. The amendments to Bill C-21 contained in the message from the other place with very few exceptions are fundamentally in conflict with the intention of the government's bill.
It is the duty of the government to review old legislation and programs and revise others to make them current and responsive to the needs of the times. To do anything less would be to abrogate or ignore our responsibilities and the trust placed in us through the democratic process.
When in November 1988 Canadians cast a ballot, they cast a very decisive ballot in favour of the Progressive Conservative Party. This was not a timid or a tentative vote. The voters gave the Prime Minister's Tories a definite majority, and that majority decision carried with it a compelling message: exercise the franchise that you have been given and exercise it with leadership to get this country's economy back in order. Every member of this government caucus has taken that message to heart. We have all pledged to pursue the action asked for by Canadians when they so resoundingly endorsed a second Conservative majority.
No one in this House has been more conscientious in following that dictate than the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration. She was one of the very first off the mark last April 11, 1989 with new legislation designed to improve the unemployment insurance system vastly and to make it more responsive and better serve the needs of Canadians in the 1990s.
Bill C-21 is responsive to regional disparities while it reflects the need to make the system more self-sufficient. Bill C-21 recognizes that life in the 1990s will require new skills as our use of technology gains momentum. Bill C-21 also responds to the fact that there are changing roles in family life where both spouses play an active role in raising the children as well as in earning a living.
All these measures and many others were carefully devised by a caring and a conscientious minister who was anxious, as I said before, to respond to today's needs in today's society. We cannot continue with old programs

March 13, 1990
simply because they are in place and expect them to be responsive to the needs of people in the 1990s. She worked swiftly and acted decisively in the interests of Canadians who were vulnerable to the changing employment patterns.
On November 6, 1989 this House passed Bill C-21, and it did so in plenty of time for its benefits to begin flowing during the depths of winter when traditionally those benefits are needed the most.
What happened? Did the unemployed receive their benefits when they needed them most in the depths of winter when things were tough? I wish I could say that was true, but sadly I must report that the answer is no and it seems that the answer is no because some Liberal members in the other place decided to make a mockery of the democratic process and delay the bill to embarrass, harass and intimidate this government.
At any rate this is certainly the perception and regrettably the facts surrounding the circumstances testify to the idea that that perception is indeed true.
We were told by the people in the other place that they were setting up a special committee to hear from Canadians who had not testified before the government's legislative committee. Apparently these are going to be brand new people with brand new ideas, but what happened? We learned that the special committee consulted 54 witnesses whose views had already been made known to the House legislative committee.
What was the point of that? Why go through the exercise, not to mention the expense of hearing all those witnesses? Why do this if the Senate was really committed and really interested in hearing this testimony and hoping to find something of value in it? It was on the record already and they could simply have gone through the records. Added to this the 54 people in question were well-known opponents of the government's bill. They certainly were not experts on unemployment insurance management and they were not experts on the topic of re-employment strategy, so what was the point?
As the minister pointed out when she met the committee a short time later, the records show that these efforts did not identify a single issue of any substance in the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have 15 minutes left in her debate when we come back after question period.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, the recent decision by the National Gallery of Canada to spend $1.8 million-nearly two-thirds of the Gallery's $3 million annual acquisition budget-to purchase a canvas by an American painter has left Canadian artists somewhat disenchanted and greatly discouraged. Canadian people in general are wondering.
With everything that has traditionally drawn Canada together, such as VIA Rail, the CBC, and language tolerance, being under great strain, would it not have been an appropriate time for an institution of national cultural expression to have promoted the works of Canadian artists? Would the government give Canadians some assurance that it will intercede in this ill-timed purchase and stop payment on the $1.8 million cheque, if that is necessary?


TRIBUTE TO PETER STASTNY
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: A few days ago, Mr. Speaker, a major event occurred in the area of professional sports which resulted in Quebecers being separated, temporarily I hope, from a great Canadian, a great Quebecer and a great star.
Mr. Peter Stastny, this highly skillful hockey player, has dominated his sport for nearly 10 years and has been recognized as one of the greatest in the world.
Today, on behalf of the people of the Greater Quebec City area, I wish to thank this exemplary athlete for the
March 13, 1990

great times we had because of him. I also wish to emphasize his qualities as a dedicated man and a good citizen who spent much time and energy representing several charitable organizations.
As soon as he arrived in this country, he made up his mind that he would learn French and English, both languages he now speaks fluently. Mr. Stastny realized what a great many politicians and former politicians are unwilling or fail to understand, namely, Quebec's special identity within Canada.
I salute this remarkable citizen and wish him, on behalf of the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada, many more years of tremendous success.


REPUBLIC OF HAITI
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, today a new president takes office in the Republic of Haiti, the fifth in four years. Not only must we wish her well, we must urge and support her in any efforts to bring democratic elections and government to a country whose government has been at best anarchic for the past four years.
Last week, as a private citizen, I visited Haiti. It is a beautiful country populated by warm and hospitable people. It is a country that shows what absence of effective government can mean: inadequate services and infrastructure, roads in a state of utter disrepair, high prices, under-utilized though relatively abundant resources, and excessive dependence on imports.
Canadians have natural cultural and democratic ties with the people of Haiti. Today, our Haitian friends very much need our help and our support.
Canada must send a clear sign that it is prepared to support the development of democratic government in Haiti and to support and encourage it tangibly with an indication of our willingness to restore bilateral agreement aid as soon as the new government demonstrates its commitment to democracy through tangible action.


CANADIAN VETERANS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the recent budget chose as one of its
targets our Canadian veterans. The government has cut $35 million to a group of Canadians who have already paid their dues.
As a result of the budget thousands of our veterans will pay more than $3,000 each for lodging. This is a result of the government's update of board and lodging charges for veterans in long-term care.
Cuts to the Veterans Independence Program mean that thousands of veterans who are still living at home will lose assistance for heavy housecleaning.
It is ironic that when Canada needed the service of brave and courageous Canadians our veterans were there. Now, when our veterans need the services of the Canadian government, it turns around and cuts assistance to them.
Remembrance Day is the day that we pay respect to those who died in battle and for those who will always bear the scars of wartime. We wear the poppy as a symbol of remembrance, respect and endless thanks for our veterans. Given the recent cuts to our veterans the Minister of Finance does not deserve the right to wear a poppy on Remembrance Day when he so quickly forgets what it really means.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday marked an historic occasion in Chile as an elected civilian government headed by President Patricio Aylwin took over power from the military dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet. The Pinochet government came to power in 1973 as a result of a violent coup overthrowing and murdering President Salvador Allende. For the past 16 years the Chilean people have been subjected to the murder, torture and jailing of thousands of Chileans at the hands of the dictatorship.
With this change in government the brutality and abuses of the Pinochet regime are hopefully at an end. Already we see the fruits of liberalization as President Aylwin has granted pardon to prisoners of conscience and pledged to dismantle the repressive elements of Pinochet's rule.
Events in Chile also further the trend towards democracy in Latin America, a trend that will not be complete, however, until we can be assured that the military men

March 13, 1990
of these new democracies are truly under civilian control.
I am sure all Canadians join together in congratulating the Aylwin government upon assuming power. We must lend it our support as it works to stabilize the democratic process and to control the military still led by General Pinochet.
This can be done, in part, by contributing to the new social solidarity fund established by the government, designed to support the poorest in Chile and provide essential health, education and housing needs. The Canadian government should consider such a contribution.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, all three parties and most Canadians agree that the federal manufacturers' sales tax is a bad tax that has to go.
Indeed, some two years ago the all-party Commons finance committee recommended a multi-stage sales tax to be imposed on the broadest possible base. Yet today those in opposition are falling all over each other in their lust to be seen as the party most against the GST.
Canadians want more than criticism. They want choices. Canadians are asking: Where do the opposition parties stand? What alternatives do they have?
The Liberals want to study the matter some more. Forty years of study is not enough for them. In opposition, just as in government, they cannot take a decision.
Procrastination is not an alternative. Keeping the old FMST is not good enough. It is time to go forward with the GST as the only practicable, workable sales tax reform for Canada.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in 1984, the Mulroney government collected about $8 billion from Canadians with the manufacturers' sales tax. In 1991, if the goods and services tax replaces the manufacturers' sales tax, the government will collect not $8 billion, not $18 billion, but $23 billion on this tax
alone-three times the amount collected in 1984 when this Tory government came to power.
The GST is the largest tax grab in Canadian history. The people of Canada realize this. Seventy-one per cent of Canadians are opposed to the GST, and still this government insists on implementing this unfair regressive tax. When will this government listen?
The Liberal party will not turn its back on the people of Canada. The Liberal party wants the voices of Canadians to be heard. This week throughout the country Canadians can dial 1-900-720-6052 to register their opposition to the goods and services tax.
The people of Canada will not sit idly by while the over consumption of this government shrinks the pocket books of all Canadians. Canadians from east to west will dial 1-900-720-6052 and register their "No" vote for the goods and services tax.
Scrap the tax. Dial 1-900-720-6052.


TRIBUTE TO GERALDINE DOUCET
Guy St-Julien: For many people, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Geraldine Doucet is the kind of person who is always involved in a great number of activities such as the Jerry Lewis Telethon as well as the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and Canadian Cancer Society fund raising campaigns.
Because of her participation in Quebec's entertainment industry and her involvement in various voluntary organizations such as Big Brothers and Big Sisters, she was recently appointed president of the Quebec Canada Day Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I know that Mrs. Doucet has all the necessary qualities and a solid experience of community involvement, and which in my opinion make her the ideal choice. I extend my congratulations to Mrs. Doucet and I wish her well.


CROP INSURANCE
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Premier of Saskatchewan today announced that Saskatchewan farmers who participated in crop insurance will receive an additional $58 million in mid-April. The payment is the result of the multi-year disaster benefit program. The
March 13, 1990

program provides cash to areas of Saskatchewan that have suffered two consecutive crop failures. This is an important part of the farm safety net program that will provide money to farmers when they need it most.
Over 12,000 farmers will receive an average of close to $5,000 each. This is an important first step in ensuring that Saskatchewan farmers can get this year's crop in the ground.
On behalf of our members of Parliament and farm related business in Saskatchewan, I congratulate our Deputy Prime Minister and the Premier of Saskatchewan for concluding the details of this much needed program.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, the arrogance of the Mulroney government is absolutely astounding. While it is telling Canadians they must do their part to fight the deficit, this government is spending $111 million to sell a regressive, merciless tax on a population that does not want it. This tax, after 31 other increases, is the largest tax grab in the history of Canada.
The Liberal party is giving Canadians a chance to be counted in the fight against the GST. This is anti-GST week. Canadians can register their disapproval by picking up the phone and calling 1-900-720-6052. That registers their "No" vote to the GST.
Yesterday, the finance committee chairman stated that this electronic petition means nothing. That is yet another example of this government's arrogance. Every Canadian voice should be heard
For my colleague over here who wants to know the number so that he can also call, it is 1-900-720-6052 to say "No" to the GST.


REPUBLIC OF SOUTH KOREA
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, on March 3, 1990, the defence ministry of the Republic of South Korea announced that a joint Korea-United States team of engineers had discovered a fourth infiltration tunnel constructed by the North Koreans to serve as a potential means of mounting a surprise military invasion of the south by passing underneath the demilitarized zone.
Unlike the other three tunnels found in the western and central areas of the front line in 1974,1975 and 1978, the recently discovered tunnel is located in the mountainous eastern portion of the demilitarized zone, 105 kilometres northeast of Seoul.
It was regrettable to hear of this particular discovery because of the current global detente between east and west. Tension on the Korean Peninsula can only be heightened by such clear indications of unabated aggression and militance on the part of the North Koreans.


ELECTORAL EXPENSES
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, as the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing will be discovering during its cross country hearings, the issue of third party expenditures during an election period must be confronted.
This clause in the Canada Elections Act is not enforced today because of an Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruling in 1984. Yet a similar Quebec ruling went in the exact opposite direction as that of the Alberta case.
The former Chief Electoral Officer of Canada has urged the commission to deal with what he refers to as the phenomenon of advertising by special interest groups. Although there was relatively little involvement by single issue groups in the 1984 campaign, their impact and activity in the 1988 campaign was extensive and profound. As much as $4 million is thought to have been spent promoting free trade. This amount is two-thirds of what a federal party can spend on all expenses during that same campaign period.

March 13, 1990
Oral Questions
While the legitimate political process of the political parties is regulated by the Canada Elections Act, well-funded advocacy groups are free to promote and oppose candidates and registered parties without restriction or limitation.
The House of Commons should demand that the government refer the present Section 70.1 of the Canada Elections Act to the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling as to its force and effect under the Charter.


LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians shopping around for a position to take on any issue can enter the Liberal party supermarket. There you can find every position taken on every issue. All you have to do is shop around.
On free trade, walk down one aisle and you will find the member for Winnipeg South saying he will rip up the free trade deal if the Liberals come to power. Walk down another aisle and you hear the member for Etobicoke North saying the trade deal is not such a bad deal after all.
Are you looking for a position on the GST? The Liberal party supermarket is offering all sorts of positions. Some members stand up in the supermarket and tell Canadians that they have a position on the GST. If you call a certain number they will give a scrap-the-tax position.
The Liberal party caters to all customers. Jean Chretien in one aisle says he is not sure what he would do about the GST. Walk down another aisle and you will find leadership hopeful, Tom Wappel, saying that he would keep the GST.
Telemarketing has become a booming business in this country. All Canadians should do their shopping on the GST by phone. They should call the Leader of the Opposition, known as Herbie the Grocer, at 613-996-5084, to find out what positions on the GST the Liberal party is offering today.
At the Liberal party supermarket the motto is: We aim to please. We never say no to anyone.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, as we all know, he received the Weizmann Award in the Science and Humanities.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will demonstrate today that the award in question and the applause he just received is justified by moving immediately to double R and D spending in Canada, as he promised before he was elected but which he has not achieved in spite of being in office for five years. Will he keep his promise?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the leaders of the Israeli Government who were there last evening, and all the distinguished leaders of the Jewish community in Canada who were present, expressed absolute astonishment at the action of the opposition for not recognizing, which they all recognized, the tremendous work being done by the Government of Canada to advance the cause of science.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the opposition members are all so offended by the fact that I was given this award. Mr. Pearson was given the award, as were Margaret Thatcher, Jacques Chirac and Danny Kaye.


Mr. Fontana:: You're a song and dance man, too.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In point of fact, total federal spending on science and technology, including research and development, will be about $5.1 billion this year, compared to $4.1 billion when we came into office in 1984.
There has been an increase of some 20 per cent since this government was sworn in. About 90 per cent of all the government funded research and development that is done in the Province of Ontario is paid by the federal government. There is, as well, the fact that Canada has the most attractive R and D incentives-as brought

March 13, 1990

forward by the Minister of Finance-with the exception of Australia.
That is why we are going to continue to make very substantial progress in leading in world-class ventures in the field of science and technology.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is not clear whether the Prime Minister got the award for emulating Mike Pearson or Danny Kaye.


Some hon. members:: Oh, Oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yesterday, Gerhardt Hertz-berg, a world famous Canadian scientist who received the Nobel Prize after he heard the Prime Minister had received the Weizmann Award said:
I don't think the Prime Minister could expect to get an award for
his contribution to science and technology in Canada.
Sweden, The Netherlands, the United States, West Germany; all
these countries spend just about twice as much as Canada does on
research and development.
That is what Mr. Hertzberg says. I think he knows as much about research and development in Canada as does anybody else in this country.
Why will the Prime Minister not live up to his promise to ensure that Canada spends at least 2.5 per cent of its economy on research and development? Why will he not keep a promise that he himself said was necessary for the future competitiveness of this country? It is time the Prime Minister kept his promise.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to quarrel with the remarks of my hon. friend. He would be happy to know that the President of the Weizmann Institute, one of the leading nuclear physicists in the entire world who heads up one of the finest and most outstanding research centres in the world, said last night that as Prime Minister of Canada he could think of no one more deserving of this particular award than your humble servant.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know it breaks the hearts of the Grits to see a Conservative receive international recognition, but that is just starting.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: I had the honour of creating the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology which I have the pleasure of chairing, the first Prime Minister in Canada to do this.
I had the honour of establishing the Canada Scholarships Program, with $80 million over five years which will provide 10,000 young Canadians with full scholarships in science and technology.
I had the pleasure of bringing forward the Centres of Excellence program which puts $240 million into establishing 14 new Centres of Excellence at Canadian universities across the country.
We have increased research and development very substantially since 1984. The problem is that the Liberals were so disgraceful in their neglect of science and technology that the Leader of the Opposition should never rise in his seat again.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious why the Prime Minister is seeking international recognition. He knows that outside Canada they do not take public opinion polls showing how badly his government and himself are doing in this country.

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is so determined to keep his commitments to science and technology, why did his finance minister cut $39 million from the funds for science and technology over the next five years? Why does the Prime Minister not make a commitment today to restore this funding and to stop threatening the future of our economy? Why?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to let the Liberals lead in the polls for three years. We will lead on election night.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Even the NDP is breathing down their necks, and that is going a long way.

Mr. Speaker, it is pitiful to see the Liberals denigrate the Canadian government's efforts in science and technology, when we established the National Advisory Council on Science and Technology, when we increased the federal government's contribution to this important area by 20 per cent, when we raised the national resources spent on science and technology from $4.1 to $5.1 billion in the last five years, when we started the networks of centres of excellence for science and technology, and more scholarships in this area

March 13, 1990
Oral Questions
for 10,000 young students throughout Canada. It is true that we have done all this, but we still have a long way to go. It is true that Canada has been lagging behind for 25 years in what it should contribute to this critical area of our national life. It is true that we had an enormous task, but you must start to admit that we have taken important steps to promote research and development in Canada, something absolutely historic.
Let me explain: When Bill C-22, which would have resulted in $700 million of spending in Montreal for pharmaceutical research and created 3,000 jobs, was before the House, the Liberals were against it and their friends in the Senate blocked it! You are against research and development, you are against science and technology!


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister for Science in reply to my questions refused to accept the assessment made by the National Consortium of Educational and Scientific Societies that science research and education in Canada are in a precarious situation. Just a minute ago the Prime Minister also appeared to reject this assessment.
This morning, the Fields Institute for Research in Mathematics, appearing before the committee on science and technology, confirmed the assessment made by the national consortium.
Who can best assess the state of science research and education in Canada, the scientists and science teachers who are in the forefront of practice or the Minister for Science and the Prime Minister who ignore the recommendations of their own Canadian National Advisory Board on Science and Technology?


Hon. William C. Wmegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this Prime Minister has ignored the recommendations of that board. It was that board which recommended to the Prime Minister the Canada Scholarship program. It was that board which recommended to the Prime Minister the Centres of Excellence program, and we can go on.


Some hon. members:: Go on!


William C. Winegard: The Prime Minister works very closely with that particular board-


Some hon. members:: Go on!


William C. Winegard: They want me to go on, Mr. Speaker. All right, I will. There is the matching grant policy. It was that board which spoke about the new technologies, the strategic technologies-$200 million in strategic technologies.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


William C. Winegard: As the Prime Minister said, there is no question but that we would all like to do more in terms of science and technology. The answer is the area you want to put it is in the industrial structure of this country. In many ways that structure is not ready to receive the kind of money that is needed, and you know it.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the Prime Minister was in Toronto receiving his award-and I must say I feel somewhat better about it knowing that he has it in common with Danny Kaye-he was linking environmental issues to research and development.
The same day we had two stunning revelations in Ottawa. First, that the President of the National Research Council is willing to gut that institution as a performer of basic research. Second, that the Minister for Science opposes the matching grants program.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House how Canada will ever become a world leader in environmental technologies when neither the NRC nor the universities are receiving the funding that they need in order to do basic research?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, no one has ever said that the National Research Council is not going to be involved in basic research.
What I hope it will do in its five-year plan is to concentrate that basic research in priority areas and to do even better than it has in the past. I want it to do the pre-competitive research that this country really needs. No organization is in a better position to do that than the National Research Council.
The NRC is one of the few organizations that can bring together the universities and industry to form the
March 13, 1990

kind of pre-competitive consortia that this country needs. NRC will do that. You will see more of it in its five-year plan.
*	* He


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: I want to switch back to the GST, Mr. Speaker.
I want to ask the Minister of National Revenue why his government is already spending thousands of dollars placing ads in daily newspapers, with more to come, advertising for GST tax collectors when the GST is still before a committee of this House.
I want to know this from the Minister of National Revenue. Why spend these thousands of dollars asking for tax collectors when there is opposition coming from over 80 per cent of the Canadian people? There is opposition growing in the back-benches of the Conservative party. There is opposition from every single provincial government in this country.
Why does the government jump the gun and advertise for GST collectors when the bill has not passed the House?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at that coming from this hon. member who has been here for so many years and should know better. It is parliamentary and legal precedent that any government has not only the right but the obligation to prepare for any major forthcoming changes which are proposed and planned by the government of the day.
That was confirmed by the Auditor General in his latest report, who recommended very strongly that the government speed up its preparation process.
Since I will be before the finance committee immediately following the Question Period, on this very subject, I would be very happy to answer any specific questions the hon. member may have in that committee.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the Minister of National Revenue why it was wrong a few years ago when the Liberals did exactly the same thing. Why did that minister, when he sat in Opposition, criticize a government for doing this
Oral Questions
kind of advertising before a bill passed the House? I want to know that from the Minister of National Revenue. If it was wrong then, it is surely wrong now. Why advertise for thousands and thousands of tax collectors before a bill has even passed the finance committee? Why was it wrong then, if it is not wrong now?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the member who has just asked the question is a member of the committee which unanimously concluded, and I will read the quote from the committee report, "That if the government proceeds with the tax-" the GST, "-it establish a private-sector advisory committee to develop practical rules for the new tax and to publicize the details of the new tax and the relevant social policy transfers". That is a recommendation of the committee of which the hon. member was a part and certainly if we did otherwise, it would be irresponsible on the part of this government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, five or six months ago, the government estimated administration costs for the GST would be about $200 million annually. However, in the Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance, the government's estimate is no longer an annual $200 million but $380 million. Why has the budget for administration costs almost doubled? Is it because the Government of Canada now intends to hire about 7,000 people to collect the tax instead of 4,000?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, since those figures were put out in the course of the budget, I would be quite happy to answer that. The $380 million is the bulge during the transition period. The amount on an ongoing basis will be of the order of $300 million, which is about 1.5 per cent of the total revenues that will be collected. That is at the low end of the range for industrialized countries which have this type of tax.
We will do everything we can to try to reduce the number of people who will be used to administer the GST. As the hon. member knows, we have entered into discussions with the provinces with a view of doing everything we can to reduce the number of people who will administer the tax. If we did not have the proper administration, the hon. member would be the first to

March 13, 1990
Oral Questions
jump up on his feet to demand that we put in place the resources to provide that administration.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this government is paralysed on the matter of official languages. I want to direct a question of the President of the Treasury Board. It has been 20 months and an election since this House adopted Bill C-72, an act respecting official languages.
The President of the Treasury Board has promised many times in this House to come forth with these regulations. We know the public servants have done their jobs. The regulations are ready. Will the President of the Treasury Board give us an undertaking today that the regulations will be tabled in the House forthwith?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. colleague that the process that we are following is the process we outlined at the time that Bill C-72 was before this House. The regulations were prepared by officials, reviewed by the government and then there were extensive consultations throughout the country. Those consultations are still ongoing. As soon as the consultations are completed, we will be tabling the regulations in the House, as we have undertaken to do and are asked to do under Bill C-72.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have asked those groups that were consulted if the consultation was terminated. I am told they have terminated their comments on the regulations. So you are ready to go.

Mr. Speaker, this country is going through a difficult time as far as language is concerned. Today, racist groups are attacking official language minority groups. I want the government to understand that by doing nothing, it may be seen as a willing accomplice.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is terrible!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: And I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board to put some teeth in the legislation so that people in this country will know where we are
headed with the Official Languages Act. Do something! Stop dragging your feet!


Mr. Blais:: Don't tell us what to do!


Some hon. members:: You did nothing for 20 years.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa- Vanier seems conveniently to forget the fact that for 19 years, his government did nothing to change the official languages legislation.


Martin Brian Mulroney: You did nothing.


An hon. member:: It's true, you did nothing.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There is a major backlash today.


Robert René de Cotret: This government has not only changed the legislation, it will table the regulations in the House as soon as we have consulted all interested individuals and groups across this country.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. All of the GST that corporations pay is refunded. Therefore a corporation that buys a sofa for an executive or calls in a plumber does not pay any GST at all. Yet a single parent, a senior citizen, or an unemployed person in Canada has to pay a 7 per cent GST. I want to know why the Minister of Finance thinks that is fair. Why is he taking $5 billion to $6 billion away from the corporations in taxation and putting it on the backs of the consumer?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's party is the first to stand up and say they want a visible tax. The hon. member is saying now to tax businesses on the things that they buy for their businesses, to bury that in the price of the tax and then apply another tax on top of that and another tax on top of that. That is precisely what the GST is designed to avoid.
When we say it is a 7 per cent tax, it is not an 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12 per cent tax. It is a 7 per cent tax. All the tax is credited out of the system so there is no hidden tax and there is no tax on tax. It is 7 per cent. That is what the consumer pays. It is very visible and up front, unlike the approach that the hon. member would like to follow.
March 13, 1990


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, what the minister is saying then is that visibility can be an excuse to gouge the consumer.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Come on Russ, you can do better than that.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The consumer has to pay the GST for the most expensive furniture an executive could have but for a place for a family to sit they have to pay 7 per cent GST. I want to know why the minister thinks that is fair. Why is he gouging the consumer to supplement the increased profits of the corporations?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what my friend opposite is saying is hide it and then gouge the consumer. That is the approach the Liberal party would follow. Let me take my colleague through the basis on which this tax is levied one more time. I will do it slowly for him.
The taxes levied today in the federal sales tax are paid by every consumer in this country. However, the consumer has absolutely no idea how much sales tax is in the price of a pad, in the price of a pen, in the price of food, but it is in the price of everything that we buy today.
With the GST we are recognizing that a consumption tax is paid by the consumer. We believe that the consumption tax paid by the consumer should be paid up front and be very visible. That is why all tax on business inputs on the costs of production is credited out so that the consumer only pays 7 per cent and not some multiple of 7 per cent which is the case under the existing tax.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. Again a major Canadian company-Federal Pioneer is a leading electrical equipment manufacturer-is to be sold to a foreign multinational.
Oral Questions

This comes on top of such take-overs this past year as Consolidated Bathurst, Mitel, Connaught, Consumers' Gas last week, and now Federal Pioneer.
Is the minister prepared to take action now to safeguard Canadian industrial independence. Is he prepared to establish a national industrial bank which will see to it that funds are available here in Canada to help keep Canadian firms Canadian.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the government I represent never did hide its interest in foreign investments and we are not about to clamp down on them if they do not serve the interests of Canada. We do have an agency called Investment Canada in which I have full confidence and whose responsibility it is to control foreign investment, in keeping with the interest of our country. For five years now Investment Canada has been doing that very efficiently and I do not see the need to set up yet another agency. Mr. Speaker, the existing procedure is good and we will continue to monitor the situation, just as we have done in the past.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. There is an important group in town from British Columbia to try to encourage the government to reconsider its decision on the Polar 8, a decision which is in breach of the solemn commitment which the Prime Minister gave to the people of British Columbia and to Canada during the election campaign.
Will the Prime Minister assure the House, given his personal commitment, that he will in fact direct a reconsideration of this decision, or will he stand in this House and explain to the people of Canada what alternative the government has in mind to protect our sovereignty in the Arctic, to open the north and to ensure that the people of British Columbia get their fair share of jobs in the shipbuilding industry?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the decision to act as we did in the budget with respect to the Polar 8 ice-breaker was one which was reached after great difficulty by the Government of Canada. We looked at a number of factors. One

March 13, 1990
Oral Questions
of those factors, of course, was that there had been a very substantial escalation in the cost estimates of the Polar 8.1 see the hon. member shaking his head as if he dismisses those. Unfortunately, one cannot dismiss those realities. That was a factor of which we had to take account.
Second, there are a range of other devices available to us in our north that can help us assert and assure Canadian sovereignty.
Finally, as the hon. member will know that in the period since the decision was announced to go forward with the Polar 8 there has been a very important agreement between Canada and the United States by which the United States is required, and has indicated that it accepts, the requirement to seek the prior consent of Canada before any of its vessels traverse the Northwest Passage.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow through with the Secretary of State on that same line of questioning.
Back in 1987 he stated in the House that the decision to build the ice-breaker is a clear sign to the world of our firm resolve to exercise our sovereignty in the Arctic. Can we now conclude the decision not to build the ice-breaker is a clear indication to the world that we are no longer interested in exercising our sovereignty in our Arctic?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, for years there was in this country a government that was not interested in asserting the sovereign claims of Canada in the north, and the member for Winnipeg South Centre was a minister in that government.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: He will know that Liberal governments refused to agree that we had enough confidence in our claims to submit ourselves to the jurisdiction of the International Court. He knows that the Liberal government refused time after time to establish the baselines that would establish clearly the jurisdiction of Canada in the north.
He knows that because of a dislike of the Americans that sometimes becomes, in his case, almost pathological, his government backed away from the kind of
practical agreement that has assured Canadian sovereignty in the north and has yielded a situation in which the United States now seeks the prior consent of Canada before any voyage to traverse the Northwest Passage.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the only person in this House who is pathological is the minister, who refuses to recognize when he has made a serious mistake.
Is it not this government, not Liberals, that decided to cancel the ice-breaker? Is it not this minister who said the ice-breaker is essential to our sovereignty? We simply want to know. You cancelled the ice-breaker, you have no other policy, what are you going to do to defend our sovereignty that you think is so important?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, what we have done is first, our actions with regard to the International Court; second, with regard to the establishment of baselines; third, with regard to the establishment in the north of aircraft and other surveillance features; fourth, by the conclusion of an agreement with the United States by which for the first time in history the Americans agree that they must-


An hon. member:: Notify you.


Charles Joseph Clark: No, not notify; they must seek the prior consent of this sovereign country before their nation traverses the Northwest Passage.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Stanley Hagen, Minister responsible for Regional and Economic Development of the province of British Columbia.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


STATUS OF WOMEN
Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the status of women.

When meeting today with the Canadian Advisory Council for the Status of Women representatives at its conference, the minister said, "I will fight for what the women of this country need and want". Will the minister outline to this House and to the women of Canada specifically what she intends to do to fight for women? Will she fight to reverse the budget cuts to women's programs? Will she fight for a safe, affordable national child care program? Will she fight against Bill C-43 and the recriminalization of abortion?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but perhaps if the hon. member had attended the session this morning she would have heard some of the proposals which I put forward and some of the issues that I believe are important to help ensure the attainment of economic equality and social justice for all women in Canada.
Those are the issues that we have started to work on; family violence, working family responsibilities, and working toward a child care program with my colleagues. All of these are initiatives building on the record of this government to ensure that we achieve those objectives.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, this hon. member did not have to be there to know that the women of Canada heckled the minister this morning because of her refusal to respond about the very programs that she outlined, and to respond to the kinds of questions that I am putting in the House.
The minister said this morning that we would have to learn to treat each other with respect. Does she not agree that respect is earned and that she is likely to receive the same kind of respect she gives the women of Canada when she steps out in front and starts leading the fight for their programs?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I did say it is important that we all learn to respect each other in this House of Commons, and as we work on the veiy difficult issues that we are facing in this country, dealing with the issues of the deficit and at the same time working toward building programs for economic equality and social justice for women.
Oral Questions
Those are the programs I will be working on, in co-operation with my colleagues, conveying the concerns and listening to the concerns right across the country so that we can fully understand what those concerns are as we develop our policies and programs to meet the needs of the women of the country.


GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In 1982, the current Minister of Finance said that the reductions to federal funding of health and education, "could have disastrous effects on the universities and on the colleges, on hospital funding and on the operation of the hospitals." He added: "Let us solve these problems not on the backs of the hospitals and universities. Let us solve those problems outside of that arena." When and why did the Minister of Finance reverse his position?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that I have reversed my position. We have seen a number of things change since 1982. One of those was a substantial deficit and debt problem which we inherited in 1984 that we must work very hard to get under control. Part of getting that problem under control is working with the provinces to get the debt down.
The transfers to the provinces in this coming year will be $34 billion. That is equivalent to about one-third of program spending of the government of Canada. We have asked the provinces to be about a one-third part of the expenditure control program. Program spending of the government of Canada will increase 3 per cent next year. These transfers to the provinces will also increase by 3 per cent on average this year.
I believe that in a fair and upfront way we have told the provinces to be part of this program. It is a national problem. We all have to participate in getting that national problem under control.


Ron J. Duhamel: My supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. Last week he said that education and health expenditures have gone up considerably. This increase is almost entirely due to tax

March 13, 1990
Oral Questions
point transfers made ten years ago. Cash payments have gone up only 2 per cent a year since 1985.
Will the Prime Minister finally tell us just what is going on.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is displaying quite an unsettling ignorance of what the facts are.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Ron J. Duhamel: Listen! I told you we could debate that any time. You don't know what you are talking about.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: The transfers to the provinces-


Ron J. Duhamel: Chicken! Big chicken! Why don't you come and debate like a man?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister could answer the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, when we arrive in the House our skins sometimes get a little thicker than the hon. member's skin has.


Ron J. Duhamel: If you knew what you wgpe talking about-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister could answer the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the transfers to the provinces come in two ways: one is a transfer of tax points and the other is a cash transfer. The tax points and cash transfer are equally important to the provinces because in an equal way they provide cash to the provinces. The provinces can then spend the money on whatever they want to spend it on. Those transfers have increased by about $25 billion over the last five years and they will continue to increase into the future.
As I indicated in my first answer, the government of Canada has a serious financial problem. We are increasing the transfer by 3 per cent. It is a reduction in the rate of growth in the transfer to help with the deficit problem, but as I indicated, I do not believe that we have asked the provinces to accept in any way a greater
burden than we have been prepared to accept ourselves as the government of Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment. Yesterday, Canada's largest trade unions came to Ottawa to express their strong disagreement with Bill C-21, the government's bill to cut the unemployment insurance program. Well in advance they had asked to meet the minister and members of the Conservative caucus but this request was refused.
Would the minister explain to this House and to the Canadian people why neither she nor any member of the Conservative caucus would meet with these representatives of millions of Canadian workers on a matter that seriously affects our income security. Would she explain that?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for the hon. member to remember that over the past year this bill has been studied by both a committee of this House and a committee of the Senate.
Among the presentations to those committees, and particularly to the House of Commons committee, was a number by representatives of different unions, most of them affiliated. In many cases the same representation was heard any number of times.
I have been in correspondence with a number of unions, as with other Canadians, and I would like to point out to the hon. member that the information that we have, and according to some of the surveys that we have done across Canada, a majority of Canadians approve of what we are doing with this bill. I would suggest to the hon. member that he help us get on with it.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, here we have a bill which cuts $1.3 billion from the unemployment insurance benefit fund and the government has no mandate to proceed. This was not part of their platform at the last election.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We got elected, Warren, just in case you are wondering.


William Warren Allmand: As a matter of fact, during the-


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


William Warren Allmand: They did not make this part of their platform during the last election-


Martin Brian Mulroney: What about the mandate for the Liberal Senators?


Some hon. members:: Time.


William Warren Allmand: -when, by the way, they only got 48 per cent of the vote.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I have asked the hon. member to put his question.


William Warren Allmand: Now they are in third place at 19 per cent in the polls-


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


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. The federal Court of Appeal has just handed down its decision on the Old Man River dam in Alberta. The court has ruled that the federal government must subject the project to the Environmental Assessment Review process and that construction of the dam must cease.
Will the minister undertake to immediately launch a full environmental assessment and will he assure the House that construction will stop immediately?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I heard that the judgment had been delivered just at noon today, so I have not had time to read it. The lawyers are currently reviewing the judgment. I will be provided with recommendations and will be pleased to make a decision at the appropriate time.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why the minister would not commit himself immediately to respect and to implement the judgment of the court.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Marlene Catterall: What is really disturbing is that once again the courts have had to step in to protect the environment and to remind the government and the minister what its responsibilities are for the environment of this country. When will the minister start doing his job and stop waiting to be told to do it by the courts?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, when you become a minister there are a few things to learn. One of them is to read the commitments before making them.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). Many national sporting organizations receive approximately $64 million from the Canadian government and have a dual vocation, namely, recreation and competition. Could the Minister confirm today that all these Canadian organizations will be able to function in both official languages, whatever the city holding these competitions which are financed in part by the Canadian government?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact my department has a bilingualism program and we constantly work closely with the organizing committees of major national and international events. The purpose of this program is to provide bilingual services to various games, such as the Commonwealth Games which will be held in Victoria in 1994, the Arctic Games which are taking place this very week, the Canada Games 1991 on Prince Edward Island, and the Canada Games 1993 in Kamloops. I should like to tell my hon. friends that the bilingual services provided during the Canada Games 1989 in Saskatoon have been rated by the press as outstanding.
I thank the hon. member for Abitibi for the interest he is showing in the cause of bilingualism in this country.

March 13, 1990
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre in relation to the 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 the amendment of Mr. Gauthier (p.9099).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House rose at one o'clock the hon. member for Winnipeg South had the floor.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With regard to the debate on the motion before the House, I believe that the position should have been given to the New Democratic Party before the lunch break.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That has now been arranged. We will make sure that the NDP get their right position. Right now the hon. member for Winnipeg South has the floor for another 15 minutes, then we will go to the NDP.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise again to complete the remarks that I began before the break.
When we broke for lunch I was pointing out that, as the minister pointed out when she met with the committee, the records show that the efforts of the members from the other place who interviewed some 54 representatives of various groups and organizations, who had already made representations to the House committee, did not identify one single new issue of substance.
It is very difficult to understand why they went through this exercise in the first place. I would have to say that we can only conclude from this that there was a determined and premeditated plan to delay the bill so as to frustrate the government. I cannot think of any other explanation.
This House passed the bill on November 6, 1989. The Senate special committee then waited a whole three weeks, 21 days, before even bothering to convene its first meeting. Another 10 weeks passed before the report was presented in mid-February. That is more than three months after the bill was passed by the duly elected representatives of this House. Another 10 weeks delay, and for what?
The bill was tabled in the House in April 1989 by the hon. minister. That is almost a full year ago. Surely it is unacceptable to the people of Canada to have the government that they chose with such a resounding majority so frustrated. What possible excuse can there be for these constant delays of government business by a non-elected body? I think it is unforgivable.
Canadians have been led to understand that the venerable upper House was put in place and charged with, among other things, the weighty responsibility to provide some kind of a safety valve in the event that some harmful or pernicious legislation somehow slipped passed the hon. members of this House. In the past, senators were chosen for a whole number of reasons. They were chosen for their wisdom, they were chosen for their experience and they were chosen for their ability to accept the great burden of trust that was placed on them.
They were chosen for these things in case, in some unpredictable way, the pillars of democracy be threatened for a moment or two. The senators were put in place to ensure that there was a safety valve. But senators were not to view themselves as legislators. They were never appointed to act as legislators. That duty is vested in the elected members of this House alone. We are the ones who make the legislation.
It seems to me that even my colleagues opposite would want to understand and appreciate that that concept is at the very heart of the democratic system that we have in place in this country. This is exactly what they are going through in the East Bloc countries right now. They are searching for opportunities to let the people speak, to let the people say what they want.
In Canada, we have been doing that for 120 odd years. The people have been speaking and when they spoke in 1988 they said they wanted the Progressive Conservative party to lead this country into the 21st century. That means that they endorse our policies, the policies of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and they do
March 13, 1990

Government Orders
not want those policies frustrated by a body which is not elected.
Senators were appointed as guardians of the trust, that special and sacred bond that exists between those who are elected to govern and those subjecting themselves to be governed. Shockingly, what we appear to see today is the denial of that trust by some Liberal members of the other House who appear more interested in making political points than in tending to their weighty responsibilities. There is striking evidence to back up this shocking denial of trust about which I have been speaking.
One of the amendments would create a tangle of legal conditions around the government's annual developmental plan for the system. We are willing to accept these amendments. We are willing to accept this, but the government is not prepared to accept the fact-and I know you are going to have a difficult time believing this, Mr. Speaker-that the Senate actually wants the power to approve or reject that plan. Can you believe that?
I would like to read that amendment because it is a striking example of what is contained in this plan. It reads:
If, within 10 sitting days after the day on which the plan is laid before either House of Parliament, a notice is given in either House of a motion to the effect that the plan is unacceptable signed by not less than 15 members of the Senate, in case of a notice given in the Senate, and by not less than 30 members of the House of Commons, in the case of a notice given in that House, and the question on the motion itself is not decided within 10 sitting days after the notice was given, the plan shall, upon the expiry of that period of 10 days, be deemed to have been rejected.


Mr. Milliken:: What's wrong with that?


Dorothy I. Dobbie: My hon. friend asks what is wrong with that. My hon. friend surely would agree with me that no Parliament would ever seriously consider giving such a new power to the Senate. To do something like that would be to deny the responsibility, the authority, the trust that was vested in us as elected members of this House by the Canadian people.
My hon. friend surely does not want to deny his responsibilities as an elected member of this House any more than do any of the government members. I cannot believe that Parliament would ever seriously consider giving the Senate such a new power.
I am not going to go into detail on every single recommended amendment, but there are one or two more that Canadians really should be aware of so they can get a clear understanding of just exactly what is going on here.
In one amendment the Liberal senators would reverse a decision of this House, a decision taken here in this House by the elected members of the people. This decision was that unemployment insurance costs would be paid for by those who stand to benefit. Surely that is a sensible thing. Those who stand to benefit are the workers and their employers. But the senators would have these premiums reduced and let the shortfall come out of general revenues, the taxpayers' pockets, which would contribute more to the deficit.
If we were to accept the entire range of amendments that have been proposed, it would raise our deficit by $1.6 billion. What are the senators thinking of? Do they not know how hard it is to raise $1.6 billion? If the senators have forgotten about this, I can say that the people of Canada have not. They know how tough it is to raise $1.6 billion. To accept these irresponsible changes would be to put a burden on everyday working people which is unfair, unwarranted and certainly irresponsible, as I said.
Another of the amendments would cut back on the basic principles behind this bill by relaxing penalties for people who quit their jobs without just cause or for those who are fired for misconduct. The Liberal senators want to change this decision. They would like to send a signal to people that it is all right to quit their jobs, it is all right to live off the public purse.
The people of Canada are not saying that to us. They are saying that they do not want welfare, they want work and they do not want people living off the system when they can work. If people voluntarily quit their jobs or get fired for cause, I think most people would agree that it is quite right that they be penalized in some way.
In view of these facts we really must ask ourselves why these constant delays and threats of delays are happening and what they are all about. Why was Bill C-21 held up for three months by the Senate? Was it because the senators had concerns for the welfare of Canadians? Was it because the House has acted without due consideration of the bill or with a lack of responsibility? Indeed, was it to protect the interests of democracy, perhaps?

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
Sadly, the evidence does not bear this out. It does not support any of these contentions.
Instead, unfortunately, the evidence leads inevitably to the only conclusion to which I can possibly come, and that is that some Liberals in the Senate have abandoned their trust and their responsibility in the pursuit of political points and inappropriate power. I do not want to believe this and I know that Canadians do not want to believe this either, but each time a bill is frivolously delayed, each time legislation is blocked, the conviction must grow stronger that political power games are being played, and by people who do not have an elected mandate over the fate of Canadians.
This must not happen. If it is happening, it has to stop. It cannot continue. We live in a democracy and we should live by the democratic rules. That means that the laws are made by the elected members of this Parliament and not by those who are appointed.
I do not hesitate to make clear the government's attitude toward any political posturing on behalf of some members of the other place. I also do not hesitate to commend those members who have exercised their trust in a responsible and reliable manner, and many have. In fact, there are some suggestions by the Senate that do demand praise and affirmative response. The minister has listened to the wiser counsel and the more reasonable recommendations with interest and with a commendable quick willingness to respond to those suggestions that improve upon the spirit of her bill. I think that that is most commendable.
For example, the Senate has made certain suggestions regarding literacy and we are pleased to recognize and accept these suggestions regarding this very important provision. I know that the minister would want me to acknowledge and commend the senators who suggested this improvement to her bill.
Even though we resist the effort of some Liberal members to subject the government to inordinate strictures regarding the annual plan showing how unemployment insurance funds will be spent in training and developing worker skills, we do recognize fairness and we have proposed a compromise which responds to this.
Finally, we also recognize and share the concerns of the Canadian fishery and the government is willing to amend the act to better protect fishermen. By the way, it must be noted that the benefits for fishermen were never, never touched by Bill C-21.
However, these accommodations have nothing at all to do with tactics that smack of intimidation or power plays by certain members of the upper House. These accommodations, rather, speak of the reasonable and fair attitude of the government and its commitment to do the right thing. We urge the Liberal senators to take the same fair view on behalf of Canadians and we believe that most would like to do so if given the opportunity to follow the dictates of their conscience.
It is a fact that the Liberals do have a majority in the Senate, but they must learn to resist the temptation to abuse the power that this gives them and to respect the trust that we have vested in their office. Canadians must not have their democratic prerogatives so comtemptu-ously ignored. The Senate must pass Bill C-21 with only the three amendments to which the minister has agreed.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech just given by the hon. member for Winnipeg South. It is interesting that she indicated that the people of this country are behind the PC government because they elected it in November 1988 and in fact support its policies.
It is no wonder that people have found it necessary to go to the Senate because this government has itself abrogated its responsibility. It has no mandate to change UI. In fact, the Secretary of State for External Affairs promised people in Atlantic Canada during the campaign that there would be no changes made to the UI bill. That was a promise made by this government, one more promise that it simply has not kept.
The hon. member criticizes the Senate for what she calls improprieties. Certainly this government is as guilty, if not guiltier, because it made a promise to the Canadian people and it has not kept that promise, like many, many other promises that this government has not kept over the years of its two mandates.
This morning the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration was in the House and I listened with great interest to her speech. She indicated that this bill is a benefit to Canadians. She indicated that not only was the government benefiting Canadians but that it had
March 13, 1990

Canadians' interest at heart. She pointed out two achievements which the government hopes to accomplish. One was to improve social benefits and the second was to give incentives to encourage work.
My home province of Saskatchewan is a good example of PC governments providing opportunities to work. In that province we have had a provincial PC government since 1982 and we have had a federal PC government since 1984. In 1981, the last year that the New Democratic Party was in power provincially, we had a budget with a surplus of $140 million. That was the eleventh straight year that the New Democratic government, under Premier Allan Blakeney, had brought in a surplus budget. The very next year, when the Tories took power under Premier Devine, they had a deficit budget and they have had one ever since. They went from a $140 million surplus in 1981 to a $3.5 billion deficit last year and this year it is going to go up another $350 million.
That is with a population of less than 1 million. That is an awful lot of debt from a government that is so-called business oriented, that is going to create businesses and jobs throughout the province and the country. This government has run the province of Saskatchewan right into the ground.
The whole effect that this government has had on Saskatchewan is extraordinary. In Saskatchewan this year farm incomes are expected to drop by 101 per cent. That means that people are going to go in the hole. They are going to be worse off this year, after putting in all then-labour, time and effort, than they were at the beginning of the year. That is incredible.
In Saskatchewan rural communities are losing over 1,000 farms a year. Rural dwellers are losing jobs and are forced increasingly to move into urban centres. People are forced to leave the province. Last year some 23,000 people left the province of Saskatchewan, that is a net loss of 23,000 people that was not replaced. Over the past four years it has been close to 50,000 people.
Under the free enterprise governments of Grant Devine and the right hon. Prime Minister we have had a net loss of some 50,000 people in the province of Saskatchewan and we have a deficit of $3.5 billion. Now this government is going to be cutting the unemployment
Government Orders
insurance benefits that these people should have a right to receive.
In addition to that, record numbers of people are living below the poverty line in Saskatchewan. We used to be a have province in Saskatchewan. We used to look with some sympathy upon other regions of the country which were have nots. We are a have not province now. We have gone from being the bread basket of Canada to being a basket case. Fourteen per cent of people in Saskatchewan are living below the poverty line. The only province that has a higher percentage is Newfoundland. This has happened under right wing free enterprise governments that have done nothing for the average people in Saskatchewan.
At a time like this, this government brings in a bill that is going to cut $1.3 billion from unemployment insurance, at a time when people in Saskatchewan and various regions of the country need that program desperately and have a right to receive it.
This government talks about improving the social benefits of Canadians. If government members really had the interest of Canadians at heart and wanted to improve social benefits, I wonder why they did not introduce the variable entrance rates last year when they knew that time was running out. That has been passed each year but last year the government refused to pass it.
Government members talk about the Liberals playing games. Well the Liberals do play games but they have nothing on the Tories, nothing at all. In fact, the hon. minister can stand in her place and talk about the social benefits and at the same time talk about delays in the legislation. Yet when this side of the Etouse would have been co-operative in passing the variable entrance rates, they simply refused.
Who is playing politics at the expense of the people in this country who are suffering the most from the policies of this government? It is very clear who is playing politics in this Etouse and who plays it very well.
If the government wished to bring forth a package that included variable entrance requirements, that talked about literacy training, that would took at benefits to the fishing industry and would increase paternity and paternal benefits, New Democrats would be happy to support it. We would be happy to help draft such legislation. It is in our interests and the interests of Canada to have such matters passed in this House. But we do not want to be tied to a piece of legislation that is itself corrupt and

Government Orders
rotten. It is not good to put a sugar coating over a bill that is simply rotten. This is the game the government is playing.
If the government had the interests of Canadians at heart, it would be introducing such legislation. The government wants to provide incentives and encourage work. I find it insulting that the minister would say that the government is providing incentives for Canadians to work. Canadians want to work, Canadians want to work very hard.
I know many constituents in Saskatchewan who are having difficulties with employment who want to work. They do not want to go on welfare. They do not want to be on unemployment insurance. They do not want to be just existing. They want to have their pride. They want to have a job that is meaningful and in which they can take some pride. It is hypocrisy for the minister to stand in her place and say that they are going to create incentives for Canadians to work. It is this government that has been creating disincentives for Canadians.
The regional development program is astounding. It is outrageous. We have heard members from the government side indicate that there can be no more regional programs unless the bottom line economics are there. This country was created, developed and has matured on regional development, on a concern for creating employment and wealth in all areas of the country.
We have a problem of geography and concentrated populations in this country. We have small pockets of people in various regions and unless we have a government committed to maintaining viable employment in those regions, they will suffer. It is contrary to the history of this country to have a government that has a bottom line mentality. This is certainly a different Tory party than we had even 30 years ago. This is a neo-conservatism party. It is a new right-wing mentality. John Diefenbaker would roll over in his grave if he had heard this type of talk.
The bottom line is that this economic mentality is not benefiting the country. Business is suffering. There is no commitment to small business by this government. There is a commitment to large business because it provides the funds for this government, but a real commitment to small business does not exist. There is no
commitment to agriculture or the fishing industry in this country.
This party has been calling for a permanent agricultural program for years. The government has been promising one since 1985 and it has not materialized yet. Now there are some rumblings. We will have a bottom line economic agricultural program which is going to mean the death of many rural communities, the loss of many family farms and increased unemployment. Yet, the minister is going to create incentives for people to work at the same time as taking away their very livelihood. This is hypocrisy. It is unfair and it is unjust.
In my area, in Saskatchewan, and other regions such as the Maritimes, there are many rural communities that are suffering. Their economic base is in real trouble. In the west it is agriculture. In the maritimes it is largely the fishing industry. They need some assistance. They need some compassion. They need some real solutions from this government, but they are not getting them. Instead, the minister is creating a bill that will encourage people to work. It is fine to encourage people to work, but we had better have the opportunities for people to work at.
The Prime Minister and other members of the government have stood in this House many times and talked about job creation and their record of job creation. However, according to the Economic Council, something like 90 per cent of these jobs have been created in the service sector. Many of them are very low paying, part time or temporary.
This is not the kind of job creation that Canadians deserve. This is not the kind of employment that Canadians want. It is a credit to the many Canadians who want to work and who are willing to take these jobs. They take these jobs which provide them with a survival existence rate. I have forgotten the exact figures, but there are 500,000 or 800,000 families in this country where both parents are working because they are so poor and they are trying to keep themselves above the poverty line.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Rodney Edward Laporte: That is a fact. Hon. members opposite may laugh. They think it is funny. These are the facts. Actually I believe that my figures are low.
March 13, 1990


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Rodney Edward Laporte: How many single parent families do we have in this country? Do members opposite know? It is well over one million single parent families who are working, trying to make a living, and trying to survive.
This is the government that promised child care legislation. This government made it a commitment. In the summer of 1987 the Minister of Finance said that it was not a promise but a commitment. This was one of the Tory commitments. The government has misled the Canadian public, and members opposite know it.


Mr. Redway:: That was the legislation the Senate would not pass.


Rodney Edward Laporte: The government should introduce some proper legislation on child care, which was a commitment of the government. When is that to happen?
The government is going to put money into training programs and that is great. I think we should have more training programs. Everybody in this House believes we should have training programs. A little closer look should be taken at them. The one program with which I have had some direct involvement is the Canadian Futures Program. Last year I was looking at this program to see how it could benefit many communities in my riding. I found out that the Canadian Futures Program had no money, yet it was part of the employment and immigration package which was being flaunted around the country.
The Canadian Futures Program in many ways has had some problems to which the government has so far refused to listen. For example, trade unions, women, native people and persons with disabilities are seldom represented on the Canadian Futures committee.
The current federal training programs are deemed by many to be misdirected, inflexible, centrally managed, and inadequate. Simply to pour more money into programs which are not working is really not going to accomplish very much. Surely members opposite realize that.
Money is being put into training programs which need to be redirected and re-evaluated, and the government is saying it is doing a lot for training. It is great to put the money into training, but let us have some proper programs. Let us have a bit of thought in developing these training programs and don't put the money into
Government Orders
training programs at the expense of the unemployed of this country, which is what this government is doing.
What should this government do? First of all it should withdraw this bill. The government has no mandate to introduce this bill and, given what is happening across the country, there is even more reason now not to proceed with it.
Second, it should introduce variable entrance requirements. With rising unemployment this government has no excuse for not introducing a variable entrance requirement amendment right now. That would be a benefit.
Third, the government should accept the Federal Court ruling on parental benefits. One of the jokes of this is that it is saying that it is doing a lot of good for this country. It is the Schacter case, a decision of the Federal Court which indicated that the government should be extending parental benefits. The government is only implementing the Federal Court decision.
I would just like to close with a couple of comments on the Senate. This is a government that can talk about the injustice of the Senate and, as the last member said, the outrageous behaviour of the Senate. The outrageous behaviour is on that side of the House. The government has invoked closure at every stage of this bill. It has used closure more often than any other government in the history of our country. The disrespect for Parliament is sitting on the other side of the House. It is these people and this government that are showing disrespect for this institution and to all people of this country. They should be ashamed of themselves. I know some members opposite are ashamed but are not saying very much. It is a sad situation.
In closing, I cannot support this bill for the reasons that I have outlined. I call upon this government to withdraw this bill and bring in something that is more humane, more acceptable, and will benefit all Canadians.


Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, unemployment is a very serious problem to which our government devotes a great deal of attention. Obviously, the best solution to the unemployment problem is job creation, and on this score, our government has no lesson to learn from anyone. Mr. Speaker, since 1984, our government has created over 1.5 million jobs. The

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his recent Budget Speech said:
The economy has expanded for seven consecutive years.
Employment has grown strongly. After-tax incomes have risen.
Economic opportunities have been increased. Poverty has been
reduced by the best kind of social policy-more jobs.
Upgrading the labour force is thus part of job creation and that is precisely the purpose of Bill C-21.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21 involves a labour force development strategy, a dynamic strategy compared to the present unemployment insurance plan.
Bill C-21 seeks to encourage the private sector to provide workers with more and better training. Bill C-21 will also permit use of the Unemployment Insurance Fund to create new job opportunities; it will make unemployment insurance more proactive. That is an innovative feature, Mr. Speaker, that will give workers new opportunities.
Of course, the Liberal senators have been repeating for months that Bill C-21 will lead to the destruction of the unemployment insurance system. Do not believe a word of it. It is the worst kind of fear-mongering and the Liberal senators should stop spreading such falsehoods once and for all.
Contrary to what the Liberal senators are saying, Bill C-21 contains measures that substantially improve the present legislation. I may add that these improvements are most welcome if we are to provide solutions adapted to the reality of a changing economy in the 90s.
Under the present legislation, the UI system is merely a set of passive measures that come into play after the fact. Under the present legislation we react, while the new measures in Bill C-21 will enable us to act. That is what the Liberal senators will not see and will not say.
We must adapt the UI system to new circumstances, and that is exactly what Bill C-21 does. I think this is a very important point, because the provisions of the present legislation fail to consider the real needs of Canadian families at the beginning of the 90s.
Changing values in our society have led to new attitudes. Today, bringing up children is a task shared by both parents. Both parents play an increasingly active role in the lives of their children. If the bill is passed, this fact will be reflected in the UI system. The bill also contains more generous provisions for special benefits, making them more readily accessible to claimants than is the case under the existing legislation.
By making parental benefits available to both the father and the mother, to both natural and adoptive parents, the government reflects in its new legislation the changes that are taking place in Canadian families. Today, women who have given birth are entitled to benefits for a maximum of 15 weeks, and only during the first part of their benefit period. The fathers are not entitled to any benefits at all. That is the kind of situation Bill C-21 seeks to remedy, and that is what the Liberal senators are rejecting.
Another important change in this bill that will make the UI system more equitable concerns workers who are 65 and over. Many of these workers want to keep on working and deserve to have the same rights as younger workers. Bill C-21 extends income protection to workers 65 and over. However, the bill is more than just a few changes in a number of unemployment insurance rules. It allows the government to implement its Labour Force Development Strategy. This strategy is a major government initiative that will make Canada increasingly competitive on world markets.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, an active of income protection program is more than just distributing cheques to people who have lost their jobs. An active income protection program offers workers a chance to acquire new skills and explore new ways of finding better jobs and keeping those jobs. In this perspective, the government will work with the private sector to help employers offer workers more and better training. We want to align the level of training in the private sector with the levels existing among our main trading partners.
The government will spend more on human resource planning and training new entrants, which will involve the apprenticeship programs, the Industrial Adjustment Service and the Community Futures Program.
March 13, 1990

With the additional funds, the government will be able to work together with employers, workers and communities to help them adapt to changes in the workplace and to increasingly competitive world markets.
Thanks to the Labour Force Development Strategy, there will be more money to train those receiving unemployment insurance benefits. They will be able to acquire the skills they need to find better and more stable employment.
The Labour Force Development Strategy will also give us a chance to try new and innovative approaches in responding to the needs of Canadian workers, by providing financial assistance to unemployment insurance claimants so that they can establish their own businesses or move to areas where there are more jobs. Bill C-21 will have a positive impact on workers, communities and the entire country.
Contrary to what is being said by the Liberal senators, the government is firmly resolved to do what is necessary to ensure that Canadians have all the skills they need to adapt and become part of a changing economy. Thanks to Bill C-21, we will certainly be in a better position to meet their needs.
Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect of this bill that deserves to be highlighted. Thanks to the proposed changes, the UI system will be able to respond to the vaiying employment needs of communities across Canada. This means the government has ensured that the UI system is adapted to regional needs. In regions with high unemployment, most claimants will continue to receive the same benefits. This is another aspect of the bill that demonstrates the flexibility of the new UI system in adjusting to today's and tomorrow's economic realities.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to comment on the role of the Senate in the legislative process involving Bill C-21. It has always been said that the Senate's role consisted in providing "sober second thought" on legislation. Recently, however, it has become the scene of political manoeuvring, with certain people using their position to wreck bills passed by democratically elected members of Parliament.
The senators said they established a special committee of the Senate so that people who did not appear before our legislative comittee could express their views. One wonders why 54 of the witnesses selected to appear before the special committee of the Senate represented
Government Orders
groups or individuals who had already appeared before the legislative committee.
One also wonders why the special committee of the Senate decided to hear representatives of groups that had already voiced their objections to practically all government proposals. And why did the special committee refuse to consider the views of acknowledged experts on unemployment?
It just proves the Liberal senators only want to show one side of the question, that they want to tiy and scare the public and are not interested in seriously considering the real and positive impact of the bill before the House today.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) also told members of the Senate Committee that their deliberations had raised no major new points on the bill. The Special Committee was also determined to delay the process for as long as possible. The facts speak for themselves, Mr. Speaker. The House passed Bill C-21 on November 6. The Special Committee met for the first time three weeks later. It only reported to the Senate on February 14. Such a performance is quite deplorable.
As I said before, the provisions of Bill C-21 take account of the needs of regions where unemployment is high by setting a scale that makes the system simpler and fair for all beneficiaries. But instead of adopting Bill C-21 and the variable entrance requirement, the Liberals in the Senate have decided to wait. This means that many people who would be eligible for unemployment insurance today cannot benefit from it. Canadians well know that the Liberal senators are to blame for this. Canadians also know that the Liberal senators are preventing many people, including mothers and fathers of newborn children, from receiving the improved benefits provided by Bill C-21. People are counting on these benefits and part of the Senate is happy to drag things out. Canadians must also remember that it is the same group of people who prevented the passage of several bills for political reasons.
Let me remind you in particular of the long battle that preceded the adoption of Bill C-21 by which the government sought to improve patent protection for inventors of pharmaceutical products. Obstruction tactics like those of the Liberal senators had not been seen for a long time. The senators invoked the same arguments then as they do now, namely that the people would

Government Orders
suffer, that the government was not interested in the problems of the old and the sick, and that the cost of medication would rise astronomically.
We are now sure of what we already knew. The senators' demands were unjustified and were only intended to frighten the public and harass the government. We cannot let ourselves be dragged into such a situation again and I am convinced that the Canadian people disapprove of the Liberal senators' strategy.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, once again we are debating Bill C-21, which is the government's bill to cut back on the unemployment insurance program.
This bill will make it more difficult for Canadian employees to qualify for unemployment insurance. This bill will shorten the benefit period for which they will qualify if they are collecting unemployment insurance. This bill will terminate the government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund, which last year was $2.5 billion.
For many years the unemployment insurance program fund has been contributed to by three sources: employees when they are working contribute to the fund, employers contribute to the fund, and the government contributed to the fund. Last year its contribution was $2.5 billion.
However, through Bill C-21 the government is terminating its contribution to the fund. That means that from now on, once this bill passes, only workers and employers will maintain the fund, which means that the contributions that they must make will increase but they are going to receive less in benefits. It is going to be more difficult to qualify, and they are going to get a shorter benefit period.
As a result of this bill, 155,000 Canadians will lose their benefits altogether, that is 155,000 Canadians who would have received benefits under the law as it stands now will no longer get benefits, and 775,000 Canadians will have their benefits reduced as a result of this bill.
In effect, what we are discussing here today are amendments that have been proposed to the bill by the Senate. I want to make it absolutely clear that if we were talking about amendments that were conceived in the minds of the senators, that were bom on the floor of the Senate, then I would have some concern about them because as has been stated by Conservative members in this House the Senate is not an elected body.
The amendments we are dealing with today from the Senate were not conceived in the Senate. The amendments that the Senate is proposing to the House are amendments that have come forward from trade unions in Canada, from churches, from social action groups, from legal aid clinics, and so on. The Senate's amendments are virtually the same in principle as the amendments that we in the opposition proposed when the bill was in the House. The only thing is that the Senate's amendments do not go as far as our amendments. They are a little milder than our amendments, but they are based on the same principles. Those amendments that the Senate is proposing have a wide consensus in this country and, in proposing the amendments, the Senate better represents the feelings in the country than the government does.
I must point out that the government, at the time of the election in 1988, did not make it part of its platform that it was going to change the unemployment insurance system. It did not make it part of its platform that it was going to cut back on the unemployment insurance system. As a matter of fact, when the Minister for International Trade, who is the principal spokesman for Newfoundland, the province with the highest number of unemployed in this country, was asked during the election campaign if the government had any idea to cut back or change the unemployment insurance system, he said: "Absolutely not!". He then went on to say that he consulted with the Prime Minister and there was no way they were going to touch the unemployment insurance system.
This government has no mandate to do what it is doing, and in many respects the Senate is speaking for the Canadian people more than the government is.
I want to remind the government that although it has by far the greatest number of seats, at the time of the election it only got 48 per cent of the votes. The combined opposition parties, the Liberals and the New
March 13, 1990

Democrats, got 52 per cent of the votes. Therefore, at that time the government did not even get the majority of votes of the Canadian people, and it is putting forward some serious cuts to a major program for which it has no mandate.
If we look at the situation today, the government got 48 per cent of the votes at the time of the election but in the recent Gallup poll it had 19 per cent and was in third place. That is the kind of support it has among the Canadian people. In another poll, it had 21 per cent of the support of the Canadian people, still in third place, even behind the NDP.
Using closure at every stage, the government is trying to ram through a bill for which it has no mandate. Closure was used at second reading, at third reading and report stage and now, after one day of debate on the Senate's amendments, the government is using closure again. At one time in this country closure was an exception to the rule, but with this government it is used as a matter of fact on every bill because it does not believe in democratic discussion and debate.
I want to point out that we in the Opposition do not delude ourselves. We know that with extended debate we are never going to convince those Conservatives on the other side to vote our way. They would not vote our way no matter what we did, even if we debated it for 100 years. But the purpose of extended debate in this House with a free press and with the proceedings televised is to get the message across to the Canadian people outside this House so that public opinion will know what the government is doing. However, the government does not want the public to know what it is doing. It applies closure immediately after one day of debate so that the public is confused and it does not know what is happening.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of approach that you get from a totalitarian attitude in government and that is what we have over there. They use closure on every bill that has any kind of controversy to it and they do it immediately after a very short debate.
We have to return to the very principles of unemployment insurance when we discuss a bill like this. One must remember that unemployment insurance was introduced in this country in 1940 after the great depression of the 1930s, because in the great depression of the 1930s
Government Orders
when people were laid off they had no income whatsoever. There was no unemployment insurance. All there was were soup kitchens, bread lines and voluntary relief. What that meant was not only did families and individuals suffer as a result of unemployment-they could not feed their children, they could not buy their clothing, they could not pay their rents-but the whole community suffered. What started off as one plant closing, soon snowballed into damage to the entire community. With unemployment insurance, not only can the unemployed person pay his rent, buy his groceries, and pay for the essentials of life, but he keeps the community going.
We had House of Commons committee hearings in Sudbury. The people there pointed out that in 1982, when the world nickel prices went down, nearly 10,000 people were unemployed in Sudbury. It was because of the UI system that nearly 10,000 people were still able to pay their rent, buy their groceries, and pay for the gasoline for their cars, that the community stayed alive. The whole community did not go down the drain. The community was able to survive for over a year until the nickel prices went up again and a lot of those people were brought back on the job. The unemployment insurance program kept those individuals, those families, and that city surviving during that hard period.
The government is cutting back on the benefits to the unemployment insurance program. It is trying to pretend that it is not doing that. On the one hand the government it is going to put $800 million into training yet we all know that the government is taking money away from unemployment insurance benefits. The government tries to pretend that that sort of sleight of hand operation is really not going to hurt the unemployed. Where the unemployed person used to have so much money to pay for the essentials of life, he is going to suffer a cut back on those payments, but somebody is going to get money for training. We in the opposition believe 100 per cent in training. We believe the government should train and it should have been training for a long time. But one does not reduce the benefits that go to the unemployed individual, benefits he needs to pay for the essentials of life. One does not reduce those to pay for the training. For years and years in the country, training was paid out of general income tax revenue that goes into the

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
government and that is how it should be paid for. Training and education benefits the whole community.
The government, in supporting this bill, pretends that nothing wrong is happening to the unemployed. The government is introducing and passing this bill because it believes so strongly in training. I want to remind the House that from 1984 to 1988 the government cut back training programs at the federal level by 32 per cent. In 1984, training programs were $2.2 billion and they were cut back to $1.5 billion over that period of time.
All of a sudden, following the free trade agreement, the government started to get criticism from the de Grandpre Commission and other commissions that there was not enough training in the country. This great Conservative government sat back and said: "Gee, we have cut back too far on training. We have to do something about it. Where are we going to get the money for training? We also believe the highest priority in this country is the deficit". The government looked around at different places to find money and found it in the unemployment insurance fund. It plucked $1.3 billion out of that fund and put it into training.
Where does that lead us? That brings us back exactly to where we were in real dollars in 1984. In 1984 we had $2.2 billion for training. Now, because it is taking money away from the unemployed, we will again have approximately the same amount of money. That is a great commitment to training. When the government's back is up against the wall after it has reduced the fund by 32 per cent over five years the government is going to put the money back, but take it away from the unemployed because it does not have the guts to raise the money through taxation as it should be done.
What is the result of these government amendments? These government amendments are going to cut back on unemployment insurance. It is another type of shell game like the budget which was produced a couple of weeks ago. The government is cutting back benefits to the unemployed. As I pointed out, 775 Canadians are going to have their benefits reduced and 155,000 are going to lose their benefits altogether. What will happen to these unemployed? What are they going to do if there is no job to go to? They are going to be shifted onto the provincial welfare rolls. In Ontario, they will go onto the municipal welfare rolls. Somebody has got to pick up the tab. If you do not have unemployment insurance in this
country, it is the welfare system. It is a social assistance system.
Again, in the House of Commons committee hearings, the cities of Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, and Sudbury all said that as a result of this bill their welfare costs will go up. If people are without money, jobs, or unemployment insurance, we are not going to let them starve on the street. We are not going to allow them to rely totally on soup kitchens and breadlines. They will come under the welfare system. Somebody, be it the same Canadian taxpayer, will have to pay for it, but instead of it being done through a rational system such as the unemployment insurance system which has served this country well for years, it will be done through the welfare systems. That is one of the results of this legislation.
In addressing the bill government members have said that the purpose of the bill is to take away the disincentives in the unemployment insurance system so that Canadians will work rather than rely on the dole. In other words, Conservative members are implying that the unemployment insurance system we have had for years is an incentive not to work, an incentive to laziness.
We have the same unemployment insurance system throughout the whole country. It is the same system in Newfoundland as in Toronto. In Toronto the unemployment rate is around 4 per cent. In Newfoundland it is around 20 per cent or 18 per cent. If it is a disincentive to work, why are all those lazy bums in Toronto not working? It is not a different system in Ontario, Alberta or Newfoundland. It is the same system in every province, yet there is a low rate of unemployment in Toronto and a very high rate of unemployment in Newfoundland, Cape Breton and in the Gaspe. The reason is not the unemployment insurance system, the reason is there are no jobs.


An hon. member:: That is Tory logic. So much for Tory logic.


William Warren Allmand: Yes, that is Tory logic. The Tories blame the unemployed for unemployment. They put the blame for unemployment on the people who cannot find jobs. If the real cause of unemployment was the unemployment insurance system, then you would see uniform unemployment across the country. I do not think anybody can argue that Newfoundlanders are any more lazy than anyone else. You will find, as a matter of fact, that half of Toronto is filled with Newfoundlanders, Prince Edward Islanders and New Brunswickers, and so on. They are not lazy. They want to work. What they need are jobs.
March 13, 1990

They do not need cut-backs in their unemployment insurance system.
In many parts of Canada, not the big cities such as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver or Calgary, many places are one-industry towns based on resources. They are lumber towns, oil towns, mining towns, fishing towns and farming towns. In the wintertime their employment is very seasonal in nature. When the fishery closes down in the winter there is no work. If it is a town based on tourism where tourism stops in the winter such as an ocean resort located in Prince Edward Island and the beaches are closed, there is no work.
It is not that the people are lazy, they need something to keep them going until the spring comes, until the fishery opens, until the forestry industry gets going or until the logging gets going again, or until the prices go up as they did in Sudbury. They need something to keep them going and the unemployment insurance system is what has kept them going in the past.
In most progressive countries in Europe, in West Germany, France, or Sweden, they have very efficient unemployment insurance systems yet they have low rates of unemployment. Unemployment insurance systems are not the cause of unemployment. The people that are unemployed are unemployed because there are no jobs.
The minister tries to justify this bill and tries to justify the cuts in the bill by saying: "Yes, I am cutting back on benefits to the unemployed but I am going to provide them with training". I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you are an unemployed fish worker in Canso, Nova Scotia, what are you going to train these people for? Are you going to train them for a job in Toronto? Are you going to train them for a job in Calgary, in Vancouver? If you are going to train them in something new and they live in Canso, you first have to do something about getting jobs in Canso so they can use that training there. The same thing for Sydney and Glace Bay and northern Ontario, and so on. You just do not train people without any ideas as to where they are going to go once they get that training. Training is a good thing. Education is a
Government Orders
good thing. But you also have to have jobs once they are trained to fill those jobs.
We have had many examples of people who were trained over and over again in certain parts of the country but had no jobs to go to. It is great to train people but you have to have side by side with your training program a program for regional development and job-creation so that those people who get training will find jobs. It is not enough to say that we are going to move everybody to Toronto. Toronto is too big as it is. The rents are too high. The costs are too high. There is a high standard of living in Toronto. You have to go about 10 miles to get to work each day.
In conclusion, I want to say that the Senate amendments do not go far enough. They are mild compared to the amendments we introduced in the House of Commons. They are based on the same principles as the amendments introduced in the House of Commons, but they are mild. The Senate is trying to make a compromise with the Conservative government.
I point out again that as far as I am concerned the Senate has more of a mandate to present amendments before this House and this government. I say that because the government did not make these amendments part of its platform in the 1988 election. As a matter of fact, it denied there would be any change to the unemployment insurance system. The Tories did not make it part of its mandate. At that time the government did not win a majority of Canadian votes and now it is at 19 per cent and 21 per cent in the polls. It has no support whatsoever in the country and here, with the use of closure, it is trying ram through amendments which are not supported by the churches in Canada, the trade unions, nor the legal aid clinics. None of the social bodies support these amendments. Even the chambers of commerce are divided on them because they do not want to pay higher premiums. They know that when the government terminates its contribution which was $2.5 billion last year, that their contribution will increase. It is another form of taxation.

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
I ask the government to stop this nonsense of trying to pretend that what the Senate is proposing is something that was conceived in the minds of the senators. The senators are acting as a conduit for the strong feelings of millions and millions of Canadians. If the government had any sense it would wake up and send this bill back to the drawing-board to come forward with something that is more reasonable and more humane.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen with great interest to my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace, who spoke forcefully about Bill C-21 and the situation today whereby Parliament is again considering-for the second time-a bill that we thought had been passed democratically, according to the customary rules of Parliament, Mr. Speaker. We thought that we had debated this bill, but here we are again together today debating this Bill C-21 because the Canadian Senate has sent it back to us. I regret that my colleague could not stay with us a few minutes more because I would like to respond, to make some comments on his speech.
Among other things, I found his statement that the Senate of Canada had a mandate pretty far-fetched, to put it bluntly, Mr. Speaker, but right at the end of his speech, he told us that the Senate had a mandate to change Bill C-21. Mr. Speaker, I think that we must not let such statements pass. We must come right out and say that it is false. The Canadian Senate has no mandate from anyone to change Bill C-21. From the outset, I think that we must denounce the fact that the Senate, largely dominated by federal Liberals, Mr. Speaker, senators appointed by Mr. Trudeau, today is usurping the democratic authority not only of the Canadian Parliament but, more than that, of all Canadians who ever voted in their life. To put it bluntly, by so doing, they are literally restricting every Canadian's power to decide democratically who will govern them. That is the ultimate result of their action. I wanted to mention it, and it is important to establish that fact at the outset because, if we start allowing the Senate to come and encroach upon the powers of the Canadian Parliament, well, it is the whole of our democracy that will ultimately suffer. I really want to make that clear, Mr. Speaker, and to point
out that the Senate of Canada has been given absolutely no mandate to act in that way.
I was also puzzled, Mr. Speaker, by my honorable colleague taking the trouble of mentioning in his comments that the Senate had not gone far enough. It is as though he had been telling us at the same time: "Here are the amendments from the Senate of Canada, but I personally think that they have not gone far enough, that this is not enough."
We on this side of the House find this rather strange, all the more so since the Senate and the federal Liberals had proposed changing the entrance requirements from 15 to 18 weeks, whereas Bill C-21 provides for a variable entrance requirement of 10 to 20 weeks. In other words the Liberal senators were in favour of a requirement which is stricter yet than what the Canadian government, the Progressive Conservative government proposes through Bill C-21. And today the Liberal member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace complained that the Canadian Senate did not go far enough. It certainly goes to show, first that contradiction does not faze them and second, that they ought to be talking to one another. I should think that they have caucuses, like all political parties in the House of Commons. Hopefully they will take every opportunity to sit down together and discuss the bills they are expected to debate in either House, because it seems to me their contradictions are rather flagrant.
Basically we are witness to something on the part of the opposition, and this goes for the NDP as well because I would not want to discriminate. As much on the NDP side as on the Liberal side we are witnessing a rather simple phenomenon, and that is a monumental failure in terms of fresh ideas, a monumental failure in terms of an alternative for a political party for the whole country. What they have been doing through this exercise-because the federal Liberal members sitting here are accomplices in this exercise-what they have been doing is to let unelected federal Liberal senators take over their parliamentary responsibilities. That is what we are witnessing here. Indeed, that is the issue of this debate. Let us not kid ourselves and suggest it is anything else but. That is exactly what it is. We are dealing here with an opposition which has completely shifted its responsibilities to a group of people who do not have to face the electorate at regular intervals, as elected representatives normally have to do in a
March 13, 1990

democratic system. That is exactly what we are witnessing now. We are therefore compelled today to take up the time of the House to debate once more a bill which we have already debated.
We are forced today to resume this debate and reconsider decisions already made, and this, at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. That is exactly what the debate people are watching today is all about. Which does not mean that the government is altogether unreasonable. Because we have at heart first and foremost to uphold the interests of our constituents, we are prepared to go to any length to make progress with this bill which is very important for our country. Although reluctantly believe me, we are prepared to accept certain amendments to accommodate the Senate. I emphasize this point, because we want to show that, in fact, we are not totally insensitive to what the Senate may say nor to the message it may want to convey to us. We do not believe either that we know better than anybody else in this country what is good for the Canadian people.
It is true that once in a while, a member of the opposition, whether a NDP or a liberal, or even a minister or an individual member of the Ontario or British Columbia legislature may come and say: "Well, back home, things are different. Here is a significant amendment to the bill." This may happen. In this case, I can tell you frankly that there are a few amendments proposed by the Canadian Senate which the government has decided to accept. I mention this because it is important to let people know that we are always ready for a compromise. We are prepared to bend over backward, as we say in Quebec, to make progress with this bill.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think it is also important to see what Bill C-21 is all about. First of all, we must tell Canadians frankly what they will have to face in the 1990s. Training will become an essential component in peoples' lives. We will have to make sure that in the forthcoming years, there is increased training in the labour force if we want Canadian men and women to keep their jobs and adjust to the new technologies which will appear on the market place.
Bill C-21 attempts to prepare them to face these big changes.
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, we know that our unemployment insurance system was designed in another era, the 1950s and 1960s-things move so fast in our world that we can now call that another era. The system was designed at a time when Canada's economic requirements were quite different from what they are today. What has changed dramatically in the last 20 years in Canada is that to enter and remain in the labour market, you need a minimum level of training. Bill C-21 recognizes this need. It makes an unemployment insurance system, which is largely passive, more active. We take a pool of money of about $10 billion a year all told, paid for by employers and employees and by the government when it contributed and when it will be called upon to contribute from time to time as required. We are taking about $10 billion that was paid out passively to Canadians and we are making it more productive so that those who receive benefits can at the same time get the help they need to re-enter the labour market. That is what Bill C-21 is about, Mr. Speaker.
If you take a look around, and my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace mentioned it when he spoke of chambers of commerce, if you take a look at the chambers of commerce in Canada and the Canadian Manufacturers Association, if you look at the economic development corporations, in Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia or elsewhere, they will all give you the same message: Training is the key to making the Canadian economy competitive. If it is a key element, we must adjust our systems to recognize the importance of training. That is the purpose of Bill C-21.
I hear a New Democratic colleague, I hear noises from that side, someone saying that we are making the poor pay. That is absolutely false, Mr. Speaker.
Basically, what you say seems to confirm that you have a poor understanding of the Canadian economy, of Bill C-21, and of the needs of Canadian men and women in the years to come.
Basically, what he is saying today is: Don't change a thing. Don't change the Unemployment Insurance Act and don't change anything in this country. As if Canada could continue unchanged in a world that is perpetually changing, Mr. Speaker. It cannot!
Canadians listening to us today know perfectly well we can't. We cannot stay put and stand pat and do nothing, like the New Democrats and the federal Liberals, and pretend everything will work out fine. It just isn't true. We must have the guts to change the system we have, and that is exactly what Bill C-21 sets out to do. Its

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
purpose is to help those who need training, who need to acquire skills, and who need practical training to get back into the labour market. That is what this is all about, Mr. Speaker.
Unfortunately, we on this side of the House face an opposition that suffers from hardening of the arteries, that has no idea and is unable to come up with alternatives. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that the alternatives they do suggest always boil down to the same thing.
I have been in the House since 1984, and to every government bill, the opposition has responded with the same alternative: spend more money!
We ask them: What would you do if you were running the show? No problem, they would spend more money. Our national debt has now reached $350 billion. Makes no difference! Spend more money! Always the same naive answer.
Basically, what they are saying is, they don't want to choose. They don't want to suggest an alternative.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a few minutes to talk about the situation of young people in this country, a subject in which I was very much involved. I had the privilege of occupying a cabinet position in which I was directly responsible for young people. If there is any group in our society that so obviously needs training and education, it is our young Canadians. Canada has a very serious problem today with respect to training and education. For instance, we have a very high drop-out rate at the secondary level. About 30 per cent of students in Canada do not finish highschool. I am sure this will surprise many of our listeners. Thirty per cent! I see a number of young people here today, our pages here in the House of Commons, who provide a truly exceptional service. They are at university, but these young men and women who work for us in the House of Commons represent 13, 14 or 15 per cent of the population in their age group. That is quite impressive. To me this must mean something.
What is even more surprising is that the highschool drop-out rate is not going down, it is going up. It is increasing in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, and the only province where the school dropout rate is stable and going down is, as far as I know, Saskatchewan.
Another thing we know, Mr. Speaker, is that the more training or education a person has the better his or her chances to find gainful employment in our society. That was true 20 years ago, that was true 30 years ago, and it is still true today in 1990. It is important that we pinpoint these problems and make an attempt to solve them. It is an important problem for the following reasons. The people who are likely to benefit from training are those who already have had a minimum of education, people who have at least Grade 5. Statistics indicate quite clearly that people who take advantage of these training opportunities, attend night school or enrol for three- or four-week courses when drawing unemployment insurance are those who in most cases already have a minimum of education or have finished Grade 5 at least. But let us not worry about those who did not complete their studies, let us face it, they are not going to go knocking on doors to show that they do not have the minimum education required to enrol for other courses. This is why we have to be aware of these new problems, Mr. Speaker.
Bill C-21 fits in that context because the government acknowledges the importance of all-


Joy Langan: They have to pay for it themselves!


Jean J. Charest: Pardon me! Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard something, but obviously it was just a bit of noise from the NDP side.
In any event, we should strive to identify quickly the new challenges we will have to meet in the 1990s, challenges of which we had no idea some 30 or 40 years ago, because frankly, what is new in this country, is the fact that we have somehow become the victims of our own success. Some 30 or 40 years ago, we lived in a resource based economy and an individual did not need much education to get and keep a well- paying job. But this situation has changed dramatically over the past 20 years.
Today, we know for instance that within the next ten years, 67 per cent of the new jobs will require at least 12 years of schooling and of that number half will require at least 17 years.
I suggest, therefore, that the message is clear and easy to understand. At least, the members on this side of the House have succeeded in understanding it very quickly. That is the reason why the government has introduced

Bill C-21 to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, to make sure that Canadian men and women can take advantage of the employment opportunities which will be created for them on the labour market, provided we have the courage to implement the major changes which are necessary.
That is what Bill C-21 is all about. Unfortunately, this is an issue of secondary importance, because the real problem, as far as I am concerned, is the fact that this Parliament is being robbed of its authority by non-elected people who, by their actions, are trying to whittle down the democratic power of each and every citizen in this country. Through their action today, Mr. Speaker-I urge you to reflect upon it, because what I am saying is very important-the Liberals are telling the Canadian people who took part in the last election that their votes do not mean anything. They are trying to undermine the basic power of each individual who voted in the 1988 election. And that, Mr. Speaker, is a sham which we must denounce today and again tomorrow, and for which the Liberal Party of Canada will eventually pay a very high price.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, it does not give me any great pleasure to speak again this afternoon. It seems every time I speak in this House it is in response to a government act of closure. It becomes the rule rather than the exception.
We wish the government would kick the habit. I think the people of Canada are probably not aware of the kinds of actions that this government gets involved in day after day, week after week, year after year. In fact, it is setting all-time records for closure. It is almost like a Gestapo kind of tactic. It is the same thing in committee hearings.
Committee members come out and say: "They don't listen. They don't want to listen. They don't want witnesses". They are so callous as to indicate: "Why listen to them? They will all cry the same song anyway". This is the kind of attitude that the members opposite have. The minister is in some sort of "never never land" that is not the reality of the situation.
Government Orders
The reality is in the constituency offices of this country. I do not think you are listening to the people who come into your offices. Ask them what they are talking about. They are talking about the UI bill. They are saying that this is another Draconian measure, in a whole host of measures that to me are very remindful of December with the clawback provision.
Clawback is obviously a term created by the Tory government. Bryce Mackasey put it very well when speaking of the UI program, specifically since 1980. He said: "Any tinkering with this program has been well orchestrated, a well orchestrated campaign based on the alleged abuse of the plan". I think that it is a carefully worked out plot that "everybody is abusing the plan and therefore we are going to have to fix it".
You indeed fixed it, but at the expense of the people who can least afford to pay for the changes, by preparing and conditioning people for the amendment, supposedly aimed at reducing the abuse when in fact the main purpose was to shift the financial burden. You have done that.
You throw in the occasional amendment. We call them sweeteners, artificial, synthetic, something which is very apropos from this government. I think it is also very uniform action in that the things you do are unimaginative and not creative. Both budgets have been that way. It is just an act of cut, cut, cut, cut. There is not one positive aspect in either one of those budgets, nor is there anything positive in this UI program.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Very depressing.


Steve Butland: Very depressing, indeed.
In my constituency the Conservatives said: "You must vote for free trade because it will create thousands of jobs. It will be good for the Canadian steel industry." I am here to tell you that it is not doing us any good. I know the hon. member from Hamilton will understand this. You may not agree with me, but it has been bad for the steel industry. We had a visit from some American Congressmen and they said: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you, Canadians. You're not getting any more of our steel market. Don't kid yourself into thinking that". So this free trade agreement that was supposedly good for us is in fact hurting us. The American steel industry has not stopped harassing us. As a result there is unemploy-

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
ment in my riding. We have a state of the art seamless tube mill which is almost nonp-operational.
The unemployment rate continues to escalate. The answer to this is change the unemployment system, make it more difficult to get into it and you will qualify for a shorter period of time. To boot, you will pay for it. That is the ultimate insult.
As far as the training provided for by the government goes, it is recognized that the government's proposals have been abysmal failures, not only public, but private. The figures show that the federal government has been back-pedalling in this area. Statistics indicate that the federal government has been cutting back on job training outlays since fiscal 1984-85. The expenditure cut-backs would appear even sharper if the figures were adjusted for inflation.
While Japan and the U.S. allocate considerably less public sector money to adult job training, their private sectors more than make up for this seeming imbalance. According to the Department of Employment and Immigration the private sector in Canada spends about $1.4 billion on formal training, less than half that of the U.S. on per employee basis. I worry whether Canadian governments truly grasp the gravity of the situation. Longterm training should be the responsibility of government, particularly the federal government. In this regard governments have been letting the Canadian labour force down.
When it comes to governments discussing in their budgets the have provinces, Ontario is always mentioned. Ontario is wealthy. But they fail to break down Ontario into northern Ontario and southern Ontario. Northern Ontario is not doing well, thanks to this government and its free trade agreement and cuts in regional development programs.
We are put into an unemployment boundary with other areas. I am glad that Sudbury is doing so well, but we are not doing so well. The rates are askew. As a result the people in Sault Ste. Marie who are presently unemployed, supposedly at the rate of 9 something per cent, which I suspect is 13 or 14 per cent, are the ones who are going to be hurt by this, and will continue to be hurt.
I do not want to be a doom and gloom kind of individual because I am not that kind of person, but dealing with this kind of government makes one a very pessimistic individual. I think you must realize that this whole country has gone into a state of pessimism because
you offer them very little hope in any positive way whatsoever.
I would like to get on to a tender issue that indirectly relates to unemployment insurance. It is border cities. Once again this government has said: "Free trade will benefit border cities the most". It has benefited us the least. The GST will drive them across the border as fast as they can go. You leave Canadians at the borders absolutely no choice, and when you give them no choice they shop on the American side.
Constituents are telling me: "We want to be like the Americans". Is this a plot that the government has devised? I find this depressing because they are shopping over there to the detriment of the businesses on the Canadian side. I think I can safely say that as a direct result of this, a new IGA store will not open in my constituency, something which will cost us jobs. I do not blame the people for shopping in the States. I blame the government for forcing them to go there. It will create unemployment, and they will turn to this new plan by this government which will make it even harder for them to qualify for it.
I turn to a magazine that I hesitate to read from, nevertheless, the cynicism that I exude as I read it really tells me what this is all about. "Privatization in Canada is being seen as an opportunity for Joe or Jill Average to enjoy the benefits of capitalism first hand". Who is kidding whom? There is a beautiful picture on the front of this magazine of the minister responsible for privatization. That is some indication as to the contents of the magazine.
The article I am reading from is called: "Back to Basics". The more you read the more cynical you become about the government and the people who support the government so strongly.
Once again, we get into this being an orchestrated campaign. They are talking about the UI system. A gentleman from Dupont said: "The system of regional subsidies encourages people in Atlantic Canada to be more dependent on collecting UI, encouraging them to stay where there are no jobs rather than to move to where the jobs are". So they are saying to the people in Atlantic Canada: "You don't like it here. There is no work. Move. Don't stay in Atlantic Canada. Don't stay in Saskatchewan. Don't stay in northern Ontario. Move to

V: '/
March 13, 1990

where the jobs are because this system was not meant to protect you for all year round".
This gentleman from Dupont went on to say: "Many people in Atlantic Canada are 10-40 workers. They work for 10 weeks so that they can collect UI for 40". How cynical a statement can we get? It is just a way of life for these people, as if they want to work for 10 and be unemployed for 40 and collect unemployment insurance. It is like this is their dream, this is the all-Canadian dream for northern Ontario citizens, for eastern Canadian citizens and for citizens of Saskatchewan. That is not the Canadian dream. It appears that this government is in a dream, and it is creating a nightmare for these people and these regions.
"The move to tighten up UI is a step in the right direction because it more closely reflects this return to insurance principles. Business agrees that the labour force development strategy objective to move the UI system from passive income support to more active training in skills upgrading sounds good, but of course there is a catch-they have to pay for the course costs".
There is an indication in this article that big business wants it both ways, and that is just not possible.
In summary, I think that this government is abdicating its responsibility to the people of the country, in particular the people who must be cared for. There seems to be a general policy direction to cut back on the social programs of the country that we have so long been accustomed to and appreciated, but now you are breeding this sense of cynicism into the people of Canada. I am sorry to say that some people are starting to accept some of your philosophies in this area, people whom I never anticipated would accept them. Perhaps your propaganda campaign is working on some, but I am sure that it is not on the majority.
I believe the government should be responsible for its people. You people are getting more and more out of the business of dealing with the people, and caring for them. You are cutting them adrift. You are cutting that safety net. You are getting more and more into survival of the fittest, the Thatcherite kind of economic policy, the
Government Orders
Reaganite economic policy where the fittest will survive and the others will fall by the wayside.
This country is too vast and too sparsely populated to operate in that kind of milieu, in contrast with the American state and its 300 million people. We have always had a history of caring for those who need to be cared for. We have always looked after the disadvantaged regions of the country. We are quickly moving away from that. We believe that this UI legislation is part and parcel of that. It saddens me to speak to this bill because each and every bill that seems to come forward is one full of great pessimism for just about everybody in this country.
I suspect that Canadians are waking up and will remain awake for the next three years. They will punish you for some of these policies. I sincerely believe that. Hopefully, there will be a change of government for the better and we can turn this country around and head in the direction that we should be going and to which Canadians want to get back. That is obvious. If you have checked the polls lately, you are in dire straits. I am sure this legislation is one of the reasons that you are in these dire straits and likely will remain there.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I was reading the speeches by members who took part in this debate, and I realized this would be my third speech on this particular bill. My first was on October 24, my second was on November 2, and today, here we are again, talking about Bill C-21.
When we talk about tolerance in this country, I think there is quite a bit. We are talking about C-21 again, although a group of parliamentarians crisscrossed this country for three weeks to hear various intervenors on the subject. We heard nearly 150 different groups, all of whom expressed their positions. We tabled a report in the House. We reported back to the House with an excellent bill to reform the unemployment insurance system, under which $1.3 billion of the $12 billion in the Unemployment Insurance Fund is to be reallocated. We will put $600 million into new services. For instance, maternity leave will be doubled, people over 65 will now also be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and furthermore, $800 million, still part of the same $1.3 billion, will be taken to provide more training for workers, at a time when in Canada, 50 per cent of the private sector tells us it has trouble finding qualified

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
manpower and when many young people drop out of high school to enter the labour market. The consequences are well known. In a year or two these people are out of work, and then what happens? Unemployment and welfare, if they don't take the trouble to get training. And that is what our government proposes to do in this legislation.
We want to train our workers in order to have a qualified workforce that can enter the labour market with confidence and is able to get ahead. So what happens? We have a Senate, this dictatorship of princes, that is abusing its powers and which today again is thumbing its nose at the decisions of our elected representatives, those who were duly elected by Canadians to introduce legislation. It thumbs its nose at all that and sends the bill back to us with a message: We cannot accept this, and you will have to go so far as to change the very substance of the bill.
They agree with training for workers, Mr. Speaker, but they say we should get the $800 million from the taxpayers.
I would like to see whether they would be so favourable to the GST, because that is another way to get money. But we see how people do not accept it easily.
The Senate again wants to add to the taxpayers' burden. Tax them and train them! But what kind of people are they? What kind of management courses have they taken, Mr. Speaker, to say such things? As if we could go on taxing people indefinitely.
People's ability to pay is limited and I think that it is much more sensible administratively to take the same amount of money and apply it more innovatively where the real needs are. That is what we are doing. We take the same $ 12-billion fund and allocate $1.3 billion of it differently.
Besides, look at the people in that same party and see where they took our country in the 16 years preceding 1984. The debt went from practically nil to $200 billion. We now see how difficult it is to reduce that debt which costs us over $100 million a day in interest.
Mr. Speaker, I even think that we should put ourselves in the situation of Canadians who see what is going on now: a bill comes back to the House of Commons although the elected representatives had decided that it was the way to go and in their interest.
Imagine that you were a pregnant woman calling her MP's office and finding out that the legislation is still blocked. Pregnant women cannot benefit from the parental leave in the bill; maternity leave is going from 15 to 25 weeks, and even 30 weeks in case of illness. Imagine yourself in their situation!
Imagine the situation of people in Newfoundland, where the unemployment rate is over 15 per cent, who are now penalized. They have to work 14 weeks because the Senate is abusing its powers.
Imagine how all those people feel. Canadians are getting fed up, Mr. Speaker. I don't like to say it, but that is the situation we are in when we, the elected representatives, the lawmakers, are paralyzed by an institution that is no longer in tune with the needs of the Canadian federation.
I was just talking to you about tolerance in our country, because I am a French-speaking Quebecer. I was listening to the news last night and I saw a representative of APEC, the Association for the Preservation of English Canada, comparing us francophones, French-speakers, to AIDS.
How do think we like it, us Quebecers, to hear such things? On the subject of tolerance, have we not reached our limit yet, Mr. Speaker? How much more must we tolerate? How much longer must Quebecers and francophones accept to be treated the way they are being treated?
Mr. Speaker, I also noticed that Mr. Clyde Wells, the Premier of Newfoundland, a province of 500,000, is trying to drive Quebec out of the Confederation, while we are 6 million strong. Does he speak on behalf of Newfoundlanders or on his own, Mr. Speaker? How can that individual dare put the very survival of Canada in jeopardy by his revolting and uncompromising attitude towards francophones? "Sure, sure, you French-speaking people are distinct. We are not going to say so in the constitution, but only in the preamble." Who do they take us for, Mr. Speaker?
How can we accept indefinitely seeing another Premier, Mr. McKenna from New-Brunswick, who set the "whoops, I disagree with that bit of the Meech Lake
March 13, 1990

Accord" ball rolling, reject Quebecers? He is the one who bears the heaviest responsibility, Mr. Speaker, and it is imperative that he acts quickly in order to defuse an increasingly explosive situation which has Quebecers now saying: "We would almost prefer that the Meech Lake Accord not go through, just to show them who we


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: On a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken), on a point of order.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I wonder what the connection is between the hon. member's comments and Bill C-21, which happens to be the subject before the House today, not Meech Lake or anything like that. I would therefore ask the hon. member to speak to the bill before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know the hon. member was getting to Bill C-21. The hon. member for Jonquiere.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I realize this may bother some hon. members, but when we are discussing a bill like Bill C-21, it is part and parcel of what is happening in Canada today. We have to see the whole picture, including a Senate that abuses its powers, this dictatorship of princes, this senator who went on a hunger strike. Now that was something to impress Canadians! Senator Jacques Hebert, outside the Senate Chamber on a hunger strike for Katimavik! Has anyone mentioned Katimavik to you lately Mr. Speaker? I haven't heard the word since the Senator ended his hunger strike. It seemed to be vitally important at the time, so much so that he was prepared to die in the attempt. Incredible! Today, all that energy would be channelled into worrying about what is going to happen on June 24.
It is all part of the same general picture, Mr. Speaker, of a word I would rather not use, the feeling of despair prevalent among Quebecers and Canadians who see that their elected representatives are no longer able to act on their behalf and pass the kind of legislation that protects the interests of Canadian men and women.
Government Orders
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, some people have an enormous responsibility in this respect. There are only so many weeks left. I know I will have to stop my comments at five o'clock, since we must make way for Private Member's Business. Earlier, you suggested that I could go on after Private Member's Business, to finish my speech on Bill C-21. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept your offer since this evening we Quebecers will be meeting at Meech Lake to discuss the present situation, which is a very serious one, and I certainly intend to defend my people. The hon. member opposite can shout as much as he likes. I am a francophone and I am in Ottawa as an elected representative from Quebec. I also have to defend the interests of my province and the people in my riding.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21 is an excellent piece of legislation, which, as I said earlier, will allocate $800 million to training for workers; $600 million in new social benefits will go to various groups of claimants, and this legislation will also consider regional needs and regional unemployment rates. Instead of having to work for 20 weeks because the current unemployment rate is high, an employee in Newfoudland will need only ten week's employment. Elsewhere like in Toronto where jobs are more plentiful, they will have to work longer so that regional disparities will be lessened throughout the country. This is a good way to keep abreast of what is going on from one region to the next.
That is what this bill seeks to accomplish, and that is the bill about which the senators are digging in their heels, the same senators who sat on Bill C-22 on drugs, the same senators who said: Don't do that, it does not make sense, drug prices will skyrocket. Don't do that, it is not true, companies will cut down on research.
Look at the figures, Mr. Speaker. It is a fact that drug prices have not been rising as fast since Bill C-22 has become law.
Additional funds have been earmarked for research, hundreds of millions of dollars more than was spent before Bill C-22. That is just one example of what that institution has been doing. For partisan and political considerations, they are blocking the whole system. And when we talk about reform, constitutional evolution and changes, that is the kind of thing which must be changed. One thing I can tell my colleague is that after June 24 you will find it difficult to change things if ever Quebec

March 13, 1990
Private Members' Business
does not become a full-fledged member of the Canadian federation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should establish labelling regulations that would require the labelling of farm-reared salmon and steelhead prior to marketing, and regulations that would require labelling in restaurant menus, to permit consumers to select between wild stock and farm-reared salmon and steelhead in the market-place.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to rise in the House to debate this motion this afternoon. It is a motion which I think is extremely important not only to Canadians but to anyone purchasing and consuming farm-reared salmon.
The rationale behind this is that a consumer should have the right to information and to informed choices about the type of food that is consumed. Another aspect of the rationale is that there is considerable reaction to the farm rearing of salmon and to the specific methods in which salmon have been reared, particularly on the coast of British Columbia.
By our requiring the labelling of these fish as to whether it is farm-reared salmon or wild stocks, it will allow the consumer to make a political choice. They can make a statement about their approval of government regulation and how the product that they are to consume is going to be available in the market-place. The bottom line is that I think every member of this House has an obligation to ensure that the consumer has the right to obtain the information about food which they are consuming. Without proper labelling that cannot happen and it basically deprives consumers of their rights.
The first issue is the quality of the product. There is a great deal of concern. In my own area and wherever I travel, people like to eat seafood products, particularly salmon and steelhead. Yet people are concerned in many quarters about the quality of farm-reared salmon.
Disease is a major concern. On the coast of British Columbia, salmon are raised in a very warm area in the Gulf of Georgia, in areas such as the Sechelt Inlet, where tidal exchange is very low and where the opportunity to cleanse the area and remove waste and detrimental chemicals which develop in it is very low.
Another concern about quality is the way net pens and farm-rearing operations are put in place. The large accumulation of waste beneath the pens is a matter of serious concern to people who live in the area, as well as people who consume the product. Net pens held in the same area in a very low tidal exchange accumulate large amounts of food and excrement from the fish held in captivity, as well as wastes from the rearing operation under those pens, and there is a great deal of concern that it can affect the quality of fish, both by removal of oxygen and by encouraging the growth of other organisms in the area.
Another concern as far as quality is concerned in the net pen method of rearing is that very large populations of fish are held, within a very close, confined area, constantly moving, and constantly under stress. That stress leads to greater disease and deterioration of the fish and anyone who has looked into a salmon net pen can obviously see the kind of reaction that is occurring with those fish. There is discoloration and various levels of activity in the fish. Generally there is an appearance of a deteriorated quality of fish in many of those areas because of the close, confining nature of net pens and the high stress levels.
Fish farmers are struggling basically with two major diseases; the kidney disease and vibriosis, which are fairly rampant in some quarters and cause a great deal of concern for fish farmers. In addition to the basic diseases that occur in the rearing environment, there is a concern about diseased eggs coming into the country, particularly with the Atlantic salmon that have been brought into areas on the west coast.
There is strong concern that eventually those diseased eggs from Atlantic salmon drawn out of Norway and Scotland will be transmitted to wild stocks and that the wild stocks will be decimated by the transmittal of those diseases. There is serious concern about both diseases in
March 13, 1990

Private Members' Business
the fish that are developed in the rearing environment and diseases that are brought into Canada via the eggs that are used in the Atlantic salmon from Norway, Scotland and the east coast.
The next matter in terms of quality is the use of antibiotics in the treatment of common diseases in fish. The antibiotics placed in the food are basically broadcast into the populations of all farm reared salmon. The most prominent antibiotics are oxytetracycline of which about five tonnes is used annually and is growing every year as more and more fish farms come on, and sulfamerazine which, again, is a great concern among people who are consuming that. There are indications that the oxytetracycline can last up to 100 days in the stock and there is no guarantee that the fish from the last point of kill to the table is going to be free of antibiotics in the flesh.
Consumers have a right to know. There are people with allergies to antibiotics and if the farm-reared fish are being treated for diseases with antibiotics, they should have the right to know that they are eating farm-reared fish and they run the risk of being exposed to these antibiotics.
Another concern about the use of these antibiotics is that as the food drops to the water bottom it is eaten by the creatures that live there and it seems that antibiotic resistance disease strains are developing. These disease strains, whether they are eaten by wild stocks in the area, or are transmitted from the farm fish to the bottom life and into the wild stocks, combined with the antibiotics, result in the decimation of the wild stocks.
The next element of quality is the chemicals that are used in and around the rearing operations where the farmers are concerned about the build-up in the nets of seaweed and barnacles and other foulants in those nets. They treat those nets with chemicals in order to remove the fouling agent. What we have had in the tributyltin issue is a very dangerous, cancer causing chemical that can be transmitted into the flesh of the fish. Luckily that one has been identified and removed, but there is still a great deal of concern about anti-fouling chemicals that are still being used in the net.
Government regulation of this industry is viewed as being hopelessly inadequate. People at the policy level of the department are assigned second and third priority levels for policy formulation. If they finish their first area of responsibility and their second area of responsibility, they can then move into giving serious time to aquaculture.
The government does not provide the agencies with the resources to do an extensive study of the regulation, particularly when it gets down to the field level for such things as imposing regulations on the development of fish farms. Three years ago there were about 70 fish farms on the coast of British Columbia. By the end of 1989 there were 210 fish farms on the coast of British Columbia with 200 more licences under application and review. The growth of this has been like a gold rush operation and the government, instead of attempting to provide some direction through regulation, policy and enforcement-


Mr. Epp:: What have you got against gold rushes?


Raymond John Skelly: The former Minister of Health stands up in the House and asks what have I got against gold rushes. Of course, nothing. But ultimately when the finished product runs the risk of poisoning you, the more there is, the greater the concern in the population.
I know his concern will result in the minister and the government pressing on for this motion which simply gives rights to consumers by requiring a label for farm fish in a restaurant or in any other area where it is to be consumed so that consumers could have the right to make an informed choice about the type of product they eat and the quality. I am certain that the former Minister of Health in this Parliament would be one of the leading spokespersons to advocate that.
At any rate, we were talking about basically the quality of farm-reared fish. We have discussed the problem of disease, antibiotics, the effect of stress on close confinement, the build-up of detritus under these pens that contaminate the bottom life with antibiotics and poisonous chemicals, which can then be transmitted to the population of reared fish as well as wild stocks.
The issue of quality is a serious one. As we move away from the rearing environment to looking at the quality of fish itself, there are a number of schools of thought.

March 13, 1990
Private Members' Business
Some say any fish is a good fish. But there are people who are very concerned that the quality of farm-reared fish may in fact be substantially less due to no examination of the product. There is no attempt to impose quality control by government regulation. There is no attempt to systematically check it for content of antibiotics or diseases. The government must look at that seriously if farm-reared product is going to enjoy the same credibility in the market-place as wild stocks.
There has to be an initiative by the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia or other provincial governments in terms of a partnership arrangement where these kinds of standards can be developed and the testing facilities can be brought to bear in a way that will give the consumer confidence.
Another serious concern is with what the industry refers to as morts, and the possibility that a fish dying in the pen can end up in the production process. This has been documented on a number of occasions, where individuals who have been less than scrupulous in the business have wound up putting through dead fish into the production process.
Again, it may only happen very rarely but it gives the entire industry a black eye. Ultimately there is no guarantee that that will not happen. There is no indication of how broadly based it is.
Perhaps an indication of the extensiveness of this problem of dead fish being removed from the pen due to disease and the stress in the environment in which they are reared is the landfill site on the Sechelt Peninsula. It has had a constant struggle with the volume of dead fish being loaded into their landfill site. At various times they have risen up in arms against the producer saying that they are going to have to deal with it themselves because the site will not handle the volume of dead fish that is going in there.
The possibility that some percentage of those dead fish are not going into a landfill site when they are removed from the rearing pens but go into the production process and wind up on somebody's plate becomes quite frightening. This raises the whole problem of control through a credible inspection process so that type of thing does not happen.
The rationale behind this proposal is that quality is of primary importance. People should have an opportunity to make an informed choice about what goes on their plates and into their bodies. There is enough skepticism in the business about the quality that people would like
to know in order to make the choice. If that product were labelled, it would put a market-place constraint on the industry so that they would attempt to upgrade all the members in it and the entire process, to assure the customer they were getting the finest product available.
The second point in the rationale was the opportunity of a consumer to make a political choice in the marketplace. The government in power believes in the sanctity of the market-place to choose the nature of production and consumption. Why does the government not give the market-place the opportunity to determine the quality and the nature of production and consumption of aquaculture or farm-reared fish?
The mechanism might be simply by labelling farm-reared fish. It would allow people to choose between wild stock and the farm-reared fish. If people have confidence in the industry and they see developing quality controls, they would then begin to choose farm-reared fish, or at least give it equal billing with wild stock. In the absence of that, certainly they are not able to choose in an informed way and the rights of the consumer are being violated as are, to some degree, the rights of the fishing industry.
There is the political aspect of the choices. The way in which this industiy has developed has raised serious questions with the people who live along the coast of British Columbia and certainly those who consume the fish in other areas.
The first one is the abuse of the rights of upland owners. On the Sechelt Peninsula we have seen situations where people who live along the beachfront woke up one morning to find a fish farm right smack in front of their homes and their upland operations, denying them basic access to the ocean and affecting the basic quality of the property they paid good money and high taxes for over the years.
In many cases, this is not even the dilemma of the fish farmer. The fish farmer simply took an opportunity provided by lack of government regulation to drop his fish farm right smack in front of an upland owner's operation. People along the coast of British Columbia are absolutely incensed at where fish farms have been located or proposed on prime recreational land. They were talking about Tree Island off of Denman Island, Sechelt Inlet or Wood Bay. The upland owner's rights have been violated. If we label farm-reared fish, the consumer would be able to make a political choice, by
March 13, 1990

saying "I do not approve of this, and I will not buy the product".
I see that there is a minute left. The gold rush mentality of the government is to refuse to regulate in a rational way the development of these fish farms. It has taken a great deal of trial and error and still has a long way to go. The government's unwillingness to provide decent, fair and equitable regulation to this industry to protect consumers and protect upland owners could certainly be compensated for if the consumer could make a choice and say: "I would prefer not to eat that fish because I am uncertain of its quality and because I do not like the way that industry is operating".


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to talk on this subject with the hon. member's introduction of the situation. I only wonder whether it is a desire to limit the labelling of the fish or whether it is an attack on the aquaculture industry. I think that we need to recognize, when we are talking about this industry, that it is not just a new industry but one that has been around in the world for a long time. There are fish farms in the Orient and in Scandinavian countries and recently, in the last few years they have been coming into Canada and now spreading to the east coast of Canada. Aquaculture has become a very significant factor in our Canadian economy.
I think it is regrettable that we have to discuss this whole matter in such a negative manner. I am sure that the hon. member for North Island-Powell River has a lot more in mind than this simple request to establish labelling regulations for farm-reared salmon and steel-head prior to marketing.
The motion also states that the regulations should be established to require labelling in restaurant menus to permit consumers to select between wild stock and farm-reared salmon and steelhead in the market-place. I am sure that he has been in many small restaurants throughout Canada and recognizes that they just cannot afford to carry two types of salmon and a couple of types of trout or steelhead to give the customers choices. Rather, they are going to select the one which they feel
Private Members' Business
is the best quality. Labelling menus will have no value and no effect whatsoever on this.
There is just no rationale at this stage for the government to introduce regulations of this type. We believe that the fewer regulations that governments impose upon industry and business the better off it is. If they are necessary, fine, but to establish regulations just for the sake of having a regulation and more red tape is of no value to the industry, to the public or to the government.
Of course, why should we request that the aquacultu-rists have labels while not traditional fishermen? If the member is concerned about quality, we need to recognize that all of the fish that are produced for the market are inspected. They all go through the same inspection process. They are graded according to quality and size. Certainly any diseased product is not allowed on the fresh market. I believe that in many cases the farm-reared fish have some advantages in quality.
Also, we need to recognize that many of the species that are sold on the market, such as shrimps, can be of mixed stock. They can be of wild stock, or they can be of cultured stock, this has never presented a problem anywhere that we are aware of in Canada.
I would suggest that the motion to label the cultured salmon and steelhead is really out of touch with reality. If the hon. member felt it was that important, why would he limit it to steelhead and to salmon. We have other trout, for example, that are raised commercially. We have oysters, for example, that can be raised by farmers, as well as the wild stock. If we were going to consider labelling the salmon and steelhead then we should, of course, do it to all fish products.
Again, why force the aquaculturists to label their products when we do not make the same request of the traditional producers? For example, the difference between a seine caught fish that has been in the bottom of the seine net for some time or a gill-net fish compared to the trawl caught fish off the west coast is probably more significant than the difference between a freshly harvested salmon from the fish farm.
We also recognize that the time between when it is caught and brought in to the processing plant is very significant in the quality of the fish as well as how long it has been in the freezer. We can talk about the quality of

March 13, 1990
Private Members' Business
fish and how it deteriorates after being in the freezer over a long period of time.
The fact is that labelling would not help the consumer because the label indicating whether it is a farm fish or a wild stock fish will not accompany the product to the table in the restaurant. My understanding is that the federal government cannot require restaurants to establish this type of labelling on the products.
We did talk about the choice of fish and even now in many fish stores there is a choice of farm fish or wild stock fish. We already have the opportunity, in many instances, to choose what type of fish we buy.
Since the health and safety of fish and fish products are insured by the government's excellent inspection system, the consumers of Canadian-bought fish can be confident that any fish product they do buy is of high quality. The industry itself has a quality assurance program and maintains standards of excellence. It would be a disaster for them to have a bad product put on the market in their formative years.
Speakers have mentioned the fact that large quantities of these fish have been put in landfill sites. This would indicate that they are maintaining that quality and not marketing fish of inferior quality.
The aquaculture industry in Canada is a rapidly growing dynamic industry. It has been adding millions of dollars to the Canadian economy each year and is providing thousands of jobs for Canadians. It has been suggested that the total annual production from the aquaculture industry will soon exceed $100 million, and much of that in British Columbia from where the proponent comes. Aquaculture is becoming a more and more important component of Canadian fisheries.
When we consider some of the significant problems that many of our fishing communities are facing, we see that aquaculture development could soon become a very interesting avenue to enhance our fisheries and to provide employment in these areas which, during the winter months, have very severe unemployment problems. With the wild stocks declining as a result of any number of causes, aquaculture can certainly provide an alternative for the economic activity and for the job creation which we require.
It has been shown that it is only with a great deal of difficulty that we can increase those wild stocks, yet
there is an increasing demand for the salmon and the trout that we produce. Therefore, I believe that the aquaculture industry does have a real place in the market and it has a significant potential for further development if it is allowed to develop. We do not want to put any unnecessary obstacles in its way.
The Food and Agricultural Organization estimates that the world aquaculture production will more than double its present level of 10.2 million tonnes by the year 2000. That is a tremendous source of food in this world that is rapidly running out of food. The aquaculture share of the total world supply for fish, crustaceans, molluscs and marine plants wall increase from about 15 per cent in this year to about 25 per cent in the next 10 years. I think that is a very significant increase providing valuable protein to our world's diet. In many countries fish are the only source of protein available.
As Canada is a major exporter of fish products, with something like 80 per cent of all our fish being exported from British Columbia, we must develop the aquaculture sector and not impose further unnecessary regulations upon it. We must pursue already existing programs to support this young and healthy industry.
I believe that the best control is a free market in which, if you have a superior quality product, you can advertise it, whether it is the troll-caught salmon off the west coast or the fresh farm-raised salmon that you are going to have for Christmas dinner. I believe that these are the types of things that are going to create a healthy industry. We must not saddle it with unnecessary regulations. Therefore I cannot support the motion as presented at this time.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, as associate fisheries critic, I should like to take this opportunity to support the motion presented by the hon. member for North Island-Powell River. As the House is aware, the Liberal Party founded the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In our present ranks we have five former ministers of the department, the first of which was the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. The main right that the Liberal Party strives to uphold in these matters is the right of the consumer to make an informed choice.
We believe that this issue deserves to be studied to determine what benefits can be derived from separate labelling for the consumer.
March 13, 1990

My support for the motion stems from the fact that there are many things in the aquaculture industry of which we are unsure. This pertains to all parts of the industry, not the least being salmon farming. The following are some of the reasons we in this party endorse further study.
We believe that the consumer should have a choice between two types of salmon. Wild salmon and domestic salmon are different as surely as geese both wild and domestic are different. A consumer has the right to know what the product really is and what effect it will have on him or her.
Regulating the aquaculture industry has also been inconsistent throughout the country. The rules vary from province to province, ranging from stringent to lax standards and regulation enforcement. Perhaps it would be in all consumers best interests that labelling be as precise as possible, given that standards vary widely within the aquaculture industry itself.
The use in antibiotics in the salmon farming industry is another reason for supporting the further study of different labelling. In 1987 it was reported that British Columbia salmon farmers lost between 20 per cent and 60 per cent of their stock to bacterial kidney disease. Antibiotics were used to treat the disease which scientists say is caused by overcrowding in the pens. In Europe scientists have discovered that antibiotics can remain in fish flesh for up to 100 days. No studies have been conducted to determine what effect aquacultural antibiotics can have on humans. Regulations for the use of antibiotics have also been spotty at the best of times. This is probably due to the fact that their use is primarily experimental. Furthermore, the impact of antibiotic treatment of disease is poorly documented and the results are questionable.
If indeed these antibiotics remain in the fish, they could easily pass on to the consumer. The non-farmed salmon are drug free. Proper labelling may be important to those people who have reactions to these drugs. It was with this in mind that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans concluded in its report of July 1988 the following recommendations:
Recommendation 6(A), to conduct research in support of regulatory requirements regarding residues in aqua-
Private Members' Business
cultural products, with the objective of assessing the potential effect on human health and that of the marine organisms.
Recommendation 15, that the federal government in co-operation with all industrial sectors involved in producing salmonid species for the consumer markets develop labelling standards.
Concerns have also been raised regarding the fish excrements which accumulate in and around the fish pens. Further study should be given to the potential effect this could have on the health and quality of the fish. Wild salmon migrate to different areas during then-life span and therefore this is not a factor in their health. It is known, however, that diseases are present in fish excrements, but it is not known if these diseases can be transmitted from it. Clearly this issue needs more study.
With respect to nutrition it has been shown that the fat content of farmed salmon is higher than non-farm salmon, while the nutritional value of non-farm salmon is slightly higher. Consumers who are diet conscious will certainly appreciate a distinction between the two types.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, as I have clearly demonstrated, many areas need further research to ensure the protection of all Canadian consumers. Furthermore, we believe that all Canadians have the right to make an informed choice. Consequently I support the motion that further study into the labelling of salmon is required.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to deal with the motion moved by the hon. member for North Island-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), and I hope that my comments will reassure Canadian consumers about the close watch the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is keeping on the fish farm industry, as well as the industry's responsibility and the quality of its products.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has jurisdiction over coastal fishing, certain in-shore fishing, public harbours as well as off-shore and in-shore navigation. These powers, defined in the Constitution, are the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. This is the only federal department whose activities deal mainly with our waters and their resources.

March 13, 1990
Private Members' Business

Through its ongoing programs the Department of Fisheries and Oceans provides support to the aquacul-tural industry in a number of areas. For example, the science sector of Fisheries and Oceans conducts research and experimental development, undertakes collaborative research with industry, provides disease diagnostic services, operates fish hatcheries and fish culture facilities, and develops protocols for safe interprovincial and international stock movement and for the introduction of new genetic resources. The degree of assistance varies by region.
In the area of fishery management the department conducts habitat reviews and, in some instances, supplies a limited numbers of eggs and smolts to the industry. The department also supports aquacultural development projects in eastern Canada, particularly under regional development programs, and undertakes licensing in some areas of Canada.
Other services that Fisheries and Oceans conducts for the benefit of the aquaculture industry include implementation of the national fish inspection program, provision of relevant market intelligence and analysis to other governments and to industry, and the promotion of Canada's interest in the fisheries trade throughout the international community.

Some other federal departments implement a whole slew of programs most of which are national in scope and are accessible to fish farmers. The purpose of most of these initiatives is to promote research and development, economic and business expansion. These may also benefit from tax incentives.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is recognized as the federal department responsible for fish farming. It has developed a two-pronged strategy to assume its responsibilities. Firstly, in co-operation with provincial governments, to take steps with a view to ensuring the orderly development of the industry, and secondly to carry out programs and activities in support thereof.
In response to representations made by the industry, the various ministers of fisheries in Canada have agreed to intensify the federal-provincial coordination to ensure the orderly development of the fish farm industry in
Canada. They agreed, and their proposals were adopted by the first ministers in 1986, that memoranda of understanding on the development of fish farming should be negotiated between the federal government and each individual provincial government.

A memorandum of understanding is meant to serve two purposes. First, it establishes a joint agreement and understanding of federal and provincial administrative responsibilities for regulation, while reducing the overall administrative and legal burden on the industry. Of particular interest is the move to establish one stop licensing and leasing of commercial aquaculture ventures.
Second, it sets out a co-ordinated and co-operative approach to government support for the industry. This approach is important, given the concern of certain interests with respect to aquacultural development. A memorandum of understanding outlines the respective roles of the federal and provincial governments in areas such as research and development, education, training, leasing and licensing, fish health, stocks and statistics.
The federal government has to date signed memoranda of understanding with the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, British Columbia and New Brunswick. Negotiations are under way with other provinces and the Yukon.

This bilateral approach also serves to recognize the particularities of each region and its fish farm industry.
By supporting this industry, the two levels of government are seeking the same objectives, namely, to diversify the production and improve the quality of fish products in Canada, as well as improve the regularity of commercial fish supply both in Canada and abroad.

All our goals in support of the aquaculture industry are based on a number of principles, and the principle of first order must be a clear and comprehensive regulatory framework. This implies joint responsibility, in fact co-operation to ensure that we maintain a balance between regulation and development. Over-regulating
March 13, 1990

this industry would only lead to limiting its potential in a very competitive market.
Aquaculture is a young and dynamic industry which needs government support. This support is already in place. Fisheries and Oceans is working to develop a positive environment conducive to the evolution of a world-class aquaculture industry.
The Canadian aquaculture industry has made considerable progress in establishing a widespread reputation for high quality seafood products. Fisheries and Oceans is working with the industry and the other levels of government to meet the challenges and opportunities for this industry to become a world leading nation in aquaculture.
Compulsory labelling of the aquaculture product is not required; furthermore, it probably would not work out as too many loopholes would inevitably occur. Because of its critical self-interests, the aquaculture industry is doing its utmost to guarantee the quality of its products. With one of the finest inspection programs in the world, Canada is assuring consumers that the products of all our fisheries meet some of the highest standards of health and safety in our country and abroad.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed and somewhat surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Delta. I wondered whether he was reading the same resolution that I was and that the hon. member for North Island- Powell River introduced. He seemed to be talking about a different subject entirely.
The resolution introduced by my colleague from North Island-Powell River clearly states:
-should establish labelling regulations that would require the labelling of farm-reared salmon and steelhead prior to marketing, and regulations that would require labelling in restaurant menus, to permit consumers to select between wild stock and farm-reared salmon and steelhead -
In his remarks the hon. member said that this was over-regulating the industry, that we should depend on the market, and that we should let consumers make the decision as to whether they want the wild stock or farm reared.
That is precisely what the resolution asks for. It is exactly what he wants. He wants consumers to know what they are buying. They make the choice. They may
Private Members' Business
decide they want farm reared or they may decide they want wild. The reasons may be totally ill informed or uninformed, but nevertheless the argument is that they should have that choice.
I suspect all members have had people in their offices as I have who have argued that the flavour of the wild stock is so much better than the flavour of the farm reared. There may be others who would argue the other way. I do not know if it has something to do with my age or the way in which I have conducted myself in the past, but franldy I cannot tell the difference. Nevertheless, there are consumers who say that they can tell the difference.
All the resolution is asking is that they know which one they are actually paying for when they buy it and whether they are getting the one they are paying for. There are some who will argue that the nutritive value of the farm reared as opposed to the wild stock is better, and others will argue that the wild stock is better.
I have heard these same arguments and participated in similar arguments with respect to organically grown food and food grown with inorganic fertilizers. I know enough about it to be satisfied in my own mind that there is no difference from the point of view of nutrition.
However, we do not tell people that they are not going to know what they are buying. Certainly organic food is clearly labelled in most instances as such, and consumers pay more for it because they believe that it tastes better or that it is better from a quality point of view. They have the right to make that choice. They have the right to pay for the difference if they want to. That is all that my hon. friend is asking for: the right for people to know what they are buying when they buy it.
The hon. member for North Island-Powell River mentioned that the environment is quite different. Wild stock is raised and spends a good deal of its life in much colder water. It selects the food that it eats. It ranges over thousands of miles in its growing process, so there is quite a difference in the food that it is getting. I do not say that that makes it any better or any worse. I am simply saying there is that difference.
They do get a lot more exercise. Because of the cold water and the exercise the flesh should be firmer. Again, I do not know whether that makes any difference but you and I, Mr. Speaker, should have the right to know when we are buying salmon or steelhead whether it was raised

March 13, 1990
Private Members' Business
in a little puddle of water in a pen or whether it was raised in and allowed to range the wild ocean.
There is a lot of talk about disease. Certainly Canada is doing everything it can to maintain the quality of farm reared fish and animals alike. We do not know whether we are doing everything that has to be done but we are working at it. We do not know the stress factor. Certainly we know that with 295 of us in this House sometimes the stress is much greater than when there are not quite as many of us here. When those salmon and steelhead are crowded, as I say, in relatively small puddles of water, there is a great stress factor. Does this make any difference? I do not know, but again the consumer should have the right to know what he or she is paying for.
Farm reared fish should be cheaper to produce. They are not because of a lot of problems they are having in the industry in many cases. Nevertheless, they should be cheaper. Farm reared fish should not be sold at the same price as the wild stock. If consumers are getting a product that is being produced more cheaply, they should pay less for it and know what they are getting. They should not be paying top prices for fish that are produced more cheaply when they think they are getting wild stock fish.
The hon. member for Delta was concerned about over-regulating and about the imposition on the industry of having to label. All we are saying is that it is a different product. Whether it is nutritionally different, I do not know. Whether the flavour is different, I do not know. I do not know in what ways it is different, but there is no question but that it is raised in a totally different environment under totally different conditions. There may be questions of flavour and nutrition. If this resolution is supported by the House and acted upon, individuals will know exactly what they are paying for.
I agree with most of what the member for Delta said. Let the consumers make the choice, but they can only make it if the product is labelled so that they know what they are buying.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and participate in this discussion today about the very dynamic and young Canadian industry of aquaculture. I compliment my colleague, the
hon. member for North Island-Powell River, for bringing this important subject before the House with his motion M-546. I suppose I should apologize for my voice. Hopefully it will hold out to the end.
At a time when the global market-place is posing challenges for most resource based nations, Canada is in a very exciting position with its new resource which has enormous potential. We have seen tremendous growth in aquaculture in Canada over the last 15 years. Indeed from 1984 to 1987 we saw a 17 per cent increase in the industry representing today a $50 million industry in Canada. Forecasts suggest another 1,000 per cent increase by the end of the decade which we have just begun.
A combination of factors has fuelled this expansion: the growth of world-wide demand for seafood, the need to meet this demand with production from new sources such as cultured fish, the increasing reliance by fish processors on aquaculture products which they see as a dependable year-round source of quality seafood, and a widespread recognition of the high quality of Canadian cultured seafood products already regarded as a major source of increased domestic and international supply.
Atlantic Canada plays a very full part in this well established aquaculture industry. We have salmon, trout, mussels and oysters, and we are now diversifying into scallops. Nova Scotia is a leader in the area of aquaculture having as well developed Irish moss as an area within aquaculture.
As of 1988 aquaculture has directly produced some 1,500 jobs in Canada and it is anticipated that by the year 2000, 5,000 Canadians will be directly employed in the aquaculture industry. This is a part of the tremendous work in job creation that has gone on in the last five years in this country. Not only is direct employment significant in aquaculture but indeed indirect employment has come through related industries and the production of the necessary equipment.
We need to make more progress toward producing all the necessary fishing equipment here in Canada. That can have a tremendous impact on job creation as well. I speak of building cages, equipment, netting manufactur-
March 13, 1990

ing, feed processing and services in the area of marketing distribution and fish health just as some examples.
There is also a potential down side in aquaculture and we must be very careful in its further development. A number of public concerns have been brought to my attention as a member of Parliament from an area in which there is considerable aquaculture development. People owning adjacent properties have a very active concern in whether or not an aquaculture site is located just off their properties.
Indeed there has to be approval under the Navigable Water Protection Act, but at the same time it seems to me that people who own properties adjacent to the ocean should have a somewhat more significant say in whether or not licences are approved to develop aquaculture right off their own properties. I can relate to this as I live on the ocean myself. There is definitely a need for public consultation on every single aquaculture application that takes place.
There is concern with respect to the impact of aquaculture developments on traditional fishing. For example, earlier this past fall there were applications to develop some aquaculture sites for mussel development near the town of Lockeport in Nova Scotia. This would potentially interfere with the lobster fishery in that area and very legitimate concerns were articulated by the fishermen who have fished there for many years.
We have to be very careful in the development of this industry which at a time when our fishery is facing difficulty has tremendous potential for job creation and the creation of wealth.
One thing that I think is highly significant about aquaculture is that it is an industry that is resource driven. We find out what the market wants and then we develop a means to produce what is required.
It seems to me that this is one of the areas in which we have been falling down in the development of the fishery in Canada. We tend to go out and catch what is there and worry later about whether or not anybody actually wants to buy it, or indeed whether it is commercially viable. We hear much talk in the House about fish allocations that are either left in the water or made available to foreign nations whilst ignoring the fact that we cannot force Canadians to go out and catch fish for which there is no market, or for which they cannot make a reasonable
Private Members' Business
profit or return on the investment that they have made in order to harvest those fish.
We have to continue to look to the future in terms of market development, and aquaculture provides a marvellous opportunity for developing new sources of fish as well as the development of secondary processing of it.
My hon. friend's motion deals specifically with salmon. Aquaculture has been one means whereby we have rekindled the trout industry and the salmon industry in southern Nova Scotia, the area which I have the privilege to represent in this place. We have seen some very successful experiments taking place. My hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan spoke earlier of the differences in the flavour of the meat and the environmental factors that can come into play.
While on the one hand there is the potential for a response to market demand, at the same time we have to recognize that we have a better opportunity of assessing the possibilities for future harvesting because it is a bit more like farming: you know what you are planting and you know what you are going to harvest.
However, we are still subject to vagaries of the environment. That is why environmental protection is so important. The Environmental Protection Act brought forward by this government during the previous Parliament will play a very important role in allowing us to develop an aquaculture industry. We are safeguarding our coastlines and ensuring as best as possible that our oceans will remain clean so that they can produce as much as they can. I am very encouraged to see this Parliament discussing the subject of aquaculture and its potential.
With respect to the specific motion brought forward by my hon. friend, while there is a certain inclination on my part to agree with the sentiment implied in his motion, I have, with all due respect, some reservations as to the wisdom and potential benefits of further regulating an industry that some would suggest is already over-regulated to an extraordinary degree. I believe-and I think that it is consistent with the philosophy of this government-that government's role is to support and to assist but not unnecessarily to intervene in the carrying on of business and in the exploitation of our Canadian resources.

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
It seems to me that to do as this motion suggests, to impose mandatory labelling of cultured fin fish, is unwarranted for a number of reasons. First, I think it is clear that the quality of the product that we are producing through aquaculture is very high.
For example, in Nova Scotia mussels have become a very big industry. When I was a child in Hubbards we did not even use mussels for bait and yet today they have become one of the delicacies of the Atlantic fisheries. I would suggest that a lot of the people who eat mussels cannot tell the difference in taste between a cultured mussel and a wild mussel, though the cultured ones tend to be of a more consistent size.
The industry is also already highly regulated. Goodness gracious, everybody involved in the fishery knows how highly regulated it is. I am not sure we need to add to that. Enforced labelling would be an administrative nightmare, I would suggest. I do not think we really need this sort of thing, not to mention an added cost with no value added benefit from the point of view of the consumer. I am not sure people wish to have prices added on to things that are already very costly.
While I can respect the sentiment put forward by my hon. colleague opposite, I would much prefer to see the money that would go into administering the bureaucratic system which would have to be set up puf toward research. We know the outstanding record of this government and this Prime Minister with respect to research.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I cannot follow that up in that I have such a little time, it is such an important issue and there are so many things I would like to say.
The motion points out one of the real challenges we have and will have in the next number of years as we manage the fishery, as we deal with fisheries development, as we deal with economic development in the fishery, and as we deal with the questions of markets and developing new species and new products. That is the problem that we face, perhaps being victims of our own success potentially in the longer term, as we have to compensate for and balance the success of aquaculture and the success of farm reared, or ranched as some call it, fish as compared to the wild fish that we catch and
that our fishermen have traditionally depended so much upon to earn their living.
As I am sure my hon. friend from South Shore is well aware, we face competition from ourselves. We face competition from our own success. As we look at aquaculture as a secure, predictable, dependable way to produce fish of size, of consistency and of some purity, we will come in competition with the people in the fishing industry who depend on the wild animal, who have traditionally had to go out and catch, bring back, produce, develop our markets and sell.
My hon. friend's motion comes directly to that point. We are beginning to see the products of aquaculture. Mr. Speaker, I am just getting started.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt. I would love to hear the hon. member's speech, but the time provided for the consideration of private members' business is now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the order paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
Resuming debate on the motion of Mr. Andre, in relation to the 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 the amendment of Mr. Gauthier (p. 9099).
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to enter the debate on Bill C-21.1 would like to spend the majority of my time talking about the government's contributions, the variable entrance requirements and, if time allows, the penalties that are being imposed on those who are unfortunate enough to have to quit their job.
I listened to some of the members opposite speak on Bill C-21. They did not talk about bill itself. What they talked about is that dreaded Senate, that other place, and the fact that it has no right to be sending amend-
March 13, 1990

merits to this House for us to consider. It would not have been necessary for the Senate to send amendments if this particular government had the courtesy to allow us to debate this issue more fully and, therefore, the time to propose our own amendments.
One of the things that this government has continually said is that this legislation is better than the one we have presently in place. That is something that I take exception to, for the simple reason that if $2.9 billion is removed from the system and the government itself states that by the year 1992 it will be in a deficit position of $3 billion, what does that tell you? It can tell you only one thing: there are other objectives and other reasons for this particular piece of legislation.
This legislation is there for one reason and for one reason only, and that is for this government to get out of the business of supplying this particular social safety net for the workers of Canada. There are no other reasons that a government would put a particular program of this magnitude in jeopardy by the year 1992.
Perhaps it would be interesting for the people at home to note that in 1992 there will be another election. The people on this side will likely have the mess of trying to do something with this particular bill, if it is so unfortunate that it be passed.
If this piece of legislation goes into effect, there are going to be some ramifications for the working men and women of this country. The most important one, the variable entrance requirement, relates more specifically to the have-not regions of Canada. The variable entrance requirements were put there simply because this country has a difference in economics. Not all regions of the country are the same. My hon. friend across the way would say that Newfoundland has greater economic difficulties than northern Ontario. Those residents of northern Ontario say to me on a regular basis that their economic situation is much different from that of Toronto. Those in southern Ontario would say that their situation is a lot different from that of Montreal, Vancouver or Halifax.
One of the largest cornerstones of this particular social safety net is the variable entrance requirement. The variable entrance requirements are something that Canadians and governments in the past have put in place because there are different regional unemployment
Government Orders
conditions due to economic situations in the various regions.
For example, northern Ontario, is considered to be a resource-based part of the country. Forestry, tourism and mining are the three important resource-based industries that make our economy grow. What happens if you take one of these large pieces of the puzzle out of the picture, Mr. Speaker? You get mass unemployment. There are no other jobs to go to. In Montreal, if a plant closes down, a worker with the correct training can go down the street and find the opportunity to get another job. In northern Ontario, as in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, when you lose your job in a single-industry town, you are stuck. You need a social safety net, the type of program which will allow people to keep their pride as Canadians, which will allow them to get by that cyclical problem which occurs in regions where resource-based industries are located. Those are called seasonal jobs. We all have them in our areas.
The issue is that there are those who do not accept the fact that Canada is the same no matter where you live and that these variable entrance requirements have to be maintained and remain in place.
Let us take a look at what is going to happen with this particular bill as it relates to the variable entrance requirements. Under Bill C-21, instead of a requirement of 10 to 14 weeks, it would be 10 to 20 weeks. Regions of 6 per cent or less require 20 weeks, while regions of more than 15 per cent would retain a minimum entrance requirement of 10 weeks.
The regional benefits, under Bill C-21, would affect northern Ontario claimants in that every time they make a claim for unemployment insurance they would lose 13 weeks of benefits. When you take that into a small, unpopulated area like northern Ontario, and in particular, the riding of Kenora-Rainy River, that simply takes $3 million out of the economy. That is a quick figure of $3 million. When you do that, there are some ramifications. I think that members opposite who are not fortunate enough to live in areas with the beauty and magnitude of northern Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, should think twice before they vote in favour of Bill C-21, because it will change the way people in the regions of Canada look at themselves. Let us take a look at what the situation is.

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
One of the things to consider is the effect of this particular change in the unemployment insurance program. Under the proposed 62-regions system, which would go into effect under Bill C-21, claimants in 45 regions would require more than 14 weeks of insurable earnings based on seasonally-adjusted three-month average of unemployment rates for the month ending November, 1989. Only in eight regions would the minimum 10-week entrance requirement apply. Under the old VER rules, the minimum would have applied in 32 of these regions. Therefore, this particular bill will affect 150,000 of our constituents in a short period of time. That is an enormous change from the old bill.
One of the effects of that will be the shift to welfare. We talk about the fact that once people cannot collect unemployment insurance, they have certain alternatives. They can either move or look for other means of having dollars to support their family. If they cannot get employment in their particular region, or because of their economic situation as an individual cannot afford to wander off to Toronto or Montreal or some other area where perhaps the unemployment rate is not as high, what choice do they have? Their choice is welfare.
They will go to the municipality and the province and simply say: "You'll have to look after me". I say that that is not acceptable. I say to the Government of Canada that we have an obligation to the people we represent to maintain a system where people feel comfortable as Canadians. Therefore, when times are hard, we will be a caring and loving society and look after them.
We cannot simply say: "Move to Toronto". People in northern Ontario do not want to live in Toronto. We cannot afford to live in Toronto. Housing is so expensive that no one would want to move there at this time to try to make a fresh start with a young family. For all intents and purposes, perhaps they do not even have a job to go to at first and have to hunt for a job. The rent is so high, a move is not feasible. So what choice do they have?
For the government to state that the changes in the unemployment insurance system, the variable entrance requirements, are an improvement to the old bill and therefore putting forward this new legislation is going to be an improvement, is rubbish. We all realize in this
House that there are other reasons for this particular piece of legislation being put in place.
I find it very difficult to go back to my constituents and say that we have revamped and improved the unemployment insurance program. It is very difficult for me to say to my constituents that it is improved when I know that on average a person in northern Ontario will have 13 weeks less of insurance that he or she so badly needs in those areas where you find natural, resource-based industries which in certain periods of the year cut back and put people out of work.
There is another area of importance in northern Ontario. I am speaking of the unemployment situation of the native people there. Native people, historically, have a much higher unemployment rate than people in the non-native communities. In my riding, I represent roughly 14,000 aboriginal people. Those people have rates of unemployment ranging from 40 per cent to 90 per cent, depending on the community.
The government makes it more difficult to collect unemployment insurance in those regions. Once, if a person was lucky enough to be a guide for a particular tourist camp for 10 weeks or worked in the forests for 10 weeks, then he or she could collect unemployment insurance. As some members have indicated, they could even get involved in a training program or a make-work program under the old Liberal government which allowed them to accumulate sufficient weeks so that they would not be on the welfare rolls. This gave them a sense of achievement, belonging, the sense of having something to offer Canadians. Now what you give them is welfare. Where would 14,000 aboriginals go for a job in northern Ontario where roughly 10,000 of those 14,000 live in isolated communities to which you have to fly. What do I tell them? Move to Toronto, you have no choice. That is ridiculous. We know it, they know it, but the government seems to think that is fine. Do not worry about them, the government of Ontario will look after them.
That brings me to the other area which the citizens of Canada should be aware of. This bill is just a disguise to pass programs that the federal government historically has been responsible for and is now passing on to the provinces. The government tells the province: "You look after it. They are your citizens. We are getting out of the program".
March 13, 1990

When I read something that states that by the year 1992, if this bill passes, this program will be $3 billion in deficit. When I read that, it made me think that there are no choices available to the worker when he or she gets laid off in this country. If this government is not prepared to put certain dollars into this program, then it is saying to the employer and employee that they have to.
We all know that employers feel that they pay to the UI program to the extent that enough is enough. We have heard that on numerous occasions and I think all members of Parliament would say that they have listened to the small business person and the large business person say that one of the reasons Canadians cannot compete with the Americans is because the amount of dollars we pump into these extra programs and the hidden costs of keeping these employees is too high.
What we are hearing from the government is that sooner or later in 1992-93 when it becomes evident under the new program that there is a deficiency as far as the dollars put into it are concerned, the employer and the employee will either have to kick in more or we will have to reduce the amount of funds we pay to an already small amount. If you were ever so unlucky as to collect unemployment, Madam Speaker, then you will know that it is very difficult to raise a family of two or three, or even look after yourself, pay the rent and feed yourself with the amount of dollars paid through that program.
If we cut the program even more because the government no longer has any responsibility in the program then the workers will be forced into a position of having to stay on welfare, or also something which is very sad in this bill, possibly having to stay in a job where the working relationship between the employer and the employee is so bad that psychologically it would be better for that individual to quit. This government has stated that in this country you do not quit a job. You stay there whether or not you like it, even though there are situations when at times you have no choice but to quit.
The changes in the penalties in this particular legislation change from six weeks disqualification to a minimum of seven weeks to a maximum of 12 weeks plus two weeks waiting period; a reduced rate of benefit from 60 per cent of insurable earnings to 50 per cent. We do not give criminals sentences that long. I cannot understand
Government Orders
why someone who has to quit a job because of situations not of his or her making would be put in a situation where they cannot collect for three months. Not only that, but this can be carried over for six years. I would like to see them give penalties and longer sentences than that to people who steal in stores. A person who happens to quit his or her job is given a six-year penalty. I think that is shameful. Canadians know what this government is up to and when it comes to 1992-93 they will remember, if this government has the audacity to pass this legislation in its present form.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, I have listened to the debate on this amendment to Bill C-21 with great interest. One of the speeches that I found most striking was yesterday when the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration said that she and this government listened to the workers.
When they listened to the workers did they hear the workers tell the government to dump the burden of paying for unemployment insurance on their backs? Did the workers say to this government: "We need training, but we don't need government, our own tax money, to pay for it?" Did the workers tell this government that they want to have shorter eligibility for unemployment insurance that they have paid for? Did they tell this government that they want their unemployment insurance program decimated? I think not.
When I was on the tour with many members who sit in this House, group after group and individual after individual Canadian told us over and over again how important any changes to unemployment insurance are to them. They believed and hoped that the government would care enough to enhance the program, not decimate it. One should not be surprised, however, that the government does not listen. People should not be surprised at the level of disdain at which this government holds working people. Consistently during the hearings and in the debate we have heard these terms from the government: relocation, re-education, behaviour modification. Those words coming from this government with the mandate it has and the commitment it made are shocking, disgusting and, in my view, unacceptable. If

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
George Orwell had a vision when he wrote 1984 the vision was of the government on that side of the House.
Yesterday, we met with the labour coalition that has been referred to a number of times during this debate. The people we met included Shirley Carr, president of the Canadian Labour Congress; Louis Laberge, president of the Quebec Federation of Labour; Jim McCamb-ley, president of the Canadian Federation of Labour; Gerald Larose, president of the Confederation of National Trade Unions; Kitty O'Callaghan, president of the Canadian Teachers Federation, Lorraine Page, president of the Quebec Teaching Congress; Kathleen Connors, president of the National Federation of Nurses' Unions and Louis Lacroix, president of the Canadian Conference of Teamsters.
This group represents 4 million dues-paying workers, both employed workers and unemployed workers. If that is multiplied by 3.6, which is the average family in this country, that is 14.5 million Canadians. Up until Friday, the coalition tried to have a meeting with the minister and this government. They were denied the opportunity to meet with them.
I would like to put what those labour centrals had to say on behalf of working people on the record. Kitty O'Callaghan, president of the Canadian Teachers Federation, talked about kids who are disadvantaged because of unemployment in our communities. She talked about kids who come to school hungry and ill-equipped. As a result of that, they are unable to fully participate in school activities. Not only that, they are unable to perform at full potential. Her concern is that today one in six kids in Canada is already living in poverty, and that coupled with the UI cuts, the transfer payment cuts in the budget, the claw-back of family allowance, and education cuts, kids today are out selling candy bars and other things to buy needed equipment for their schools. Not only are they disadvantaged, not only are they finding it difficult to reach-


Mr. McDermid:: I did that when I went to school. What nonsense. They have been doing that for years.


Joy Langan: It will be your turn soon. I am sure the Speaker will recognize you.
It is evident that members on the other side of the House also hold poor children in disdain and that is the tragedy of what this government is putting before us.
Kathleen Connors, president of the National Federation of Nurses' Unions, talked about the front-line deliverers of health care, the nurses. She said that they see the direct impact of unemployment on the local health care system. They see when there is not sufficient income for appropriate food, when there is not sufficient income for appropriate health care, and when unemployment causes family stress, family violence and suicide. She said that between the EPF transfer cuts and the unemployment insurance cuts that we are seeing in this bill, the impact will be devastating.
Lorraine Page, president of the Quebec Teaching Congress, said that we need to invest in professional training, but that must not be done by asking the unemployed to pay for the training fund. She said that we need to enhance financing of the education sector, not privatize it as shown in this bill, and not cut it in the budget for education. She said that women, in particular, who are in precarious jobs are unemployed first and unemployed longest. She talked about eligibility and the fact that the increased demands in this bill would make it much more difficult for women to become eligible. She said, and it is very true, that of the one in six kids in this country who is poor, usually, statistically, they come from single-parent, women-led families. Those are the ones who will be affected first and the ones who will be affected most by these cuts.
Gerald Larose, president of the Confederation of National Trade Unions, said unemployment insurance is the main mechanism to reallocate riches from the well off to the more fragile, and that when you weaken the system, as this bill is going to be weakening it, you weaken the regional areas even more. He said that this is a system designed to privatize unemployment insurance, that this government clearly no longer wants to fund unemployment insurance and is copying the American model.
Despite statements during the election campaign and in the free trade agreement itself that governments have to interfere less in the free market, and despite statements by this government that that is not really true, we are finding ourselves again and again with legislation that is tailored to the American model to accommodate the free trade agreement. Bill C-21 is an example of the big lie that took place to get votes in the last federal election.
March 13, 1990

Louis Laberge, president of the Quebec Federation of Labour, said that this government is responsible for plant shutdowns, one after the other. Instead of helping workers, the government is reducing the time available for unemployment insurance and increasing the time it takes to become eligible. Ele said that workers are aware of how far Bill C-21 is going, but it will take time for workers to really appreciate the impact on them and to become angry enough to revolt. He said that this bill is so bad it is hard to find words to explain it.
Jim McCambly of the Canadian Federation of Labour said the removal of $4.2 billion for general revenue responsible for this funding may destroy the unemployment insurance program, one of the better systems in the world. When talking to people from other parts of the world, they are impressed, or were impressed, with our unemployment insurance system. The fact is, after this bill is finished with Canadian workers, it will not be something to be proud of, but something to be very worried about.
Mr. McCambly talked about the impact of unemployment on seasonal, cyclical, and disadvantaged workers. He feels that this legislation is going to hurt very badly those workers. He said that for the first year it may not be too bad, but wait until the second year. The government is banking on those people who are working not being able to visualize being unemployed so that it can get through this bill. Once it does, it will be too late.
Louis Lacroix, President of the Canadian Conference of Teamsters, said that this is more than a bad bill, this is a philosophical debate. The government is no longer participating in the unemployment insurance program. It is the privatization of social benefits in the country and this is one of the very clear steps in the government's plans.
Shirley Carr, President of the Canadian Labour Congress, unequivocally stated that she would be going to the wire fighting this bill. The CLC pointed out that unemployment insurance is fundamental to the economic and social security of all workers, unionized and non-unionized, full-time and part-time, private sector and public sector. Bill C-21 destroys many of the principles on which the unemployment insurance system
Government Orders
has been built. Its most basic purpose of insuring workers against the loss of earnings is seriously undermined. The tripartite financing of UI by employers, workers, and government, developed over the past 50 years, is destroyed by this bill.
Government contributions of $2.5 billion for UI extended benefits resulting from high regional unemployment will be withdrawn. About $300 million of government subsidies for UI fishery benefits will be transferred to premium payers. Fifteen per cent of UI premiums, about $2 billion a year, will be used to finance the purchase of training courses, resettlement, business start-up, wage subsidies and other labour adjustment programs now financed from general government revenues.
Bill C-21 is not good for working people in Canada. Bill C-21 is not good for employers in Canada. The only people the government has heard say that Bill C-21 is good is themselves.
The government is abandoning the social contract-I think it is important to note, the sacred trust-that was made with Canadian workers and employers. It is evident now that the government has never had the intention of listening to Canadian workers.
I would like to tell the government that the impact of Bill C-21 is so bad that time will prove our opposition. We will not let up in that opposition. It may pass the bill, but the opposition will not let up. We will target the government and we will remind workers over and over again of who destroyed the system to which they contributed for a working lifetime and on which they depend. We will remind the 520,000 Canadians who will be affected. I will certainly work with my colleagues to remind the 60,000 British Columbians who will be affected, and I will certainly make it my mission in life to remind the 37,500 workers in my region of Vancouver and the lower Fraser Valley who will be affected. We will be reminding them of the $144 million that will be lost to the B.C. economy, that the safety net that gives them the opportunity to go out and look for other work has been removed, and that the burden is being shifted on to their backs and the backs of the provinces. We will not let up. The men and women working in this country deserve better.

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
I would ask that we consider the people who do not sit in nice surroundings such as these. We should consider the people who work on the shop floors or shift work, which occasionally this House has an opportunity to try. At least we get an afternoon shift to one o'clock in the morning.
I would ask the members to think about working in the dirt and grime in the mines and in the unsafe working conditions. Think about giving your life to that labour and then having someone come along and snatch it out from under you, like one could snatch a carpet, saying that what they are doing is good for you.
It is time that government members spent a little bit of time on the shop floors with working people hearing the kinds of concerns they truly have. They should hear the kinds of fears they have about where the economy of this country is going, where their future is, where the future is of their children and how they are going to survive the clawbacks, the UI cuts, the GST, this budget, and free trade. What is going to be left by the time we get to the next general election?


John Horton McDermid: A stronger country, a competitive country.


An hon. member:: A banana republic.


Joy Langan: Someone said we are going to have a competitive country. We are going to have the workers on their knees. We are going to have a banana republic. That is exactly where the government wants them, on their knees, so it can just put it to them.


Mr. MacDougall:: That is what the socialists would do.


Joy Langan: That is not what the New Democrats would do. We are committed to bringing those concerns here. This is a government that would not meet with the National Action Committee on the Status of Women last year; a government that has refused this year to meet with the Canadian Labour Congress and with the Coalition of Unions on the unemployment insurance bill. Today, we heard the Minister of Employment and Immigration say that the government listens to women and the workers in the country. If the government is listening, then I suspect it is not hearing because the women and the workers in the country are not satisfied, are not happy with this legislation, and certainly do not feel that they are being listened to.
I want to close my remarks by saying that government members sit there in righteous indignation because we should be so forthright as to get up to criticize their legislation. I would suggest that at the time of the next election they will have to go out and face those folks whom they pulled the rug out from under. I suspect at that time they will perhaps drop their disdain a tiny bit, throw out a few cookies, and hope that they will be re-elected.
This legislation is despicable and unacceptable to Canadian workers. I plead on behalf of those workers that government members listen to what they have to say.


Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to the motion moved by the government House leader on the Senate message on Bill C-21.
The legislative initiative undertaken by the Minister of Employment and Immigration represents very tangible progress in the area of employment reform. I would like to congratulate her for it.
First, I would like to take a few moments to remind hon. members of the provisions in Bill C-21 that I support, and why. To me, Bill C-21 represents part of an approach, a reasoned strategy, well thought-out and carefully designed. As a major reform of public policy it is the right way to go.
I have always thought that for far too long in this country, social and economic policy were piecemeal, a bandage here and some ointment there. The result of this rather haphazard approach was policies absent of direction, devoid of parity and often, in the end, ineffective. Today, more and more Canadians are calling out for social and economic leadership as we move towards 2000.
This is no more true than in the area of labour force development. The Minister of Employment and Immigration clearly understands that when it comes to unemployment insurance, for example, what may have been appropriate for a resource-based economy of the sixties and seventies is no longer adequate. Today, we see that, thanks in part to initiatives by this government such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Western Diversification Office and others, we have an economic
March 13, 1990

base that is increasingly well-rounded and, indeed, quite vital and diverse.
I know all members and all Canadians share with me a sense of great pride when we speak of economic prosperity. It seems to me that the creation of a broad economic base is only part of the story. If we achieve through our economic policies a certain measure of success in diversifying our nation's means of production, then does it not stand to reason that our social, labour force, and workforce policies should operate in tandem?
We know, for example, that our resource-based economy of 20 years ago demanded very little by way of skills development. Technology changed slowly and workers easily kept pace with workplace demands. But training has assumed a critical role in today's high technology era. A skilled workforce is essential for our businesses to compete successfully in the global market-place of the year 2000.
To turn our backs on the challenges of the next millennium is foolish. To be paralyzed by the dogma of the status quo is hardly economic leadership. This bill represents a very sensible and thoughtful approach to labour force development. It is an approach very much in keeping with the Canadian way. These proposed changes to our unemployment insurance system represent a flexible and balanced response to changing times. It is consistent with the commitment to contribute to economic prosperity. Equally, it ensures that those in our society who are disadvantaged are helped and encouraged to be full participants in our society's economic activity.
As one of my constituents in Barrie said to me the other day: "Edna, what we have is unemployment insurance, but what we need is employment insurance." It is understood that these reforms, by their very nature, are designed to help workers and to assist those who require special assistance to play a full and satisfactory role in the workforce. After all, that is the very essence of the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
I want to discuss for a moment some of the particular initiatives designed to meet the specific circumstances of women, older workers and the employment disadvantaged. For example, the strategy is providing a financial boost to a training program for social assistance recipi-
Govemment Orders
ents that already has a proven track record in helping them to become economically self-reliant.
Through this program, the federal government works in tandem with the provincial governments to help social assistance recipients acquire the skills and the work experience they need to find good jobs at good pay. We, on this side of the House, are prepared to support an additional $50 million under the strategy. That, combined with the $50 million spent through the Canada Assistance Plan and matching funds from the provinces, promises an additional $200 million to prepare an estimated 20,000 additional social assistance recipients for productive employment.
I am particularly pleased to note that the strategy addresses the needs of older workers for whom the job search is often a long and frustrating process. We will be injecting an extra $40 million into the continuing employment option which provides financial support for up to three years to employers who hire and retrain displaced workers.
In addition, we will be doubling the budget of the Industrial Adjustment Service which works with companies to deal with the problems of obsolete skills, the challenges of changing technologies, and finding alternative employment for laid-off workers. Its total budget will now be $30 million.
Bill C-21 contains another very important change that older workers will welcome with open arms. It enables workers over the age of 65 to collect benefits if they otherwise meet the unemployment insurance criteria. With more and more Canadians choosing to extend their working lives, this change is an idea whose time has come.
The strategy also opens the door of opportunity for more women. For example, we are allocating an additional $65 million for promoting human resource planning programs in the private sector. These plans will include employment equity components which will broaden prospects for women.
It is my personal hope that details being worked out now at private sector consultations under the auspices of the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre will enable us to improve the apprenticeship program and train more women in non-traditional occupations. In conjunction with the private sector, we hope to develop an entiy level training program for jobs in growing

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
industries, particularly in areas in which women already have a large stake.
Bill C-21 also proposes changes in special unemployment insurance benefits that will not only help women but also make the program more relevant to the needs of today's workforce. These changes include, in addition to the current 15 weeks of maternity benefits, 10 weeks of parental benefits for natural and adoptive parents, shared between the mother and the father as they deem fit, and the proposal for more flexibility and access to 15 weeks of sickness benefits.
I would like to say that I have received a lot of correspondence from my constituents who are young mothers-to-be. They know that if Bill C-21 is not passed before the birth of their children, they will not be able to take advantage of its generous provisions for maternity leave.
The strategy has also taken into account the concerns of women's groups in another matter, the question of what exactly constitutes just cause for quitting one's employment. Under Bill C-21, people who quit their jobs without just cause stand to lose between seven and 12 weeks of benefits. However, anyone who has justifiable reason for quitting, such as being the victim of hazardous working conditions or because a spouse has found employment in another city, will not face these penalties.
In response to appeals from women across Canada, myself included, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has added an amendment to Bill C-21 which provides legislative expression of just cause. When the government introduced the labour force development strategy, it did so to help both the unemployed and Canadian businesses by creating a better match between skills employers need and skills workers have. We know this is just a start, but it focuses our attention on the education and the training which are needed to equip people for the demanding requirements of a modern, global economy, and that will enable them to participate fully in our society. More and more of us who have witnessed the massive changes brought about by the technological revolution appreciate that skills training remains a key means of preparing our workforce for the constantly evolving complexities of the job market.
All of us understand that if we are ever to compete effectively in the global economy, we must ensure that the labour force of the 1990s is not only highly skilled, but capable of adapting to an evolving work environment brought on by technological and demographic change. This challenge requires the co-operation of the public sector, the private sector, professional associations and, yes, unions to pool skills and experience and get involved for the good of our country. Government cannot do it alone. It is essential to establish links between the schools, industry and the community to provide invaluable insights for our youth into the world of work and its demands.
The government has listened seriously to the recommendations offered by the Senate regarding Bill C-21. While there are many concerns which all members should have about many of the suggestions in the message before us, some recommendations are worth including in Bill C-21. For example, we recognize the impact which illiteracy has on Canadian workers and on employers. The lack of basic skills is an impediment to further training. For that reason, the idea in recommendation one is worth including in this bill.
Senators have said that they welcome the commitment of the government to producing an annual plan which will show members how unemployment insurance funds will be spent to train and develop people. In recommendation four, they have asked us to amend the bill to ensure that the minister will provide specific details in this plan. It will do no one good to create centralized plans which are too rigid or detailed to respond to changing times. At the same time, a reasonable level of detail should be provided. Therefore, the response which the government proposes to the Senate's suggestion is a fair one.
The Liberals in the Senate seem to believe that the only purpose of unemployment insurance is to pay people to wait for their old jobs to come back. We believe that unemployment insurance needs to become an active program which invests in people. Training courses, financial help to move to a place where there are more jobs, and assisting claimants to start businesses, are wise investments. This government wants to let people get out of the unemployment trap.
March 13, 1990

In closing, let me say how proud I am to have played a role as a member of the legislative committee which travelled the land studying this bill. I now know with certainty that the proposals contained herein respond to the needs and the aspirations of Canadians entering and participating in the workforce as we move towards 2000.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I am duty-bound to rise tonight on closure at third reading of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.


An hon. member:: It's not third reading.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: The legislation before us, referred back to this House by the other place, would fundamentally alter one of the basic aspects of universality in Canada. The bill would remove the federal government from funding the unemployment insurance program, dramatically restructuring our social safety system. It is a Conservative assault on the Canadian way of life.
The legislation would increase the required number of weeks needed to collect unemployment insurance and lessen the actual number of weeks a person will receive entitlements. The legislation would alter the minimum entrance requirements for workers seeking financial support from the current 10 to 14 weeks of employment to an incredible 10 to 20 weeks of employment. This means that, even though the federal government has removed itself from paying into the program, the Tories are still calling the shots and making it tougher on Canadians, saying: "You have no choice. You will have to contribute more and receive less."
The changes in the legislation before us mean that over 150,000 Canadians will lose their entitlements and over 750,000 working Canadians will have their entitlements reduced. Under this government, the same case is being repeated time and time again. Canadians are paying more and more in taxes, and are receiving less and less in entitlements and services.
The government is removing itself from contributing to the UI system. The government intends to replace its $2.9 billion contribution with increased employee-employer payments. Under the proposed legislation contributions by employers will rise to $3.15 for every $100 of earnings, a total of $3.48 more per week than what employers presently pay, or $180 more per year.
Government Orders
Contributions by employees will also rise. As if the hardworking Canadian was not already paying enough, under the new legislation employees would pay $2.49 more per week than at present, an increase of $129 more per year. Add to this the additional cost of at least $1,000 a year which Canadians will pay towards the proposed goods and services tax. All this is at the worst possible time, when one considers our poor economic outlook, not to mention the condition of our east coast fishery.
The qualification period for receiving entitlements, or the eligibility period, as the government likes to call it, for employees who in many cases lose their jobs through no fault of their own will rise dramatically. The new scale will be based on the average rate of unemployment in a given area, as was the case under the old rules. The difference is the amount of weeks required in order to qualify for entitlements.
In my own city of Hamilton, Ontario the unemployment rate for February, 1990 was 5.3 per cent. This means that under the proposed rules a person needs 20 weeks of work to qualify for entitlements, whereas under the old rules the worker needs only 14 weeks to qualify. The new rules would also mean that the same worker would receive fewer weeks of entitlements. In Hamilton, the same worker who is laid off and who would fortunately have 20 weeks of work under his belt would receive only 17 weeks of compensation. Under the old rules the worker would have received at least 20 weeks. This would only be the case if the person was successful in gaining employment and was able to hold the job without his job moving south of the border.
In the hard pressed regions of our country, people will find it increasingly difficult to receive entitlements, let alone find a secure job. On the east coast where the government has sold out the Atlantic fishery, workers will now be required to have 14 weeks of employment compared to only 10 weeks under the previous rules. The Conservative government members opposite ask the question: What is so wrong with these changes?
The Senate has made it all very clear. In its amendments the Senate proposes that Ottawa continue to guarantee the annual $2.4 billion federal subsidy to the system rather than allow the cost to be put on to the backs of the Canadian workers and their employers. The amendments would also stop the government from making it harder to obtain entitlements in areas of high

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
unemployment and from cutting the time that make recipients eligible.
The government House leader said: "The Senate is acting as if it forgets who won the 1984 and 1988 elections." I ask this: Who gave this government the mandate to carry out this system of injustice? I also ask this: Why has the unemployment rate in St. John's, Newfoundland risen from 10.4 per cent last year to 13.2 per cent this year? Because the Conservative government has abandoned the east coast.
Out west in the prairies the government has abandoned the family farm. In some cases workers there will now need 18 weeks of employment to qualify for entitlements, instead of only 12 weeks which is presently the case. Clearly, under the Conservative government Canadians end up paying more and getting less.
Let there be no mistake, we are not talking about hand-outs here. We are talking about payments from insurance premiums. Canadian workers pay into the system with their own money. As we know, the system would be sustained by workers and employers under the new system. So when a person is laid off in St. John's, Newfoundland or Victoria or Hamilton they expect to be covered until they find a new job. This legislation changes the system of redistribution of wealth in this country.
For example, let us take the present crisis in Atlantic Canada. What happens to the young couple with two children when both parents have finally succeeded in getting a job in the local fish plant but suddenly find themselves out of a job after five weeks of work? Because of Conservative government mismanagement this family of four would be in jeopardy because the two parents would not have had enough weeks to qualify for the entitlements for which they had paid.
There is one person from Newfoundland with a terrific job, but whom voters would certainly like to forget. I am speaking of the Minister for International Trade. It was he who, during the 1988 election campaign, promised that no new changes were planned for the unemployment insurance program.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Did he say that?


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I have the exact quote. He said: "No one is planning any changes in the UIC program. There has not been any change proposed to us since we dealt with the Forget commission. We are not contemplating any changes."


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I can't believe he said that.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: What deception. What deceit. The truth is that the government is using the pretext of "adjustment" to finance its deficit reduction plan, which is not really a plan at all since it cannot control it all at the expense of unemployed Canadians.
The government claims that the solution to unemployment will be training programs for the unemployed. Are the unemployed supposed to be thrilled and excited about this? The Conservative government's much talked about training programs are a sham if there are no jobs to be filled. The Conservative government's programs rank sixth in terms of content and effectiveness when compared to programs of OECD countries.
Hard working Canadians will pay for training without any assurance that they will benefit from that training. The idea of training workers is also tied into the concept of education, research and development. The more basic education a person has the easier he or she is to train. The more research and development there is in the country the more spin-offs and jobs are likely to be created. However, under successive Conservative budgets these two important features of growth in our society have been curtailed, slashed, cut by this government.
Under the Conservative government funding for research and development has decreased. Prior to the 1984 election campaign the Prime Minister made all kinds of spending commitments and promises. He said that, if elected, he would double Canada's R and D effort by the end of his first mandate.
However, the percentage of Canada's Gross Domestic Product spent on R and D fell from 1.37 per cent in 1984 to 1.32 per cent in 1988, and is expected to be lower still in 1989 figures. In fact, Canada's R and D efforts now rank well below the efforts of OECD industrialized nations.
Other countries know the value of research and development and know that R and D plays a great part in the strength of economies. The Canadian government
March 13, 1990

could and should play a much more active role in the promotion of research and development, as well as education.
The government likes to boast about its commitment to education. Frankly, its commitment is negligible at best. This year the Conservative government introduced massive cuts in transfer payments to the provinces, making it harder for them to finance education, among other things.
How can the government hope that Canada can have a system of full employment when it is not creating the tjqje of national infrastructure needed to promote increased growth in our country? The cumulative effect of Conservative government cuts to the provinces for post-secondary education, including R and D, up to 1989, totals $8.9 billion. In addition, the government hopes to cut over $7.4 billion to the provinces over the next five years, bringing the grand total of cuts to the provinces to over $16 billion.
I would like to return to some of the more substantive aspects of the bill and the amendments and the reason why there is all this criticism in the House tonight. Canadians should know that the amendments we are speaking about tonight were not conceived by the Senate. They are the focus, they are the pinnacle of all the information provided to it by groups and individuals with whom the Senate consulted.
But what does this government know about consultation? Labour groups from across this country have combined forces against this particular legislation. These groups representing no less than four million working Canadians believe that unemployment insurance is fundamental to the economic and social security of all Canadian workers. They believe that because of the new changes to the act workers do not have the same amount of insurance they once had. This government, if it has been able to do anything with this bill, it is to unify labour organizations against it.
Labour organizations have repeatedly tried to meet with the Minister of Employment and Immigration, but without success. The minister turns her back on millions of Canadian workers, not only by altering the system of federalism, as one labour official put it, but by refusing Canadians the democratic right to be heard. We do not have to go into that again tonight when we are dealing with this motion of closure, when we are forced to have
Government Orders
our say within just a few hours when the government lowers the boom and that is all there is to be said.
Once again the Conservative government is proceeding blindly toward a dark future for the Canadian worker. The labour movement is also questioning, and rightly so, the restructuring of our social fabric, the very system of redistributing wealth in this country.
Not only does this legislation alter the concept of universality, but it could have the effect of physically breaking apart communities in this nation. By placing such rigid and strict conditions on Canadian workers, the government is effectively saying to them: "If you can't find work in your community where you may be a boy scout leader, where you may be a ball team coach, where you may be teaching kids ballet, then you have to move to Toronto, or you have got to move to Montreal. You have got to move to where the jobs are".
A healthy country, a country that shares in understanding of redistributing the wealth from central Canada to those regions that need our support, through no fault of their own-they are unemployed because of work being seasonal by nature-must depend on a strong local economy, wherever that may be in this country. They have got to remain healthy.
Bill C-21 all but destroys what is left of small town Canada. What is to become of our country? Thank God for the other place, that House of sober second thought.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak tonight. The government has listened seriously to the recommendations offered by the Senate with regard to Bill C-21. While there are many concerns which all members should have about many of the suggestions in the message that is before us, some recommendations are worth including in Bill C-21.
For example, we recognize the impact which illiteracy has on Canadian workers and employers. The lack of basic skills is an impediment to further training.
I would like to take a moment to review the region of the country that I represent, an area where the resource base industries are the backbone of the community. It is an area where we have good times and bad times. In fact it is an area where we are going through some very

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
difficult times. The reason for that is that northern Ontario and regions such as northern Ontario rely heavily on mining, forestry and agriculture. In these three areas families in my riding have grown up. They have been part of the mining community, part of the forestry community and part of the agricultural community. Their grandfather, their father and now their son have had the opportunity to work in these areas.
In areas such as mine the opportunity of being paid well is recognized. The pay in these areas is usually substantial. The opportunity is there to work in the mines for a very healthy wage as long as you are 16 or 17 years old. The thoughts and the feelings of individuals over that timeframe is that they never have to worry, that they will have a job in the mine until they retire. This has been the feeling for the last 50 years in my area. The same is true in the forestry sector.
But times have changed, and in changing times technology changes. One of the greatest problems we face with the adjustment of the unemployed in northern Ontario and across the country is that the technologies that they have learned, whether it was 20 years in a mine or 25 years in a sawmill, have changed. A lot of these workers dropped out of school with very little education. Their only skills were acquired in the job that they are doing. The unfortunate part for them in terms of training is that there was never an opportunity for them to take part in it.
For that reason the idea in the first recommendation is worth including in this bill.
The senators have said that they welcome the commitment of the government to produce an annual plan which will show members how UI funds will be spent to train and develop people. That is what we are looking at in the riding of Timiskaming where individuals have worked in the mining community where technology is now changing and advancing. We are in a competitive world. We are no longer looking just at northern Ontario having a gold mine. We are working on an international basis where we have to be competitive. Because technology changes are before us we have to be able to spend money in training and developing people for that. The
same is true for the agriculture or the forestry side of things.
In recommendation 4 senators have asked us to amend the bill to ensure that the minister will provide specific details in this plan.
It will do no one good to create centralized plans which are too rigid or detailed to respond to changing needs. It will do no good in a country this size, whether we are looking at British Columbia, Yukon, Newfoundland or northern Ontario, to have a rigid, centralized plan. That is not what we should be looking at. At the same time a reasonable level of detail should be provided. Therefore the response the government proposes to the Senate's suggestion is a fair one.
In the eighth recommendation the Senate has also asked the House to consider removing a subsection of the UI act which has been in place for almost 20 years. That subsection would allow the Governor in Council to remove benefits for self-employed fishermen from the UI act at any time.
With the concern shared by ail Canadians for the problems in the fishing industry, the request for added protection for these benefits is understandable. The message which the House will send to the Senate should accommodate these improvements in Bill C-21.
But much of what is in the message from the Senate cannot be accepted. We have been given a set of recommendations by a Senate which is dominated by Liberals which do nothing more than tie the hands of the government. These amendments would force us to spend money which we do not have, in ways which may not be the best for the working people who will be helped by Bill C-21.
The second recommendation would make the government use money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to pay for training courses for unemployed people and for new measures like allowing claimants to use funds to start businesses.
The Senate seems to believe that the only purpose for UI is to pay people to wait for their old jobs to come back.
I have been here since 1982.1 have had the opportunity in that number of years to deal with unemployment problems in my riding. Between 1982 and 1984, I sat in opposition. I had the opportunity to see the government of the day giving out job-creation programs. These
March 13, 1990

programs back then applied, as long as you cut grass, cut trees, painted fences or shovelled snow. That was the policy of the day. It gave you a period of time in which to collect these benefits, so that maybe if you were fortunate enough you could go back to work at your old job.
We believe that UI needs to become an active program which invests in people. Training courses, financial help to move to a place where there are more jobs and assisting claimants to start businesses are wise investments.
When this government took power in 1984 we were concerned with giving people the opportunity to get out of that unemployment trap.
Prior to the Conservative government taking power in 1984, 89 per cent of the jobs created by the then Liberal government were part-time jobs. That means that individuals had to work for three months or six months, and in that time frame they may have had the opportunity to go back to their old job, or maybe they did not. Maybe they were unemployed and looking for another program that they could get involved with again.
Since 1984, 85 per cent of the jobs that this government has created are full-time jobs. That involves 1.5 million people who are working today, more than had been working in 1984. Some 948,000, or 60 per cent of them, are women. When Flora MacDonald was the Minister of Employment and Immigration, she set out the guidelines for this government for what we believe is the way that we should be going. She set up the Canadian Jobs Strategy, giving the opportunity to Canadians who wanted to work to be retrained. Under that program we developed Communities Futures where it is the local people who are involved. They know what the concerns of the regions are, whether it is in Timiskaming, St. John's, Newfoundland or Whitehorse. Those are the individuals who know what adjustments should be made. In my area I have four of them and they work very, very well.
We are looking at retraining so that those individuals who happen to be laid off, unfortunately, have the opportunity to be retrained for a full-time job. We also
Government Orders
look into job development, a program that works very, very well to ensure that individuals will have that opportunity for whatever areas they are looking at. Industrial adjustment programs give the opportunity to the employer, the employee and government to work together.
I think that Bill C-21 does an awful lot to adjust. One area that I look at which is of great concern in regions such as mine is in regard to those who are unemployed. A region such as mine stretches over a vast area with a very low population but ties it to cities such as North Bay and Timmins where the unemployment numbers under the old bill have us tied to the good economic times there. So they are not really sound figures in terms of those who may be unemployed in the area.
Bill C-21 gives us the opportunity to ensure that exact numbers will be shown and that those who require the unemployment insurance plan will have it there.
The third recommendation stops the government from developing innovative approaches to getting people back to work. It also offers new appeal rights to claimants which will make the system more complicated. There are just two more examples of how the Liberals in the Senate are willing to play games with the unemployed.
What we are dealing with is individuals who are in .really hard times, individuals who do need help.
When the government introduced the Labour Force Development Strategy it did so to help both the unemployed and Canadian business by creating a better match between skills employers need skills workers have.
Sometimes, the things which will produce the best results do not fit all the demands of the UI act. For example, if a person is starting a business they are not eligible for UI. Bill C-21 gives us the flexibility to make UI more responsive to today's needs by experimenting with new and better ways of helping the unemployed.
While much of what the Senate wants to do in its fourth recommendation on the government's annual developmental plan for UI can be supported, one aspect certainly cannot. The Senate wants the power to approve or reject the plan. No one in this House can seriously accept the need for such a new power.

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
The fifth amendment cuts back one of the basic principles behind the bill by relaxing the penalties for people who quit their jobs without just cause or who are fired for misconduct. In response to sincere concerns about the definition of just cause for quitting a job, the House approved the amendments of the Minister of Employment and Immigration to Bill C-21 to ensure that people would not be penalized unfairly. The Liberal dominated Senate wants to change this House's decision to strengthen the penalties for people who quit. They want to send a signal to people that it is all right to quit jobs because UI will pay. In my mind that is like looking for cash for life. We must reject this type of thinking.
The sixth recommendation from the Senate demands that payments made to groups who manage programs for unemployed people be paid from the developmental uses budget of the UI. This government has been steadily improving the responsiveness of training programs ever since it was elected. We have many partners in designing and delivering these programs, such as community training groups which include employers and educators.
In my own area we have taken training programs with regard to miners in order to give them the opportunity to upgrade their skills so that with the new technology out there they are able to go to new modern mines where they can get full-time employment. A lot of mines have been open for 35 or 40 years and use old technology. Once they close down individuals do not have that new technology. The same can be said about a waferboard plant in my area. We are looking at developing a program with the company, the employees and government to ensure that with the new technology that is now available these employees will have an opportunity to retrain.
We can look at heavy equipment operators of which there is always a shortage. I could on with a long list of opportunities in which the government is working with community training groups to ensure that the opportunity of full-time stable jobs will be there.
When these groups perform services on our behalf, it is only fair to charge those costs to the UI account in the same way. That is all the clause that we are talking about was designed to do.
Recommendation 7 would do one thing, but one thing with a major impact on the country's deficit. It would force the government to pay a large share of the costs of the unemployment insurance with money that we do not
have. No one can seriously suggest that the government should spend money on a program just because it used to do so. Yet the Liberals in the Senate are willing to see the deficit rise by more than $1.5 billion a year for a range of amendments in its message to this House.
What we are dealing with is fairness. We are dealing with a major problem that faces this country. This is a problem which causes us to adjust our entire workforce, a problem which which is causing us to adjust to the climate around the world. This is nothing new. It is happening in other parts of the country and around the world. The old mentality of spending money to get out of the problem will not work. The Liberal-dominated Senate is willing to spend money but it is not recommending what the proposals should be.
With recommendation 8 we return to the grab for power which the Liberal senators are making. This government is willing to amend the UI act to better protect fishermen, a group whose benefits have not been touched by this bill. It cannot be willing to go along with a scheme to play political games with the government's ability to make regulations.
The House of Commons cannot permit the Senate to expand its powers.
The ninth recommendation would reverse a decision of this House. We agreed in this place that the cost of UI should be borne by those who benefit, workers and employers. The Liberal-dominated Senate again disagrees. When everyone in Canada seems to understand the deficit must be controlled, they are willing to spend and see it go up and up.
The bill which this House passed was a sincere attempt to balance many different interests in order to improve UI in a realistic way. The amendments which the government is offering in response to the message from the Senate are part of that improvement.
However, we must reject amendments from the Liberal senators who are content to act irresponsibly to increase the deficit, remove innovation from the program and delay needed changes. This House must say no to these games.
Bill C-21 is designed to encourage more and better training of working people by the private sector. C-21 is designed to use UI funds to create new opportunities for jobs and to make UI a more active program. This is a major improvement over confining UI to passive, reactive measures. But UI is still a program which is
March 13, 1990

responsive to the different employment needs of communities, across this country.
The government has ensured that UIC is a response to the regions needs. In areas where unemployment is high the vast majority of claimants will not see any changes in their benefits. We recognize that many of the jobs in areas such as Cape Breton, my homeland, western Newfoundland and northern Ontario, where I live, are important to the people of the communities. UIC is another important form of income support. For this reason people in these areas with higher levels of unemployment will still need and will be able to get unemployment qualification benefits.
I am honoured to have had the opportunity to speak tonight. I think it is vital that we pass this bill, that we deal with the opportunities for stability in this country in retraining, and that we give Canadians the much needed changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this bill and in particular on the amendments proposed by the upper House to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act.
I should like to begin by addressing the amendments very specifically. Amendment 1 seeks to include literacy instruction in the training programs provided for under this bill. I fully support this amendment. Illiteracy creates a great obstacle to those who need a higher level of training to adjust successfully to economic changes in Canada. As the world advances toward a highly technological state, workers will need to be able to read and write if they are to meet the challenges that lie ahead.
Thus workers on unemployment insurance who need basic skills must be allowed access to this type of training while receiving unemployment insurance benefits.
Amendment 2, dealing with the development uses provisions, seeks to ensure that the government finds a better way of financing an increased training level of the Canadian workforce than by redirecting moneys away from the unemployed. Using funds from the unemployment insurance program to purchase training courses, to start a business or to provide income support to those
Government Orders
who are temporarily unemployed undermines the program's basic role.
Amendment 3 also deals with the developmental assistance provisions. These provisions are the primary benefits that the unemployed would be paying for through drastic cuts to their benefits. The bill gives the commission great latitude on the details of the developmental assistance programs and hence the commission in the future might be able to do things contrary to requirements generally set out in the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Amendment 4 deals with clause 20 of the bill. This deals with the preparation of an annual plan to provide an estimate of total unemployment insurance expenditures and of total expenditures on developmental uses.
Because the reporting requirements are lax, there is the possibility that money used for training might be reallocated from one region to another. The amendment calls for more detail in the plan so that expenditures will be shown for each province and for each unemployment insurance region and that distribution of funds can be monitored.
Further, the amendment includes a provision ensuring that members of Parliament and senators have an opportunity to approve the plan.
Amendment 5 seeks to keep the disqualification period for people who leave their jobs without just cause to a maximum of six weeks rather than have a disqualification period of seven to twelve weeks as proposed in Bill C-21.
By imposing a minimum disqualification period higher than the present maximum, the government is telling workers that they must remain tied to their jobs regardless of the circumstances. This is unacceptably restrictive and could lead those employees who suffer some form of harassment to remain on the job despite intolerable circumstances because they fear losing all income support for up to three months.
Amendment 6 seeks to ensure that the costs of contracting out, as allowed for under Bill C-21, be charged to the new "developmental uses" portion of the unemployment insurance fund. This is to ensure that such contracting out would fall inside the 15 per cent limit for developmental uses so as not to further erode the proportion of the unemployment insurance fund reserved for direct income maintenance payments to the

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
unemployed. It would also prevent too much privatization of the program.
Amendment 7 seeks to prevent the government from obtaining financial immunity contained in Bill C-21. The government has been a financial contributor to the unemployment insurance fund since it began in 1940. In the 1980s the government paid approximately 23 per cent of total program costs per year. Yet, in the 1990 budget the government announced that effective January 1, 1990 all unemployment insurance expenditures would be financed by premiums alone.
Yet the requirement for federal government contributions is the key to the success of our present unemployment insurance program. The withdrawal of government financing would move us closer to the inferior American model.
The federal government has a responsibility to address regional disparities and to help bear the costs of increases in unemployment which often results from government policies. Thus federal fundings must be maintained.
Amendment 8 seeks to ensure that steps are taken to protect benefits now provided to self-employed fishermen and to ensure that the government is committed to maintaining this vital program.
The Unemployment Insurance Act was amended in 1956 to extend coverage to self-employed fishermen and to provide that the government, not the unemployment insurance fund, was responsible for making up the difference between premiums collected and benefits paid to self-employed fishermen. Bill C-21 proposes to place the full cost of fishermen's benefits on the UI fund which, as I have already pointed out, is to be financed by employee-employer premium contributions alone. Thus the full cost of the fishermen's benefits would be borne by all other contributors to the fund.
I would like to quote the following statement of the Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers Union: "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 this is not fair and we want out".
At a time when the Atlantic fisheries are in crisis the government should be furthering its support, not withdrawing it. Hence I fully support amendment 8.
Amendment 9, the last amendment, deals with variable entrance requirement. It was introduced to the unemployment insurance program to link regional unemployment conditions to the number of weeks of insurable employment required to qualify for benefits. As the unemployment rate of a region increased, the number of weeks of insurable employment necessary to qualify for benefits decreased. But this variable entrance requirement has been allowed to lapse by this government and so, since January 6, 1990, a uniform 14-week entrance requirement is in effect for all regions of the country irrespective of their levels of unemployment. That is definitely unfair.
Bill C-21 proposes a 62-region system and in only 8 of these regions would the 10-week minimum apply. Under the old rules the minimum would have applied in 32 regions.
The proposed changes to the number of weeks a claimant may receive unemployment insurance would reduce the maximum duration of benefit entitlement in most cases. For example, in the region of southern Manitoba, in my home province, claimants would lose up to 13 weeks of benefits.
The government is implying that unemployed people are in a position of their own making and with proper incentives could find jobs. Such thinking misses the point. It is not incentives that are necessary but jobs themselves.
Thus I agree with Amendment 9 that Table 1 and Table 2 of Bill C-21 be modified so that the highest unemployment regions would escape the ill effects of these new government proposals.
Before the federal election in November 1988 members of this government dismissed as nonsense suggestions that the Tories had a hidden agenda to cut unemployment insurance or other social programs after the election. The government broke its promise.
During the election the government also promised to develop high quality programs to help the many people who will lose their jobs because of free trade and other
March 13, 1990

economic changes. However, rather than using funds from general revenues as is normally the case, the government will take the money away from the unemployed. That is its solution. All workers will pay for training without any assurance that they themselves will benefit from the training. Training is the responsibility of government and must be funded.
It is the poor and disadvantaged people who already have difficulties in finding secure jobs that will be hardest hit by these changes to the UI program. It is because these people are "last hired and first fired". It will be seasonal workers, young people, natives, new immigrants, new citizens, visible minorities and the disabled people who stand to suffer the most from these proposed changes. Many people in these groups unfortunately are poor and the most vulnerable.
These changes to the unemployment insurance program will also adversely affect not only the economic status but the psychological health of many Canadians. The stress of unemployment compounded by absence of benefits can lead to physical illness. Thus reductions in regular UI benefits would lead to increases in health care costs and, more important, would make more Canadians ill. This is happening at a time of reductions in financial transfer payments to the provinces for health care costs. Where is the heart of this government? How will these new costs due to the ill effects of reductions in the unemployment insurance program be absorbed?
The government has estimated that $3 million will be cut from current UI regular benefits. Since it is known that changes to the UI program will cause illnesses linked to general economic distress, there will be increases in health care costs.
This government should admit that its decision to change the UI program is not only harmful to the health of Canadians but is counterproductive economically.
I should like at this juncture to respond to the response given by the government House leader in reply to the message from the Senate respecting this Bill C-21.
I submit that the government committed some flaws and errors in logic in its analysis. I would like to point these out. First, I submit that the government is wrong in its interpretation of the application of various Standing Orders it has cited to sustain its position. There is nothing in Standing Orders 79(1), 79(2) and 79(3) and
Government Orders
Standing Orders 80(1) and 80(2) that prohibit the Senate from making amendments.
It is clear from the intent of these Standing Orders that only the House of Commons has the right to decide on matters of expenditure.
The Senate proposed certain amendments that this House may decide upon. The Senate never intended to take away from the House the power to decide. The House could decide and should decide. There is a difference between the power to propose amendments and the power to decide on the substance of those amendments.
I therefore ask the House to pass judgment on the merits of these amendments to which I have alluded earlier. Whether the proposed amendment is to get funding from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and whether it is in the best interests of Canadians and the program are the questions that this government must answer. This government can decide if it wants to; the government cannot hide behind a technicality. The government's interpretation of the Standing Orders on the application of these amendments is also wrong.
Second, the government is attempting to camouflage its difficulties to be accountable to the people respecting the absence of heart with which it has produced this bill. It tries to deflect this uncaring attitude by discussing the accountability of the other place to the people.
The government appears to say that because members of the other place are not elected they are therefore not accountable to anyone for their actions. The other place, whether or not the government likes it, is responsible to the people of Canada to exercise sober and serious thought on bills sent to it by this House. This is a constitutional requirement.
Would the government try to insinuate that the Supreme Court of Canada, because it is also an appointed body, is not accountable to the people? Surely no one would make that suggestion. We should debunk once and for all the fallacy of using the non-elective nature of the constitutional Senate as the basis for saying that it is not accountable to the people.
If I may add, if there is really no place for the Senate why has the Prime Minister continued to appoint members to the Senate? The House and the government must not continue to sing the song and dance the dance

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
about the Senate. It must address the real issues that the amendments bring to this House.
I submit that the sentiments echoed by the proposed amendments coming from the other place are the sentiments coming from the people of our country.
I would like to ask the following question: Which should prevail-the heartless principle of the bill where the government abdicates its responsibility for funding, or the caring principle for Canadians who deserve in moments of difficulties due to unemployment which is not of their own making direct funding benefits from this government? You will agree. Madam Speaker, that a heartless principle must at once surrender itself to a principle that cares.
Bill C-21, if not amended, is fundamentally unsound. It is basically unkind and fails to echo the conscience of Canadians. The proposed amendments from the other place restore the kindness and reflect the sentiments of many Canadians. We heard submissions from a coalition of union movements and from church organizations, telling us what to do or what to tell the government to do. Those sentiments are embodied in the proposed amendments coming from the other place. We should thank the Senate for its boldness and sensitivity.
Perhaps I may conclude with a quotation from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Monsignor Charles Valois appeared before the Senate committee and said:
The federal proposals contained in Bill C-21 are based on a disturbing hypothesis. Human labour and workers are viewed as a commodity to be bought and sold, recycled, moved or removed from the market-Emasculating the unemployment insurance plan at the very time when it is most needed is unacceptable morally and politically.
That is the challenge to this government: accept the amendments from the Senate and the government will be doing what Canadians want it to do.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on Bill C-21, a piece of legislation that has attracted a lot of attention in this country. Needless to say, it has attracted a lot of attention in my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Questions have arisen about what the government has done with this legislation. I note that the questions have risen as to whether or not the government had what some call a mandate.
There are certainly lots of quotations floating around about who said what and when. This government has made a commitment and I think most governments have probably shared the commitment. This government before the last election made a very clear commitment that it would move to improve social programs, that programs which needed to be made better to help Canadians in a more effective way for the benefit of as many Canadians as possible would be part of the agenda of this government.
I believe Bill C-21 addresses that. Bill C-21 looks at some of the fundamental differences between this government and my friends opposite. My friends opposite would have us say to Canadians: "You have what you have now and, despite all that is happening in the world, despite the changes in the world, we are not going to make it any better. We are going to leave you where you are now". Everyone tells me that the unemployment insurance system should be changed.
I would like to see much broader changes in the unemployment insurance system. I would like to see a whole different system. I recognize that that day is not here right now. I do not think this House is ready for that. I do not think this country is ready for that, but it will come with time. The essence is to keep moving, keep changing and keep evolving because that is what will lead to develop of social programs for Canadians that in the long run are the programs we need to meet their needs.
My friend for Gander-Grand Falls this afternoon was very good as usual, erudite and certainly on occasion came close to fact and dealt with realities. He said a number of things that unfortunately had been said repeatedly in my province and bear some correction. There have been a number of things said in a number of places. I just want to touch on a couple of them just to make sure we are talking about the same thing. This is not a judgment question particularly. This is what is happening.
For most of the people in my province, if the government can have this legislation passed, if the will of this House is respected and Bill C-21 becomes law, we will have a variable entrance requirement which recognizes that in certain parts of the country people are more
March 13, 1990

disadvantaged and there are less opportunities to work. If the legislation can be passed into law, the people in my province for the most part will need 10 weeks to qualify, which is what it is today.
I would be dishonest if I said we have not changed the benefit period. The benefit period has been affected. If you add up in the standard way the qualifying period, the penalty period and the benefit period, you arrive at 51 weeks. The average period on benefit in Newfoundland and Labrador is something less than 30 weeks. A remarkably few number of people go straight through the system and a surprising number who do requalify. Let us be sensible; 51 weeks is what we are talking about.
We heard today about the line with great expression and movement of arms and hands. It depends on what side of the line you live. The law says it is where you live, not where you work.
It has always been that way. To suggest that this legislation changes that is ridiculous, but we get this great expanse of toing and froing and moaning about how the line changes and you have to qualify where you live. It has always been that way. Nothing has changed.
I appeared with the committee when it was in St. John's, and one thing we were consistently told was that you have to change the economic regions. What is happening is that with the three economic regions in Newfoundland and Labrador, we had the city of St. John's with its unacceptably high but relatively low unemployment rate affecting the rest of the Avalon Peninsula. Therefore the people on Bell Island where the unemployment rate is tragically at 75 per cent were having to qualify with the same conditions as the people of St. John's where the unemployment rate was somewhat under 10 per cent for a while. Under the old regulations you would go from 10 weeks needed to qualify all of a sudden to 16 weeks. I cannot call that fair. That is not responsible. That does not let people plan. That does not let people know what is happening in their lives, so we changed the boundaries.
No constituency in Newfoundland was affected more than mine. No people were more divided than those in my riding. I will say that I supported what the unions, the labour councils and many others said to the committee in St. John's, which was change the line, because we have to
Government Orders
recognize the economic realities. People have the opportunity to get employment.
The response of the government was to address the needs of those who needed it the most. When my friend talks about the line and and moving things around, we must be clear that it has always been that way and nothing has changed.
We talk about the repeater provision. We have removed the repeater provision which said if you wanted to qualify twice in a year you needed 16 weeks wherever you live. Now all you need, if we can get this piece of legislation through, is the same as you qualified with before. There is an equity there. There is not this huge gap people have to deal with which is particularly difficult on our fish plant workers.
We face some very difficult economic challenges with the crisis in our fishery. We see one-industry towns come under attack. We see the nature of our economies particularly in Atlantic Canada evolve as the nature of our communities change. As the world moves very quickly, as we move to take advantage of things like free trade, we are affected by a number of very different economic forces that impact on our communities.
We must have flexibility for our workers, options for people to deal with, options before us so that we can put together packages. More and more we are seeing government departments combining their resources and combining their programs. More and more we are seeing federal and provincial governments able to put different pieces together to come up with solutions to our problems.
Community Futures is a terrific example. Community Futures has worked veiy well across Canada but no better than in Newfoundland and Labrador. It says to the people of the community that we want them to come together on a regional basis and address the challenges and the opportunities.
People have their problems, but the people who sit on the Community Futures committee in my riding look on it as a challenge. They are looking for opportunities, not only provided through employment and immigration and not only provided through the extra money if we get this legislation through for Community Futures, but also for training and mobility.

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
But we seem to be able to bring together the programs of a variety of departments, the resources and the ideas of a number of people to develop solutions that are based in the community and come from the people in the community.
We cannot say to people there are no choices. We cannot keep telling people that they must stay where they are, that they will be fine the way things are. We have got to be able to tell people that we will help make their lives better. If it is training, if it is an ability to learn a skill, if it is an industrial adjustment strategy which has been so successful in many places, then that is something to think about. We have to deal with the reality where we have lost an industry where we put the employer, the employee and the government together and say, "How do we deal with the short term problem and what is it we bring together to deal with the longer term problem?". We must be able to do that.
With Bill C-21 we have those opportunities. We must be able to say to people: "We are going to support what you are doing". In my province we continue to take care of the people with the greatest need and we continue to be able to deal with the programs. Most of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador will be completely unaffected in a negative way and will only find the benefit through the changes to Bill C-21.


Mr. Tobin:: What happened to that young idealistic fellow in the youth parliament? He would never stand up for a piece of legislation like this.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: He joined the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker. I was a Liberal once and I saw the errors of my ways. That is all right. I used to vote for your crowd before I voted for anybody.
I want to talk about the training programs. We have all heard a lot about the training programs since the 1970s when they were brought in. We have heard a tremendous amount of negative things and we have had some pretty rough things said about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians through a variety of media.
As these programs have evolved we have seen some interesting things happen. One of my friends across the
way this afternoon was talking about the fact that all of a sudden Employment and Immigration demanded that in its training programs there be a training component. He was absolutely horrified by this. There is no question that we have used these programs to do other things. These employment programs have been used definitely to get people over a hump. They have been used to provide municipal infrastructure for the community, support for community groups, and they have been used for training.
But we are not completely isolated and completely restricted to one particular program. My friend opposite talks about a plumber not being able to get a job as a plumber or cannot get trained as a plumber because he is already a plumber. What about Section 25 of the act which quite specifically is designed to help those people who are unemployed keep their skills in tune? We have been able to use those programs quite efficiently and quite effectively. He talks about water lines. I have five or six communities in my constituency that are well under way to providing water to every house in that community in an efficient and effective manner. How have we done it? We have provided the labour through-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Overground.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: No, Mr. Speaker, underground. In the winter too. The people in Newfoundland and Labrador are not like the people of southern Ontario and eastern Ontario. We can work in the hard weather and we can work in what little heat we have too. What we have is the ability of a provincial government to provide some of the resources while we provide some of the labour.
I look at the Basilica of St. John the Baptist, a photograph of which appeared on the front cover of the annual report of the Department of Employment and Immigration. We took people off the street and put them in a program that I must say was started by my predecessor who represented the party opposite. This program was designed to help the parish deal with one of the most famous historic buildings in Newfoundland and Labrador, an old church that was built over a period of time in the 19th century. It is beautiful inside but was falling down.
We trained masons. We trained people to work with stone, people who had no knowledge of stone or working with their hands in that way. Do you know what they are
March 13, 1990

doing now, Mr. Speaker? They are travelling around Newfoundland and Labrador providing advice.
They are acting as consultants to people who have the same problems. These are little successes that we have had but little successes that are so important.
There is a professor at Memorial University in the genetics department who applies for this program whom we support. Because the people whom she has taught and given training have gone on to enter university themselves. I believe one of them is in law school. This is the sort of success that we have.
I look at Bell Island where we have very difficult situations, but we are working with the community council, we are working with the people of the development association, we are working with the people of ACOA. We have been able to move ahead with projects that not only help the people of the community but help the community themselves.
We talk about training and the inequities of a person in one seat being on unemployment and the person next perhaps not being on unemployment. It is an inequity, I do not like it, but it happens. But do you know that because we can purchase seats in these community colleges and because those community colleges have become so important for some of our communities that they in themselves take on a bit of a role of economic development.
I look at Bell Island again because there the people use the programs that we have. There we have recognized their special need and there we have worked together. We still have not anywhere near begun to solve the problems, but if we could provide another program in that community college that brings another 30 people in on a course, we are bringing 30 people into that community that would not normally be there. That is the movement here, that is the evolution of this program, that is what will make our social programs better which was the commitment of the Prime Minister and the government. That is what Bill C-21 would be doing right now if the House down the corridor would pass this piece of legislation.
Now I have but three short minutes left and I thought I should, out of respect, have a few words for our unelected friends down the corridor, our unelected friends
Government Orders
who we were told wanted to go talk to Canadians, who are not driven by politics. Have you read this thing?
Where did they go after wanting to go across Canada? They went to St. John's and they went to Canso, two places in the scheme of things, they should have gone. But they are the only two places they went, and I would suggest they exploited the hardship that those people have been facing in the fishery and the hardship that they face in the future. Except we are there trying to help them through the use of legislation like this, not exploit them like our friends down the corridor.
We talk about politics and talk about our hon. friends moving. In 1978 when the government of our friends opposite moved Bill C-14, reducing the benefit rate from two-thirds to 60 per cent recovering through the income tax system a portion of claimants under UI. At the committee stage, at the time, the government estimated-and this is 1978 dollars-that the cost would result in a savings to the government of $885 million in changes to the UI benefits.
That piece of legislation went through the Senate with no amendment in all three stages in one day. It got Royal Assent the same day. This is the same group down the hall that is so concerned about Canadians today, that when it was their friends in the government it took one day and they did not bat an eyelash, but they are willing to put the people of this country who need the help that Bill C-21 provides behind them and put the politics on their backs for their own great glorification.
My constituents cannot qualify for the variable entrance requirement for their political aggrandizement and benefit, despite the fact that 12 years ago they did not bat an eyelash. That is outlandish and despicable in this country.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I hope my friend from St. John's East will stay a minute. My colleague from Nickel Belt in the New Democratic Party has given me the opportunity to speak behind my friend from St. John's East. Let me say to my friend from St. John's East and say to the House that I first met this gentleman when he was still at a young and tender and unsullied age. He was but a young 15 or 16-year old. He was sitting across the floor from me in

Government Orders
the Colonial Building in the youth Parliament of Newfoundland and Labrador.
In those days when passion burned in his veins, when his blood ran hot, when the salt-water boiled up and demanded to be heard, it was not as a defender of a corrupt and bankrupt regime that he spoke but as a Newfoundlander who believed in his people and demanded to be heard. The fundamental change that has occurred, and he bears a heavy burden-it is a heavy cross that he carries now-is that once as a young and sullied Newfoundlander he was a voice for Newfoundland wherever he would be heard. He has now become the apologist of Ottawa to Newfoundland in the House of Commons. I want to tell him the apology just expressed will not be accepted by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
What are the facts? This member rises up to his full height, an inch or two shorter than me, and with his greatest of indignation tells Parliament and through Parliament the people of Canada what a great and wonderful thing is being done for the people of Newfoundland. They are being trained. How wonderful. He cited two examples of four fellows fixing up a church and a couple of other people going through a genetic lab at Memorial University.
Not a word was heard from the member for St. John's East about the people on the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland and the historic community of Port au Choix who cling to the rocks with their fingernails on the edge of the ocean trying to scrape a living from the land and the sea. Not a word for them.
Not a word for the people who live on the south coast of Newfoundland, not the city of St. John's, but the south coast of Newfoundland where there is not even a road connection. St. John's is but a blast they have to endure nightly on the local news.
Not a word for them nor a word for the people on Twillingate Island on the northeast coast, nor a word for the people of Lock Harbour and the Bay of Islands, nor a single uttered word for the people of La Scie on the Baie Verte peninsula. He has got two examples in St. John's of training programs. Of course what is good enough for St. John's is good enough for all of Newfoundland. I am here to tell him that Newfoundland is not our echo of what is good for St. John's.
I want to tell the member for St. John's East that if he wants to deal in fact, deal in fact. When it comes to rhetoric those of us from Newfoundland are quite capable of matching the rhetoric that has been heaved across this floor.
What are the facts? A $51 million cut to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the fact. Fifty-one million dollars. The member opposite wants us to get so caught up in his emotion that we will allow, happily, $51 million to slip out of the pockets, not of those who have in Newfoundland, not out of the pockets of the merchants of Newfoundland, not out of the pockets of the academics at university with their sinecure, safe and secure jobs, good people that they are, not out of the pockets of the bureaucracy of Newfoundland, the people who administer these wonderful training programs, not out of the pockets of the Crosbies of the world, but out of the pockets of the poorest of the poor in Newfoundland.
And there is not a word from the member for St. John's East for the poorest of the poor. We have just heard from a member whom I instinctively and intrinsically generally have some empathy for, because I think he is in a hell of spot, defending this regime. The tragedy is that his own area, the Avalon Peninsula, is that part of Newfoundland most devastated by Bill C-21. It is the area which sees the greatest increase in the requirements for qualification for UI, and there is not a word from that member.
Let us talk about these training programs. You have rural communities where unemployment, seasonally, is 50 per cent. And some bespectacled young fellow, well intentioned, shows up from the local CEIC office because he has a mandate from Ottawa. God knows, he knows it is a fool's errand but, nevertheless, it is his mandate and he must carry it out. He walks up onto the local wharf and he says: "Boys, we are going to train you. And if you can develop a training program, we are going to give you some financial support. And if you cannot develop a training program, we cannot help you".
Well, what has happened? With very rare exceptions, and there are a couple of rare exceptions, we have either seen areas that traditionally have shared in a national program and played a role in a useful national program, being cut out of it entirely, because they do not happen to have a technical college on their doorstep, or we have seen farcical training programs designed merely to quali-
March 13, 1990

fy and to get access to some community development funds. That is what has happened all too often, in rural Newfoundland.
It takes the nerve of a severe toothache to stand in this House, to be from Newfoundland, and be engaged in the political life of the province, to have a degree of awareness about the political life of the province, and to suggest that there are some great and wondrous training programs going on in Newfoundland today. That is a farce. That is not true. That is a false representation of the facts. That is a distortion of reality. It is a disservice to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to make that kind of suggestion in this House.
I know my colleague opposite from St. John's East must be severely out of touch, must have breathed too much of the rarefied air, must have been so moved by the splendour of this Chamber and the stained glass windows that reality has become distorted for him, as he looks at these programs with rose-tinted glasses. I know that in a serious, sober and honest moment, having been exposed to the light of day, the member for St. John's East could never make such a foolish and wanton declaration of nonsense in this House of Commons. I know that for a fact, Mr. Speaker. I am hoping he goes home soon and stands on the leeside of Bell Island, in a strong wind and clears his brain of these foolish notions.
So what is the reality? What is happening is that an otherwise fine human being, an otherwise decent individual whose instincts, although they have been absolutely repressed, are otherwise right, has been corrupted by the necessity of defending the indefensible. That is what has happened. Members opposite are being forced to stand on their hind legs-and when they are from the opposite side it is their hind legs that they stand on, whereas for most of us it is just two-and defend the indefensible.
This is a government that is being driven by budget considerations to slash spending. There is no over-all economic policy here. There is no over-all social plan here. There is no over-all determination to train people and make them more employable here. There is merely a Minister of Finance who said, "I need $2 billion". And having declared he is going to cut $2 billion, he then left
Government Orders
it to the Minister of Employment and Immigration to impose those cuts.
The Government of Canada is getting out of the business of unemployment insurance.
That is important to me because as a Newfoundlander I recall the words of the Minister for International Trade, the member for St. John's West, the mentor of the member for St. John's East, who said in advance of the election campaign that the government had no plan whatsoever, not the slightest notion of changing the unemployment insurance program. It would not happen.
It is the same gentleman who was trotted out to say that there was going to be no change and no cuts to education spending, who also said that there was going to be no cuts to health care. He told us there would be no cuts to Canada's social programs. It would not happen. None of this was part and parcel of the free trade deal. There would be no cuts to transportation subsidies. Yet the Atlantic at and east program has been wiped out.
What do we have? We have here the completion of the free trade pact. We have a Minister for International Trade who does not want to be seen to be negotiating away unemployment insurance at the negotiating table. So he cut it unilaterally. He does not want to be seen to be negotiating away health care so the government cut it unilaterally. He did not wish to be seen negotiating away education so he cut it unilaterally. Nobody will ever accuse the Minister for International Trade of having negotiated away our social programs at the table with the Americans in definition of subsidy because we gave it all away in advance. We destroyed those programs.
It is a transparent and desperate measure. This government knows that the people of Canada will rise in literal rebellion as they see the nature and the collective values of this nation, that which distinguishes us from our neighbours to the south, being destroyed at a negotiating table. The way to avoid that spectacle is to give all of those programs away and destroy them in the name of budget cuts. The government can then tell the Americans that we don't need to negotiate UIC, we're out of the business. We don't need to talk about regional development programs because we are out of the business. We don't need to worry about tourism develop-

Government Orders
ment because we are out of the business. We are now imposing cuts so that within a few years we will have a privatized health care system.
Do you know what else? Universities cannot afford to function any more because we have cut them too. I will bet you they will be privatized in short order. So you do not need to negotiate away our so-called intervention in the economy because we got out of our participation as a government in the economy. The job is done.
Now that is what is going on in every walk of Canadian life. It is not the disappearance of government initiatives that we have seen. It is not a reduction in the bottom line deficit that we are seeing. Although in individual terms it is, it is not even the disappearance of necessary dollars from the pockets of those most poor amongst us that we are seeing.
What we are seeing is the evaporation of what makes Canada a country, what distinguishes us from every other nation of the world and in particular our neighbour to the south. We are seeing the evaporation of the kind of mentality and values that make me as a Newfoundlander proud to say that as proud as I am to be a Newfoundlander, I am prouder still to be a Canadian because I share some values with people from every province and every region of Canada. I have them in common and I know that together, collectively, we build a better country.
Those values are being eroded. No amount of rhetoric by members opposite, no amount of smoke and mirrors, no attempt to try and sell this as a training program, and no attempt to try and convince those who are being affected that somehow their lot is being improved will change that. This government has given up on Canada. It sees this nation merely as so many bits and pieces on a monopoly board to be manipulated to suit the bottom line.
We in the province of Newfoundland, and I know all of my colleagues in this party and those with some better sense in this place, reject that kind of vision for Canada because that is no vision for Canada.
There has been a lot of debate in this place about the role of the Senate with respect to Bill C-21. There has been a lot of debate about whether or not the Senate should supersede the rights of Parliament and so on.
Let me say that I accept, embrace and endorse the notion, unquestionably, that the elected member, those who are directly accountable to the people, have a role in
the government of this land that cannot be shared in equal measure by those who are appointed to the Senate. I do not dispute that.
Let me say that when you see your country, not slowly, not bit by bit, but in giant leaps being dissipated, when you see the glue that holds us together being melted, when you see the pieces that make a whole beginning become askew, when you see neighbour turn against neighbour-and that is what has happened in Canada- because there is such profound frustration with the government that people have exercised that frustration and have made it felt by turning on their neighbours- and when you hear communities say: "We are English only" others say: "We are French only" others taking up petitions protesting by the tens of thousands our visible minorities in this nation, it represents a profound sense of fear in the land, profound frustration. Canadians know they do not have the opportunity to cast judgment on this government for two and a half years, and in their anger and frustration and, yes, in their fear, neighbour has turned against neighbour.
If we in our party have a message for this government and for the people of Canada it is this: That we will use every legitimate means at our disposal as a party and we make no apologies to stopping this kind of legislation, to amending this kind of legislation, to reforming this kind of legislation. We know there are Canadians out there who are frustrated, feeling abandoned by their national government, who we know have a sense that that which they have held dear, and those values that we have collectively embraced are disappearing. We say to them: Do not despair. Do not turn neighbour against neighbour. Do not become intolerant of those who are different. Maintain that sense of what you want your community and your province and your country to be. Join with us in fighting this policy not only in Bill C-21 but, in fact, right across the board to rewrite the values of Canada, to reduce this nation to nothing other than a piece of real estate on a monopoly board, to reduce our values to dollars and cents, to reduce this nation to a piece of merchandise, to be marketed, sold and where every program, every group and every region has a financial value attached.
No country can survive if we measure those who make a contribution to it purely in financial terms. No country can prosper if we attach a miniscule value to those who live in the last outpost and the farthest outreaches of the land. The citizens who live on the bill of Cape St. George, the citizens who live on Cape Spear, that piece
March 13, 1990

of Canadian real estate reaching farthest out into the Atlantic Ocean, for those who live in Prince Rupert or Smithers on the other side, those who live in Chimo in Quebec or in Iqaluit on Baffin Island, the value they bring to this country and the contribution they make to this country is every bit as important as that contribution of any citizen who has the privilege to occupy a seat in this place.
When we make national programs we must make those programs bearing in mind that Canadians live in communities from sea to sea, and that the flag of Canada must be raised and raised with pride in every one of those communities and that when the Government of Canada makes policy, it must reach out to people in every part of this land. We must understand always that the inherent wisdom, the native intelligence, wit and brilliance of those people who live in our rural economies and rural communities are not fooled by this defence of Bill C-21 by the member for St. John's East. That native wit and intelligence is insulted by it.
So I conclude my remarks with the words of Gordon Bradley who chaired the great convention in Newfoundland in 1947-48 on the future of Newfoundland, on whether it would seek union with Canada or union with the United States. And when there was squabbling, fighting, trickery and chicanery going on at the convention he rose and he called upon those assembled to seek a greater goal and a greater good. He said, "I warn you, the eyes and the ears of the people of Newfoundland are on us. They are watching us. They are weighing our every word. They want us to chart a new course for this country together. Let us not fail them. Let us fasten a new sail for this nation."
Those words are appropriate again today. Let us put aside the chicanery. Let us put aside the double talk. Let us put aside the insulting rationalization for an abandonment of rural peoples right across this country, indeed the abandonment of our urban poor. Let us reject this bill intelligently, or let us at least amend this bill intelligently. Let us begin to restore this tattered and
Government Orders
broken Canada, broken and tattered at the hands of a government that has forgotten its primary responsibility; to build a nation.


Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21 does more than change some of the rules of the Unemployment Insurance Act. It will implement the Labour Force Development Strategy. This strategy, as announced on April 11,1989, is an important initiative of this government and will make a real improvement in Canada's ability to compete in the world economy.
The projected expenditures under the current UI program are estimated to be $12.7 billion for 1990. There will be no change in the over-all size of the UI program once the changes have been implemented. Spending reductions within the UI will occur primarily in three areas; changes to the program entrance requirements, benefit duration and penalties for voluntary quitters without just cause.
Additional spending will be made in more generous benefits for new parents, expanded coverage to workers over age 65 and an increased use of the UI program for development purposes such as skills training.
As a former businessman and an employer, I applaud the changes that have been proposed. As an employer I was often disappointed by employees who worked only long enough to qualify for the benefits of the UIC. These changes in program entrance requirements should weed out the lazy from the system and gear it more for those for whom it was intended. Second, as an employer I was concerned by the lack of skills training available to many employees. The additional emphasis on this area through UIC will greatly address this concern.
The primary responsibility for the skills training of the employed people should rest with the employers and their workers. This government intends to stimulate their commitment by promoting and reinforcing private sector training, thereby strengthening the competitiveness of the Canadian industry.
A total of $230 million is available in the Labour Force Development Strategy to increase training activity by the private sector through co-operative programs. The government's objective is to stimulate an additional private

Government Orders
sector training effort of $1.5 billion a year by 1994 to bring the total to approximately $3 billion per year.
This increase is needed is needed to raise the relative level of Canadian private sector training to that of the United States. We are placing greater emphasis, through new UI development uses, to help the unemployed improve their job prospects through skills training, self-employment and relocation assistance. The support for training and other developmental uses will be increased from the present 2 per cent to about 10 per cent or $1.4 billion in total UI expenditures. Developmental uses of UI funds will also include such things as relocation assistance, self-employment, entrepreneurship assistance and re-employment assistance.
As I stated earlier, I have in the past been discouraged with the incentive to not work which exists in the UIC. There have been changes to the minimum requirements for qualifying for benefits which should greatly address this concern. In addition, a greater flexibility has been added to the system to compensate for regional differences in the unemployment rate. For a government which is often labelled as uncaring and unfeeling, this is a very sensitive approach to the needs of Canadians. In my province of Manitoba, the minimum requirements for receiving benefits will vaiy from 10 weeks in the north to about 18 weeks in the south where jobs are more plentiful.
According to the 1987 data, this would affect less than 1 per cent of the claimants. On total, the average number of weeks benefits that will be paid to claimants will be 35. This amounts to four months more than the average claimant uses. That is, those who are using unemployment insurance as a temporary source of income until they find a new job will see no change to the benefits available to them. However, those individuals who have taken advantage of the system will suddenly find themselves receiving fewer benefits.
I do not believe the majority of my constituents, or Canadians in general for that matter, would be offended by such a change. We have stiffened the penalty to those who quit jobs simply because life is easier on unemployment benefits. Reduction in benefits to people who voluntarily quit jobs had to happen.
However, the Liberal Senators want to change this decision. They would like to send a signal to people that it is all right to quit jobs because UI will pay. As an employer, a taxpayer, and as a member of the House of Commons, I reject that way of thinking.
Unemployment insurance exists in this country because the citizens of this nation have strongly held beliefs in the work ethic and in a sense of fair play. A person should have the right to find a job and earn a living to support a family. When that right is taken away from them, they should be provided with a temporary source of income until they can find a new job. This is the only fair and just thing to do.
However, Canadians are like-minded in their opinion of individuals who take advantage of this belief for their own personal desire to avoid working for a living. In my opinion, the changes to the UI bill are a step in the right direction, returning the UI system to its original purpose of providing income support between two jobs.
I support Bill C-21 because of this. I find myself deeply troubled by the actions being taken by the members of the other House. The Liberal has-beens in that place feel they have some inexplicable authority to override the elected House of Commons concerning the legislation of what are constitutionally referred to as money bills. I, for one, can find only two reasons for their position. It is either a question of legal authority or moral authority. On both counts, I find their reasoning lacking.
First of all, with respect to legal authority, I believe my colleague the hon. Minister of State, has clearly enunciated the weaknesses of their position. As he stated, Section 53 prohibits the Senate from amending money bills. In this regard, he noted that Standing Order 80 of the House of Commons states that only the House of Commons has the right to direct, to limit and to appoint such bills which are not alterable by the Senate. I believe that this is just too clear to even debate.
There is no doubt that Bill C-21 qualifies as a money bill as it is responsible for the collection of money from individuals for the express intent of distributing said moneys to citizens through the offices of the Receiver General. In this area the authority of the Senate would seem to be quite clear.
March 13, 1990

The Senate has argued that the Monarch and the Governor General have the right, regardless of Section 53 of the Constitution and Standing Order 80, to override all legislation from the House of Commons. In the strictest sense, they are probably correct. However, the Monarch and the Governor General no longer have the role in legislation they may have had a few centuries ago.
Obviously, the reason for this change is the democratic principle which dominates the functioning and beliefs of the society we live in today. The Senators, regardless of their misguided belief, are not elected representatives of the people of this country. Any powers they may think they have via the Constitution, are based less on sound constitutional principle and convention than they are on delusions of long-departed power.
Allowing the Senate to override the House of Commons at any time, and particularly with regard to a money bill, would set a most dangerous precedent. The principles of democracy would be completely undermined by such an action.
In this particular case, the Senate has recommended the government spend an additional $2 billion on unemployment insurance. This kind of expenditure is absolutely unacceptable in a day and age when spending restraint is essential to help this country recover from the legacy of Liberal over-spending which created our outrageous national debt.
This fiscal unacceptability of their recommendations, however, are overshadowed by their desire to exercise powers for which they have no mandate from the people of Canada. The consequences of allowing the Senate to proceed on its course unchallenged shake the very foundations of democratic principles.
As elected representatives of the people of Canada, we in this House, from all parties, cannot allow them the luxury of this one transgression. The senators believe that changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act are too significant to be rolled through Parliament. However, changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act in 1977 and 1978 were only debated for one day when the Liberal government was in power. Those bills made significant changes to the act.
Government Orders
Let us not mislead ourselves. They are wrangling and obstructing this legislation because they are Liberals and this government is Conservative, and for no other reason. This sudden concern arising from the Senate smells so much of political bias that any arguments they make on a legal basis are absolutely shameful.
Some Senators have argued that, regardless of their legal rights interfere, they somehow possess this moral high ground on this issue and therefore have every reason to follow their present course of action. This, of course, is absolute rubbish.
As I have already stated, they are elected by absolutely no one. Their utter lack of constituents gives them absolutely no authority. However, some of these individuals have been members of Parliament in the past and they no doubt believe they still have the same rights which once belonged to them.
However, let me address the past record of this group. This is the same group of Liberals which practised the habit of annual government overspending with a reckless disregard for the taxpayers of this country. As a result of their habits, the citizens of this country have been saddled with an absolutely discouraging national debt. Programs spending was way out of control by 1984 when this government came to power. By that stage, the Liberals were spending $16 billion more than they were taking in in revenue.
I think we often forget how much a billion dollars actually is. The bottom line, however, is that the government was spending 25 per cent more on programs than it took in. Who did they figure was going to pay this bill? Their current recommendations indicate that they have not figured that out yet. Our government, however, has figured it out. The bill is to be paid by you, by me, and by all the citizens of this country.
Since 1984, we have taken drastic measures to correct the utter lack of respect for the taxpayers of this nation. We have turned a $16 billion annual deficit in program spending into a $9 billion surplus. While we were doing that, however, the $200 billion debt we inherited from the government gathered an extra $120 billion in interest. The program spending surplus did not occur until recently and the old spending habits of the government

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
and its departments provided the remaining $30 billion of debt.
Interest payments on the $350 billion are keeping this government in an annual deficit. Yet, the same Liberal Senators seem completely oblivious to the urgency to curb spending with their latest protest over Bill C-21 and their recommendations that the government spend an additional $2 billion on the program. This program is already accountable for over $12 billion of public money. I fail to see how people who have such a poor grasp of the reality of the situation we are in can claim to have moral authority on this issue. Their previous and current disregard for fiscal responsibility completely negates their argument.
As I mentioned, this government's changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act will not decrease the funds available to unemployment insurance but will make more necessary changes to the system to return it to its original purpose. We have acted legally through our legislative mandate and morally by being fiscally responsible. The Senators can make neither claim.
As a representative from Manitoba I am not one who wishes to abolish the Senate. The Senate should be reformed, but until such time that changes have been made, I am completely unwilling to yield to the Senate for the reasons I have stated.
The Senate was intended to be a House of sober second thought and in this regard it has fulfilled this mandate. The Senate has had the bill for several months and its committee has heard from many witnesses. It has analysed the bill, brought attention to perceived weaknesses and submitted its amendments. The government has recognized the strengths of one of the Senate's amendments and accepted it, and rejected all the other recommendations. The Senate has fulfilled its mandate. It is now time for the legislators in the House of Commons to continue to legislate. The time for further debate has been stretched to the limit. Bill C-21 has been thoroughly debated and examined.
In addition to the Senate's examination, this House has debated the bill for at least 145 hours, through second reading, committee and third reading. It is now time for the Senate to provide sober second thought to other issues of concern to the people of this great country. It is about time the Liberal Senators stopped pursuing their own agenda by grandstanding on issues which can garner the greatest public attention. They are
about as concerned with the public good as they are that the sky will fall tomorrow.
The issue before us is a political one and has nothing whatsoever to do with proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The Liberal Senators have yet to accept their defeat of 1984 and 1988. It is about time they woke up to reality.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have listened all afternoon to the debate. My friend and colleague for Gander-Grand Falls entitled his speech on Bill C-21 and the proposed amendments from the Senate, "Which Side of the Line Do You Live On". I want to make my comments in terms of "Breaking the Faith with Canadians".
The speeches this afternoon started with the government House leader. He attacked the Senate, he attacked the constitutionality of the Senate. He waxed the most eloquent I have ever heard him wax. He made a very good speech attacking the Senate. Canadians watching will think that the Senate is really the issue in this debate. I want to say at the outset very clearly that it is not the Senate. Up in northern Ontario when we are hunting moose we do not get distracted with rabbit droppings. The Senate is not the issue here, although the government would like Canadians to think it is.
The issue here is C-21; breaking the faith with the Canadian people. Why have I focused on Bill C-21? The New Democratic Party, in its criticism of C-21, correctly said that the provisions were Draconian. First of all, the government removes itself from participating in the unemployment insurance program. It is breaking the social contract, a contract which was entered into in the 1940s between government, employers and the working force of this nation. It saw its flowering, as it were, in 1971 when the then Minister of Employment and Immigration, Biyce Mackasey, introduced an amended unemployment insurance program, which is the one we have today, or had if C-21 gets passed.
In that Unemployment Insurance Act of 1971 the coverage was broadened, the contract expanded. We included school teachers, the armed forces and fishermen, and we expanded the coverage. We introduced sick benefits and maternity benefits. The government picked up the cost of the unemployment insurance program if the national unemployment level went above 4 per cent. That was the contract, a contract that said to the workforce, the working men and women of the country:
March 13, 1990

"If you become unemployed through no fault of your own, here is the safety net." The government participated.
Along the way, because of government's inability to achieve full employment, the unemployment rate in the country rose and the government found itself putting more and more bucks into the unemployment insurance program. From about 1975 or 1976 right through the period of 1980 to 1984, the Liberal governments of the day consistently moved further and further away from the social contract.
It was a principle of gradualism. Gradually, more and more of the cost of carrying the unemployment insurance program was sloughed on to the shoulders of the employers and the employees.
From the principle of gradualism, we have this quantum leap which is Bill C-21. The Tories have done in one fell swoop what it took the Liberals some 15 years to accomplish. In Bill C-21, the government removes itself completely from any responsibility, from any participation in the contract for unemployment insurance.
Now the Tory government can say: "Well, we don't have any more interest in what the unemployment rate is because the government now doesn't have a financial finger in the pie." One of the greatest arguments for having government participate with employers and employees is that whenever the cost to the government goes up, it makes it stop to think about its programs, particularly the whole question of full employment. This government has kissed any dream of full employment good-bye. There is no opportunity anymore for that.


Mr. Boyer:: That's too cynical.


John R. Rodriguez: No, it is not cynical. I want to tell the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore that it is not cynical. That is Conservative thinking. They believe you have got to leave it all to the market-place. It is a selfish, atavistic mentality that can produce Bill C-21. It is cruel and heartless. And now they come and make the Senate the bogeyman.
Government Orders
The saddest part of this whole scenario has been the role of the Liberals. The Liberal for whom I have a great deal of respect in terms of his knowledge of the unemployment insurance program is the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. This afternoon he made a very convincing argument that all of the proposals from the Senate, even the ones the government has accepted, really do not do anything to restore the unemployment insurance program pre-Bill C-21. It is just window-dressing.
Let us say, for example, hypothetically, that the government said: "We will accept everything that the Senate has recommended." The government accepts it all, goes back to the Senate to get its approval, and Bill C-21 becomes law. Has it changed anything for the regions of the country? Not one thing. How can any self-respecting Liberal in the House of Commons support the recommendations from the Senate? They cannot support them because they do nothing to deal with the glaring flaws of Bill C-21. We said we were opposed to C-21 because it contained Draconian changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Those recommendations from the Senate do not improve C-21 to anywhere near the point where we could support it. The only way you can improve C-21 is to squash it and go back to square one. That is the only improvement. We want to make it crystal clear, we are not hung up on these proposals from the Senate because of our longstanding view of the Senate. I do not deal with these issues in the way I would like the world to be. I deal with these recommendations and with the Senate as a reality.
If the Senate had said "no" to Bill C-21 and sent that recommendation back to us, I would be supporting it, but I will not. I will not beforehand be saying, "Oh, if we lose here, I will ask the Senate to fight it for me". I am not chicken feathers. If I cannot do it in here, I am not going to ask my big brother over there, or my old uncle who sits two days a week, to do it for me. I am not going to do that.
The Liberals have used that other card called the Senate. We are all going to see the proof of that if and when the GST goes to the Senate. We will see how tough those old businessmen, those old boardroom types over

Government Orders
there, are going to be with the GST. They have to do what they have to do. They have to do what they constitutionally are entitled to do. I have to examine what they send back, if they send back anything to this House.
What they sent back on C-21 is not worth the paper it is written on and the Liberals know it. Yet they are going to get up here and play that card. The Liberal critic for unemployment insurance said it does nothing to improve the bill. Yet he is going to stand up and vote for it. That is breaking faith with all the people who appeared, not only before the legislative committee as it travelled around the country, but all the folks who appeared before the Senate committee as it travelled around the country. That is breaking faith with them.
The coalition of labour unions that met with us and the Liberals and tried to meet with the Tories but could not, told the Senate to scrap the bill. They said that the changes the Senate was proposing are not enough to make them accept it. They said the same thing to the Liberals over here. So that is breaking faith.
Who gets affected adversely by Bill C-21? Well, the Canadian Labour Congress, using figures from StatsCa-nada, put together the impact of C-21 on the country. Do not forget, Mr. Speaker, C-21 shortens the period of collecting benefits and it lengthens the period to qualify. That has disastrous effects in terms of the numbers of people and the amounts of money in various economic regions of the country.
Take, for example, the effect of C-21 on the Avalon Peninsula. Under C-21, 10,000 would not qualify and 5,440 would be losing weeks. So at the front end we have 10,000 and at the back end we have 5,440 people, for a total of 15,500. There are only 45,000 people collecting unemployment insurance benefits on the Avalon Peninsula. This includes Bell Island and St. John's.
For all of Newfoundland, 24,180 people would be adversely affected. One-third of all of the people collecting unemployment insurance right now will be adversely affected. In Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie, two communities that I am familiar with, there are a total of 9,220 people who will be adversely affected out of a total of 45,600 people collecting unemployment insurance.
Let us go to British Columbia. In northern British Columbia, the number of people who will be adversely
affected is 6,760, and a total of 59,710 British Columbians will be adversely affected. For all of Canada, half a million people collecting unemployment insurance will be adversely affected by the changes in Bill C-21.
When these were raised with the minister, all she could say was that she did not believe the figures. Well, if she does not believe the figures, what are her figures? We have not seen the figures from the department. Where are the figures? They have broken faith with the people of Canada, broken faith with those who worked and contributed to the unemployment insurance fund.
Here is an example of heartlessness incarnate. The Minister of Employment and Immigration appeared before the Senate committee and this is what she had to say: "The worst misconception of all is that there are no jobs available. The fact is that studies, surveys and our own experiences tell us that there are jobs available, that jobs are available across Canada and if given active rather than simple passive support the unemployed are better able and more likely to take advantage of these opportunities." That was stated by the minister before the Senate.
What does the minister mean? Do you know what it means when she says: "and if given active rather than simply passive support", Mr. Speaker? "Active" means you kick them off the rolls. You force them to move out of their communities. That is what that means. "Passive support" means paying them the benefits for which they paid premiums to get coverage. That is what passive support means in the minister's words.
There is not a more heartless comment, but what do you expect from a minister who was bom and raised in Rosedale in Toronto. Does the minister understand what it is to have worked for 35 or 40 years in the fishing industiy in Newfoundland and then suddenly the fisheries close down and there is no work? What do you do with a 49 year old person?


David Stupich: Retrain him.


John R. Rodriguez: To do what?


David Stupich: To be a lawyer.


John R. Rodriguez: To be Tory and to get elected on the Tory side? I do not think there will be any Tories elected for the next 100 years in this country.
March 13, 1990

TMk about breaking faith. Here was a fellow who said of Fisheries Products International when it closed the plant in Trepassey: "I was led down the garden path by the vice-president of Fisheries Products." He was led down the garden path. Who is doing the leading down the garden path with this? The Minister for International Trade, the member for St. John's West said in October 1988 during the election campaign, when asked about changes to the Unemployment Insurance Program: "That is nonsense. We will be looking at it in a couple of years presumably to see what improvements can be made, but there are no changes planned to the UI."
Now who has led whom down the garden path? Barely two months after they won the election we have Bill C-21. Breaking faith with Canadians. Promising them one thing and then violating the promise and breaking the faith. That is what it means.
What has happened here over Bill C-21 is that we have had the Senate and the House of Commons, with the Senate being pitted against the House of Commons. In this pitting match, who are caught? The unemployed. They have not been able to enjoy the benefits that should flow from an unemployment insurance program that is geared for them.
If the government was really listening, who did they listen to to come up with Bill C-21? They certainly did not listen to the standing committee in the previous Parliament that looked at the unemployment insurance program and came up with 90 recommendations, 89 of them unanimous, ways in which we could improve the unemployment insurance program. Instead, this government has seen fit to divorce itself completely from the social contract. They have broken the social contract. They have turned the unemployment insurance program over to the employers and the employees. Not only that, but by doing that they have increased the premiums because they have removed themselves from any responsibility for variable entrance requirements and for fishermen's benefits.
What else did they turn around and do? They say to the same people who are paying into the program: "Now you have got to pay for the training, upgrading and the basic education of the unemployed". A total abdication of responsibility. This government has broken faith with
Government Orders
the Canadian people. They have broken the social contract. I want to tell them that there is a big political price they are going to have to pay.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a lot of debate today and yesterday. There are really two issues here. One is regarding the substantive provisions of Bill C-21. The second is related to the constitutional process involving the Senate and revision of bills passed in this House.
I would like to deal primarily with that second concern, because I think both require some addressing here in this Chamber. Frankly, when I hear the impassioned and eloquent speech from the hon. member representing Nickel Belt and the answers that have been given to many of the points he has raised in this House, it makes me reflect again on why we even need in our Parliamen-taiy system any other chamber to be busy with the kind of legislation that is coming here when the issues are represented by this legislation are receiving veiy full debate right here in the Chamber of popularly elected representatives.

Mr. Speaker, it has always been said that the Senate's role is to study legislation dispassionately. Recently, however, it has become a place for political dealings where people use their position to defeat bills that were passed democratically by the elected members.
The Liberal senators said that they had established a special committee to give those who had not appeared before our legislative committee a chance to express their opinion. Then why did the 54 witnesses chosen to appear before the special Senate committee represent groups or individuals who had already appeared before the legislative committee of the House?
Why did the special Senate committee decide to hear the representatives of groups who had already opposed almost all the government's proposals?
And why didn't the special committee of the Senate consider the views of recognized experts on unemployment? Because the Liberal senators want to show only one side of the question. They want to scare the public and have no interest in taking a serious look at the real, positive impact of this bill.

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
The Minister of Employment and Immigration told the committee that its findings indicated it had failed to raise a single new point of any substance in the bill.
The special committee of the Senate is also determined to delay the process for as long as possible. The provisions of Bill C-21 consider regional needs in areas of higher unemployment according to a scale that makes the system more straightforward and more equitable for all claimants. Instead of passing Bill C-21, however, with its variable entrance requirement, the Senate Liberals decided to wait. This means that many people who would otherwise be eligible for unemployment insurance today cannot receive those benefits. Canadians know perfectly well that the Liberal senators who represent the majority in the Senate are the only ones to blame.
Canadians also know that Senate Liberals are preventing many people, including mothers and fathers of newborn children, from taking advantage of expanded benefits under this legislation. There are people who depend on these benefits, and the Senate is quite content to let things drag on.
Canadians will recall this is the same group of Liberal senators that prevented the passage of other bills for political reasons.
We are now certain of what we already jrnew. The demands of the Senate Liberals had no reasonable basis and were meant only to scare the public and needle the government. We cannot afford to let ourselves be manoeuvered into this kind of position again, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the government House leader, also speaking largely about the Senate and its role in a democratic state like Canada, referred to a book entitled The Modem Senate of Canada written by E A. Kunz. From that book, the minister quoted many extracts but the one which I would like to refer to and pick up on is the following. For anyone who wants to compare, this appears at page 9093 of yesterday's Hansard:
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 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. "
The key part of that, in my view, is this reference to the modem Senate of Canada having acted in full understanding of the meaning and implications of responsible government.
The country has, somewhere on our public agenda, and have had for decades, the issue of Senate reform. It is currently in abeyance, pending the outcome of the Meech Lake Accord. One of the things that this whole debate is doing is raising to a much greater prominence before Canadians this enduring, unfinished bit of Canadian business, this hold over from an entirely different era representing a totally different perspective on government, the Canadian Senate.
By its most recent actions, when you take them in the same flow as we have seen with Bill C-22 previously, or borrowing bills that were held up costing Canadians some $14 million a day every day they were delayed in the Senate, and many other things that have happened in the other place since 1984 where the majority is of a different political persuasion from the popularly elected majority in this Chamber, it has brought into very sharp focus the fact that we Canadians have been unduly long in making the right final decision with respect to how constitutional government shall be structured in this country.
The origins of the Senate, if I could just go back to that, really come from what could only be called archaic conservativism. Way back prior to Confederation, the whole time when the family compact was in power, the pre-eminent position of the church and the conduct of affairs of state, the garrison mentality, the colonial economy, there was an effort to replicate here in Canada the social order of pre-revolutionary Europe. That archaic conservativism was supplanted not by really radical ideas. The rebellions of 1837 both in Upper and Lower Canada were repelled and replaced by Confederation conservatism. It was another idea.
March 13, 1990

There were places where this primitive conservativism lingered for a while, most particularly in the province of Quebec, supported by the doctrines of ultramontanism. It continued for a long time where the women only received the right to vote in 1940, where a department of education was not established until the early 1960s, and where finally the role of the modem state swept aside even those last remaining remnants of an archaic conservatism.
The one lingering vestige of that pre-Confederation, early 19th century thinking, can only be found today on the banks of the Ottawa River here in Ottawa, the Senate of Canada. This idea that there has to be an appointed Upper House that can supervise and control the actions of the tempestuous, popularly elected, democratic assembly is a notion that may have fitted a much earlier Canada, but it no longer fits this country.
The example we have with Bill C-21 typifies that, but it is only one example. In fact, all the provinces that had appointed upper Houses have abolished them. Some of the provinces, for example, the province of Ontario where politics is always seen in very pragmatic terms, opted for an elected upper House. Under our Constitution of 1841, the province of Ontario or Canada West at that time, had an elected upper House. We continued with that until 1867 when again the pragmatic Conservatives and pragmatic Ontarians decided no, let us be done with this; it makes no sense to have an upper House either elected or appointed, and it was dropped from the constitution of the province when Ontario came into Confederation in 1867.
Prince Edward Islanders are known to be contrary-minded from time to time. When the Liberals are in power in Ottawa they elect Tories to come here. When the Tories are in power in Ottawa, Islanders elect Liberals to come here. Islanders have always displayed a healthy degree of independent-mindedness. They too, in the mid-nineteenth century, decided if an upper House we are to have, let us have an elected upper House. In the Constitution of Prince Edward Island they changed it in order to have an elected Upper House. Again, Prince Edward Islanders, having found out that an Upper House of whatever kind, elected or appointed, fit very poorly in our system of representative democracy and
Government Orders
simply was not needed, wisely decided to reform their Constitution and let the Upper House slip into the mists of history where it rightly deserved to be obscured.
Only at the federal level have we still with us an appointed Upper House.
We have seen this question of reforming the Senate as an agenda on the political debates of this country for decades. The understanding that Kunz refers to in the other place is that those who have been appointed to the Senate will always act within the very narrow tolerances of a truly parliamentary democracy. They have largely enjoyed office by not disturbing.
It has been an irony that people have pointed to the Upper House and have said that while it serves a good role, we want it to do more. Whenever the Upper House does something and exercises power, there is an outcry. This is not only something when the Progressive Conservatives form the government of Canada, as is currently the case, but I recall this having been a cry that was heard at various times back through the 20th century in Canadian political history.
The point is that we are only happy when the Senate is docile. The moment that it begins to get involved politically in legislation and begins to take these initiatives, people in this country, who are all democrats whatever party they are in, quite rightly resent this development as being most untoward.
One can only characterize the nine amendments which have come back to us from the other place emanating from a Liberal-dominated majority in that place and on that committee, and the political activity that has gone on with that, as a good reason to reject these amendments and to work to rejecting the continuing role of the Senate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Mr. Mills:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member knows the deep respect that I have for him. However, I do not believe that this debate tonight is about the Senate of Canada. This debate is about the conscience of the country and-


Patrick Boyer: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will listen to the hon. member's point of privilege and then I will listen to the hon. member's point of order again.

March 13, 1990
Government Orders


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I had the floor. I was speaking on debate within the time allocated to me. The hon. member purported to raise a point of order which was in fact a point of debate. He has been here long enough to understand the distinction between a point of order and a point of debate. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that my point of personal privilege is that members rising on a purported point of order in order to disrupt a Member of Parliament who has the floor and who is speaking is out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think it is necessary for us to carry on in this regard. I know the hon. member was coming to the end of his speech and he ended up speaking about the Senate. I do not think there is a reason for it, but I will listen to the hon. member's point of order if there is one.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I accept that, Mr. Speaker. I just think we should focus on the fact that there are unemployment insurance offices across the country right now which are the real essence of this problem and that is where I wish we could focus.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will give the hon. member one minute to close off his debate.


Patrick Boyer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will address my remarks directly to the hon. member for Broadview- Greenwood, because at the beginning of my remarks I said that there are two issues raised by the matter that is before the House now. One is the specific subject-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will raise the question through me.


Patrick Boyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, through you, I would remind all hon. members, including those who seem to think that I was not talking about the subject matter, that I stated that there were very clearly two issues raised by this. One, the substantive provisions of Bill C-21, and I did direct remarks to those. Second, I said there is the whole role of the Senate in the country. If the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood wishes to go on record as supporting an unelected, an appointed Upper House having the final say in matters like this, I would very much welcome that being part of the public record of the country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the hon. member's time is over. I do not think we require any
more points of order or points of privilege. The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon has the floor on debate.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader stated yesterday that his government cannot accept the Senate amendments to Bill C-21, a bill to change the unemployment insurance benefits to the workers of the country.
By rejecting all the amendments but one, the government is saying that all Canadians must accept Bill C-21 in its original form. Before getting into the substance of what I want to say with respect to this, along with my friend and colleague who was trying to raise a point of order, I would like to compliment and thank the Senate for having the strength to take this bold move to reject this legislation. I compliment it for using the wisdom of its years of experience in this very important social area. I thank the Senate, instead of chastising it, for its belief in the institutions of the country that have made Canada great, and particularly the social policies which it is trying to protect in this legislation.
Bill C-21 is wrong. It is wrong in principle, wrong in what it proposes, and wrong in its philosophy. This bill will change the insurance of the income of our workers in the country. It will change what they have come to expect and deserve. This is a bill the government promised it would not pass in the House.
The Prime Minister said in 1984 that social programs in our country are a sacred trust. He told Canadians during the last federal election in October 1988 that there was absolutely nothing that would prevent the government of Canada from maintaining all of its social programs. The Minister for International Trade told The Evening Telegram of St. John's on October 14 that after consulting with the Prime Minister, he could confirm and assure Canadians that "no one is planning any changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act of this country".
My colleague from Hamilton in his comments earlier outlined more of the substance of the speech of the Minister for International Trade on that particular date. The minister assured the country and Canadians on many occasions that nothing would happen with unemployment insurance. That was before the election.

The fact that we are debating this issue points to the contradictions in the words of the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade.
I said the word "contradiction" and, Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I that we both come from areas where a more explicit word would be used to say what happened prior to the election in terms of what the Prime Minister promised to the people of this country and in terms of what the Minister for International Trade promised the people of Newfoundland. We could be more expressive. I would like to use that word tonight, but I am sure that you would think it unparliamentary, so I will just say that those words were contradictory to what they are doing here today.
We on this side of the House are once again compelled to bring to the attention of Canadians the inconsistencies and the contradictions between what this government promised during the last election and what it is delivering here today.
The government will no longer contribute to the unemployment insurance fund of Canada. Instead, the financing burden will be placed on the shoulders of all Canadian workers and all Canadian employers.
The estimated government cost of unemployment insurance expenditures is $2.9 billion. By abdicating its responsibility to pay unemployment insurance contributions this government will force employees to pay an additional $1.2 billion in their premiums, and employers will be forced to pay $1.7 billion in additional contributions. This government will pay nothing. This is an abdication of responsibility for a fundamental and basic social program that Canadians have earned and deserve and have come to expect.
Not only will workers be paying more; they will be paying more and getting less. The changes to the unemployment insurance system will shrink the safety net by making more stringent the qualifications to receive unemployment insurance and the period for which benefits are paid. Obviously it appears that the workers in our country need protection.
Under the present system, total entitlements include initial benefits, that is, one week of benefits for every week worked, plus regional benefits. Under the new legislation there is only one set of benefits calculated using the regional rate of unemployment and the minimum entrance requirements.
Government Orders
Let us look at what this does to the regions of this country, and particularly the people in the region that I represent, the people of northwestern Ontario. With an average unemployment rate of 7.6 per cent, they will witness an increase in the minimum entrance requirement from 12 weeks to 18 weeks under this new system. That is an increase of 50 per cent.
Northwestern Ontario will see the duration of entitlements reduced from a minimum of 26 weeks to 18 weeks, and a decreased maximum of 50 weeks to 41 weeks in benefits. In other words, workers in northwestern Ontario will be paying much more and, as I said earlier, be getting much less.
Like so many other policies of this government, for example its GST proposals, its new taxes which have been implemented over the years, what it has done to the passenger rail service in the country, what it is doing with the rural post offices and now the changes to the unemployment insurance program, they show a complete disregard for northern Ontario, a complete disregard for rural Canada and a complete disregard for the small cities in this country.
Did this government consider what sort of an impact such changes would have on the rural Canadian economy? Many local industries and firms are set up to employ seasonal workers long enough so that they can apply for UI benefits. Under the new system these firms will have to make the choice of laying off workers without enough weeks to qualify or retain those workers for a few additional weeks increasing their costs. Most firms could not afford the latter option and remain competitive, which again shows that our workers need protection.
Further evidence of this government's ignorance of northern Ontario can be found in its plan to put $800 million back into the job training program. The government failed to mention that between 1984 and 1989 it cut training programs in this country from $2.2 billion in 1984 to $1.5 billion in 1989, a decrease of over $700 million. Yet now it is putting back $800 million by taking the money out of the unemployment insurance fund. This will be paid by the employers and employees of this country. Using simple arithmetic, the government takes out $700 million in 1984 and puts back $800 million in 1989. It does not even respect the cost of inflation in this program. This is just another issue like the goods and

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
services tax issue. It is trying to mesmerize all Canadian workers with its use of figures.
This government claims that by offering training programs through this system it will allow the unemployed to use UI as a trampoline, not as a safety net, that it is a springboard to do greater and better things than the job that they have lost. Supposedly the unemployed would be launched into new productive careers by taking advantage of these fantastic training programs.
How will residents in a single-industry town in northern Ontario and other sections of Canada use this springboard of opportunity to advance themselves? How can they expect to train someone for a job that does not exist in these single-industry towns? When the single industry closes down there are no jobs left to be trained for.
What it causes and what we have been talking about in all smaller communities is the loss of our young people to the bigger centres. This new, improved Unemployment Insurance Act is just going to augment this system. It will move our families out of the small towns into Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and other large centres. They cannot find a job, the training program, or the job the training program will provide other than by moving into these large centres.
Moreover, how can you realistically expect to retrain older people such as our grain elevator workers and ship workers who have little or no other experience? What I am talking about here are people who are going to be losing their benefits and are just over the ages of 40, 41 and 42 and up to about 50. What are they going to do for the balance of their careers, the 15 productive years after they are laid off? Can you train these people for jobs? Can you offer them something that would make their lives more independent than they are today?
What about sawmill workers? This government can remedy the problems that exist in the sawmill industries of Canada, especially northern Ontario, by eliminating the export tax of 15 per cent, thereby ensuring that there will be no unemployment in these fundamental industries. Yet, it refuses to invoke clause 9 of the memorandum of understanding signed and embedded in the free trade agreement which causes distress among sawmill workers not only in northern Ontario but in British Columbia, Alberta and the Atlantic provinces. All it has
to do is invoke clause 9 and get rid of that memorandum of understanding.
What about our new Canadian citizens or older immigrants who may have some difficulty in speaking either the English or French language well? What sort of retraining will we be able to offer them? It is obvious that these workers will now be paying into a system from which they have no guarantee or receive any benefits or qualify for these training programs.
I do not need to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that northern Ontario as well as other parts of Canada is not renowned for its high tech industries. This policy encourages those who are able to be retrained to move away from rural and small town areas in pursuit of further training and better job opportunities in large cities. It will encourage the youth in small town Canada and in rural Canada to leave their homes, their parents, their loved ones, their grandfathers and grandmothers to seek employment in the large centres where they may not want to go.
I had the privilege of attending a conference on this matter in Timmins, Ontario just a short while ago at the invitation of the Premier of the Province of Ontario and his ministers. The subject of the three-day conference was the losses in our communities of our young people.
Did this government take into full consideration the implications of adopting such an unemployment insurance system? Did it calculate the impact it will have on the seasonal workers in Canada who rely so heavily on UI payments though through no fault of their own? Was any thought given to the impact these measures will have in small communities where students will be driven to leave to seek employment elsewhere in this country?
What will happen to the small businesses in these communities which are dependent for their livelihood on the existence of that community? How will these small businesses absorb the extra costs of UI? Many of these questions and more obviously have not been addressed by this government, nor does this government want to answer them.
In closing, I just want to re-emphasize that this government is negligent in this area. It imposes its will on the Canadian people again. We realize more each day that this government does not care about our small cities, about rural Canada, nor does it care about our single industry towns. It certainly does not care about the
March 13, 1990

north. It certainly does not care about small business. This government, by this legislation, certainly does not care about the workers.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight on the revisiting of Bill C-21 to the House.
I did have an opportunity as a member of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration to spend some time dealing with the bill in its original form. As part of the legislative committee I travelled with the committee and had the opportunity to hear about Bill C-21, to hear from the people across Canada, from nearly 200 different groups that made representations.
We have also had the opportunity to hear some very eloquent and sincere arguments both for and against Bill C-21. The problem I have with many of the approaches taken by some of my colleagues is like trying to paint a picture. It is easy to do it if all the paint you have is black or white, but there is no issue facing the government today that is that simple. We are not looking at black or white. Surely these members have recognized that there is a need for all shades of grey. When we are faced with difficult choices and decisions to be made, there has to be a balanced approach. We cannot just advocate black or white. We cannot just advocate the simple answers.
First, I should like to cover some of the reasons I think that there is a need for the changes the government is proposing. Second, I should like to say why these changes are not only reasonable but in fact very wise.
Most people would recognize and agree that the need for changes to the UI act is readily apparent. Let us look at the demographics in the workforce in Canada. They have not stayed the same. If we think back even to when I was younger and starting out in the workforce, we see that the numbers of people who were in the workforce and the kinds of jobs and training required have changed dramatically.
Let us take a couple of examples. First let us look at the women in the workforce. Who would have thought 30 years ago that more than 60 per cent of the women in Canada would be active participants in today's work-
Govemment Orders
force? Women's participation in the workforce has more than doubled in the last 20 years.
Who would have thought we would be approaching a time when the seniors of this country would be not just a minority, but in fact approaching the point where they could be a major segment of the population in Canada? What is surprising is that more and more of those seniors actually want to work. They want to work longer than our parents did in the past. Any system that we in this Government of Canada adopt has to be able to suit these changing demographics.
For the past 20 years we have seen a dire shortage of jobs for our youths. One of the most heart-rending situations you could face in Canada over the last 10 or 15 years was seeing well trained young people who wanted to work but who were having a very, very difficult time finding suitable jobs. Those times are changing. We are going to be reaching a point in time in the next few years where there will again be a shortage of young people qualified for the jobs required of them.
We have had changes on the job scene itself. Everyone recognizes that we have far more service jobs now than ever before. We have jobs that require high training. Some people have even suggested that there will be in excess of 30 per cent of the workforce requiring education past high school. Some 20 years ago this would have been unthought of. It would have appeared ridiculous.
The fact in our workforce today is that there is not just a need for training for high technology jobs. There is a need for retraining. Many of these workers are going to be re-entering the workforce in different ways which require different training. There is a requirement for this government to address those changing needs.
Then there is the recognition across Canada by a high percentage of the population. In fact in excess of 75 per cent of the people in Canada has indicated that the government has to reform the unemployment insurance system. They recognize that there are misuses and unfortunately even abuses in the system. These misuses and abuses require a reformed system. As a government we have to hear what the people are saying. We have to see what is happening to the system, and we have to make some of those changes.

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
The biggest message we have heard in this regard coming from industry, people in the workforce who are dealing with it on a day to day basis, is that we have to reintroduce into our unemployment insurance system an incentive to work. Many people who know the workforce and know the jobs are there are saying that we are getting dangerously close to motivating or encouraging people not to work rather than the reverse.
In talking about Bill C-21, unemployment insurance and any changes to it we must go back and recognize the primary reason for the unemployment insurance system of today. It is geared to those workers who are out of work but who are willing, available and anxious to work.
I think another point has to be discussed before we can reach any solutions in the reform of the UI scheme as seen in Bill C-21, that is the recognition by the House and by people across Canada of the need for restraint.
When the Conservatives took office the Government of Canada was using 32 cents of every tax dollar to pay the interest on the debt. If this government had not exercised restraint or had not taken the actions that it has, the interest on the debt would now be taking 50 cents on each dollar and would be fast approaching the point where it would be 60 cents and 70 cents. Nobody in Canada wants that situation to occur. It is not only necessary, but it is essential that we recognize the need for restraint and we exercise it.
Several speakers today have talked about the hardships we are imposing on our workers. I should like to make the point that the real hardship we could impose on the workers of Canada is if we do not get our debt under control, if we let the interest payment on the debt rise to the point where we do not have the dollars to exercise sovereignty in Canada or continue to pay the benefits to which the people of Canada should be able to look forward.
In achieving restraint in Bill C-21 there was the need by the government to recognize that it is possible to achieve more and spend less. Some people say that is ridiculous, that of course you cannot do that. Companies across Canada and the United States for the past 15 years have been finding out that in fact you can. Our search for excellence has taught us that not only corporations but also government should find it possible to be able to achieve some of the things that we need to achieve and still exercise the restraint that we know we should be exercising.
We cannot necessarily afford any more to do everything we want. We have to be able to make tough decisions. It is time for choices. It is time for us as the government to try to achieve a balance between the changes and improvements we want to see in the program and what we can afford, what the dollars will allow us to select.
The original design of the UI system was for shortterm protection of workers who were unfortunate enough to find themselves out of work, out of the workforce and needing protection and some form of guaranteed income until they could get back on their feet. We still need that protection, and any balanced program will ensure that it is retained.
The more innovative part of Bill C-21 involves the choice between passive and active programs, programs that are going to address the real needs of the workers who find themselves out of work. Those workers do not just want their unemployment insurance cheque every week. Workers who are truly searching for and wanting a job would like to be able to find that job. They would like to have an unemployment system that will respond to whatever their needs are to ensure that they get that job.
The people who will require this are people my age, and in some cases younger, who have found themselves out of the work that they have done since they were young. They do not want unemployment insurance; they want jobs. They want their dignity back. They want their pride. That entails assistance. This government must be in a position to provide that assistance. Bill C-21 puts that flexibility in the system so that we can respond.
There are women, as I mentioned earlier, entering and re-entering the workforce in record numbers. In many cases they also require special assistance, orientation and in some cases special training.
We have all seen the tragedy of an industry that has had to shut down. There are unemployed people requiring special assistance. Whether it be training, relocation assistance, you name it, this government should be in a
March 13, 1990

position to help them find work, not just provide the unemployment insurance dollars.
Finally, in making choices we have to recognize that there are regional differences in Canada. Not every one of our areas in Canada has the same job opportunities. This government recognizes that the differences between the various regions should be recognized in Bill C-21. Those who have more opportunities, those who are able to find work, should not expect the same levels of support as those people in areas of Canada where jobs are not as readily available.
The government has put together in Bill C-21 a good package, a balanced package, and a package that contains a lot of wisdom, for not only does it provide all the flexibility, all these improvements to the system, it recognizes that it cannot do it all alone. We all know the government cannot administer these programs totally on its own and do it successfully. It has brought in a good balance of private consultants or private firms that have a role to play in the employment scene created by Bill C-21.
Industry is going to be motivated and encouraged to play a bigger role. The communities are going to find that they are essential in the decision-making process under Bill C-21. Colleges, local as well as regional, will become involved in this process.
The bill has been put together wisely. We have travelled. We have heard what Canadians have had to say. We amended the bill. Now the Senate, which is supposed to be providing the wisdom and sagacity that we would expect from a senior House, has tried to destroy this delicate balance created in Bill C-21. That we cannot allow.
This bill was designed to provide work for people. We want a nation of working people, not a nation of people who lose their jobs and do not know how or have a government prepared to give them the assistance they need to get back on their feet and into jobs.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I think the member who just spoke described the government accurately as a government that does not know how to get people back to work.
I am standing to oppose the motion of the Liberal Party which is to amend the message to the Senate. We will be strongly opposing the message the government
Government Orders
wants to send to the Senate, which is to get on with the passage of this veiy bad piece of legislation.
In the debate so far we have heard a number of extraneous points, a number of points which may have some bearing if we were examining a reasonably good piece of legislation, but we are not. We are looking here tonight at legislation which is bad for the people of Canada and which must be defeated before it leaves this Parliament.
An analysis has been done of the effect of this legislation region by region. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the effects on Victoria and Vancouver Island.
First, the average unemployment rate on Vancouver Island and in Victoria was 11.9 per cent in 1988. The number of persons receiving benefits under UI was 51,270. The number who will not qualify as a result of this bill would be 3,070. The number who will lose significant weeks due to the higher entrance qualifications is 4,430.
Accordingly, the total number of Canadians living in Victoria or on Vancouver Island who will be affected by this legislation is over 7,000; some 7,500 residents in our area will be affected by this bill. Across Canada, 519,877 Canadians will be adversely affected by this bill.
These are not the Canadians who are driving the third family BMW in Toronto or who are paying $300,000 or $400,000 for houses or condominiums in South Oak Bay. These are Canadians who already live for the most part on the borderline of poverty in this country. Most often it will be single women, single parents or teen-aged children trying to get their first jobs, or working Canadians trying to support a family and live on the edge of economic survival in the country. Or, it will be those in Atlantic Canada whose centre of economy has been ground down by the policies of this government and of the Liberal governments that have preceded it. We have a bill which attacks those on the margins of economic survival in the country.
It has been suggested by speaker after speaker on the government side that this debate is really about the Senate. I do not owe any brief for the Senate. In fact, I know a close relative of mine whose lifelong ambition is to be appointed to the Senate so that he could rise in that

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
place and move its abolition, a sentiment with which I entirely agree.
In this case, the Senate is doing a service to the people of Canada by turning this bill back. It gives the people of Canada another opportunity to understand where this legislation fits in the economy policies of the government.
There are already 1.6 million Canadian youngsters who live below the poverty line. There are over four million Canadians living below the poverty line. This bill goes to the heart of the Tory agenda because it will add, not subtract, to those numbers.
We have to see this bill in the context of Conservative economic and social policy. We have now had almost sue years of Conservative government since 1984.


Mr. Kempling:: You never had it so good!


John F. Brewin: My friend says we never had so good. If he would come with me to talk to the people of Victoria, or go around the country and ask people whether they have ever had it so good, he will get his answer.
The fact of the matter is that the economic and social policies of this country are a disgrace. As I sit and watch the Minister of Finance as he stands in his place virtually every day to answer questions about the country's economic policy, it is interesting to reflect on a book written in the late 1960s or early 1970s by David Halberstam entitled, The Best and the Brightest. This book described how the best-educated and best-tr^iped people in the United States managed to get that country into the Vietnam disaster.
As I reflect on the government and those behind it, the financial wizards and the best brains in our corporate sector who persist in pushing the government along the economic and social path that it has taken, I must say that "the best and the brightest" in this country are leading us into a dangerous, economic situation. The complacency of the government, when it says that we never had it so good, in the face of the clear facts of housing shortages, unemployment, abuse, poverty, and cutbacks in social programs, is a disgrace. Let us look at what its agenda is.
First, reduce social programs. That is part of its agenda. Second, weaken the progressive tax system and change the balance in our tax system so that it favours the rich as against the poor and the middle income groups. It is a clear fact. Just ask the middle income earners how much tax they are paying now compared to the taxes they paid in 1984. Look at the facts of cutbacks
in the tax rates and the opening of further loopholes in the tax system that this government has brought in. Now we have the GST, and it will not explain to a single person in the country how the GST is going to help the middle income earners. In fact, the Conservative chairman of the finance committee boasted that the only people left in the country to tax are the middle income earners. As for the rest, it does not make any difference.
The third element of its economic policy is the privatization of the economy. Fourth, it wants to set about the integration of our economy with the United States. Also, it wants to maintain unemployment. The previous member spoke about trying to reduce unemployment. It is a clear, systematic, intentional policy of the government to maintain unemployment at higher and higher levels. That is its economic intention. An article recently in The Economist magazine made that very clear.
Finally, it is part of the government's agenda to strengthen the position of the multinational companies in the Canadian economy. That has very clearly been part of the Conservative agenda and that is what it has put in legislation which it put through the previous Parliament.
Let us look at the effect and how the government done this with the particular steps it has taken. It had a so-called tax reform package in the previous Parliament which reduced the total number of tax brackets and particularly reduced the rate payable in the upper brackets. It reduced corporate taxation in the country. It eliminated elements of capital gains tax and the government has completed the Tory tax reform, or is in the process of completing the Tory tax reform, with the GST.
The second part of the steps the government has taken to implement its agenda is the free trade legislation. Over the last couple of years-certainly the last year-and-a-half- the government has maintained a high dollar which has had a bad effect out my way, for example, because a high dollar hurts tourism and exports. It has maintained high interest rates. That high interest rate policy is beginning to have a negative effect on small business, potential house purchasers, and unemployment levels. The high interest rate policy is not a mechanical policy that it is following, but an intentional policy of the Bank of Canada, supported in this House by the Minister of Finance and the government. The clear intention is to increase unemployment levels in this country so that, in their terminology, the economy cools off. When saying that, the government is speaking of the
March 13, 1990

economy of southern Ontario and it is finally getting its wish in that.


Mrs. Browes:: What would you do?


John F. Brewin: What would we do, the hon. member asks. I guess the government is so bankrupt it now has to turn to the opposition and ask us what we would do. I will be advising the hon. member in a minute exactly what we would do about it.
Let me continue with the step-by-step Conservative agenda and how the government is proceeding with it. It has in fact instituted a systematic set of cut-backs on social policy and social programs in the country, of which this bill is a veiy important part.
It has placed no limits on private debt while attacking the social programs which are developed in the public sector. I can speak with some feeling on this. I am one of those Canadians who found himself in private debt, and debt more than I could handle. There are millions of Canadians who, without a qualm, get talked into additional debt by the various institutions in the country. There has been no Conservative control on private debt because the Conservative philosophy accepts the idea that increased private consumption is a good and systematic economic policy. The effect of that kind of overheated private consumption is to drive up house prices, to fuel inflation, to devastate our environment and to knock our economy out of balance. What do the Conservatives do in response to this? They turn around and cut public programs and social programs. That has been part of their intentional agenda.
The Conservatives really believe that a good society rewards the rich and penalizes those who are less fortunate than themselves. That is the Conservative philosophy. I give them at least this much, they understand what they are doing. It would probably be worse if they really believed that they were doing something for the good of the country. What they know they are doing is changing the face of Canada. They are changing it into a country which is even more beset with inequality. They are increasing the poverty levels in the country. I have
Government Orders
here the figures of Canadians who use food banks. There are 378,000 different people per month use food banks in the country. That is an absolute disgrace in a country with our wealth. If the government had any sense of responsibility to the people, it would be focusing its attention on those problems, not on making the rich richer, as it has done persistently in every policy it has introduced since it took office.
We are faced as well, with an economy in which the wage levels have increasingly gone down in real terms for most Canadians. The kinds of jobs that the government has visited on the people are not the jobs which a Polar 8 project would introduce. I am pleased to see the Minister of Justice enter the House. She is now the senior political member from British Columbia. I hope she will take an opportunity this evening to encourage the House to believe that maybe the government is going to do something either to revive the Polar 8 project or at least to put in its place a shipbuilding program on the west coast that would provide the kinds of jobs Canadians need and are entitled to. That is jobs with some kind of economic future, which pay a decent wage, and which permit the possibility of a pension and of purchasing a home of their own. Instead what the government has done so often is to cut out those kinds of jobs letting them be replaced with part-time, poor-paying jobs in the service industry. That is the face of Canada for millions of Canadians.
The government has, in fact, continued and added to the public debt of the country and to the deficit. That too is part of the Conservative agenda. To say the government has not done it intentionally is to simply fly in the face of the facts. Not only has it maintained high interest rates which are a major burden on the taxpayers of this country, but in addition the government has failed to tackle some of the highest spending areas in the budget. In defence spending, for example, over $1 billion is spent in maintaining troops in Europe, long after they have served any useful military purpose. Now they provide, clearly, even no diplomatic purpose.

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
If the government would seriously attack the debt problem it would begin attacking those kinds of useless expenditures. Instead, it is maintaining those expenditures, not because they contribute in any way to peace, but because when it comes to the crunch, the government will do whatever is necessary to please the government of the United States. It has done so in its economic, social and external policies. We just have to look at the way in which the government caved in to the United States on Panama. It was the only government in the western world outside of Margaret Thatcher's government that had the nerve to support the breach of international law involved in the invasion of Panama. Soon we are going to be getting the renewal of NORAD. That is going to be coming before the House. Any bets on what the government is going to do about that? Of course, it will supinely reinforce the NORAD agreement and just put it through for another five years, without any consideration or debate in the House.
A few minutes ago an hon. member asked what our policies were. What we call for is a completely different direction in economic and social policy for the country. What we say first of all is that the underpinnings and purpose of economic policy must be fourfold.
First, we must ensure that our economy is environmentally sustainable. Everything must become secondary to that. We must now begin a serious, planned, comprehensive transition to an economically sustainable environment. We cannot afford to wait any longer to fulfil that objective and that must become the primary objective of government economic policy.
Second, and in keeping with that, social equality must be the objective of our economy. We can no longer accept poverty in the midst of plenty. We must ensure that every step we take makes this a better, fairer society, that the spending and economy we have will be addressed to that problem.
Let me finish by outlining the other two points very briefly. Third, we must ensure that our economy provides a decent living for all Canadians in which they have some worth and some ability to participate in the economy. And, fourth, everything we do must contribute toward the ending of poverty around the world. This is our program and we urge it on the House.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity, even at this late hour, to debate once again in the House the provisions of Bill C-21.1 am glad to be able to speak to the veiy excellent work of the Senate in its review of these changes to Canada's unemployment insurance system.
I am glad too to be able to explain here and for the unemployed in my constituency who, since January, knew they required four more weeks to qualify for UI but could not understand why. I am glad to explain to them the purposes of the stand that we, in the Liberal Party in the House and in the Senate, have been taking in opposing this legislation.
On several occasions during the last two months I have been confronted by constituents who found themselves with 10 weeks but without the 14 weeks they suddenly needed after Christmas to qualify for UI benefits. Why could they not get benefits? They were told it was because the UI bill was in the Senate and they had to wait until it was passed. They would ask: "What is the hold up?" I would have to say that there was a principle involved. The principle had to do with the fact that this government was no longer going to be contributing to the UI program and that was going to weaken the program in the future.
They would give me a puzzled look and say okay and that they would be patient. But I never thought I was able to explain properly the consequences of the thrust of this legislation. In particular, the decision by the government to withdraw entirely its financial contribution to the UI Program and to transfer the financial burden of this program entirely to the fee payers. I never felt I could adequately explain why this particular change, which appears to many to be nothing more than a bookkeeping change, so dramatically altered the character of the UI program, why it is so dangerous to this most vital component of our social safety net and why I should prevail upon the indulgence of those unemployed in my constituency to be patient.
I am glad to have one more chance because the changes contained in this bill, in particular the changes embodied in the Archaean phrases of clauses 52, 53 and 56 of Bill C-21, in essence knock out one of the pillars of the UI program. They are the first step, I think, to the dismantling of a national social insurance program in the country. Bill C-21 is the thin edge of the wedge, to coin a popular expression. It is the first step down the slippery slope of privatizing, decentralizing and, eventually,
March 13, 1990

Americanizing the unemployment insurance system, of undoing one more strand in the subtle garment of national social insurance programs, national infrastructure, and equalization payments which hold the country together. It is philosophically linked with the free trade agreement, the abandonment of VIA Rail, other changes that have weakened our regions and weakened the country from one end to the other.
The current UI program, which has been in place since 1940, is financed by three partners: employers through their premium contributions; employees through their premium contributions; and the federal government through the Consolidated Revenue Fund which itself is financed by our taxes.
In 1989, for example, the government contribution was $2.9 billion out of a total UI expenditure for Canada of some $12.3 billion. The government contribution is more important than this share would suggest. It pays for UI benefits which arise from conditions of higher than average unemployment rates. When unemployment rates rise across the country, as they did during the 1981 recession, the share of UI benefit costs paid for out of government revenues rises substantially.
As well, in regions of high unemployment like Newfoundland, Cape Breton and other parts of Atlantic Canada, large portions of Quebec and northern Ontario, the west, and northern Canada, a large part of UI benefits comes from government contributions. This is because the weeks of so-called regional extended benefits-weeks of UI benefits which are related to high unemployment rates-are paid for from government general revenues. That means that for an unemployed worker from Inverness in my constituency, the first 10 weeks of his UI benefits are paid for out of premium revenues; the second portion, if he has enough weeks, is paid for out of premium revenues; and the third portion, often involving the largest share of his benefits, are paid for out of government revenues under the current program.
This feature of the UI program allows the federal government to stabilize the national economy by directing money through UI benefits to individuals in communities that need it most when it is most needed. This
Government Orders
keeps our regions alive and it keeps our communities alive. It allows the federal government to contribute quite naturally to stabilizing the economy of the country. It is one of the pillars of our macro-economic policy and it is one of the pillars our our social policy.
In addition, the federal government finances UI benefits to self-employed fishermen. It finances these out of general revenues to the tune in 1989 of some $261 million. Why? Because the situation of seasonal fishermen and the communities they live in is regarded as unique. Again, the UI program is how the federal government is able to support a way of life in many parts of Atlantic Canada.
I would urge the members opposite to read the transcript of the Senate committee hearings in Canso. They should read the testimony of Claude Sangster, an inshore fisherman from New Harbour in Guysborough County, or Edison Lumsden from Canso, or Keith Lettington from Drum Head. They should read their testimony to see if they have any doubts about the importance of this feature of the UI program to our east coast fishery.
One of the fundamental thrusts of Bill C-21 acknowledged by the Government House Leader yesterday is, and I quote:
(I) a shift to full financing of the UI program through employer and employee premiums.
This thrust is embodied, first, in clause 52 of Bill C-21 which, by replacing Section 118 of the current UI act, ends all federal government contributions to the UI program including in particular the contribution to regional extended benefits. In fact, the concept of regional extended benefits and the financial stake of the federal government to lower unemployment rates through contributions to UI benefit payments related to high unemployment is ended with Bill C-21.
Second, with the passage of Bill C-21, the government no longer contributes to the financing of special UI benefits to self-employed fishermen. Henceforth, these benefits will be financed out of general UI premiums. In addition, as the Senate discovered, this entire component of the UI program which is hived off from the rest of the UI Act can be altered and, for all intents and purposes, abolished by a simple Order in Council. That is without even consulting Parliament. The government

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
accepted the Senate's suggestion for not eliminating fishermen's benefits without consulting Parliament, but we can see the handwriting on the wall.
What will happen if Bill C-21 is adopted without the Senate amendments? Before saying this, I should say that one of the key Senate amendments which the government refuses to accept would bring back the principle of government contribution to the UI program, at least in part. This is one of the recommendations which would prevent the erosion of the program that we are going to see if Bill C-21 is adopted. Let me explain.
If Bill C-21 is adopted without amendment, the entire cost of the UI program will be funded by premiums. Employee premiums will rise from $1.95 to $2.25 per $100 and employer premiums will rise from $2.73 to $3.15 per $100. The Minister of Finance has fixed this rate for the next three years in the last budget in 1989. With the changes on the benefit side, it will be harder for many unemployed to qualify for benefits. They will qualify for fewer weeks and face higher penalties for quitting and a whole series of other changes related to the cut-backs in the unemployment insurance benefits amounting to some $1.3 billion.
I want to focus the attention of members on the evolution of the UI account. This is something which has received very little attention. At the current premium rate, the government has admitted that the UI fund, which is now in surplus, will move into a deficit position by the end of 1992 to the tune of some $3 billion, according to the Deputy Minister of Employment and Immigration. Three billion dollars is more than one-quarter of the total UI expenditures for 1989.
How will this deficit be financed? Either premiums will have to rise or benefits will have to be cut further. It will be that or the government will have to kick in out of general revenues. But we already know the orientation of the government, so we can pretty well rule out the third option.
What should we expect? It would be a simple matter to jack up premiums for fishermen's benefits or cut down drastically on the benefits paid to them. The government has said it would not do this, but it can easily be done
without even consulting Parliament over the summer holidays when there is no one around to oppose it.
Next, how about cutting drastically benefits that go into high unemployment regions like Atlantic Canada? That will save some money. We know that the government's business friends, who as employers will pay the majority of the UI fund, want to cut back on UI benefits. They want to make UI more like insurance and they can legitimately say: "Since our premiums pay the majority of the funds in the account, why should we not decide?" Can you blame them? Indeed, they might well ask: "Why does the government have any say in the management of the UI account at all?" After all, he who pays the piper calls the tune. This government has stopped paying the piper, so why should it call the tune?
Anyway, since UI is becoming more like private insurance, why not go the next step? How about turning it into a Crown corporation, or maybe privatizing it completely? Then we can start to see what happens. With no financial stake in holding a strong national unemployment insurance program together, one which stabilizes incomes, supports regions, and provides benefits to the hinterland regions of the country during periods of high unemployment, the federal government has abandoned one of the roles which it has had since the thirties as a principal feature of its economic management. It will enable the government to abandon the regions completely. That is the thrust of this legislation.
The next step is to let the quality of the unemployment insurance program benefits drop in order to have a level playing field with the United States. That is what we said all along was the ultimate aim as a result of the free trade agreement.
This is the agenda under Bill C-21. This is the agenda we have been trying to expose and which the government is moving towards with these changes as surely as night follows day. It is time that Canadians wake up and realize what is happening to them. It is time for this government to wake up and realize that it is dismantling the very essence and fabric of this country. That is what is happening with the changes to Bill C-21.
March 13, 1990


Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-21.
The subject in a broad perspective, as I see it, breaks down into the following general areas of discussion. First is the role of the Senate in the rejection and delivery of this bill back to the House from the other place.
Second is the subject of premium changes and the withdrawal of the federal government subsidy to the unemployment insurance program.
Third is the area of increased training and the shift from support to preparation for re-employment.
Fourth is the increased maternity benefits, the inclusion for the first time of workers over 65 and the introduction of disincentives to abuses, misconducts and failure to be employed. Last is the general philosophy of the government in its approach to employment and unemployment and the introduction of the intensification of the work ethic in our countiy.
First, let us consider the role of the Senate. As has been said already this evening on more than one occasion, it was on November 6, 1989 that this House passed Bill C-21 and sent it to the Senate. It was February 14, better than three months later, when the Senate finally did report this bill back to the House.
It is not a very cogent demonstration of urgency, serious intent or concern for those who have suffered the loss of significant benefits from Bill C-21 which would have become effective during the first week of January.
The Senate heard 60 witnesses in 11 weeks, 54 of whom had appeared before the House of Commons legislative committee. The legislative committee heard 200 witnesses in four weeks. The serious intent and the sense of urgency and dispatch with which the subject has been addressed by the Senate left a great deal to be desired.
I think some of the amendments from the Senate being debated indicates that there has been some room for sober second thought. In the area of illiteracy, it is the kind of recommendation one would expect from a responsible Senate. I certainly speak with respect for the members in the Senate individually, although as a body I believe that their motives and their actions in blocking
Government Orders
the bill is absolutely intolerable and unacceptable in our parliamentary system.
The Senate plan to more specifically identify the proposed training program is a reasonable proposition and one which the government indicates it is willing to consider and accept. The suggestion that the Senate would be empowered to rule on the efficacy and appropriateness of this annual plan is again absolutely intolerable and unacceptable in a responsible parliamentary system.
The suggestion concerning Recommendation No. 8 that there be a specific alteration to the bill with respect to self-employed fishermen is a reasonable and sensitive suggestion. It is also a reasonable and sensitive response by government that self-employed fishermen are not specifically alienated by the provisions of Bill C-21. In fact, it improved the original Unemployment Insurance Act in that respect.
I refer to the Senate and its penchant for seizing on issues such as this and on the free trade agreement. Fortunately, it caused a general election which the people of Canada took in stride and delivered a very profound message of support for free trade much to the surprise of the Liberal Senate. To confront legislation from this House in the manner as was done with the substance of Bill C-21 is unacceptable.
There is general support in many quarters for a Triple E Senate, elected, equal and effective. I think many more activities of the nature of the confrontation with Bill C-21 might cast a new meaning to triple E in being excessive, expensive and extinct.
The actions of the Senate in what appears to be an outright obstruction of a major bill benefiting those unemployed Canadians most in need, has been seen by many Canadians to be superfluous to the responsibilities and functions of the Senate in the exercise of a power that, while technically appropriate and technically legal, is traditionally inappropriate.
With respect to premiums, the federal government has been paying approximately $3 billion per year to the unemployment insurance fund, $2 billion of which is a subsidy and $1 billion as an employer on behalf of federal government employees. The termination of that subsidy in this day and age of relatively sound and buoyant economic times in Canada with a deficit of $30 billion constitutes an act of not only fiscal soundness and financial good management, but one that is sensitive to

Government Orders
the realities of a self-sustaining fund which is doing very well and operates on a principle of regional equality.
The premiums used to replace the federal subsidy will come from those workers and companies who are in a buoyant condition, employed and active. The benefits of that program will continue to go to those areas of the country where unemployment is high and where workers need support and training. I believe that that is consistent with the philosophy of the government to turn Canada in the direction of paying its own way and of living within parameters that we can afford.
I certainly do support the withdrawal of the federal subsidy to the premium account and I believe the citizens of Canada will also support that initiative. Hopefully, the Senate will support it even though it is beyond their terms of reference because it is a financial matter. The variable weeks of qualification and duration of benefits are very significant. The transfer of a portion of the unemployment insurance fund from a total of $13 billion in support systems to a total of about $1.3 billion in training and re-employment initiatives and a remaining fund of about $11.7 billion for support, the variable requirements, while significant, are relatively reasonable. After all, it takes 10 weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance. The difference between 10 weeks and 14 weeks in the course of a 52 week year is not a major stretch of the work ethic in this country. I believe we will see that this stretching of the parameters will stimulate initiative and will be demonstrated to have little consequence at all because the average unemployment is far below the extreme parameters contained in the old program.
The variable entrance requirement will result in about $800 million being available for transfer to the training and re-employment fund. I believe that the combination of the stretch to a higher work ethic and the provision of increased funds for training and re-employment to help achieve that work ethic is a balance that any reasonable Canadian will find very significant.
I would like to review the range of training and re-employment initiatives that those variable entrance requirements help to fund. The other portion of that $1.3 billion for training and re-employment comes from
the elimination, reduction and moderation of abuses to the system. Many Canadians never use the unemployment insurance fund and fortunately never have to seek its benefits. Their only criticism is that the system is abused, that people have adopted it as a way of life and have found ways to live within it and that the raison d'etre for it are ignored and misused.
The correction of these abuses will generate almost a half billion dollars to be added to the training and re-employment initiatives, going with the variable entrance requirements, totals $1.3 billion. I believe any reasonable Canadian will say that is a very acceptable and commendable change in the focus of the unemployment insurance program, to the modem ethic and vision that Canadians have today of our country.
I would like to review the list of training initiatives that this $1.3 billion will provide. It will add $65 million to human resources planning for work with industry and with non-governmental organizations. One of the areas I have heard mentioned is a commission on human resource development, one which would address the educational aspects of Canadian life and delve into one of the most profound areas of human resource development in addressing the future of our Canadian society.
Another is the addition of $100 million to the Entry Level Skills Development Program where the combination of private sector participation and federal issues such as employment equity would go together to improve the skills and capabilities of a great many Canadians. The Industrial Adjustment Service will receive an additional $15 million, doubling it to a total of $30 million. Employees will work together in terms of new technology in the replacement of obsolete skills and in retraining.
The Community Futures Program will receive an additional $50 million under the Canadian Jobs Strategy budget. This will help communities such as those we have heard of in the very tragic fisheries difficulties in eastern Canada. It will help communities to cope with their problems and will give substance and credibility to the Prime Minister's commitment during the last election campaign when the mandate for this entire program was put on the table. The Prime Minister said that Canada will have the best employment industrial adjustment program in the world. The direction of the initiatives contained in Bill C-21 are in pursuit of that promise
March 13, 1990

and that supporting mandate that was delivered in the 1988 election.
Under Section 26, the unemployment insurance training program will receive an additional $350 million, the continuing employment option and training for displaced older workers will total $100 million. There will be benefits amounting to $40 million for people over 65 years of age who up until now have been denied unemployment insurance eligibility.
Consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in which men and women are eligible to work to the age that they desire and to the age they can satisfactorily perform, they will be eligible in future for unemployment insurance benefits and can participate in the program, both from a benefit and a premium participation viewpoint.
In terms of self-employment and entrepreneurship characteristics of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, there will an additional $45 million; $20 million to promote new entrepreneurial activity and $25 million for mobility assistance. The very significant improvements to the maternity and parental benefits portion of the unemployment insurance program under Bill C-21 will introduce new benefits worth $450 million, almost half a billion dollars in new support for maternity and parental benefits. How the Senate could hold up this bill for three months and let those benefits lay idle, I certainly do not understand.
If you total all of these initiatives along with some others I have not mentioned, we have a program worth $1.3 billion which is paid for from changes that improve the spirit and the substance of the program in terms of the work ethic and in terms of abuses and disincentives under the old program.
In conclusion, I would like to say that Canada needs to revitalize its approach to employment, enterprise, the changing realities of new technology, the environmental imperative, the developing world and to the more intense trading competition we face as a nation throughout the world. In Canada we have in our unemployment insurance program a safety net that is second to none in the world. Bill C-21 continues to keep it that way. That is important. It is something in which we all believe.
Government Orders
We want to ensure that that safety net does not become a way of life. We want to ensure that Canadians do not get locked into that trap and get captured by the ethic of unemployment. I believe that Bill C-21 accomplishes that. It points us in the direction of new work ethic initiatives, discourages abuse, provides for increased training and re-employment initiatives and provides the best safety net in the world, while at the same time, casting a spirit that does not make that safety net a habit of unemployment and perpetual dependence upon the dole which I believe all Canadians would abhor.
I believe in Bill C-21, particularly as it is introduced and as people begin to experience the qualities and the values of it. Hopefully the Senate, commencing tomorrow, will take their responsibilities seriously and approve the speedy passage of this bill to which all Canadians will give their full-fledged support.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-21. I would like to voice my opposition on behalf of many Canadians to the vast majority of the bill's provisions and in support of the Senate's proposed amendments.
This bill represents a beginning of privatization of our unemployment insurance system. It represents the undermining of the basic principle of the unemployment insurance system. The fact that most Canadians are not aware of the government's true intentions with respect to the dismantling of our system is unfortunate. The Mulroney government has taken a page from a book authored by other governments that act not for, but against the wishes and interests of those who put them there, the majority of the people they purport to represent.
This government rules by attempting to mislead the public. It attempts to obscure its real motives. In fact, it hires advertisers at millions of dollars to misrepresent the truth. The government actually justifies every action by painting it as an attempt to cut the deficit. What this government does not understand is that it can no longer take the economic ills that it created out on the backs of the low and the middle income earners and the backs of the unemployed.
This government is uncomfortable with debate and intolerant of dissent. It used closure at second reading

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
and time allocation at report stage and third reading of this bill. Once again it has invoked closure to stop, to stifle debate.
Hearings were held across this country at a whirlwind pace, one that guaranteed that many informed Canadians, that many concerned individuals and groups could not voice their objections to this bill. We all know that the government feels such discomfort at the mention, much less the exercise of debate, of public hearings and consultation. It is because it is breaking promises, the sacred trust that it talked about so much during the past election. The government stifled debate because it does not want to be reminded of those promises.
The members opposite do not want to be reminded that in October, 1988 the Minister for International Trade called the suggestion that the government was planning to change the UI system as "complete nonsense". He called it complete nonsense that the government was going to change the UI system. Well, we have seen what the government has done today. It does not like to consult. It does not like to consult because it knows that people will say things like "You promised you would not do this and now you are doing it". People would ask tough questions such as why, why does the government continue to break its promises?
We all know that if the Canadian public had known during the last election what this government had in store for them, the majority of members opposite would not be here. We know this and this is why the government continues to break these promises.
If Canadians had known the Conservative rallying ciy of unfettered access to the U.S. market was a hoax which would mean the undermining of our social programs and the principles of social justice which we hold dear, they would have turned their backs on the Conservatives as they will in 1992 for breaking these promises, or hopefully sooner.
If Canadians had known that the Mulroney government had planned to sell out Canadian farmers and to undermine our supply marketing systems, they would have turned the Conservatives out on their ears. If they had known that the Mulroney government would prove incapable of managing our economy, of protecting the Canadian fish stocks and the Canadian fisheries, they
would have shuddered at the mere thought of putting these Conservatives back in power. If the Canadian people had known that the Conservative agenda for the country was devoid of respect for social equality and economic fairness, unable or unwilling to combat growing racial intolerance and regional strife, then the Canadian public would have ensured that the Conservative members opposite would not be sitting where they are today.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration has stated that Bill C-21 will, and I quote "ensure that Canada is poised to take advantage of the future of unprecedented opportunity and to meet the objectives of competition, confidence, strength, sovereignty and compassion". I find it interesting to say the least that the minister would assert that one of her objectives for Canada was sovereignty and that somehow Bill C-21 met that objective. This bill provides for the elimination of the tripartite financing of our unemployment system.
In withdrawing the government's contribution to the fund, we would be eliminating from our system a practice which is used practically in every other country in the western industrialized world with the notable exception of course of the United States. What a coincidence that in fact the only country in the western world that does not have a system like this is the United States.
Bill C-21 is not about protecting Canadian sovereignty. It is about many other things, such as bringing about a social system that is in line with that of the United States, a social system that was promised to the Americans during the free trade debate. In fact, the real reason for this bill is because of the free trade deal. A commitment was made during the free trade debate to bring our social systems in line with the Americans.
When I hear the Minister of Employment and Immigration defend this bill, it is clear that this bill fits hand in hand with other legislative endeavours undertaken by this government, such as the free trade deal, GST, budget cuts to education, health care, social assistance, women's groups, native publications, the list goes on. Why? I do not think members of this side of the House have to ask that question. I do not think Canadians today have to ask that question. They know. It is because of the free trade agreement.

It is not that the Conservatives have no vision for this country, as we are sometimes tempted to think on this side. It is that the Conservative vision of the country, of what is right and good, is just so isolated from reality and from the minds and the hearts of ordinary Canadians that it is barely incomprehensible.
The Conservative vision of this country is shared by only a handful of Canadians. At election time the Conservatives get together and decide what will they say this year to get elected? They decide what is in their best interests to tell the Canadian public in order to get elected. So they tell Canadians, "We respect the UI system". They tell Canadians all sorts of other things and by golly, just after the election is over they say, "We changed our minds", or "We did not really promise you this".
Bill C-21 is a perfect example. After promising Canadians that they would not change the system and then breaking their promise, after cutting off public hearings and ramming the bill through second and third reading, then ciying foul when the Senate insisted on hearing what Canadians had to say about this bill, people who wanted to speak on the bill. Do you know that there was only one group besides the government who voiced support for the quick passage of this bill? That was the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
As the special committee of the Senate on Bill C-21 has pointed out, the overwhelming majority of those who appeared before the committee disagreed with the government's contention that the bill would be good for Canadians. In fact, the overwhelming majority of people who appeared before the committee said that Bill C-21 is an attack on the working people of this country. It is an attack on small communities, an attack on underdeveloped regions and an attack on the basic decent foundations of our country.
I think Earl McCurdy from the Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers Union put it well when he said that Bill C-21 is a classic case of blaming the victim.
The unemployment insurance program has been a cornerstone of Canadian social policies since 1940.
Since the beginning, government contributions have formed an integral part of this program. By contributing
Government Orders
to the unemployment insurance program, the Government of Canada is acknowledging its commitment to the creation of full employment.
This is a government which is not comfortable with committing itself to the pursuit of full employment. It is no wonder that, with the free trade agreement, the fisheries mismanagement, the farming crisis we see in Canada today, this government is putting thousands of Canadians out of work. It is no wonder that the government wants nothing to do with accepting a financial incentive in the form of contributions to UI, creating stable, quality employment.
The government must know that its attempt to pass responsibility off to someone else is unacceptable to Canadians.
The government is attempting to pull out of the unemployment insurance program. Who has the government designated to make up for the $2.9 billion a year in shortfall? Employees, employers and the unemployed will have to pay this price.
Premiums paid by employers and employees will rise under Bill C-21.
Unemployment insurance will be harder to qualify for and benefit periods will be shorter.
As witnesses to the special Senate committee pointed out, once the responsibility for UI funding begins to rest solely on employer-employee contributions, there will be pressure to cut the program even further. The government has given up control over the unemployment insurance program. It is giving up the control it promised Canadians, a promise that it said it would keep and a promise, as with other promises, it has failed to keep.
The government is telling Canadians that they will have to pay more for less.
Try telling that to the workers in my riding who are losing their jobs because of this government's policies. The Prime Minister promised them during the election campaign that he would create the best adjustment programs in the world because of free trade.
Where are these adjustment programs? We are still waiting. This was another broken promise. He said there would be the best adjustment programs in the world after free trade. Nowhere have we seen them.

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
Not only has the government not introduced these programs, now it is backing out of the one program that is supposed to represent the government's commitment to the creation of employment.
How can it expect Canadians to believe it when it says that this legislation is good for them? They know better than to believe the Conservative government now.
In closing, I urge this government to accept, not just three of the Senate's proposed amendments, but to accept all these amendments.
These amendments represent the suggestions and the beliefs of many Canadians who were left out of the system, who were not heard by this Conservative government which cut off debate. I respectfully submit that the government should withdraw this bill and should come back again with something much better.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion that was put forward by the government House leader. While there are some ideas with which we can agree in the message from the other place, there is a basic conflict between some of these amendments and the total intent of the BUI C-21.
Our government is determined to do more than passively accept unemployment. We must and we wUl help unemployed people get back to work and make it possible for them to contribute to the growth of this country. BUI C-21 has been held up long enough. The needs it addresses are too important to justify prolonged arguments over some of the detaU and some of the recommendations that have come forward from the other place.
The government has listened seriously to the recommendations offered by the Senate regarding this Bill C-21. And, while there are many concerns which all members should have about many of the suggestions in the message before us, some of the recommendations are worth including in the bUl.
For example, we recognize the impact which illiteracy has on Canadian workers and on Canadian employers. The lack of basic skUls is an impediment to further training. For that reason the idea in recommendation No. 1 is worth including in the bUl.
Senators have said they welcome the commitment of the government to producing an annual plan which will show members how UI funds wUl be spent to train and to develop people.
In recommendation No. 4, they have asked us to amend the bill to ensure that the minister wUl provide specific detaUs in this plan. It wUl do no one any good to create centralized plans which are too rigid or too detaUed to respond to the changing needs. At the same time a reasonable level of detaU should be provided. Therefore, the response which this government proposes to the Senate suggestion is a fair one.
In recommendation No. 8, the Senate has also asked this House to consider removing a subsection in the Unemployment Insurance Act which has been in place for almost 20 years. That subsection would allow the Governor in CouncU to remove benefits for self-employed fishermen from the UI Act at any time.
With the concern shared by all Canadians for the problems hi the fishing industry, the request for added protection for these benefits is understandable. I think I share with all my colleagues on this side of the House, and indeed with all my colleagues in the House the difficulties that our fellow Canadians in Atlantic Canada are having. The message which this House will send to the Senate should accommodate improvements in this particular area. But much of the message that we are receiving back from that other House cannot be accepted.
We have been given a set of recommendations by the Liberal senators which do nothing more than tie the hands of the government. These amendments would force us to spend money we do not have in ways which may not be the best for the working people who are going to be helped by the bill.
The Liberals in the Senate seem to believe that the only purpose for UI is to pay people to wait for their old job to come back. UI is not a guaranteed income plan. We on this side of the House believe that UI needs to become an active program which invests in people's lives. Training courses, financial help to move to a place where there are more jobs and assisting claimants to start businesses are wise investments. This government wants to let the people get out of that unemployment trap.
The third recommendation from the other place stops the government from developing innovative approaches to getting people back into the workforce. It also offers new appeal rights to claimants which make the system
March 13, 1990

far more complicated. These are examples of how the Liberals in the Senate are willing to play games with the unemployed.
When this government introduced the Labour Force Development Strategy, it did it to help both the unemployed and Canadian businesses by creating a better match between skilled workers, skilled employers and the skills that workers have.
Sometimes the things which will produce the best results do not fit all the demands of the UI Act. For example, if a person is starting a business, they are not eligible for UI. Bill C-21 gives this flexibility to make UI more responsive to today's needs by experimenting with new and better ways of helping the unemployed. That is what this bill is all about, being responsive to today's needs.
While much of what the Senate wants to do in its fourth recommendation on the government's annual development plan for UI can be supported, one aspect certainly cannot. The Senate wants the power to approve or reject that plan. No one in this House can seriously accept the need for such a new power to that place.
Their fifth amendment cuts back one of the basic principles behind this bill. It cuts back by relaxing penalties for people who quit their jobs without just cause, or who are fired for misconduct. In response to sincere concerns about the definition of just cause for quitting a job, this House approved the Minister of Employment and Immigration's amendments to C-21, to ensure that people would not be penalized unfairly.
Now the Liberal senators want to change our decision to strengthen the penalties for people who quit. The Liberal senators in the other House want to to send a signal to people that it is all right to quit their job because UI pays. We must reject this type of thinking. Enough is enough.
Recommendation No. 7 from the Senate would do one thing, but it would have a major impact on this country's deficit. Members will know the one message that has come clear from coast to coast, is: "Government cut your deficit and cut your debt".
Government Orders
Recommendation No. 7 would force the government to pay a large share of the cost of the unemployment insurance program with money that we simply do not have. No one can seriously suggest that the government should spend money on a program just because they used to do it. Yet the Liberals in the Senate are willing to see all the government's deficit raised by more than $1.5 billion a year for the range of amendments in their message to this House. Well I say, no way.
This government is willing to amend the UI Act to better protect fishermen, a group whose benefits have not been touched by this bill. It cannot be willing to go along with a scheme to play political games with the government's ability to make regulations.
The bill which this House passed was a sincere attempt to balance many different interests in order to improve UI in a realistic way. The amendment which the government is offering here tonight, in response to the message from the other place, is part of that improvement. However, we must reject amendments that increase the deficit. We must reject amendments that remove innovation from the program, and we must reject amendments that delay needed changes.
Let us talk now about improving training and improving unemployment insurance protection. The Liberals in the Senate have spent months claiming that C-21 will lead to destruction of the unemployment insurance program.
This is absolute nonsense and it is not true. Bill C-21 is designed to encourage more and better training of working people by the private sector. Bill C-21 is designed to use UI funds to create new opportunities for jobs and make UI a more active program. This is a major improvement over confining UI to passive reactive measures. But UI is still a program which is responsive to the different employment needs of different communities across this country.
The government has ensured that UI is responsive to regional needs. In areas where unemployment is high, the vast majority of claimants will not see any change in their benefits. We recognize that many of the jobs in areas such as Cape Breton and western Newfoundland are seasonal. For these people and for their communities UI is an important form of income support. For that reason people in these particular areas and in others

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
with higher levels of unemployment will still need only 10 weeks of work to qualify for benefits.
The government has also recognized the special situation of self-employed fishermen. While Liberals suggest that the government is ready to abandon these people the reality is very different.
Another important change the minister has made will make UI fairer by extending UI protection to workers who are 65 years of age and older. Many of these people want to keep working and deserve the same rights as younger workers. That is exactly what this bill is going to do.
But C-21 does more than change some of the UI rules. It will implement labour force development strategy. Labour force development strategy is an important initiative of this government and will make a real improvement in Canada's ability to compete in the world economy.
An active UI program is one which does more than mail out the cheques to people who have lost their jobs. An active UI program provides chances for people to gain new skills. It provides chances for people to explore new opportunities which will help them get and keep better jobs.
The government will work with the private sector to improve the amount and quality of training which employers provide. We want to bring the level of training up to that of our major trading partners.
The government will devote more funds to human resource planning, skills needed by new workers such as improved apprentice training, and the Industrial Adjustment Service and Community Futures. With this money, the government can work with employers, workers, communities and help them better meet the challenges of a changing workplace and a more competitive world economy.
The Labour Force Development Strategy will increase the money available to train people collecting UI so that they can get skills needed for better and more permanent jobs. The strategy will also allow Canada to experiment with new and innovative approaches to meet the needs of the working people. By providing funds to UI claimants to become entrepreneurs or to move to places
where more jobs are available, Bill C-21 will assist individuals and communities all across the country.
It is not always possible and nor is it simple to take the jobs to the people. People need to have the ability to go to where the jobs are. Unlike the Liberal senators, this government is committed to ensuring that Canadians have all the skills they need to be active players in a changing economy. Bill C-21 will make UI a more effective tool in meeting those needs.
People have always been told that the Senate was a place for sober second thought. Recently it has become a place for political games by people who can use their appointed status to frustrate legislation passed by a democratically elected House.
The senators said that they would set up a special committee to let people speak who had not testified before a legislative committee. Why was it that 54 of the witnesses represented affiliated groups and individuals who had already testified before the legislative committee? Why did the special committee in that other House decide to hear from the same list of groups who had opposed virtually everything that this government had opposed? Why did the special committee in the Senate ignore respected experts in the field of unemployment? I guess it is because they wanted to present one side of the story. They did not want an unbiased opinion. They wanted to spread scare stories because they are not really interested in a serious review of the real, positive impact of this particular bill.
The special Senate committee was also determined to delay this process as long as possible. This House passed Bill C-21 last November 6. The special committee of the Senate did not meet for three weeks after that. It did not present its report to the Senate until February 14. That is uncalled for.
Our Bill C-21 recognizes the needs of areas with higher unemployment rates by creating a table which makes the system simpler and fairer for claimants. But instead of passing Bill C-21, and our permanent variable entrance requirements, the Liberals in the Senate decided to delay the bill. The delay of this bill in that other House means that many people who would be eligible today cannot qualify. Canadians know that Liberal senators are the ones to blame for this. It is too bad because
March 13, 1990

those people who do need the support, who do need the training, who do need the assistance and maybe the portability to go elsewhere and get jobs have been held back, absolutely held back.
It has been a pleasure to speak in the House because the UI bill has needed to be reviewed and it has needed to be amended for quite some time. What we are doing is giving flexibility, recognizing the needs of high unemployment regions. We are recognizing the concerns of our fishermen in the Atlantic provinces especially, who are going through some very difficult times, and this government will support them, absolutely.
The one thing that this bill recognizes is the changing needs and that this country has to compete with international global trade. If we are going to have the people in place who can meet our trading partners head on we have got to train them. We have to give them the skills and the tools that allow them to go out there and compete because I will tell you that this country is only as economically healthy as the goods and services we produce and the goods and services that we sell.
In conclusion, we want to modernize the system to meet the current needs and, indeed, our future needs. We want to make a more flexible system. We want to remove disincentives from the system. We want the UI system to function both as a bridge back to employment and an important income support system. We want to address the urgent national need to develop our human resources, including the young, the middle-aged and the elderly, to meet the needs and the challenges in the decade that lies ahead of us. These amendments simply do not address these specific issues.
I want to add my support for the motion that was put forth by the hon. government House leader yesterday and I urge my fellow members to do the same thing.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I sat here on Monday and listened to a speech from the new government House leader. He ranted and raved about the inequities of the Senate and he almost got apoplectic as he ranted about the subject. It was unbelievable. It was one of those performances one expects to see on the stage where one of the actors got carried away, but he got carried away with his own rhetoric.
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, it is hard for me to concentrate with all this yelling across the way. Anyway, what he did do, with all the ranting and raving, was to display what I can only describe as a profound ignorance of constitutional law and practice.
I think it is time that he listened to some of the reasoned arguments that we, on this side of the House, have put forward in respect of this particular series of amendments. In my view, the government House leader should have studied a little bit before he came into the House and started speaking about constitutional practice.
We know, however, that he is new, and we can forget and forgive. But I want to point out for my hon. friend across the way that this party got a new House leader about a month ago and a month later the former government House leader got transferred. He was turned into mincemeat by our House leader and I can only warn the new House leader for the government that he soon may be mincemeat as well. After listening to the arguments he advanced yesterday it is clear that he has a lot of learning to do.
I would like to turn to what he said. I could quote extensively from him but I would not want to bore any hon. members. I know it was one of the most tedious speeches we have listened to for a long time except that the government House leader went into orbit. What he said was some stuff and nonsense here on page 9093 of Hansard for yesterday. He said:
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.
Those are the words from the government House leader. What an incredible speech, Mr. Speaker.
Let me read from R. MacGregor Dawson and W. F. Dawson's book, Democratic Government of Canada, Fifth Edition, revised by Norman Ward. This is the 1989 edition, by the way, so the government House leader will know that there are political scientists still writing about the Upper House, the other place in this Parliament. I would suggest he get them out and read them. He is the government House leader, he is supposed to know something about this. Anyway, it says at page 63:
Whether or not the Senate has the constitutional power to amend a money bill has long been a matter of unsettled dispute between the two Houses.

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
If the hon. member had been paying attention, I said it was MacGregor Dawson.
The House of Commons, relying on the British parallel of the House of Lords, has always insisted that the Senate possessed no such power. The Senate, on the other hand, has never accepted this in theory, and in practice has repeatedly made its point, even amending bills which have dealt exclusively with matters of finance.
This one does not, I point out.
In these cases the House has often accepted the amendments, but has added the futile proviso that they were not to be considered as constituting a precedent.
In summary, it may be said that the Senate, although severely handicapped, has been able to do some genuinely useful work. It revises and checks legislation sent up from the Commons-
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but there is a second book. I would like to read from Professor C.E.S. Franks' book-these are my own copies I should inform the minister-entitled The Parliament of Canada, published by the University of Toronto Press in 1987, another recent work by a political scientist of repute. I quote from page 193 of this work which reads:
The activities of the Senate in its investigative studies and in its revision of legislation are a useful complement to the work of the House of Commons. In both of these spheres of activity the experience and competence of the senators and the freedom they enjoy from the partisan and other pressures of the Commons add a valuable dimension to their work. The Senate has been criticized for being a lobby within government for big business but it would be more accurate to describe it as a defender of the rights of property, a function which it was intended to perform by the Fathers of Confederation.
I could go on again to read further from this learned work, but if the government House leader would like to borrow my copy he would be welcome to have it at any time.
I would like to go on to the rules of the House because that is really where the minister had difficulty. Page 45 of the new Standing Orders deals with this Business of Supply. Standing Order 79(1) provides:
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.
From a simple reading of this rule, I suggest that if the bill in question proposes an increase in the charge on the public revenue, the royal recommendation is required.
All through the day we have listened to speeches from hon. members opposite saying how this bill saves money, it helps the government reduce its deficit; in other words, it reduces the charges on the public purse, on the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada. If it reduces the charges then it does not need a royal recommendation, and yet it had one. Who put it on? I suggest that probably the government House leader had something to do with it and, if he did, I suggest he was wrong and he had better go and check the precedents again.
Second, he relied on Section 53 of the Constitution Act which reads:
Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Thx or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.
It does not say they cannot be amended in the Senate. It says they "shall originate in the House of Commons". Bill C-21 originated in this House; it has been to the Senate; and now it is back. It does not say anything in there about the Senate's power to amend a money bill.
The only place where the minister was able to point out something about the Senate's power to amend money bills was in Standing Order 80 of the House of Commons. He read it and he read it as though it were the Constitution. If you turn to page 9096 of Hansard you will see that the minister was clearly getting very, very confused. I think it is safe to say this minister is so far in over his head he is completely lost. After quoting Standing Order 80 he had the gall to say this:
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.
Imagine a government House leader making a statement like that. It is unbelievable. As I say, his whole speech was unbelievable. Standing Order 80(1) reads:
All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons-
We agree with that statement. This bill is not "aids and supplies". This bill is slash; cut, cut, cut. This is taking money out of the pockets of the poor in Canada, of the unemployed in Canada, of the people who deserve better from this government. This bill is a contempt of the people of Canada, not just of this House. In
March 13, 1990

condemning the Senate for trying to help these people, the government House leader is showing Tory arrogance on an impressive scale.
Nevertheless, I want to turn to the rules relating to this issue because there has been a clear misunderstanding of them. I have here May's twenty-first edition and I would like to read some citations from it.
If the government House leader had been so concerned that these amendments from the Senate were out of order, why would he propose a message sending them back? If they were contrary to Standing Order 80(1), why did he not get up on his feet and instead argue that they were out of order and ask Your Honour to so rule?
I will tell you why he did not. He knew they were in order, yet he tried to pretend in his speech that they were out of order without actually saying so. He went through all this stuff and nonsense, saying that the Standing Order did not properly apply, that somehow it was tied in with the Constitution. He read every section he could find.
He got completely confused and obviously he completely befuddled every other member of the government who spoke on this subject because they have all agreed with the nonsense he spouted out yesterday, saying that the Senate was somehow acting improperly. The Senate has acted within its constitutional rights.
I suggest that any member of this House could have moved any of the amendments that have come down to this House from the Senate. We could have moved them at any stage on this bill, and they would have been in order. The government House leader knows that full well.
In support of that I would like to cite May's twenty-first edition. At page 713 Erskine May describes how it is that Parliament gets control of the public expenditure. It is sanctioned in two ways. I quote:
(1) It is initiated by a money resolution imposing a charge payable "out of moneys to be provided by Parliament" which receives confirmation by specific enactment;
Government Orders
(2) It is subsequently presented to the House of Commons in the form of an estimate which receives final sanction in the Appropriation Act.
It is our submission that the normal practice with Estimates is that they be presented with a message from His Excellency which recommend those Estimates to the House. Based on those Estimates, we grant aids and supplies to Her Majesty.
This bill, the Unemployment Insurance Act, constitutes a charge on the public revenue of Canada, a statutory charge. It is not granted. The moneys for payment are not granted as aids and supplies as defined in Standing Order 80(1) of this House. It is completely in accordance with British constitutional practice.
The Minister of Justice should be listening. She may need this lesson some day, in case within another two weeks she becomes government House leader because the previous one is going to be mincemeat when our House Leader get through with him.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I ask for some order. I cannot hear myself think.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like to hear the hon. member speak. It is getting awfully close to the end of the day. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has the floor.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I will continue reading from May's twenty-first edition. It continues:
Instances of charges imposed upon moneys to be provided by Parliament occur in abundance every session. The following examples may be given-Any proposal whereby the Crown would incur a liability or a contingent liability payable out of money to be voted by Parliament-Another type of expenditure, initiated by money resolutions, examples of which occur in the legislation of every session, is the imposition of charges to be paid directly out of the Consolidated Fund.
I could read plenty more on this. There is one other paragraph I think is very important and most instructive for this bill. On page 716, we see the following:
No special form of procedure applies to proposals to reduce existing charges, and they may be moved in the House or in Committee without the royal recommendation.
Now that is a message that had clearly not sunk in for the government House leader. To continue:

championed the unemployed. It has always done everything for the unemployed.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The New Democratic Party has never lifted a finger for the unemployed. It sits here and bleats and yells every day and makes it sound as though it is their sole champion when it is the Liberal Party which, for over 100 years in Canada, has provided relief for people in need. The Conservative Party has never introduced one major social policy of any value. When it gets into office all it does is cut, cut, cut; slash, slash, slash. Social programs are destroyed in Canada by this government. We are here to defend the sensible policies introduced by previous Liberal governments.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to say it is a pleasure to rise to speak on this bill, but frankly it seems, as I reflect over the last several months, that not only I but many other members in this House time and time again have risen to speak on it.
I must say I envy the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands who has just spoken, not so much because of the profoundness or the wisdom of what he had to say, but because of the fact that he had a voice with which to say it. Nevertheless, I shall do my best to make a few observations which I trust will be helpful to this House in trying to make a decision on how best to vote on this very important measure once again before us tonight.
I look back over the history of this bill and I am simply amazed at the litany of times it has come before this House for discussion. Are we to discuss this bill interminably and never get on with any other business of the nation? I do not know what my hon. friends opposite are up to or what their aspirations are, but indeed I do have some thoughts which I will share, if my voice holds out tonight, as to what our friends down the hall are up to.
This bill has been before this House since June 1, and I hope that this is the last time that it is here for our consideration. I must ask: Who are these people down the hall who send this bill back to us so many times? Who are these people who have given themselves a mandate to disrupt the business of this country, who have given
Government Orders
themselves a mandate to ignore and have fun with democracy?
We are told in the history books that when this country was created and the British North America Act was brought in 1867, the Senate was to be a place for sober second thought. I understood that the intention was that they would seek out some outstanding citizens, perhaps some elder statesmen, that these people would sit in the Senate, and that they would review the decisions and the legislation brought forward by the elected representatives of the people. This was some 125 years ago, before we had the same commitment to democracy that we have in this country today. The idea was that what would come from the other place would be wisdom, and not simply the Machiavellian actions of a bunch of hacks.
I regret to say that what we are getting is not contribution to legislation but disruption. I regret to say that they are trying to break the legislative process, and not build and contribute to it. What is happening in the other place is a travesty of democracy. I regret to say that I am one of those few who believes that the Senate could have a very useful role to play in contributing to the democratic process. I believe it should be, as my hon. friend from Calgary has just said, a place of important contributions. Unfortunately, I think they could well lead to the demise, the destruction, and ultimately the abandonment of that other place.
When the senators set up their special committee they said they wanted to hear the people who had not been heard on this issue. We heard from members opposite today about how the legislative committee heard witnesses in a hasty manner across the country.
I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I was one of the members of that legislative committee. We heard many, many witnesses. It is interesting to note that 54 of the witnesses that we heard also appeared before the Senate committee. "Had they not been heard the first time", I ask hon. members opposite who were there, some of whom are in this chamber tonight. Of course they were heard. Why did that committee from the other place choose to hear from the same people from whom we had already heard?
I submit-and it is with great regret that I have to pass along this observation-that there were Machiavellian tactics being thought up in the other place. I suggest that the objective in the other place was not to participate, to contribute and to hear what Canadians have said. Canadians in my part of the country are telling me that they want to see an overhaul and a reform of the unemploy-

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
ment insurance system. They want to see an end to the cheating and a discouragement of the cheating. They want to see incentives for people to seek out and take advantage of employment opportunities. They want to see an unemployment insurance system that is active rather than passive in the way it helps people find themselves useful and fair employment in society.
I regret to say that the exercise we are engaged in here tonight is not one that is necessarily useful and helpful but is a redundant exercise forced upon this place by the people in the other place in a highly improper and irresponsible manner. It is interesting to note that we have had other precedents where the other place has dealt with legislation on the unemployment insurance system. It is interesting just for the record to review the track record of the other place with respect to legislation.
I am reminded, for example, that in 1977 there was Bill C-27. The minister of the day was the hon. Bud Cullen. The government was of a political stripe somewhat different from that of the incumbent government in this country today. It is interesting to review the provisions of that legislative back in 1977.
We had, for example, a change from a flat entrance requirement to a variable entrance requirement. We had a reduction in benefit duration for some claimants, a reduction perpetrated by the people on the other side. We had authorization of developmental uses for unemployment insurance funds. What an interesting concept. They should read Bill C-21. They would find the same idea there, including the idea and the use of funds as income maintenance for claimants on approved training courses. What an interesting idea.
The entrance requirement was hotly disputed at a House of Commons committee. Time allocation was used. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker, time allocation used by the Liberal government of the day to effect speedy passage of the bill through the House at that time.
On it went to the Senate, this contentious piece of legislation presenting a lot of the same principles that are quoted in Bill C-21. I know you can guess what happened in the Senate, Mr. Speaker. I know that you expect that the Senate set up a special committee and
toured Canada. It went to little towns like Canso, Nova Scotia to hear what the people thought.
Let me tell you what the record is, Mr. Speaker. It just so happens that the Senate received Bill C-27 on August 2, 1977 and reported the bill without amendment the following day, on August 3, 1977. Is that not a remarkable record to observe?
The following year we had Bill C-14 brought before the House of Commons, again by the hon. Bud Cullen as minister. This was a time when Prime Minister Trudeau wanted restraint measures brought in. What did the bill contain at that time? It is interesting to review the record. It contained higher entrance requirements for repeaters. Say it isn't not so. It contained higher entrance requirements for new entrants. Surely not in a bill introduced by a government of members opposite. It contained a reduction of benefit rate from two-thirds to 60 per cent. Surely they were not suggesting that the unemployed people on benefits should be drawing less money than they were before.
You are not going to believe this one. It contained recovery through the income tax system of a portion of UI benefits of high income claimants. Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker? This was in a bill introduced by a government of the people who now sit on the other side of this chamber.
At committee stage the government estimated that Bill C-14 would result in savings of $885 million in UI benefit payments. Is that not that a remarkable achievement? Now what happened to that bill? They did not wait until it left this place. It was pre-studied for three weeks by the Senate at that time, but rushed through the Senate, all stages with no amendment, on the same day as it received passage in the House, December 22, 1978. By the way, Royal Assent was achieved on that very same day.
What does one conclude, Mr. Speaker, about this history of behaviour with unemployment insurance legislation by those people in that other place? One can conclude but one thing, and that is that legislation in the other place is treated one way if it comes from a Liberal government and another way if it comes from a government headed by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. It is an appalling and shocking form of beha-
March 13, 1990

viour. This question can be put: Does this government listen to the people? Does it listen to sound advice?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Peter L. McCreath: I hear my colleagues saying "yes", and they are absolutely, unequivocally correct about this.
This government has listened. It has reviewed with great care all of the recommendations from the other place. I am pleased to say that some good recommendations came from the other place. Because this government listens, some of those recommendations have been incorporated and are accepted in the motion that we put forward tonight. For example, we recognize the impact which illiteracy has on Canadian workers and on employers. The lack of basic skills is an impediment to further training for that reason. Recommendation 1 is worth including in this bill.
One could go on and speak about other changes that are there. For example, one that is of particular interest to me is the one that affects fishermen. In the eighth recommendation the Senate has also asked this House to consider removing a subsection in the UI act which has been in place for almost 20 years. That subsection would allow the Governor in Council to remove benefits for self-employed fishermen from the UI act at any time. With the concerns shared by all Canadians in the fishery, I think it is very appropriate that this recommendation should be accepted because there is no question that fishermen are in a very unique position with respect to unemployment insurance.
As a member who represents some 8,000 people employed in the fishing industry, I have some familiarity with the impact of unemployment insurance on fishermen. I find that people quite often ask me: "How come fishermen are treated differently from everybody else?"
The answer is quite simple and it cannot be repeated often enough. How come farmers and people in the forest industry are not in the same situation? It is for a very simple reason. It is because fishermen are self-employed. They are the only self-employed people included in the unemployment insurance scheme. The reason they are included is that unlike every other industry theirs is regulated directly by the government, and
Government Orders
therefore fishermen are told that they cannot go and fish from time to time. That is why they have the special provision. It is properly there. It should continue to be there, and I am delighted to see that among many things this government has maintained that provision.
I could go on and speak on more of the recommendations, most of which quite frankly are nonsense and most of which quite frankly are clearly and unequivocally intended to do nothing but disrupt the business of the country, nothing but try to destroy the piece of legislation that has been brought before us. It would simply tie up the government and the country and continue to do what those people over there are doing right now, that is, deny the benefits of Bill C-21 to the people of this country.
I think this is an outrageous thing, coming from an area as I do where we are suffering fish plant closures, that plants are closing down and people are being put out of employment. What is the Senate of Canada doing for them? It is forcing them to have to meet 20 weeks in order to qualify for unemployment insurance. That is the concern that those people over there have for the people of Atlantic Canada and the people of the fishing communities. I for one think that it is absolutely and utterly outrageous.
What is their approach to unemployment insurance? What is it they are looking to have done? They seem to think that the only thing unemployment insurance should do is put people on a payout and leave them there until such time as their job comes back again. What happens if you are in an industry where your job is not going to come back again? What happens if you are in a fishing community and there is not enough fish and the plant has to close? The job is never going to come back. Do you just subsidize people forever? No. You have an active program that is going to help them find another approach. The whole thrust of this legislation is to shift from a passive to an active approach in unemployment insurance.
There are many points I have been wanting to make, but I will make only one last point and then I will conclude my remarks. There have been suggestions that this government does not have a mandate to do what is

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
being done in Bill C-21. Nothing could be further from the truth or greater nonsense. Check the record.
Do we have a mandate? They say it was not a part of our 1988 platform. If they check the record they will see that the Prime Minister of this country promised the best adjustment programs in the world. I would like to say that with Bill C-21, together with other measures from the Labour Force Development Strategy, the Prime Minister and the government of Canada have in fact delivered on that program as best they can.
They have allowed us to move our UI system from passive to active, which is something that Canadians support. Interestingly enough, it is something Mr. Timer, the former leader of the opposition, supported when he was running for office in 1984. We have forgotten that and he forgot that. Do we have a mandate? Did Mr. Trudeau have a mandate for wage and price controls in 1974? I do not recall that he did. I remember him saying: "Zap, you are frozen" to Mr. Stanfield and I remember in 1985 that he imposed wage and price controls.
This government has a mandate. It came on November 21, 1988. That is the mandate that counts. That is the mandate that will be renewed in 1993.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a lot of pain to have to address this subject tonight and the rehashing of the worst attempt at setting back the working people and the unemployed in Canada that we have witnessed in Canadian history for a long, long time.
Yesterday, we had a delegation that met both with the NDP caucus and also with the Liberal caucus, representing not only the Canadian Labour Congress but a number of other organizations, most of them unaffiliated with that Congress. The delegation included Shirley Carr, president of the CLC; Louis Laberge, president of the Quebec Federation of Labour; Jim McCambley, president of the Canadian Federation of Labour; Gerald Larose, president of the Confederation of National Trade Unions; Kitty O'Callaghan, president of the Canadian Teachers Federation; Lorraine Page, president of the Quebec Teaching Congress; Kathleen Connors, president of the National Federation of Nurses' Unions;
and Louis Lacroix, president of the Canadian Conference of Teamsters. This delegation represented in all close to 4 million dues-paying working Canadians.
Their message was very clear to both ourselves and the other opposition party, but that government that pretends to represent the majority of Canadians or the plurality of Canadians, did not even have the decency to agree to meet with the representatives of 4 million working Canadians. That is absolutely shameful, particularly when the subject at hand has to do with one of the most important parts of the Canadian social safety net that this government seems intent on putting the axe to.
Because the government did not see fit to meet and to listen, for the record I want to read part of the statement of those representatives, not all of whom have any strong connection with the New Democratic Party by the way. There are a number of organizations here representing a pretty broad cross-section of working people.
The leaders of this labour coalition opposed to Bill C-21 were meeting with the Liberal and NDP parliamentary caucuses to reiterate their opposition to this legislation. The coalition made every effort to meet with the employment minister and the Conservative caucus but their request was denied. They stated:
Unemployment insurance is fundamental to the economic and
social security of all workers; unionized and non-unionized, fulltime and part-time, private sector and public sector.
In saying this, they were playing the traditional role of working people under the labour movement in Canada, of organized workers, in speaking not only for themselves but for unorganized workers from one end of Canada to the other, because who else has ever spoken for them?
We had challenges from the other side of the House today saying: "You are only speaking for the labour bosses, you are only speaking for those unions that are in the NDP's pocket", or vice versa as they like to put it. That is simply not true, because if you look back through the social and economic history of Canada, virtually no one outside of the democratic organized working trade union movement of Canada has spoken up for unorganized workers in every part of this nation.
They went on to state:
March 13, 1990

Bill C-21 destroys many of the principles upon which the unemployment insurance system has been built.
That is true.
Its most basic purpose-insuring workers against the loss of earnings-is seriously undermined. And the tripartite financing of UI by employers, workers and government developed over the past fifty years is destroyed by this Bill.
I suggest that the government knows that, despite all its prattling, because this bill is just the latest in a long series of economic measures that this government has taken, as did in many ways the Trudeau government before it, to try to push Canadian workers further to the back of the bus. It started with the wage and price controls in October, 1976. Real incomes of Canadian workers have dropped ever since then. There has been a continuous attack ever since that time by successive federal governments to put workers back in what those people over there and sometimes these people to our right seem to think is "their place".
Canadian workers have a right to expect something better of their governments whether or not they vote for them, because any government in a democratic society is supposedly elected to serve the interests of all of the people. To ignore the legitimate needs, aspirations and demands of some 4 million people, to give proper accordance to the security of their members and the people they are elected to represent, is fundamentally wrong in a democratic society.
The delegation went on to state:
In addition to the $1.3 billion of cuts in benefits to unemployed workers, Bill C-21 will shift $5 billion of government financial responsibilities to worker and employer UI premium payers.
In doing that, the government paid no attention whatsoever to ability to pay, neither of working people nor of the business community. Not much has been said about that part of it, but a number of employers have objected to this bill for precisely that reason, especially employers in the small business community.
The entire cost of what is a social program and a social insurance program is now being shifted out of general revenue, that portion of it that used to be properly charged to general revenue of the nation, and being put solely on employer and employee premiums. Those premiums do not make any distinction as to whether an employer is running a profitable enterprise, an unprofitable enterprise, or a marginal enterprise. It is just one other shift away from progressive taxation, whether in
Government Orders
the corporate sector or in the area of individual income tax.
The $5 billion of government financial responsibilities have been shifted to worker and employer UI premium payers. What constitutes that $5 billion? An amount of $2.5 billion of government contributions for UI extended benefits resulting from high regional unemployment will be withdrawn. This is an end to regional equity. How much of this entire attack on the unemployment insurance system and in a sense privatizing it by putting it solely into the contributions of employers and employees is a result of the whole strategy behind the free trade agreement? The exact promises that the Prime Minister made in the last federal election that free trade would not mean a destruction of the Canadian social safety net is obviously false. This is the first major attack in line with that philosophy and commitment obviously made at the time of the free trade agreement that we have seen.
Included also in this $5 billion is about $300 million of government subsidies for UI fishery benefits which will be transferred to premium payers. Fifteen per cent of UI premiums, about $2 billion a year, will be used to finance the purchase of training courses, resettlement, business start-ups, wage subsidies and other labour adjustment programs now financed from general government revenues.
What does some of that financing have to do with income maintenance or unemployment insurance? Training people is fine. It is laudable. We need better and expanded training programs in a wide variety of areas in Canada. But it is a totally improper charge on employers and employees to pay for education. That is something that ought to come out of general revenue, whether through the provinces or through the federal government. There is no excuse. There is no legitimate argument that can be made to have that financed totally out of employer and employee premiums. It simply does not belong there. It is bad social cost accounting.
The delegation went on to state:
Bill C-21 will negatively affect a million unemployed workers. Tens of thousands who would have previously qualified will not even qualify for benefits because of the higher entrance requirement. And hundreds of thousands will exhaust their benefits months before they find a job because of reduced duration.
The proposal to significantly reduce benefit levels and restrict the opportunity to qualify for UI will hit hardest lower income groups, people with short term or part-time employment and disadvantaged regions. It does not provide flexibility for individuals and specific

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
occupation groups to qualify where employment opportunities are periodically weak for cyclical, sectoral, seasonal or regional reasons.
To those of us who come from resource areas of this country like the east and west Kootenays in the province of British Columbia, we particularly understand, and the people we represent especially understand, just how this bill particularly hits and hurts them and hurts the communities in which they live.
The delegation further stated:
The primary purpose of unemployment insurance has been and must continue to be the insurance of workers' earnings while unemployed or on training. The use of UI premiums to finance non-income support programs is a back-door tax on workers to finance programs which should be financed from general government revenues. Several employer organizations have publicly expressed their opposition to this misuse of UI premiums.
That simply reinforces the comments I made earlier and it is correct.
The withdrawal of government funding will also place the pooled-risk unemployment insurance fund in a cumulative deficit position.
We find it totally unacceptable that labour adjustment programs should be financed by cuts in benefits and benefit entitlements to unemployed workers who have paid premiums for insurance against the interruption of earnings.
With this Bill, the government has significantly weakened the principal labour adjustment program in Canada. As the major stakeholder we ask the government to withdraw this Bill. This Bill in no way represents the promises the government made in the last election with respect to unemployment insurance or labour adjustment programs.
That was not a long message that that delegation had to bring to Parliament yesterday and attempted to bring to the government yesterday and to the Conservative caucus. Surely, it is not asking too much that that caucus over there and the government that it supports should have taken the time to listen. Sure the members can say: "We have heard this song before". But it is like the Bourbons in post-revolutionary France. They forgot nothing and they learned nothing. If they have to listen to the same message over and over again in order to
learn something, perhaps that is what they should have done. It is not too late.
We have heard a number of contributions to this debate that seem to suggest that when the Liberal party was in power with Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Pearson and Mr. King before that, and God knows how far back it goes, everything was hunky-dory for Canadian workers. We know, and anybody who knows anything about Canadian history, realizes that that was not the case either. Politics is about bargaining power.
It is interesting to note even though this party and its predecessor, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, have never held federal power, it has only been in those times when either we or our predecessor have been high in the polls or have come close to winning a major province such as Ontario, or held the balance of power in this federal Parliament, that we have had any significant progress in any major field of social legislation in the history of Canada. That goes back, Mr. Speaker as you well know, to 1926 when Mr. Woodsworth and Mr. Heaps with only two members held the balance of power. At that time they had a promise from Mackenzie King, the gentleman who said, "Do nothing by halves that can be done by quarters", and God did he ever prove it.
Somebody over there suggests that that is what it is all about. Yes, that is what politics is about to people who do not directly represent ordinary working people across this country, or if they do represent them, do not understand them and do not understand the kinds of problems they have.
There were two commitments made in an exchange of correspondence between Mr. King and Mr. Woodsworth at that time. One was that the government would immediately move to bring in a system of old age pensions. That promise was acted upon rather quickly. We then had to wait from 1926 until the end of World War II, some 20 years until, coincidentally, the CCF was leading the polls nationally across Canada and came within four seats of winning the Government of Ontario, when the Liberal Government finally decided they had better listen to the voice of some political bargaining power and finally act on a promise made in 1926 to bring in unemployment insurance.
There is nothing wrong in responding to the voice of the people as expressed in elections, as expressed in polls

or however they want to express them. There is nothing wrong with that. But when you have governments that only seem to respond to threat and never attempt to lead public opinion because they want to do something that is right for ordinary working people, then there is something wrong with the democratic process. There is a time that politicians ought to lead, not just follow and not just buckle to pressure, even when that pressure is good pressure.
We then had another dearth after the immediate post-war era. There was bit of a lull, except that there were things happening in the provinces across Canada, particularly in the province of Saskatchewan, when despite fierce opposition, hysterical opposition from both Liberals and Conservatives, hospital insurance was established in 1947-1948. We were Bolsheviks, we were Commies, we were pinkos and we were Nazis. Anything that could have been a bad term was hurled at us by both Liberals and Tories right across the country, because we wanted to bring in hospital insurance, old age pensions, and these other things.
Now we have a Conservative government and the Prime Minister has stated: "If we get a second term, you will never recognize this country". Well, they got then-second term. If they continue to get through measures like the one that is now before us and other ones that we have seen in the last four or five years, particularly in the last year and a half, this country will be unrecognizable, but it will not be the better for it.
After that period, we then moved on into the period of Mr. Diefenbaker. He did some worthwhile things. Much more than a Conservative, Mr. Diefenbaker was a western populist. All you have to do is look at the record and see how much time the best known Conservatives across the country spent in trying to shove a knife into his back. But he did listen and he did manage to implement and put in place nationally what the province of Saskatchewan had pioneered earlier.
We then had the minority Pearson years. We had medicare then again established, which was pioneered by Tommy Douglas and the NDP in the province of Saskatchewan, despite Liberal attempts to kick down the door of the legislatures, and fierce opposition from the Conservatives. Everybody got into the name-calling phase again.
Government Orders
Now we have a Conservative government in its second term that seems determined to try to move working people once again to the back of the bus, and entrench in a free trade agreement and in other ways, a right-wing reactionary agenda, which if it is successful, will put this country on the back roads for a long, long time. We do not intend to support that kind of action and we will do everything we can to stop it.


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address Bill C-21 again, and I hope for the last time. First, to give you some advance notice, I want to speak rather briefly on this so as to allow my hon. colleague from Wetaskiwin some time before the vote this evening, I will not be taking the full 20 minutes and I hope those who are following me will extend the same courtesy to my colleague.
The delay in the Senate, which I am sure you have heard referred to many times before as being an unelected and unaccountable body, has resulted in this matter being placed before us in a most unacceptable fashion. At the risk of breaking the heart of someone who might be listening, I might tell you that I have had many mothers-to-be calling me and asking: "When is this bill going to be passed? I am currently employed outside of the home. I am looking for some help that this bill will give me. I know it is a positive thing; it will provide me with an opportunity to raise my family for the length of time that is required as an appropriate period and one that will get our children off and running to a good start and one that will not require institutionalized care at an early stage when children require love, affection and have the desire to be held".
Therefore, there are many people out there who are non-politically aligned and who are looking at this bill with a great deal of anticipation. I encourage all members in this House to respect their wishes, to respect the wish to the natural mother and to respect the fact that this is a matter that is being placed in our hands and subsequently in the hands of the public in the form of a bill that requires only the understanding and good common sense of that other body and I hope that it does respond in a positive sense.

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
In taking the time to prepare a few comments about the subject before us, I could not help but observe that perhaps an understanding of what unemployment insurance is might be of some benefit to those who are debating the bill, some benefit to those who have questions with respect to some of the garbage that has been floating aloft in an attempt to grasp the inattentive with the thought that they might succumb to perhaps a distorted view of some in this House. I want to say that unemployment insurance is very simply a scheme, a plan, an endeavour whereby the employer and the employee get together, by way of an agreement, and insure the fact that once the employee's labour should no longer be made available to the employer, that the employee would be the recipient of some funds that would provide a lifestyle which is deemed by society to be generally acceptable, given the circumstances.
Beyond that, and this bill does provide, and the government has said many times, that should there ever be the necessity to have the government step in and fill in the void caused by an emergency situation which has caused the unemployment insurance pool to dry up, the government will be there. I think that that is the role of the government. The government is there to ensure that if you slip and fall, it is there to pick you up. But, I do not think it is a government's role to tie a leash around your neck and drag it behind you to suit its own political agenda. I cannot concur with that at all. Government should be there to encourage people to be self-motivated rather than having the government pour its own agenda into the mind of humanity and expect humanity to follow it.
The government's responsibilities indeed go as far as Bill C-21. In fact, they go much further than that. Many of my colleagues have made reference not only to the two or three amendments to which the other place has made reference that are deemed to be acceptable but it also goes beyond the simple up-front issues to the more gut-wrenching issues of trying to run a country with a social conscience on one hand, and with a budget on the other hand. There is a mentality which suggests that one can ignore what programs cost, just be up front, be first to commit yourself as a government body or as a political body in the pursuit of a social good, and damn the financial consequences.
Sooner or later you get to a point where future generations are faced with the consequences that I think are placed before us right now. There have been some political parties which have said that they were the first in developing a medicare plan. I understand that medicare has progressed rather rapidly to the point where the city of Regina, some very few short years ago possessed not one CAT-scan machine. We did find that our citizens had to go to Edmonton and to Saskatoon. Finally, the city of Regina obtained a CAT-scan machine. One CAT-scan machine was not good enough. We now have three CAT-scan machines. Three times as many CAT-scan machines as we need, but nevertheless because they are available now, in order to get a proper physical in the city of Regina, you must go and get a complete CAT-scan. If you do not like that doctor's opinion you simply go to another doctor and get another CAT-scan. I do not know how much these machines cost but I am told they are in the millions of dollars. Where is the logic attached to this? Who would dare run on the political platform that we have got too many CAT-scan machines. The simple truth of the matter is that in consultation with specialists in our city we have simply oversupplied in that particular medical commodity. I am not being a medical specialist. I do not know where that all ends.
Yes, socialism running rampant at election time is likely to get you some public support. But on the other hand, once in power how does one pay for all these things? How does one pay for all these so-called benefits that simply take a nod of the head and it is there- we can afford anything. We have this magical machine in the basement of this building that not only pumps out brand new dollar bills, but it pumps out more gold than you and I could ever spend.
The bill before us does address some specific issues that I would like to make reference to, if I have time. They do enter into the area of youth and as well social assistance recipients, just to pick out two of the items of the bill because the bill is rather lengthy and I know others have spoken to it. Given the series of facts, and there are some three or four pages of facts that deal with the plight of youth in our system and deal with the fact that we have a high school drop-out situation that is not tolerable, given the fact that youth are currently entering into the market-place and not properly trained and equipped for a lot of the jobs that the industrial sector

requires of them, it is our goal, through the funding that we hope to raise through this bill, to provide for some additional training.
The same thing holds true for social assistance recipients. I have to relate a fact to you, Mr. Speaker. When I was the Mayor of Regina-you may not believe this but this actually happened-we and the provincial government plotted in an attempt to exploit the funds available to us through the unemployment insurance program. We took some city money, some provincial money, took someone off the welfare roll and said we are going to make work for you so that you can work long enough so you can go on unemployment insurance and collect pogey and rip off the federal system. We are in this governmental system to make sure that those kinds of slippages, or those attempts to rip the system off in fact deplete themselves. We are responsible to the Canadian taxpayer and to the tax dollar to ensure that the benefits that Canadians have elected us to provide for them remain to be a goal that they can attain.
I would like to conclude at an early time to allow my friend from Wetaskiwin to have the floor. I know he has worked many long minutes in preparing a full 20 minute dissertation that I am sure you and the House of Commons would dearly like to listen to. I will conclude by thanking you for the opportunity that I have had to address Bill C-21.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to review this bill in the sense of its stand with the Canadian constitution. Our friends opposite and the government are calling this a finance bill. It is not. My hon. friend for Kingston and the Islands made that abundantly clear earlier this evening.
In 1937, the Rowell commission report outlined the of fairness of the division of financial responsibility between the federal government and the provinces. They did that because during the depression years of the thirties some provincial governments went broke because they were incapable of looking after the unemployed and those who required social payments.
When this report was brought in, an amendment to the BNA was necessary. It is very interesting to note that that amendment was brought in in the summer of 1940 and passed through this House of Commons. At that time, the amendment became 2(A) of the BNA of 1940.
Government Orders
It was added on to Section 91 of the BNA and Section 1 was amended by inserting thereafter Item 2 following the regulation of trade and commerce and 2(a) simply became unemployment insurance.
Let us look at what that really meant. In the distribution of those powers it meant the prevention and relief of unemployment. This is a section from the Rowell-Si-rois Commission report. They were two very distinguished judges, and there were others working on it. This was one of the most intensive studies ever undertaken by any royal commission that we have had in this country on financial divisions between the provinces and the federal government.
I want you to realize that this report encompassed the whole country in those days. The provinces were in terrible financial straits because they carried the burden of the unemployed. They carried the burden of those who needed assistance during those Depression years, without having the financial capability to pay for it.
In the introduction of the Rowell-Sirois Commission report, under the heading "Prevention and Relief of Unemployment as a Federal Responsibility" this is what those esteemed judges said: "The assumption of responsibility by the Dominion of Canada for relief or aid of unemployed employables would entail: (1) Complete financial responsibility."
I repeat for the members on the government side that in 1940 this meant complete financial responsibility by the federal government of this country. Under the second item they were to take over full control of its administration. For efficient administration, it would also be essential to do the following: that the Dominion define employability for purposes of administering unemployment aid.
I maintain that what this government is saying to the employers of this country and to the workers of this country is this: "We are no longer going to pay one red cent towards unemployment insurance programs in this country; you are going to pay your own. You small businessmen out there, you are going to have to pay more to keep up the unemployment insurance fund. You people who are working daily are employed and you are going to have to pay more to help out the others. This is a federal government of cheap skates. We are not going

Government Orders
to put up a single red cent towards the program". The government calls that efficient administration.
Here are some of the other recommendations: that the Dominion have full control of administration of employment aid; that a national employment service be established and administered by the Dominion without prejudice to the right of the province to continue or develop an employment service of its own; and that the Dominion be empowered to establish a system of compulsory unemployment insurance. Again, that refers to the federal government. I want to repeat that this was done in order to take some of the financial burden off the provinces which, obviously, could not afford it.
There is another thing that is very realistic in this whole deal. In the same Rowell-Sirois Commission report one of the recommendations and one of the understandings was that the provinces of this country would have the field of direct taxation to themselves. What is this federal government doing to the provinces today? It is entering into the direct taxation field. That is why you have double taxation.
The GST is going to become double taxation. The GST is a form of direct taxation. The government is robbing the provinces of this country of their basic constitutional right.
The Minister of Justice should listen to this because she is going to be reading it in the days ahead. In fact, she will be reading the history of how the government that she belongs to right now tore down the unemployment insurance system in this country and dumped the burden on to the provinces of this country. Even the Minister for Privatization before a legislative committee one day said to me that the provinces are getting off too light. He said that they should have some debt, too. Because you have good administration, because you are basing your government on the division of financial powers given to you by a royal commission in this country, you must see that this constitutional responsibility has been in the hands of the federal government for 50 years this coming July.
You are giving up that constitutional responsibility. You are backing away. You are not going to accept your responsibility. You did the same thing in the field of medicare. What did you do? You dumped on to the provinces post-secondary education. Then you had the
gall as the government to come forward and say that you are going to train people for another job. Is that not wonderful? You are going to train people for another job but you are taking money away from the provinces when it comes to post-secondary education, which simply proves that you are not all that committed to education at all. What reason do the workers of this country have to think that you are going to deal with them any better under this legislation?
Let us get from the provincial governments down to the municipalities and what effect this bill will have on them. You are going to have the welfare system in full tow at the provincial level because people are not going to get unemployment insurance for the periods that they need it. They are going to have that long waiting period for it. What if someone quits his job? Who is going to clarify why they quit and whether they were justified in doing it? Are you going to force them to work under cruel conditions, under mean conditions, and if they decide to quit their job you are going to take away their unemployment insurance? You are going to put those people on the doorsteps of every municipality across this country.
Here is something else that the royal commission report said 50 years ago. It should benefit this government today. "Nothing in the history of Canadian government has contributed more to the breakdown of public finance, or has been productive of greater waste in the economy than the attempt to hold local governments primarily responsible for unemployment as well as for relief". That was said just a little over 50 years ago.
This government belongs back in the early thirties. At the rate it is going it will put this country back into a recession. You are going to have this same situation all over again where provincial governments and municipalities are not going to be able to afford this.
If the municipalities are loaded with that financial burden, who is going to pay the tax bill? It is going to be the real estate people right in that municipality, the home dwellers, the small businesses, the factories, John Q. Public who buys a new home. They are going to be charged extra taxes. Your local taxes will go sky high to pay your welfare bills. That will be the inheritance of this government, and that will be the inheritance of you also.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: You can shout. You are always much better at speaking from the seat of your pants than you are from the soles of your feet-much better.
The province or the municipality is not a convenient authority for spreading the risks of unemployment over a term of years by insurance methods or otherwise. This is another quotation from the Rowell-Sirois Commission report: "It leads to debt of the provinces. It leads to debt of the municipality and the loss of financial independence, becoming in effect a ward of the Dominion". Who would ever want to become a ward of this government?
Their Honours went on to say: "So long as the responsibility for unemployment rests with the provinces, Canada will be unable to eliminate the unavoidable economic wastes and social consequences of mass unemployment".
This government thinks that it is going to get away with this. It is not. There is going to come a time when the chickens are going to come home to roost.
This government has the fantastic idea that it is going to train everybody, and it is going to put them back to work. That is great. We have training programs in this country right now that are working extremely well. It is not to the credit of this government that they are working.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I cannot hear the hon. member, and I would like to hear what he has to say. The hon. member for Renfrew-Ni-pissing-Pembroke.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I have known you for a number of years, and I never wanted to let on that these people were bothering me at all because I do not want this group across the way to leave this House at 1.30 this morning as uninformed as they were when they came into it this morning. They have to learn something, but they are not open to learning.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I knew that you would be very fair-minded and that you would come into play here and try to quiet this gang down because it is not very often I get them upset. They certainly are upset today.
Government Orders
The Minister for International Trade has done nothing about the softwood lumber problem in this country. There is a 15 per cent export tax in place. You are destroying one-industry towns in this country. Yet the government is going to train those people. What is it going to train them for? There is no other industry there. This is the price that people across this country paid for free trade. The government brought this in so it could get a deal, that is precisely what it did. As a result, it is creating unemployment in the lumber industry in this country.
The government is destroying one-industry towns. What it is actually saying to those people is: "We are going to train you". But the government cannot train them because there is no other job left there. What it is telling them is: "Leave your community. Leave your home that you have paid for. Move away. There is nothing there for you. Go into Toronto where you cannot afford to pay rent. Maybe you will get a place 80 miles outside Toronto". That is what is happening with this government today. There are people driving 150 miles a day to work because they cannot afford to live in the city. Are these the people that the government is going to train? Why does it not give some support to small town Canada, for example, and keep people living in places where they can afford to live?
I know I just have a few minutes left. I think that these people have not listened too well along the way. What we are seeing on the floor of the House today is the downgrading of a very important measure that was put in place to bring stability to the financial structure of federal-provincial relations in this country.
This government, in this bill, by reneging on $2.9 billion to support the fund, by reneging on the very Constitution of this country, is destroying federal-provincial financial relations. It is doing it another way. It is doing it by passing the debt on to the provinces of this country. Imagine a minister of the Crown saying: "The provinces do not have enough debt in this country. They have to share a bigger part of the burden". Imagine a minister of the Crown saying that within the last few months.
He said that after the Minister of Finance stated in August, 1984: "We are not going to cut the deficit by raising taxes. We are going to cut the deficit by cutting government programs". We know the Prime Minister's promises. We have heard them for the last number of years. The Prime Minister promised the poor Minister for International Trade that he was not going to touch

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
the unemployment insurance fund. That is exactly what he said.
Not only is this government destroying the financial fabric of federal-provincial relations in this country- and you can include the municipal doorsteps in that as well since that is where this problem of the unemployed is going to end up-it is also destroying trust and integrity in government. I say that because the government is making promises that it has no intention of keeping. The government just keeps on telling people what it is going to do and then turns around and does the very opposite. John Q. Public in this country will have an accurate reading of what the Prime Minister says, if he listens to him carefully, and then realizes he is going to do the opposite.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your patience and I want to thank you for the opportunity to try on behalf of the opposition to give the people across the way something useful to take home, instead of the prejudiced, downgrading, penny-pinching ideas that they put before this House today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House this evening to support the motion put forward by the government House leader.
Bill C-21 has been held up unnecessarily at the cost of the economically deprived, unemployed citizens of Canada. We must not delay this any further. I urge this House to support the motion.
Bill C-21 as presented in this motion will improve aspects which are fundamental to deal with the problem of unemployment in this country. It provides provisions for youth, provisions for training, provisions for older workers, provisions against abuse and other initiatives.
I wish to concentrate my comments on these very salient aspects which must be addressed in order to get the unemployment situation under control.
Bill C-21 does more than just change the rules, as other members have said tonight. It is an active program which provides opportunities for people to gain new and more permanent employment.
We support the minister's Labour Force Development Strategy that will be implemented by Bill C-21. Indeed, an important element in any employment strategy is to aim to train non-workers for the jobs available today and tomorrow. This is the initiative of this government. It will
make a strong improvement in Canada's ability to compete in the world economy.
The Labour Force Development Strategy includes the examination of the private sector to improve the amount and quality of training which employers provide. More funds will be devoted to human resource planning skills needed by new workers, such as improved apprentice training, the industrial adjustment service and community futures.
With this money the government can work with employers, workers and communities to help them better meet the challenges of today and to predict the needs of the workplace for tomorrow. All in all, this will result in nothing less than a positive step to make Canadians more competitive in a global setting by securing permanent jobs for Canadians.
On youth, the Labour Force Development Strategy incorporates key labour market facts, and this is seen in its approach toward youth. Studies show that the demand for highly skilled workers will rise dramatically. Of all jobs created between 1986 and the year 2000 it is projected that 64 per cent will require more than 12 years of education and training. Almost half of these new jobs will require more than 17 years of education. Occupations which require lower levels of education and training will represent a declining share of employment growth. To address these facts, the government is proposing an entry-level training program. At maturity it will benefit 40,000 to 50,000 participants a year. Many of the beneficiaries will be young people making the transition from school to work occupations outside of those currently covered by apprenticeship training. For example, financial and business management, computer programming, child care, hospitality and other service sector job areas are possible candidates for this program. Furthermore, there will be extensive consultations with industry, business, labour and interest groups, prior to any decisions regarding the design of entry-level training programs.
Another area of concern to be addressed is the apprenticeship program. Although it is a good model for providing many necessary skills, there are problems with the present system. First, women are not getting a chance under the present arrangements. Only 3 per cent of apprentices are women and they are concentrated in
March 13, 1990

such traditional trades as hairdressing and cooking. Outside those trades, the figure is a mere 1 per cent.
Second, there is as high dropout rate of 50 per cent. These are clearly unacceptable statistics and there must be action taken to rectify the problem. Through the implementation of Bill C-21, we can address this situation. Industry, labour and provinces will be consulted to get a plan of action accepted to remedy the problems with current apprenticeship systems.
It is imperative that governments and industry work together to ensure that this large investment in skills training is relevant to today's needs and is delivered in a cost-effective and efficient manner.
With respect to older workers, the recent demographic study by Health and Welfare Canada clearly indicates that there is a definite age shift and more and more seniors are staying in the workforce. Government programs must reflect society and Bill C-21 aims to do this. Under Bill C-21, the UI protection will be extended to cover all workers, regardless of age. As other members have said tonight, it is also clear from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that workers cannot be discriminated against on the basis of age. Furthermore, these individuals have much to contribute to business in Canada. Bill C-21 eliminates this discrimination in UI.
In addition, the newly targeted income support and training funds will provide increased training opportunities, essential to ensuring the adjustment of displaced older workers. The stable employment and long job tenure of displaced older workers means that they often have skills unique to the firms in which they have worked. The new Labour Force Development Strategy complements the program for older worker adjustment by providing additional options. UI coverage will be available to all who want to work past age 65 and we wish to encourage those who do.
I would like to turn now to the issue of abuse in the UI system. In my riding I have received complaints from many small businesses, who note the abuse of the present system. One small business owner from Wetaski-win writes: "Possible workers would rather stay on unemployment insurance. Are these people reporting
Government Orders
the fact that they have been offered full-time jobs at a reasonable rate of pay"?
The strategy incorporated in Bill C-21 is designed to protect unemployed workers, and at the same time strongly encourage re-entry into the workforce. There will be counselling provided to ensure the government can communicate its full range of services and programs that might be available and also on the way in which a client's special needs might be identified. It will be through better communication and more opportunities leading to brighter futures for the unemployed, that we shall be able to control abuse.
Before I conclude, I am pleased to note the initiatives this government has taken in respect to native unemployment. There has been several comments on native unemployment in this chamber. Native unemployment is a serious issue and demands attention. To this end and to ensure that program changes reflect the needs of native Canadians, the government has established a task force specifically to analyse the unemployment situation in this sector. If I may quote from their paper:
The demands for change have evolved for a variety of reasons. Increasing numbers of young aboriginal people are reaching labour force age without the skills or training to participate. Aboriginal unemployment rates remain double that of the national average. Aboriginal skill and education levels remain much lower than the national average. Aboriginal people have the highest illiteracy rates and the lowest income levels of any group in Canada. These problems will worsen unless economic, social and human resource development policies and programs get better results.
Now more than ever, it is appropriate to review employment and training programs and services for aboriginal people and explore where improvements can be made to better address their serious labour market needs and to more effectively utilize resources.
In the government's analysis of Canada's workforce, aboriginal people are clearly shown to have substantial barriers in access to the labour market and to be a largely undeveloped and underutilized component. Out of these concerns a native employment and training work group was established. The working group consists of aboriginal representatives from six national aboriginal organizations and from all regions of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to list very quickly some of the representatives. The organizations represented include the Metis National Council, the Union of Ontario Indian Chiefs, Assembly of First Nations, the Metis National Council, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, Native Women's Association of Canada, Native Council of Canada, National Association of Friendship Centres, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Council for Yukon

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
Indians, Native Employment Advisory Committee, First Nations Technical Institute. Some of the individuals involved were Ray Ahenakew from the Meadow Lake Tribal Council; Richard Arcan, Yellowhead Tribal Council; representatives from St. Thomas University; from the University of Manitoba, Raoul McKay; and Germain Paul from the Native Training Institute of Quebec.
Their first meeting was held last month. I am happy to say that the program has begun positively and with definite practical direction. I welcome this initiative by the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
To conclude, I feel strongly that it is imperative that this motion must be passed. We can no longer deprive Canadians who are presently in the unfortunate position of unemployment from these fundamental steps to secure futures that are offered in Bill C-21. As Maureen Baker stated in her report:
Planning for the future must take into consideration changing
trends in education, family formation, labour force participation, and
ideology, as well as demography.
Bill C-21 has considered all of the above. I strongly urge once again its support in this House.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak tonight. I suppose I am going to be the last speaker on Bill C-21.
During my five years in Parliament under both Liberal and Conservative governments I can honestly say that the convergence of opinion generated by Bill C-21 and much of the other legislation that this government has been putting forward has been really creating hardships and divisions across my riding and across Canada. The kinds of divisions that we are seeing are very unfortunate.
It is unfortunate that the government would change programs that have been established for many, many years and have served the people in the best interests across all parts of Canada, especially in areas such as mine where we have regional disparities. There was a lay-off in my riding less than a month ago which involved 800 employees. We are trying to get these people employed. Yet at the same time as we are doing that, the government is bringing in Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The government is also attempting to introduce its GST bill which will impose extra taxation on people.
We have a government that has no care for what it is doing. It has a mandate. It says that it has an agenda. I want to say to the people of my riding and to the people of Canada that it has an agenda to destroy the very fabric that we have put together across Canada. It is time we put a stop to it. We have had enough.


Some hon. members:: Time!


Sidney James Parker: Never mind the time. I will take the time. The Speaker will make the decision about the time, not the members of the government. I know you do not want to hear what I have to say.
I want to speak for a few moments, if I may, Mr. Speaker, about the British Columbia perspective.
An independent analysis of the impact of changes to the UI system on the province of British Columbia was undertaken by Global Economics earlier this year. Their findings confirm the worst fears of the province of British Columbia.
Global estimates that 16,200 workers in the province, who would be eligible under the existing guidelines, will not qualify for benefits when the new legislation takes effect. A further 89,400 British Columbians will see a decrease in their benefits after January 1. What type of people are we talking about?
According to an analyst, 82 per cent of the people affected will earn less than $25,000 a year. This will clearly-


Some hon. members:: Shame.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like to advise the House that the hon. member has 20 minutes.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to make sure that the 20 minutes you alluded to will be starting at 12.55 p.m. therefore, there are 15 minutes left.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are 15 minutes left.


Sidney James Parker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
March 13, 1990

This will clearly impact disproportionately on women who continue to earn much less than men, unskilled workers, service sector workers who continue to be the fastest growing segment of the labour force, seasonal workers and young families. The existing economic base of the East Kootenay makes it a particularly vulnerable region vis-a-vis the introduction of Bill C-21.
There are four factors that back up the claim. Over 11 per cent of the workforce is engaged in seasonal occupations in the forestry and tourist industries. The economy of the region is resource based and is thus vulnerable to major fluctuations in unemployment. Structural unemployment in the region is high relative to many other regions regardless of the peaks and valleys associated with resource based economies.
The employment rate has seldom fallen below 10 per cent. The best prospects for future economic development lay in the continued development of the tourist industry, an economic sector that emphasizes seasonal and service jobs. It is unlikely that the economic assumptions in the East Kootenays will change in the foreseeable future.
As I have mentioned, 800 workers who have worked continuously in the mines in the East Kootenays have lost their jobs. It is a direct result of the free trade agreement. Whether anyone will admit it the fact remains that Cominco is the main mining company there. It is taking the ore from the Red Dog Mine in Alaska down the west coast of British Columbia on a barge and unloading it at the North Vancouver shore with a $22 million federal-provincial subsidy to help rebuild the facilities on the north shore. Then, according to the reports, it is going to be loaded onto an American railway and transported down through the American states and up into Trail, British Columbia. Those are the kinds of policies that the government is adopting.
Is it any wonder the people of Canada are upset? Is it any wonder that the people in my riding are upset and want some help, and that we have asked for that help and are receiving nothing? To hear the back-benchers talk about the training policies, I want to ask those members and the government: How are you going to train these 800 workers, get them back into positions and save that one industry town? A one industry town depends very much on that mine, yet there is no action taken to assist them.
Government Orders
During my first term as a member of Parliament, I attended an economic meeting in Paris with a Canadian delegation. I want to tell you that they have some initiative programs that have come about. They have suggested the possibility of what is done in other countries. When someone becomes unemployed, they have a program that is proven to be 65 per cent effective whereby, if the member or the applicant can qualify, he can receive his full amount of unemployment insurance invested in a business. The government will supply them a loan to match that business. They have found that those businesses in which they have participated have had a 65 per cent success rate.
These are the kind of policies we should be talking about. These are the kind of programs that we could bring about to bring some good jobs and some initiative to help people out.
In Preston there is a small apple packing group where people come together to pack apples in the fall. Their normal work time was from October to the end of November. I attended a meeting in Preston. These people were laid off and they were not able to pack apples. When I checked into why they were unable to pack their apples, it was because they found that the American apples were coming across the border at $1 a box less than our Canadian apples. The free trade agreement had created this sort of problem for our people in the West Kootenays. Bill C-21 is not going to address the problems that these people have.
This bill should be scrapped. It should be scrapped now and we should be getting on with trying to bring about some legislation that will help people and not take away from them.
The government has a responsibility to participate in the unemployment insurance program along with the workers and the employers and that is the kind of system that we have been used to. The labour organizations are saying so, small businesses are saying so, and the people of Canada are saying so. The only one saying no is the government, and it is time the government changed its policies.
It is unfortunate that the government is creating the kind of animosity that it is creating across Canada. I represent 14 different small municipal areas and, as I travel throughout my riding, they contact me on a daily basis complaining about this government and what it is doing to them. They complain that they are being called racist. They complain that they are being called uncaring. They complain that they are not given any opportunities

March 13, 1990
Government Orders
for input on what the government is doing. I want to say to the government that it had better start listening to the people of Canada. The people of Canada want some say on the kind of changes that are taking place.
When I see the Deputy Prime Minister on television talking about the agenda that the government has laid down, I think it is time that the government started to let the people know about the hidden agenda that this government has. We have an attack on our social programs. First, we had the clawback on our old age pensions. Now we have the Unemployment Insurance Act being taken away from us. We have a goods and services tax that it is trying to implement across Canada, against the wishes of over 80 per cent of the people of Canada. Yet it continues to push forward with its agenda. I want to say that the people of Canada do not want that agenda. They want some changes and they want those changes to take place now.
Another concern regarding Bill C-21 is that the federal government will no longer contribute to the unemployment insurance system. Unemployment insurance is no longer a standing basic component of the social welfare system throughout the western world. Bill C-21 has in fact privatized the cornerstone of Canada's social welfare system, a move which has many Canadians asking what next. If the government will no longer contribute to UI, is it not reasonable to wonder if health insurance or pensions are next?
The government is also adding to the costs for businesses. While corporate Canada may be in the position to absorb this direct increase in production costs, the burden on smaller-sized businesses will be relatively greater. Bill C-21 serves as an indirect tax on the average worker who will help pay for the government's former share of the program.
With regard to Bill C-21 and deficit reduction, under Bill C-21 the federal government will no longer contribute to the program, as we have already discussed. This increases the burden on the worker and employer. The worker already faces large tax increases and will lose more purchasing power and this will impact negatively on the local business. For the employer, increases in UI premiums will add to the cost of production, which will in turn add to the price of the goods. This will also have a negative effect on the purchasing power throughout society and with the corresponding impact on local businesses. The point being made is that this cycle is brought on by the reduction. The government's getting out of the program undermines the defaced reduction
objective of the government in the same manner as the high interest rates and taxes.
In closing, as my colleague from Kootenay West identified very clearly, the government is not prepared to talk to people, organized labour, businesses or the opposition. For goodness sake, get into your caucus and talk to each other and bring about some sense of what you are doing to the people of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 57, at this time it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-21 now before the House.
Accordingly, the question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


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


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is evident that a number of members of Parliament did not get here because of the five-minute bell. Normally it is a fifteen-minute bell, and I understand why members could not be here.
I think it would have been courteous if the two Chief Whips had given notice that that was their intent. However, that being the case, I really object when the Minister of National Revenue came in after the voting had started and still voted. He has not that right. I wish he would get up as a man of honour and denounce and retract his vote.
Other members who were denied the vote because of the five-minute rush stayed outside and waited until the vote was finished.
The Minister of National Revenue knew the vote had started. He came into the House and deliberately disobeyed the rules of the House and voted. He should retract that vote now.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, because the bells were cut short I was denied the right to vote. However, I know that this can be done according to our Standing Orders. I just request that my vote be recorded with my party.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point. I too was caught when the bells were cut short. I was not here. Had I been here I would have voted for the amendment.

March 13, 1990
Government Orders


Mr. Heap:: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Whips chose to cut the bells short without notice. Elad I been allowed to be here, I would have voted with my caucus.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, since the practice is that only two Whips walk in and no notice is given to other parties, I want to record that I would have voted with my colleagues on this motion.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I suggest that the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. Minister of National Revenue.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, since my name was brought up I want to tell you that I was not aware that the Speaker had begun the roll call. Had I known, I naturally would not have participated in the vote.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, I too was in my office and was watching the television proceedings of the vote.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention-


Some hon. members:: Order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I can hear the hon. member if he will just go ahead with his point of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We might as well stay here until two o'clock and have Question Period. The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway has the floor.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I did want to draw to the attention of the Chair a problem for members who were in their offices watching the proceedings of the vote. There was an indication that the vote would in fact be 15 minutes. The television proceedings did indicate that the vote would be 15 minutes, and I did want to draw that to the attention of members of this House.
Had I been here, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly have voted with my caucus against the amendment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind members that the indication on the television sets is the maximum time for bells, not the minimum time.
Having said that, I think Your Honour will find a disposition, now that we have heard all the members who were late and missed the vote, to apply the next vote in reverse.
I take it the NDP will vote again with the government.


Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, that proposal is not acceptable to the New Democratic Party. It is only appropriate that we have the opportunity to vote against this heinous legislation tonight.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
It being 1.46 a.m., this House stands adjourned until later this day at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 1.46 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 14, 1990