1991-11-28

Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have two points really.
One is with regard to your ruling of yesterday regarding Question Period. I am wondering if the Chair has had time to reflect and perhaps inform the House so that we can prepare our questioners appropriately within the bounds of the Standing Orders.
Second, on Friday of last week Bill C-35 was before the House. A procedural argument was raised by me. I should notify the Chair that there had been a lot of co-operation between the three political parties in trying to facilitate this legislation.
Friday has elapsed, Monday has elapsed, Tuesday has elapsed, Wednesday has gone by and we do not have a ruling from the Chair with regard to the procedural argument that I intervened with at that time.
I have asked on two previous occasions when one might receive word from the Chair in terms of a ruling that has not been forthcoming. I seek its assistance and guidance in terms of both points of order as to how we are to proceed under both.


Mr. Speaker:: I will deal with the first point first. I was going to call the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and have a discussion but there is perhaps no need to do that. I think if you look at the "blues" you will see clearly the question that was put directly to the Prime Minister by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond was put in the terms of the word "you" which is clearly contrary to our conventions. At that point I stood up.
Further, if one considers the Prime Minister was not prepared to answer the question in any event, I moved on.
It is a judgment call. I would ask hon. members to be very careful not to personalize the questions but to put the questions through the Chair and then perhaps neither they, in the midst of some important matter, nor the Chair might be put in an awkward position vis-a-vis each other. I am sure none of us would want that to happen.
On the second question raised by the hon. member, I think we are in a position to respond at 3 p.m. today. I am sorry for the delay.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Under this portion of the Standing Orders are the Routine Proceedings. We have heard some rather extraordinary developments in terms of the constitutional issue in the last few hours.
My question is directed to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. I know the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs is unable to be here. I understand he is at meetings at the moment. Would he be making a statement perhaps later in the day on the most recent developments? Is there any plan to do that?


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that as a representation from the hon. member and I will bring it to the minister's attention.

November 28, 1991
Routine Proceedings


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (geographic certification).


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed to be adopted.
Mr. Danis moves that the bill be now read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed to be adopted.
Bill read first time and ordered to be printed. [English]


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question regarding the bill that has just been tabled. My question is to my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Does he feel any sense of urgency regarding this legislation? Second, is the Senate, or the other place, in a position to deal with this in the remaining part of this week? Is he able to respond to those two questions? If not, perhaps we could have some discussions later in the day.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I can say to my hon. friend that there appears to be some urgency for the legislation. I understand that it would help bring to an end a strike that has been going on for several months now. In that sense, yes, there is some urgency.
Second, in terms of the Senate, I cannot answer for it although normally on this type of legislation it has had a tendency to be very co-operative. If in the next day or two we were able to complete this legislation, that would certainly help. Getting it to the Senate early tomorrow may allow for speedy passage.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Once the Senate rises today when does it sit again? Is it not Tuesday?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I must confess not having been a member of that august institution I am not familiar with its sitting hours. However, I would be happy to check and if we can do anything to encourage it to help facilitate the House in the passage of this legislation, rest assured that if this House could come to an agreement on it I would be more than happy to make representations to the hon. senators down the hall.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, we in the Liberal party would want to co-operate in every way possible in terms of facilitating the legislation on the floor of the House. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could obtain answers to the questions which have been put forward by my hon. friend, the House leader for the New Democratic Party. Then a discussion might take place with House leaders later this day to see whether we can facilitate the minister's particular objective here.
Just to underline, we are more than willing to co-operate with the government providing that we do have some reasonable discussions later this day.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have just been passed a note indicating that the Senate does not sit tomorrow. Perhaps what we can do as House leaders is get together and have a quick discussion and perhaps we can come to a reasonable agreement that will accommodate all the parties' concerns.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I appreciated the comments by my hon. colleague, the House leader for the Official Opposition. I think the suggestion is a very good one and we should meet as House leaders or appropriate designates and see if we can deal with this in an appropriate way without hindering progress on the legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members.
November 28, 1991

Government Orders


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to present this petition on behalf of a number of constituents from central and northern British Columbia who have been informed of the intention of a certain company in western Canada, in association with a California company, to dam the North Thompson River at Vavenby, British Columbia, in an effort to divert the water into the Columbia Valley trench and through a series of canals and pipelines into San Diego, California. Not surprising, this would cause a lot of concern for people who are concerned with diverting water and upsetting the ecosystem to that extent.
They are simply calling upon the Government of Canada to state categorically that this would not be allowed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have another petition on behalf of a number of people, primarily from Kamloops and a number of other surrounding communities, who are asking the federal government to ensure that proper funding is provided to our Royal Canadian Mounted Police to enable it to fulfill its mandate.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, question No. 157 will be answered today. I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mrs. Gaffney: How much money has been spent on the Royal Commission for
New Reproductive Technology since its inception in October 1989?


Mr. Leonard Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Since its inception in October 1989 until November 15, 1991, the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technology has spent $12,794,067.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the other questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-39, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Family Allowances Act and the Old Age Security Act, as reported (without amendment) by Legislative Committee B.

Mr. Speaker:: It is now my duty to give a ruling with respect to a number of amendments that came in late yesterday afternoon to Bill C-39.1 want to say first of all that the staff worked until midnight trying to deal with them all and we have not had time-and I hope hon. members will appreciate this-to discuss with members the amendments that have been filed. It just has not been possible and I have not had very much time to look at them myself except early this morning.
I am going to do the very best I can with this but I am conscious of not being able to follow our usual practice which is to try to have discussions with members before I give the ruling.

There are 33 notices of motions in amendment to Bill C-39, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Family Allowances Act and the Old Age Security Act, at report stage.

Motions Nos. 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 3, 3A, 6, 6A, 10, 10A, 11, 11A, 12, 12A, 15, 15A, 16, 16A, 17 and 17A standing in the names of the hon. members for Wmnipeg North and Cape Breton-East Richmond are beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, in accordance with Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 698(1), these motions cannot be selected.

November 28, 1991
Government Orders

Motions Nos. 4A and 7A, standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, will be debated together but voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 4 and 7 standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North will not be selected because they are identical to Motions Nos. 4A and 7A.

Motions Nos. 5A, 9A, 13A and 14A, standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, and Motion No. 8, standing in the name of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia, will be grouped for debate but voted on as follows:

(a)	a vote on Motion No. 5A will apply to Motions Nos. 9A, 13A, and 14A; and
(b)	Motion No. 8 will be voted upon separately. [Translation]
Motions Nos. 5, 9, 13 and 14, standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, will not be selected as they are identical to Motions Nos. 5A, 9A, 13A and 14A.

Recapitulation: Motions 1,1A, 2,2A, 3, 3A, 4,5,6,6A, 7, 9, 10, 10A, 11, 11 A, 12, 12A, 13, 14, 15, 15A, 16, 16A, 17 and 17A are not selected.

Motions Nos. 4A and 7A will be debated together but voted on separately.

Motions 5A, 8, 9A, 13A and 14A are grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 5A will apply to Motions Nos. 9A, 13A and 14A. Motion No. 8 will be voted upon separately.
[ Translation]
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 4A and 7A to the House.


MEASURE TO AMEND
David Charles Dingwall: 
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, the intention of these amendments is to recognize that a marriage, whether common law or traditional, is truly an equal partnership between the spouses.
The idea emanates from the excellent report of the National Council of Welfare entitled Pension Reform released in February 1990.
What these amendments intend to do, Madam Speaker, is to provide for credit splitting on the breakdown, unhappy as it may be, of a marriage, legal or common law, that lasted for at least a year.
What has happened to date is that the Parliament of Canada said that splitting could be over-ridden by provincial family law. In fact, Saskatchewan decided to over-ride the federal law and allow spouses to waive the right to credit splitting.
Allowing pension credits to be traded off in a separation or divorce can work to the particular detriment of women. That is the assessment of the National Council of Welfare. In fact in this report, a young woman might waive her right, for example, as given in this report to $10,000 worth of pension credits for an extra $10,000 of equity in the family home.
November 28, 1991

That may be appealing in the initial stage of the breakdown, but only in the short term. It would leave the woman in financial difficulty when she gets to retirement age.
The other point I would like to make is that since the option for credit splitting became available in 1978, as of September 1989 there had been only some 21,000 applications for splitting under the CPP approved.
Yet the statistics indicate, Madam Speaker, that over those intervening years, approximately half a million divorces had happened. You can appreciate that not many had availed themselves of this particular privilege, likely due to lack of knowledge and awareness of the particular privilege.
What is intended is to make this a routine sort of privilege given to the spouses who decide to separate their marriage legally.
That is the intent of this amendment. Indeed, it will truly be a step forward in the sense that it will recognize that spouses during their relationship in a common law, legal marriage have contributed equally to the assets that they have had up until that point.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I really want to applaud my hon. friend for this most thoughtful and appropriate amendment.
We are cognizant of the fact that unfortunately on an increasing basis marriages both legal and common law do break up. This particular proviso would recognize that after one year of marriage the credit splitting would occur.
My hon. colleague expressed it extremely well when he remarked that at the point of the marriage breakup the tensions and the difficult times that exist for the people directly often result in some short-term decisions being taken. In many cases one of the partners might take a short-term gain in the desperation of the moment and the frustration and anxiety that surrounds that particular period of their lives. But in the long term if they were to give up part of the credit splitting it would be certainly detrimental for the rest of their lives.
We have seen, as he has indicated, provincial jurisdictions that have taken initiatives that actually override these provisos. In this case we are probably dealing on balance with more women than men. More women are
Government Orders
finding themselves in extremely difficult circumstances as a result of a marriage breakup and the loss of credit splitting.
In terms of this particular legislation I want to say very clearly on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we will support this suggestion most enthusiastically.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the amendments at report stage today put forth by my colleague from Winnipeg North. He has raised a question that needs a bit further attention.
When divorce or separation occurs, there are a lot of tensions and difficulties and we realize that. It is an unfortunate time in the lives of many people.
I would like to draw to your attention that the hon. member was part of the legislative committee that was reviewing Bill C-39. Indeed the bill had been in our hands for some time before second reading. I really wonder why it was not raised at the legislative committee. We spent a great deal of time with regard to disabilities and we all learned a great deal.
With regard to these amendments which were put forth very late yesterday, I would like to draw your attention there are more ramifications than have been brought to the floor today.
When the CPP legislation came in and was enacted in 1966, we the federal government had agreements with our provincial counterparts. Prior to making changes this agreement says that we would discuss the proposals and come to an agreement in principle prior to making an amendment or any amendments to the Canada Pension Plan legislation.
I am very sympathetic to the recommendations and amendments that my colleague has put forward and indeed a lot more work has to be done in this particular area. But at this particular point in time I am afraid I cannot accept them for two reasons. The first is that they have not been carefully studied. The second is that the federal government through the Minister of National Health and Welfare has not had the opportunity to discuss these particular issues with his counterparts in the province. I will certainly take this notice and make sure the minister is well aware of it.

November 28, 1991
Government Orders
I thank the hon. member once again for bringing this to our attention. I just wish he had done it at the legislative committee. We certainly would have discussed it.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I have a comment with regard to the amendment which my colleague and I have put before the House. I listened to the member opposite in terms of the fact that these particular issues were not raised at the committee.
As the Chair knows, members have the opportunity either at committee or indeed report stage to put forward amendments. Knowing the hon. member as I do I am certain that she has not questioned the motives of my colleague in terms of why we have presented these amendments at this time.
I guess what I am hearing from the hon. member opposite is that there is some acceptability to the amendments but because of their consequential effects the hon. member does not wish to proceed with the formalization of accepting those amendments. I can understand that.
Perhaps what we might want to do is to give the parliamentary secretary or the Minister of National Health and Welfare an opportunity to check with department officials to see whether or not the consequential effects that they deem are so bad that it would preclude passage of the amendment.
We would argue on the other side that the amendment is fairly straightforward and its consequences in terms of other legislation or on the treasury are not what the hon. member is alluding to. Therefore I would ask the parliamentary secretary to reflect on the amendment. I make this partly as a submission and really partly as a question. It is very straightforward.
In view of reality and what takes place in this country, the amendment and the definitions of marriage and divorce have been accepted in all jurisdictions pretty well across the board in each of the provinces. I would think that the Government of Canada would want to support that kind of an amendment.
I do not want to give a history in terms of what the courts have adjudicated with regard to these terms. It is unequivocally clear that the definitions as referred to in
Motion No. 4A will not provide undue difficulties for the Crown, nor will it have any disastrous consequential effects or minor consequential effects.
I take the parliamentary secretary at her word. I know the hon. member and she is a very distinguished and a very reputable colleague in this House. I would hope that some reflection by the parliamentary secretary and the government could be given to the amendment as I believe other members will want to speak to it because it does reflect the Canadian reality. It is reflected in our courts. It is reflected in the administration of justice throughout the land and all the provinces.
Again, I ask with great respect if my hon. friend opposite would reflect on my interventions as well as the interventions of other members who wish to speak to this amendment.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Madam Speaker, I too would like to respond to the member for Calgary South. I take a great deal of exception to the remarks made to our House leader with regard to these amendments. The Liberal members also know the frustration that we had when we were in committee and dealing with it and not only when we saw the witnesses. We know the concerns with regard to the Canada Pension Act and Bill C-39 and the issues that were raised. I want to tell the member for Calgary South that I did raise these issues as the member for the New Democratic Party with regard to our concern about the bill. The fact remains it was evident right from the very beginning that we were dealing with Bill C-39 and the proposals the government had put forward.
The frustration we had in committee as witnesses came forward was that we should have actually been dealing with the Canada Pension Act. I support the amendments the Liberals have put forward. But the fact remains, how are we going to enact them and get them put in there?
Anyone who has been involved in this committee knows that the procedure of dealing with the Canada Pension Act is to get the act before the committee so that we can deal with it in all the areas of concern we have. There are some very serious concerns in there. We are going to support these amendments. What should have been done is that the Canada Pension Act should have been brought forward and not Bill C-39 and some little segment of it. There are concerns with that bill and changes need to be made.
November 28, 1991

I take a great deal of exception to the remarks made to my House leader that we should have raised it in committee. I had frustration in that committee with regard to seeing witnesses come and present their concerns firsthand. Every one of us knew those concerns were there and knew the deficiencies there are in the act. Then the member for Calgary South states that we should have raised those issues in committee. I want to say with a great deal of respect that we identified those concerns. It was a matter of how we could deal with them.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, this is to the parliamentary secretary. I noticed in the amendments that the sources for these amendments basically came from fellow colleagues here in the House of Commons, our constituents, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, disabled groups and the National Council on Welfare.
I wonder if we are truly sincere about having these various stages of debate. It was only two weeks ago that we had the previous round on debating this bill. I do not think it is unreasonable during the period that we would hear from people who would make contributions or minor corrections to this very important piece of national legislation.
I say to the parliamentary secretary with respect that if we ignore these amendments or recommendations from people who have a pretty close experience with the issues related to this bill, what kind of credibility does that give us as national legislators? It is a bit of an insult and a waste of their time and their input.
Like my colleague from Cape Breton I would appeal to you to reflect because these amendments are good common sense amendments that will in no way, shape or form affect the physical framework of this nation. They will only make a national piece of legislation that much better for people in our society who right now need that little bit of extra care.
While I am on my feet I would like to appeal to the parliamentary secretary to discuss this with her colleagues.
Government Orders
We talk about all of these amendments in these bills so often and it occurred to me this morning that very few people in the country know when we make these good amendments to a good piece of legislation. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Press Gallery will not cover this. There are some amendments to the Canada Pension Plan, but no real detailed description that will go to every region of this country.
I would appeal to her to consider communicating these amendments to the act in a broad way, maybe through newspapers or some other forum where everyone in Canada can know that these constructive changes have been made.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Madam Speaker, I find myself in an interesting quandary today. I think the amendments as proposed are good. I have two situations in my own riding where women have been adversely affected by divorce proceedings where they have been the spouse of a man for a long period of time, the marriage has broken down and they have been left without protection under this particular act.
At the same time, there are a lot of other good things in this bill. I guess my concern this morning is that by moving these amendments and talking about consultation with provinces, what is going to be required and how long is it going to be before we can bring all these things about? If we do not accept these amendments today, when could they possibly be incorporated into the act? I feel they are good amendments. They improve the act and certainly protect Canadians. As we know, these are the ones who are least able to care for themselves as they grow older and that is an important part of the legislation.
I guess I would like the parliamentary secretary to inform me just what the procedure would be in the future. When can we revisit the bill if it is not passed at this time? What would the delay be in consultation with the provinces which appears to be necessary?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I see two different people rising both of whom have already spoken on those motions. I am quite prepared to recognize both people, but I do need unanimous consent of the House.

November 28, 1991
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary may want to hear what the other person has and then she could answer. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I would just like to re-echo the sentiment of my House leader, the member for Cape Breton. As a procedure, of course, it is our privilege that we present this motion at report stage.
Again, to echo the sentiment of the NDP at that legislative committee, it was a fact that we were given a timetable. It was almost humanly impossible to consider all these amendments and allow for reasonable and rational debate on the many amendments that we proposed.
What we indicated is a theme on the concerns indicating that we have given notice to this government that we would propose amendments at the report stage.
I would like to thank my colleague from Delta for his support of this amendment as well as other members who spoke earlier, including the parliamentary secretary. I have noted the quandary of my colleague from Delta. I was asking myself, before I stood, why the quandary? Perhaps it is because he belongs to the government side. If that were so, I think today I should congratulate him for the courage to indicate in a very non-partisan fashion a commitment to an amendment that in fact is votable as has been proposed. Truly, I must not claim the full credit. I only allowed the process to bring the thought of the National Council of Welfare to this Chamber.
On that note, I would really beseech the parliamentary secretary to reconsider and ask her government to support this motion.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, I do share these concerns with respect to divorces and splitting of benefits. I want to thank my colleague from Delta for expressing his concerns. This, of course, is not the first time the hon. member has brought forth the concerns of his constituents. Indeed, this is something that will be put on the agenda at the next minister's meeting with his counterparts in the provinces.
However, what we are talking about here today is the division of powers, the powers between the provinces and the federal government. I guess we are already on notice of appeals and if we have to face reality, a lot of this has to do with provincial authority as well.
I will take the member's concerns and, indeed, these amendments that he has put forward, as well as those of the member for Broadview-Greenwood about communicating the criteria to the public right across Canada on the system and the amendments that are made to the Canada Pension Plan.
The problem as the member for Delta knows is that we have a bill before us today that is going to increase the benefits to dependent youngsters of disabled and deceased contributors and that, of course, we want to go through and be applicable January 1, 1992.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare met with his counterparts some months ago and came to an agreement in principle. Therefore, we have this agreement in principle on the amendments. They are in Bill C-39 at the present time.
Therefore, I can certainly give you, Madam Speaker, and my colleagues my guarantee and promise that I will take these concerns forward to ensure that the minister in his discussions next year with the provinces brings forth the credit splitting and the benefits with regard to marriages, be they common law and/or traditional that break up.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 4A. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.
November 28, 1991

Government Orders


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion 7A. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
We will now move on to Motions Nos. 5A, 9A, 13A and 14A. They will be grouped for debate. I will remind hon. members that a vote on Motion No. 5A will apply to Motions Nos. 9A, 13A, and 14A, that Motion No. 8 will be voted upon separately.
We will start with Motion No. 5A.


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 5A.
That Bill C-39 be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately
after line 34 at page 4 the following:
"(3) The said Act is further amended by adding the following immediately after subsection 55(8)
"(8.1) Where a person makes an application under this section, the Minister shall send a decision in writing to the applicant within thirty days of the date the application and all information required to be submitted with it is received by the Minister.""


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Motion No. 8 will not be put to the House as the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia is not present.


David Charles Dingwall: Motion No. 9A.
That Bill C-39 be amended in Clause 14 by adding immediately after line 3 at page 15 the following:
"(12) Where a person makes an application under this section, the Minister shall send a decision in writing to the applicant within thirty days of the date the application and all information required to be submitted with it is received by the Minister."
Motion No. 13A.
That Bill C-39 be amended in Clause 19 by adding immediately after line 3 at page 18 the following:
"(4) Where a person makes an application under this Division, the Minister shall send a decision in writing to the applicant within thirty days of the date the application and all information required to be submitted with it is received by the Minister."
Motion No. 14A.
That Bill C-39 be amended in Clause 20 by adding immediately after line 48 at page 18 the following:
"(3) The Minister shall send the notification and reasons referred to in subsection (2) to the person who made the appeal, within thirty days of the date the appeal and all information required to be submitted with it is received by the Minister."


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House is giving consent for the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, there is a-Does the hon. member have a question?


Mr. Crosby:: No, I'm just giving my consent.


David Charles Dingwall: Oh. I want to thank the hon. member for his great gesture of generosity on a Thursday, November 28.
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Dartmouth, one of the more distinguished and hard-working members of Parliament and of this House will fully appreciate what I am going to say with regard to these amendments. I hope the parliamentary secretary likewise will appreciate the fact that the department for which she is responsible in this House probably has some of the finest public servants in this country.

November 28, 1991
Government Orders
I want to make special reference, if I may, to those individuals who administer the Canada Pension Plan, who administer the Canada Pension disability applications which come forward, and to all those individuals who have been involved with family allowance and the Old Age Security.
I have had the pleasure over the years to meet, to discuss, to interface, to write, and to seek their assistance on behalf of constituents.
They can only do so much. They cannot pull rabbits out of a hat, although sometimes members of Parliament I would think would want them to do so. They are not able to expedite decisions because of the law.
I am not presupposing that the parliamentary secretary would say no to the amendment which is being put forward. I am hoping the parliamentary secretary will concur with the substance of the amendment, which is to expedite and to facilitate the process both for the claimant as well as for the public servants who have to administer those claims.
It is utterly shameful, and I say this with great sincerity to the parliamentary secretary, for a claimant to have to wait for an inordinate amount of time before an adjudication is reached by the department.
I am not saying, as I indicated at the outset, that this is the fault of some public servant who is not doing his or her job. I have a great respect for and I admire them. They have a tremendous workload. They have a phenomenal work ethic, but they need the assistance of this Chamber in order to direct a sufficient amount of resources which are necessary. Obviously that will be part and parcel of the bill in any event because the premiums have gone up and it is going to require some additional administration expenditures. There is no question about that.
But 30 days is a long time in a woman's life when she makes application for a benefit and the Government of Canada, some would say through wanton neglect, is not responding to that claim. The law is wrong. We should change the law.
I have hundreds and hundreds of constituents who have made application for Canada pension disability under the Canada pension fund. They have to wait not days, not a week, but they have had to wait months. Life does not stop. They still have to put groceries on the
table. They still have to feed their children. They still have to clothe them. They still have to pay energy costs and transportation costs for their children.
The law is wrong. It does not give a clear directive to officials, able officials I might add in the Department of National Health and Welfare, to see to it that these benefits which if they are approved are done so quickly and expeditiously. If they are not approved the decision should be made as well and given to the claimant expeditiously.
I have constituents who come to my office who have waited for months and months and months. I have colleagues in this House who are aptly aware that some have had to put off expenditures for their children going back to school in September. Some have been denied that bit of extra income for the purchase of Christmas gifts.
I know hon. members opposite will say: "Oh, he is being melodramatic again". I am not. That is a reality. That is a fact.
If a woman has two kids, one in university and one in high school, they eat like horses. She has to dress them. She has to feed them. She has to provide them with some entertainment, unless we believe in the Catholicism of some members in this House that somehow if she is on welfare or on a fixed income, those children, that woman or that man are not supposed to have a television. They are not supposed to have any entertainment. They are not supposed to have a social life. They are not supposed to have the necessities of life. The law is wrong. This amendment, I suggest to the parliamentary secretary, will not cause any undue burden to the Crown. It will expedite decisions of the Department of Health and Welfare. It will assist those able men and women within the Department of Health and Welfare to expedite those decisions on those various claimants. That is what the amendment is intended to do in Motion 5A, as is referred to in the other amendments I have drawn to the attention of this House.
I say to the parliamentary secretary that in the sense of urgency and in the sense of fairness 30 days in the life of a woman, a man or a child to receive a benefit from the Government of Canada is a long time. But, 90 days, six months of twelve months is beyond comprehension or reason.
November 28, 1991

We are not standing up for the president of the Toronto-Dominion Bank. I am not standing here pleading for somebody like the president of Alcan. I am not pleading to the parliamentary secretary for the fat cat labour leaders or the fat cat politicians. I am talking about average individual Canadians who have legitimate claims. In all goodness and fairness and with good intentions, I ask the parliamentary secretary to reflect on the reality in Canadian society today.
The men and women in the Department of Health and Welfare, as I said at the outset and as I am sure my colleague from Dartmouth would want to say, are first-class people. I tell my constituents all the time that in the office in my constituency in Sydney and Glace Bay there are superb people but the law is wrong. We have to change the law. If we do not change the law those people will continue to hurt.
Do you know what it is like to see a woman sitting in your office and crying because she cannot get a decision on the benefits to which she believes she is entitled? Do you know what it is like for a man to come to your constituency office and say: "I have four kids. I cannot get a decision?" That is pretty humiliating.
I am not asking the Government of Canada to write us a blank cheque. I am not asking for $250 million as it is allegedly going to give in Montreal for economic development. I am not asking for $800 million as we are giving to the farmers. They need more and rightly so. I am not asking for a blank cheque. I am asking the parliamentary secretary and the government opposite for a little bit of fairness and a whole lot of social justice.
Madam Speaker, you have been kind in this debate. You have allowed me to participate and to say the things I fervently believe. I conclude with these remarks. If we fail in giving those individuals some sense of decency and dignity, I have to ask myself: What are we doing in this Chamber? This Chamber is a great institution. A positive decision will give some confidence, some credibility to the Chamber and to the members in the Chamber, but a negative decision may lose my amendment. My colleague will have lost the amendment too.
Government Orders
The people who will lose are those Canadians who have very few people standing up for them anywhere in this country. Through you, Madam Speaker, I ask an hon. friend, a respectful and distinguished colleague in this House, to give careful, prudent and kind consideration to this amendment.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, I would like to join in the debate on this amendment.
I do not know what kinds of games the Liberal Party is trying to play in this House today. If the House leader of the Liberal Party had been to the committee-we had a member who represented the Liberal Party in the committee-he would know that the chief actuary came to the committee and explained the procedures very carefully.	[DOT]
I want to refer to the actuary's report that was presented to the House prior to the committee sitting. There are some rules that must be followed. The reality is that we have to abide by those rules. A chief actuary is appointed and I want to quote from his document that was presented because he had to present to the House. I had to question him with regard to that.
Ten minutes before we sat down in committee the actuary's report as to how we are supposed to deal with these things was being presented to the House. Very briefly, and this is from the chief actuary who does the studies when amendments are made, "in accordance with a request from the Minister of Finance the chief actuary shall, whenever any bill is introduced in or presented to the House to amend this act in a manner that would in the opinion of the chief actuary materially affect any of the estimates contained in the most recent report under this section made by the chief actuary, prepare, using the same actuarial assumptions and bases as were used in that report, a report setting forth the extent to which such bill would, if enacted by Parliament, materially affect any of the estimates contained in that report".
It is quite obvious. We are dealing with Bill C-39 that was going to affect the estimates of the Canada pension bill. The actuary, according to law, is supposed to find out what kind of costs are going to be involved in these

November 28, 1991
Government Orders
kinds of changes. There is were the dilemma was in the bill, the bill that was presented to us.
I do not want to leave the impression like the Liberals are trying to leave that we can amend this bill and bring forward these amendments. Yes, we have some serious problems with the Canada Pension Act. We all know that. However, amendments are being brought forward and people are being given hope that we are going to amend this bill and change it, when we know in this House that two-thirds of the provinces will have to agree to it. The Canada Pension Act is not going to come before the House until 1994. Here is the last one that was done. I blame both the Liberals and the Conservatives for not dealing with these problems when they were in power. The Conservatives are in power and we should not be dealing with amendments to Bill C-39. We should be dealing with amendments to the Canada Pension Act.
The concerns and amendments that have been put forward are nothing but a farce because they are not going anywhere. They cannot be implemented. How are they going to be implemented? The chief actuary and the provinces are involved. The Canada Pension Act is what we need before this House, not Bill C-39.
We are going to support the amendments, but I do not want to leave the impression with the people of Canada that we are making any changes, because we are not making any changes.
We are not making any changes until such time as we can come forward and the governments have the will to bring forward the Canada Pension Plan. It is much outdated. We have been told by the actuary that the private sector is way ahead of the government, the public sector. The private sector has better programs in place than the Canada Pension Plan. Shame. The Government of Canada and the people of Canada should be leading the private sector. We have been told by the actuaries that that is not happening.
With a great deal of respect I say to the Liberal Party that it has placed these amendments knowing full well that there are procedures which have to be followed here, knowing full well that there is no way that they are going to be implemented. We are going to support them or we are going to put them there, but my party and I do not want to leave the impression out there that we have made any significant changes here today. We have not.
I supported the member for Don Valley East and supported his motion, an excellent motion, and got the consent of all of the House. The reality is that it passed, it went through all of those readings. What is going to happen to that bill? It was passed unanimously in this House of Commons and stated that if people qualify they would be able to get their compensation regardless of the period of time.
It was passed. What is the procedure of that bill? I will tell you what the procedure is, as I understand it. It was passed unanimously by the House of Commons. The minister will take that to the provinces. He will discuss it with the provinces and if two-thirds of the provinces agree and accept it, then it will sit for another two years in limbo until such time as the Canada Pension Act is opened up. Then it will be implemented into the Canada Pension Plan and then it will become law.
Regarding your amendments, although they are all very good amendments and there are many more that I could also present, the fact of the matter is that until we open up the Canada Pension Act and we get into that act and make those changes we are not going to have any meaningful changes.
I will get into the bill itself a little bit later. The fact remains with regard to the $35 that we are talking about for disabled orphans, everyone wants to make sure that we pass this bill and get it through, and the reality is that we are going to pass it, it is going to become a part of the government's agenda, it is going to meet with the provinces, and if it is agreed upon and I am sure the provinces will agree because they are-


An hon. member:: What is the problem?


Sidney James Parker: The problem is that the provinces if they wished could deduct dollar for dollar. If you get a $35 increase and the provinces decide that minimum is coming there, they could deduct dollar for dollar and therefore in some cases the increase will be nil. That is the problem.
We have to do something. I am suggesting that we call upon the government. Let us sit down in a meaningful way with the Government of Canada and the provinces and address the real problem, the Canada Pension Act. 1966 was when this act was invoked and it is time for this government, and it was time for your government when you were in power, to do the right thing and to redo the act.
November 28, 1991


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I cannot help but rise because the hon. member from the NDP indicated and referred to the actuarial report. I think he has to give credit to whom credit is due. I do not like to claim credit personally but certainly it is on record that it was I, as the Official Opposition critic for National Health and Welfare, who recommended to the legislative committee examining this bill that we invite an actuarial expert to speak on the actuarial report.
Following that submission, the government tabled that report in the House a few hours ago so that the same report can be discussed at the legislative committee. I am glad that my hon. colleague brought this to the attention of the House. It was the initiative of the Liberal Party that brought to light that report at the legislative committee.
In terms of the procedure that we should wait because the report sort of provides a barrier preventing us hearing from the NDP, I do not think so. The Chair has ruled that this motion is in order and therefore within the purview of Parliament to pass it if it wills it.
Let us not sort of blame someone. Actually, I am at a loss as to why the NDP would blame the Liberal Party and at the same time admit that amendment we have proposed is an excellent one. That is paradoxical. No average Canadian citizen will see the reason for that kind of debate. Either it is good or it is not good. If it is excellent as he has indicated it is, then it must be supported. He has indicated he will support it. Why then blame someone who has proposed a motion that is excellent?
In all modesty, the Liberal Party, the Liberal caucus, has taken the lead on pension reform. The Liberal Party is about genuine reform.
In terms of the comment of the hon. member that he would support the bill, I would certainly thank him as well and I would like the parliamentary secretary to equally support this amendment on behalf of government.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I would like to react to the New Democratic Party member's comments earlier.
Government Orders
Like my colleague from Winnipeg, I wondered why the member would say these are great amendments and then call the action a farce at the same time. It seems to me that this is the highest court in the land for pension reform in this country. If I understand the process correctly, and if we have almost unanimous consent for most of these amendments, it would seem rather strange to me that all of those provinces would ignore all of these recommendations. It is up to us to take the initiative here.
The member for Don Valley East who this week put forward a fabulous motion which we all agreed to and all supported, every member in the House, is certainly not worried today whether the province of Ontario is going to say no to that amendment because I could not imagine the province of Ontario, on such a fundamental issue, going against the unanimous consent of this House.
I know we tend to be a little intimidated by the provinces in this House because we have given them so much power in the last seven or eight years, but I think we have to start realizing that this is the national chamber for Canada. I think it is time, when we all get together on some fundamental issues and we all agree on them, we then say to the provinces: "Listen, we have got the political will here and we want you all to follow suit".
That is where I come from on the relationship with the provinces, especially when we all seem to be in accord.
I want to go back to my colleague from Cape Breton Island's remarks earlier. He is so right on the money. I have heard in the last three months of a case in which a man has been waiting for almost three years to get his disability pension processed.
I went to his home and visited him. The man has some 37 different breaks in his body. He is on two canes. He is obviously disabled and it seems to me that there has to be a situation created in this bill in which timeliness is really respected.
One of the greatest problems we have in this town is what I call the "mad " treatment, which we get so often from public officials. "Mad" for me means maximum administrative delay.

November 28, 1991
Government Orders
I must tell you that in an issue like this in which families are depending on that cheque for their groceries, never mind their Christmas presents, and to keep their heat on or to keep their rent going, it is very tough to understand why public officials give these disabled applications what I call the "mad" treatment, maximum administrative delay.
Somehow, as we are crafting this legislation, this amendment has to be worked into the bill so that public servants who administer this law understand that while they may be pushing paper there is deep pain at the other end.
My colleague from Cape Breton said this so well earlier. I would not call it dramatic when he is talking about fact, when he is talking about the numerous cases in which the paper just sits and sits and sits. It is one month then two, and then it is one year, then three. Somehow we have to get the system moving more quickly.
I would urge the parliamentary secretary to please consider this amendment seriously.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Madam Speaker, I would like to add my words of support to the amendment that was introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, and to which he so eloquently spoke a few minutes ago.
My colleague is right and he was not over-dramatizing the suffering that occurs with people who are disabled and who are waiting and waiting for some answer from the government concerning whether they are going to get their disability benefits.
Let us look at it from the point of view of so many people who come to my constituency office, to his constituency office and to the constituency offices of virtually every member in this House to find out what is happening with their claims, with their applications, for disability benefits.
Many people who are disabled do not come unless they sincerely believe that they are disabled because for them, very often, it is a real source of shame to have to admit that they are disabled and that they have to go for help.
These people have all kinds of time to think about their condition and to wait for the answer. The torture of their condition is augmented each day they wait and do not hear an answer. They have to go and find out by calling their local MP or by making the long trip to a Canada pension office to find out what is happening with their claim or their appeal.
For people in rural areas that is a long trip. That is a great deal of inconvenience for them.
This causes great suffering and great stress in addition to the stress that the disability-or the knowledge that one is potentially not quite disabled enough to satisfy the law-has on the problems that these people face.
My colleague from Cape Breton-East Richmond is not exaggerating. The suffering caused by these delays is real. The human costs are incalculable. It behoves a government concerned about its people and those who are least able to take care of themselves to be concerned with providing service. It behoves the government concerned with that to do all it can to ensure that these delays are minimized to the maximum extent possible.
I think that this amendment is a very useful way of disciplining the government and disciplining the bureaucracy which does its best. They are dedicated civil servants who work hard and who have the concerns of those people that come before them in the form of an application or an appeal. They have those concerns at heart.
They have piles of other work to do. If there is no discipline such as that which a deadline always imposes, it is very easy for these delays to perpetuate. It is a natural part of the bureaucratic process that if it is not the most important thing on your agenda that particular day then it will wait. The person at the other end of the file, the claimant, the unwed mother, or the senior citizen, or the disabled person who is home waiting to hear from the government is there without an answer.
I think the discipline which Motion No. 5A provides to the government and to the bureaucracy is very healthy. It also signals a priority. It tells the people of Canada that this government is concerned and has their welfare first and foremost in the administration of the services that it provides. The most crucial service is a basic source of income for people who are in one way or another unable to work or provide that income for themselves.
November 28, 1991

I would hope that the government would support this amendment and would impose this discipline on itself. I would ask the government and all the members opposite to consider if there is any doubt about whether or not it will support these amendments. It should ask itself what is the signal that it will send to Canadians if it refuses to impose this veiy modest discipline of a 30-day turnaround on itself.
What the signal will be is that there are other priorities more important than providing prompt and efficient service to those Canadians who need that service. When they come forward with a claim for disability benefits or pension benefits of that kind that ought to be the government's first and foremost priority. If the government does not accept this amendment I would suggest that the signal that the government is sending to millions of Canadians who are in this situation every day is that something else is more important than their welfare. I think that would be a tragic signal for any government to send to its citizens.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, I want to first off say that I commend our House leader, the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. We go back a long way. His interest in Canada pension and the process is well founded.
Back in 1980 he was just a rookie and I was just a pup. I actually worked in his office. I can tell this House the reason that this amendment is being brought forward. The coal fields of Cape Breton are a dangerous place to work. There are a lot of individuals who see their useful working lives shortened because of the extreme difficulties that they find themselves in because of the health problems that came from working bent over two miles underneath the ocean when old No. 26 was together and still operating.
Those individuals came from working class backgrounds. They did not have money in the bank. They did not have rich relatives that could come and look after them if they became disabled. They did not have wealthy annuities that they had put aside for dark days or for rainy days. They were plain, simple, hard-working individuals.
Government Orders
I do not think I was in the office of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond longer than a day back in 1980 when the first case came in and that first case dealt with Canada Pension Plan disability. I did not know very much about the system then but did I ever learn quickly. There were a lot of individuals there who had paid into the Canada Pension Plan and unfortunately had to avail themselves of those particular provisions for disability payments.
It is very easy for all of us to be smug up here in our ivory towers in Ottawa while we debate other issues that are equally important. It depends on who is speaking to the issue. As for these types of amendments-particularly the amendment that has been proposed by the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond-it is fine for us to say: "The government didn't think of it so we are not going to really do it right now". Besides it does not really affect a lot of people.
I am going to tell you, Madam Speaker, it affects an awful lot of people. You should see an individual that has been stripped of dignity, who has to sit in front of a member of Parliament or assistant to a member of Parliament, or any official and literally beg: "Please, can you make the one phone call and see what is happening here. I have no food for my children. I have nowhere to live. I cannot pay my modest mortgage payments anymore. Please, please see what you can do".
It is fine for us to sit here. The way that this place works is a little sickening at times. We have tried our very best. It is a little sickening at times because sometimes we get a little too partisan in here. Sometimes members of the opposition such as our House leader put forward amendments which are reasoned, appropriate, practical and which fix problems with bills and makes better legislation. Then government members opposite sit there and say: "It may be a good idea and I know it will benefit my constituents and I know it is not going to have an undue draw on the treasury of the country, and I know it will make a better bill but I cannot support it because it did not come from my side of the House".
We have talked a lot in the last little while about decorum in this place and we have talked a lot about what it is that we do here and why we do not have the

November 28, 1991
Government Orders
respect of Canadians. It is because what we do here is not always in the best interests of Canadians.
What this amendment seeks to do in a very small way in that respect is to change the opinion that Canadians have of what we do here. It sees a flaw and it sees an easy way to fix it by amending this particular piece of legislation that is before us.
Every member here has had the same experience as I have had as a member of Parliament or as an assistant to a member of Parliament. Every one of us here has seen those people who are down on their luck who come into our offices and strip themselves of their dignity and ciy at our desk because they do not have money. They are eligible for a program but because the bureaucracy is not allowed to move as quickly as it could and wants to, you have to tell them they have to wait another 45 days before anything can be processed on their application. You tell them they have to go and stand in that ever-increasing line-up at the welfare office. What is happening in welfare offices in places like Dartmouth and Glace Bay and Toronto and Montreal is that the municipalities do not have the money any more. Two million people have been forced on to municipal welfare in this country.
First the individual feels bad because they cannot contribute because they are ill or because they cannot work. They do not feel they can contribute. They make an application for a benefit they deserve, that they paid into and that most likely they will qualify for. In the interim they might as well be on Mars. They become a part of that faceless, hopeless group of Canadians who are pushed away from the table when they fall on hard times.
The amendment that is put forward here will seek a redress and relatively quickly. It will demand that the application process be speeded up. It will allow those individuals to maintain their dignity, those who find themselves for whatever reason unable to pursue gainful occupation and making an application to Canada pension.
I look across at the parliamentary secretary over there and I know she is listening and I am sure she has the same concerns. We all deal with people. We are here to work for the people. We are here to ensure that we have legislation that is responsive to the needs of the people. There are people out there who face a bleak winter. There are people out there who face bleak springs, summers and falls.
This amendment is a minor thing. It is not going to break the bank. This minor amendment would significantly shorten the period of response and would allow those individuals who need the help the most to be processed in an expeditious manner. The decision can be handed down and they can get on with their lives.
I hope this amendment is not dismissed out of hand. I hope everybody out there watching understands what we are talking about. We are talking about instilling a little bit of fairness into a piece of legislation. This is not a partisan thing. Fairness should know no political boundaries in this House.
What the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has simply sought to do is to instil a little bit of sanity into how we do our business. He has pointed out an obvious problem with the Canada pension legislation. He has put forward a very doable situation. This is a fundamental issue of human dignity which we are addressing with this amendment. As we vote on this later I hope when we look around this House that we will see our responsibilities to our own constituents and to every Canadian, most particularly those Canadians who need this legislation. I hope we will not fall into our old partisan jackets, suits and dresses and defeat this amendment which will improve this bill and make us all feel that we have served our constituents a little better.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully with regard to these amendments by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.
First, I really want to commend by colleague from Kootenay East with regard to his contributions at the committee level. Madam Speaker, what you said a few minutes ago about voting these four or five amendments as a group was an explanation of the procedure. There are a lot of us who do have common concerns and would like to see the changes. In order to have those go through the system it does take time.
I share your concerns that we give hopes and prayers for people out there when the system takes longer than we all want it to take.
The hon. House leader for the Official Opposition made some very kind comments about the public servants in the Department of National Health and Welfare. I will certainly see that those remarks are forwarded.
November 28, 1991

We have all been talking abut the time it takes for decisions to come out of Health and Welfare on CPP. It is an extremely important issue.
While it is a very important issue it works both ways. If there is a decision that should be made very quickly, perhaps fairness and in-depth consideration have not been given. If indeed it takes too long then we do have people suffering, as many of my colleagues have mentioned today.
The one thing we have to remember is that the people opposite who have been speaking assume that a 30-day decision on disability cases will come out in favour of the client or the applicant. Indeed what I want-and I think most of us want it-to see is that we do everything possible through the administration to prevent any unfairness, any lack of qualifications. We seek the greatest possible way to make sure that the maximum benefit is applicable to the person applying.
While I am concerned about these amendments today I cannot support them. However, I will certainly give the House my word that we will do everything possible to speed up the decisions.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 5A and this vote will apply to Motions Nos. 9A, 13A and 14A. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

After the ringing of the bells:
Mr. Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assini-boia):: Madam Speaker, there was an amendment, Motion No. 8, which was standing in my name. Unfortunately, I was in the transport committee and did not get here in time to speak to it.
I am wondering if I could have unanimous consent of the House to permit Motion No. 8 to be voted on. I believe it was part of a package of motions which had been found to be in order and would have the effect of opening up the rules somewhat for disabled Canadians who would receive a disability pension but for the passage of time, because of their failure to apply in time. It would open things up somewhat for them.
I would appreciate the indulgence of the House if that amendment might be included in the package to be voted on.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, I recognize my colleague for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia was not in the House this morning. He made a full presentation to the legislative committee and this information will go on to the minister.
I am sorry, at this time we cannot accept his request.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have listened to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia. It is a fact that his Motion, No. 8 was to be debated and voted upon separately. Unfortunately the hon. member was not in the House and the motion was not put to the House. The hon. parliamentary secretary has refused unanimous consent for this motion to be put to the House.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 4A.

November 28, 1991
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 4A lost. [Translation]


Mr. Gagliano:: Madam Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent for applying the results of the vote just taken on motion No. 4A to motions Nos. 7A, 5A, 9A, 13A and 14A.


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Madam Speaker, I would vote in favour of 7A but against all the other motions. I would vote in favour of the bill.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for those votes to be applied?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
I therefore declare Motions Nos. 9A, 13A and 14A lost.


Hon. Harvie Andre (for the Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
On a point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I believe that you will find consent for the House to call it one o'clock and that we would then pick up third reading of this bill immediately following Question Period.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the motion as presented by the parliamentary secretary. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 12.40 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, last week, acting on behalf of the Board of Internal Economy, you tabled the report of the Auditor General on the audit of the House of Commons administration.
On the whole, the report is quite positive about the administration of the House. However, the Auditor General had several comments on members' expenses. For instance, an allowance of 64 travel points is not much of an incentive for restraint. Telecommunications are another major area where there is very little incentive to cut down.
Every year the House publishes in the Public Accounts a statement of the indemnities, allowances and travel expenses of members of the House of Commons, but this represents only 37 per cent of members' expenditures. According to the report, there should be greater public disclosure of members' expenditures.
November 28, 1991

Today I am the only member in the country to disclose my privileged and budgetary spending. My constituents are very proud of my decision, and there is no reason why hon. members should not opt for voluntary disclosure.


TAXATION
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue says that there are $8 billion in unpaid taxes. If he is so sure, why has he been so negligent in their collection? After seven years of tolerating this delinquency he will now leave no stone unturned to get what is owing.
What has he been doing all of this time? Why is he establishing a target of only $160 million for collection? Perhaps he is not giving the real picture.
Last year the government was able to make good its claim on only 47 per cent of taxes under appeal. Delinquency was not a factor in those claims. Thirty-eight per cent of all claims adjudicated went completely against the department.
What the minister really wants is money up front for claims in dispute, knowing full well that most of that money will have to be returned to the taxpayer.
Let him instead go after the non-filers and freeloaders his negligence has created. While he is at it he should also make his department more responsive to small manufacturing retailers like St. Germain Framing that has been waiting for six months for a GST rebate application on its inventory. In its case the department's sluggishness is causing a double taxation and a restriction of cash flow.
Perhaps the minister should stop talking and start doing.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Sarnia-Lambton there has been a great deal of interest generated over the federal government's constitutional proposals: Shaping Canada's Future Together.
For example, I have expressed my support for a constituent assembly spearheaded by local constituents and involving participation from various segments of our community.
All members of the House will be pleased to know that the Sarnia-Lambton constituent assembly is now up and running and will be holding a number of group discussions in ensuing weeks. As well it will be holding information booth sessions in the malls throughout our area. It will give citizens in Sarnia-Lambton a chance to offer suggestions and solutions to our constitutional challenges.
I plan on making the constituent assembly's report known to the constitutional committee and hopefully to all of Parliament. I feel it is incumbent upon all members of Parliament to encourage this kind of group discussion in their ridings.
This is an opportunity for Canadians to participate. This opportunity must be promoted and supported by all members of Parliament.



Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, in line with my colleague who just spoke, last week I had not only the privilege but the duty of hosting several constitutional forums in my riding of Nipissing.
The forums were held to solicit the opinions of my constituents on a wide range of constitutional issues and to seek possible solutions to the difficulties confronting our country.
There were several points that emerged from these hearings. Canadians are very patriotic and optimistic people who believe that we can solve our problems together. They want a united country with a strong, federal presence and they are growing increasingly cynical of political machinery that spends millions of dollars travelling the country only to intimidate the people we most need to hear from, the average citizen.
In organizing and hosting these forums my role was to facilitate dialogue in a cost effective way. I was not there to argue or debate the views of my constituents. I was there to listen. For our system of democracy to function as effectively as it can we must know the wishes of the people we represent before we can speak on their behalf.

It is up to us as politicians to restore the confidence of Canadians in our institutions and to do this, we must make representative democracy what it was truly meant to be. At this crucial juncture in our history I would encourage all parliamentarians to do one thing, and that is listen to the people.


CANADA POST
Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I have recently received several letters of concern regarding the closure of rural post offices. Many of my constituents are worried about the fate of local postmasters and the future accessibility of postal services. They are also concerned about the future identify of their communities.
Rural post offices have added a great deal to the life and growth of rural communities in Canada. They have often become the hub or the focal point of small towns.
I ask that the government carefully consider the unique realities of rural communities in Canada before utilizing the rural conversion program and closing the traditional post offices.


WOLVERINE COPPER
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, another Canadian branch plant bites the dust.
Wolverine Copper, western Canada's only tubing manufacturer, has thumbed its nose at the Canadian government, shut down and shipped out to greener pastures. Despite repeated appeals from the workers, this government sat on its hands and allowed 175 British Columbian jobs to go down the tube.
The Alabama based company will now service the western Canadian market from its U.S. operations. It is tragic that this government refused to use its legislative powers to force the sale of the B.C. plant. It refused to assist in a financial restructuring to help preserve B.C. jobs.
But when unemployment goes up in Quebec, this same government coughs up a much needed $160 million
financial aid package. While B.C. workers and prairie farmers go home empty handed Quebec's needs are met. Is this fair? It is no wonder western Canadians have become so cynical toward this government.


LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval-Ouest):: Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, in its search for new ideas, the Liberal Party of Canada met in Aylmer to listen to what Canadians had to say about economic recovery. A number of clear messages came out of this meeting and were well received by the federal leader, who wants to make them part of his election platform; education, economic development, competitiveness, reducing the deficit, reform of political institutions, consistent policies, and so forth.
It is too bad it took the Liberals seven years to recognize the fact that the Progressive Conservative Party's policies are sound. Hon. members will recall that as soon as he came to power in 1984, the Prime Minister announced those same policies, for the greater benefit of Canadians. At the time, his ideas were not revolutionary but realistic, reflecting his great vision. The Liberals finally got the message. There are still a few dissidents, but I hope their leader will be able to convert them.


FIGURE SKATING
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, for the third time since the first championships in 1976, Canada is hosting the World Junior Figure Skating Championships. This week, 118 of the world's best young skaters from 26 different countries, including our own Canadian champions, Netty Kim and Jeffrey Langdon, will compete at the Robert Guertin arena in Hull, Quebec.
Last night Caroline Haddad and Jean-Sebastien Fec-teau of Montreal captured the silver medal in the pairs free skating program. This was the first time since 1981 that a Canadian duo won a world junior medal in the pairs competition.
November 28, 1991



The Canadian Figure Skating Association, with the support of 300 volunteers from the national capital area, has been working very hard to make the latest championships a success.
I am sure hon. members will join me in thanking the organizers and sponsors of this event, and wish our young Canadian skaters good luck and extend a cordial welcome to all participants.


CROSS-CANADA REFERENDUM
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the government has decided not to hold a referendum. This decision is part of the constitutional debate saga. This retreat can be explained by the almost unanimous opposition from Quebec to such an initiative. However, vigilance is still in order because this government is not known for keeping its word.
Some Conservative members, including a woman minister, and the only NDP member from Quebec understood that Quebecers would never allow the future of Quebec to be decided anywhere but in Quebec.
Among the Liberals, only John Tbmer opposed this plan. It is not surprising that Jean Chretien ranks behind Robert Libman in terms of the confidence he inspires in Quebecers.
Bloc Quebecois members will always defend Quebec's right to self-determination, thus echoing the opposition of the Quebec National Assembly, which recognizes that Quebecers alone have the right to decide Quebec's future.
If this government wants to consult Quebecers and Canadians, let it call an election. Quebecers will then be able to choose real representatives rather than flip-flop artists like Chretien and Mulroney.


CANADIAN FOUNDATION FOR ILEITIS AND COLITIS
Mr.   Maurice@: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that November is officially Ileitis and Colitis Month. More than 200,000 Canadians suffer from this condition which affects the intestinal tract.
I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize the important work being done by the Canadian Foundation
for Ileitis and Colitis and thank them for their dedication.
The foundation is a non-profit organization, committed to medical research and to educating patients, health professionals and the public in general. The foundation has over 9,000 members spread over a number of chapters across the country.
Health and Welfare Canada is pleased to be able to contribute to the goals of the foundation through its operating grants program for volunteer organizations. The funds received by the foundation are used to develop and improve a host of public awareness and education programs organized by local chapters.
The executive, support staff and the many volunteers of the foundation are to be commended for their excellent work and dedication.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, l Association des parents francophones, I'Associ-ation canadienne d'education de langue franqaise, la Federation des enseignants et enseignantes du Canada, la Federation des jeunes Canadiens frangais, and la Federation nationale des commissaires scolaires de langue frangaise have just sent a telegram to the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, asking the minister to accede to their request for a constitutional committee or conference on the future of official language communities.
At this critical moment in our history, it is high time the federal government took concrete action to recognize the importance of Canada's linguistic duality and acceded to this entirely legitimate request as soon as possible.


DARYL BEAN
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it is reported that Daryl Bean wrote to three ladies, members of PSAC, calling them scabs. Then he went on to say: "After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad and the vampire, he had some awful stuff left with which he made a scab. A scab is a two-legged animal with a corkscrew soul, a water-logged brain, and a backbone of jelly and glue. Where others have hearts, he carries a tumour of rotten principles. No man has a right to scab as long as there is a pool of water to drown his carcass in or a rope long enough to hang his body with".

November 28, 1991
Oral Questions
When it suits them members of the New Democrat Party take a stand on issues affecting women. What stand do New Democrats take on their vice-president's letter?


FUR INDUSTRY
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to inform the House and all Canadians that November is fur month.
The fur industry is pivotal to both the aboriginal and northern economy and in preserving a traditional way of life.
Of the 105,000 Canadians employed in the fur industry, over 70,000 are aboriginal. The hunters and trappers of Canada continue to practise true sustainable development in keeping with the intrinsic belief that we are an intricate part of our ecosystem.
Thanks to humane trapping, research and careful management, fur bearing animals are as plentiful in Canada as they have ever been. Considering the importance of the fur trade in the history and future of Canada, it is critical that all members support this environmentally friendly industry.
I call upon all Canadians to recognize the importance to both the economy and lifestyle of the north and support our fur industry. Practise conservation and wear fur.


DARYL BEAN
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know where the members of the NDP stand. Do they stand for the intimidation of union members by union leaders? Do they believe that workers should be threatened by their union leaders? Do they believe that workers should be threatened by their union leaders if they want to go to work? Do they believe in freedom of speech and action within labour unions? Do they believe in the degradation of grandmothers by union leaders? Do they believe that union leaders should keep their word once they have entered into an agreement?
These are the actions of the vice-president of the New Democratic Party of Canada, Mr. Daryl Bean, as he tries to justify the senseless strike he inflicted upon his members to their financial loss and on the Canadian public to their inconvenience.
I call upon the leader of the NDP to say where her party stands and to repudiate the actions of Mr. Bean.


CULTURE
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, given this government's track record in negotiating trade deals, it is not surprising that most Canadians express concern for their culture.
While we watch Canadian cultural property losing ground at the negotiating table, it is being given away under another table. That table is called the Cultural Property Export and Import Act. It exists to preserve in Canada significant examples of our nation's heritage and movable cultural property, a praiseworthy principle.
However, upon investigation one finds that over 95 per cent of all applications to remove distinctly Canadian works of art are approved. That means 95 per cent of these works of art leave Canada.
One example, Algonquin October, a painting by Tom Thomson, probably hangs in an American living room. The art gallery of Algoma lost this valuable piece under the guidelines of this act.
Thousands of Canadians have lost the opportunity of enjoying a truly Canadian work of art.
A new bill, C-18, clearly requires dramatic changes if Canadians are to experience and preserve the fruits of their own rich culture.


DARYL BEAN
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, the vice-president of the New Democratic Party, Daryl Bean, who happens to be president of PSAC union had some news for female federal government workers who served the nation during the recent PSAC strike. He would rather drown you or hang you than allow you to go to work. He said so on his own letterhead to three individual government workers.
November 28, 1991

Advocating violence against women is unbecoming of all Canadians. It is a shameful and a despicable act of cowardice. Intimidation of this nature belongs in the gutter with the filth and the mire.
Had the vice-president of the Liberal or Progressive Conservative parties made such remarks their resignation would have been demanded by party members and leaders alike.
How dare any NDP member of Parliament ask any question in this House on women's issues as long as Mr. Bean co-leads their party. The New Democratic members opposite must demand Mr. Bean resign.


CANADA POST
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak of the impending closure of Postal Station A in Saanich, British Columbia.
Economically this station is completely viable. There is a two-year waiting list for postal boxes and revenues are up by 17 per cent this year, despite having over eight contracted out private operations within a three kilometre radius. Customers have experimented with going to private retail outlets, but have returned to Station A because of the superior knowledge of the unionized staff.
Clearly individuals and small businesses in my riding prefer to deal with a real post office.
In Saanich, the effectiveness of a postal station versus privately run outlets has been proven. Canada Post is now proposing to close this revenue generating post office, possibly the most successful in greater Victoria.
I have a suggestion for Canada Post, as well as this government. Rather than fly top executives across the country for the Grey Cup, or lease executive boxes in the SkyDome, take a good hard look at providing top quality service to the customer, the taxpaying citizens of my riding.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs. This week in Montreal, at a meeting with the Conseil du patronat the minister announced that the government was willing to amend its proposals on the economic union. I think everyone agrees it would be useful to revise section 21 of the Constitution, to try and establish a real common market in this country. However, the government is certainly not taking the right approach.
Which of its three proposals-14, 15 or 16-does it intend to change? And does the government intend to inform the House of Commons or the senators and members of the House of Commons sitting on the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate which is considering the constitutional proposals? I want to make quite clear to the minister that we do not intend to waste our time considering proposals the government has already rejected.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the hon. member's information is once again not quite correct. After a very useful conversation with the Conseil du patronat, I told them that I understood their interest in having a situation where the provinces and the federal government, acting as partners, would be able to take initiatives to accelerate Canada's economic union. That was always what we had in mind. I told them that if there seemed to be a difference between what we intended and how it was expressed, we were of course prepared to change the wording. I added that the parliamentary committee was the place where such changes should be considered. The federal government has made certain proposals, and these proposals can be improved. I intend, and I think this is quite normal, to be involved with others in conversations on any potential improvements. The Conseil du patronat understands, and I hope the House of Commons does now, that improvements must be made through the Joint Committee.

November 28, 1991
Oral Questions


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and am grateful for the minister's explanation. I would now like to ask about a second meeting he had this week, this time with native people, when he more or less promised them a new federal-provincial meeting that would include provincial premiers and native people. The minister will recall that the last time this was tried, Quebec did not attend the conference. Before making this promise to native people, did the minister consult the premier of Quebec to ensure he would be present? If he did not, why is he taking that risk?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this must be a record, because once again, the hon. member's information is incorrect. Twice in one day.
What I told the native people during a very frank conversation, and despite media reports, the meeting was a constructive one. What I said was that our preference was for a federal-provincial conference. I said that because it is important for the native people to know that if a federal-provincial conference is held, it is essential that they attend. I also said, and these were my words: "that is our preference". However, it would be impossible without a firm and genuine commitment to making changes in several areas. It is an indication of the complexity of the situation, and a commitment to native people to fully involve them in the constitutional process.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, this was a long answer to avoid telling us whether or not he consulted Premier Bourassa.

As a supplementary question I would like to refer to a statement that the minister made last night on national television. I refer to the part of his interview where he said, talking about First Ministers' Conferences: "We would prefer to have one because we know how to make one of those work".


An hon. member:: Behind closed doors.


André Ouellet: He surely does, especially the last one.
I want to know from the minister why he is ready to say yes to a process that involves 11 men behind closed doors and not to say yes instead to a process through a national
referendum where all the people of Canada will be participating in this constitutional process.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is really quite extraordinary. If I well understand the position that is being put forward by the spokesman on constitutional matters of the Official Opposition, he appears to be suggesting that an agreement on a Constitution should not include the elected governments of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Joseph Clark: Well, he said it should not include the elected representatives in Canada, but should be decided by a national referendum.
Is that the position of the Liberal Party? He might well want to take a look at the language that he used in the question he put. It is the clear implication that I took from it.
We believe it is necessary for there to be some mechanism by which there can be participation by the people of the country in these decisions. We also believe that at some point in time it is going to be necessary for governments to come together and to formally agree with some of the changes that we are discussing here. It is not possible now for any of us to say how that might occur and what exact form that might take.
Certainly it would not be the position of this government to suggest that the role of provinces could be put aside and their place taken by a national referendum.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs as well.
The minister will know that the provincial governments of Quebec and British Columbia, to name just two, are committed to having referenda in their respective jurisdictions on constitutional proposals.
Will the minister now honour his promise on legislation for a national referendum and allow Canadians from all regions of this country to participate in this most important process of nation building?


Charles Joseph Clark: My promise, Mr. Speaker, was that there would be a meeting this week of House leaders to discuss the timetable that the government might have in mind for legislation to give effect to our undertaking in the Speech from the Throne. Of course, we will respect that undertaking.

November 28, 1991


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the minister will know that at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, November 19, in a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition, in the leader's office, the minister's chief of staff, Jim Judd, the minister agreed to introduce enabling legislation for a national referendum. Among other things, the minister specifically agreed that House leaders would meet this week to agree on a timetable for the passage of enabling legislation for a referendum as soon as possible.
I ask the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs why he and the government House leader are denying that undertaking.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rarely quote Christopher Young, but let me just quote a portion of his column of today when he says: Committee members "should remind themselves every morning that time wasted on party plots is time filched from the problems of hard-pressed farmers, industrial workers, fishermen and other decent citizens who elected them. Everywhere in Canada now the cry is heard that the constitutional issue must be settled and put behind us. Those who let temptations of partisan advantage stand in the way of that objective can expect to be harshly judged at election time".
I hope the hon. member will remember that.


GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
He will recall that for many, many months we have advocated from our party that the government take action to launch an initiative to support the hard-pressed people in Montreal and other parts of Quebec. We are pleased to hear the government's announcement today that through a package of $160 million it is going to ease some of the recessionary pain in that part of Canada.
Oral Questions
Yesterday the government turned away farmers by saying there was no more money for them. Two days before Atlantic fishermen were told there was no more money for them. Last week the finance minister said there was no more money to assist children living in poverty in Canada.
What process does the government use when it determines where it sends out initiative packages to assist hard-pressed Canadians?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. friend from Kamloops that of the $300 million package announced by two of my federal colleagues this morning, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of State for Agriculture, and other Quebec ministers, $160 million is federal funds coming from the reserves of the department in question. There will be no new taxes for this.
That is what we are trying to do to help the province of Quebec.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my followup question is for the minister responsible for western diversification.
The minister is aware that the Core Area Initiative in Manitoba is expiring, that the ACCESS program which provides educational opportunities for native people has expired and that all programs under the northern development agreement which provide infrastructure, employment and training in the part of Canada which has 23 per cent unemployment, the highest of any province of Canada, have expired.
Will the government act in Manitoba as it did in Quebec and provide funding and programs for that region?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, we have acted and will continue to act not only in Manitoba but right across the country, because we happen to be a national government. Where there is a need we attempt to address it.

Oral Questions
This kind of questioning, to try to drive a wedge between parts of the country and suggest that one part is getting more than the other, does not do this party any good when it is trying to be a national party.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles James Mayer: Part of it is going to go to Quebec. With regard to the core area, we are presently in negotiation with the province and the city to see what we can do to address the need there. With regard to education in the north, we have also had discussions with the province. If I remember correctly, the province has agreed to pick up part of the money it needs to continue with that program this year. It involves one of the native training programs at the University of Brandon. It has had a very good track record.
We will do our very best, through not only my department but the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, to support this very worth-while initiative.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question involves another hard-pressed region of Canada, the Atlantic provinces, and is directed to the Minister of State for Transport.
The Minister of Transport, in answering a question yesterday, demonstrated just how unconcerned the government is with respect to critical regional economic development issues in Atlantic Canada. All the Atlantic premiers support improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway through New Brunswick. The leading economic think-tank in that region supports and has been pushing for it since 1988.
Why does the government continue to stall in providing direct financial assistance to this critical regional economic expansion development project?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, it might be useful at this point to give some numbers on the major transfers that are made to the provinces and the rate of growth of these transfers to the various provinces. This is very enlightening.
Newfoundland increased from 1984-85 to 1990-91, 7 per cent; Prince Edward Island, 6.9 per cent; Nova Scotia, 6.2 per cent; New Brunswick, 7 per cent; Quebec, 3.7 per cent; Ontario, 7.3 per cent; Manitoba, 7.7 per cent; Saskatchewan, 10.3 per cent; Alberta-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. minister could pass those figures across to the opposition.


AGRICULTURE
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, of course we in the Liberal Party applaud any initiative that would help the economy of all regions of this country, but we also have a question for the Acting Minister of Agriculture, because the minister is no doubt aware that today, 40,000 farmers across Canada depend on our quota system, a system that is threatened by action currently being taken by the Americans at GATT. Can we expect a commitment from the minister that the interests of Canadian farmers will be supported at the GATT talks and that the Government of Canada will not abandon Canadian farmers to the mercies of the Americans?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, this question keeps coming up day after day after day. To the extent that it gets raised it causes uncertainty for farmers that they do not need.
The government's position is veiy clear. We have two ministers in Geneva this week making our case on behalf of marketing boards. About 70 per cent of the supply management industry in Canada is located in Ontario and Quebec and they are rightfully concerned.
We had with the two ministers in Geneva yesterday representatives of the supply management agencies. They are totally aware of our position. It has not changed. It was developed in total concert with those industries, with some of the producers who were there with us yesterday in Geneva, and it will not be changed unless they ask us to change it. They are telling us they do not want to change it. It will not be changed. It has been the same for a year as when it was put together and it will continue to be that way until the GATT negotiations are complete.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to ask questions because there are 40,000 Canadian farmers who are depending upon this Parliament and this government to defend their interests at the GATT.
November 28, 1991

I want to ask the minister: Why it is, when his Prime Minister on two separate occasions intervened directly to his good friend, the President of the United States, that it is the Americans now who are trying to torpedo our marketing boards at the GATT? Why?


Charles James Mayer: The Americans are in favour of tariffication. We know that and they have said so publicly. Our position is consistent and there are other countries that are supporting us in this. The Japanese, for instance, are supporting us and many of the European countries are supporting us in maintaining article XI.
Our position, to say it again, has not changed. We have allies in this position. We have no intention of changing it. We are making our case as strongly as we possibly can, and I believe that at the end of the day, whatever GATT solution is found to the problems in agriculture, it will include a measure that will protect Canadian marketing boards.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. It is on the same issue as that of my colleague.
The reason the uncertainty is there is because farmers want to know where they stand and where they are going to stand. The Prime Minister has assured Canadians time and time again that through personal and written contact he has softened the determination of the President of the United States to destroy Canadian marketing boards at GATT.
Today United States negotiators have told us that a deal has been cut between the European Community and the United States. It is not signed but it is cut.
Can the minister guarantee to the 40,000 Canadian dairy, egg and poultry producers that this deal includes a strengthened and clarified article XI?


Charles James Mayer: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member, everybody in the House and all the people who are connected with supply management across the country that no deal has been cut. We have absolutely no
Oral Questions
intention of signing a deal if it does not benefit Canadian industry.
I can assure the member that no deal has been cut. He should also know that until everything is agreed to, we will not sign any kind of an arrangement. It is a package deal and no deal has been made. Therefore there has been no deal cut on marketing boards, export subsidies or anything else.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same minister.
After weakening our position on supply management of our farm products during the free trade talks, the government gave farmers the assurance that GATT article XI would be reinforced.
Considering the minister's answers here in the House, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask him this: Do you think farmers will believe your story after you abandoned them during the free trade talks and now we can expect a devastating decision at GATT?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the member is dead wrong when he talks about the free trade agreement. Marketing boards are fully protected in the free trade agreement.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Charles James Mayer: They laugh, but they should also know-


An hon. member:: You had better read the agreement.


Charles James Mayer: Somebody says that I should read the agreement. We read the agreement and, as a result of reading the agreement, we established another marketing board for broiler chicken hatching eggs after we signed the free trade agreement. If you want to talk about the free trade agreement with the Americans it is fully protected in our dealings with the United States, Canadian Marketing Boards.
To get back to the other question about strengthening and clarifying article XI, we established that position with producers in the country that depend on article XI. That is our negotiating position and it will remain there unless the people connected with that part of the industry tell us to change it. To date they have not and our position remains the same.

November 28, 1991
Oral Questions THE ECONOMY


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Northern Ontario certainly feels like a voice in the wilderness, a forgotten region of Canada. Unemployment statistics are at record levels, welfare case loads are up 50 per cent in Sault Ste. Marie, and this year there have been 81 business bankruptcies and hundreds of personal bankruptcies in my community alone.
The Sault experience is not alone. Dozens of communities across northern Ontario are facing similar circumstances.
Northern Ontario deserves to be heard. I ask the minister: What economic package will come forward to address northern Ontario's problem of getting out of a recession that this government created?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a New Democratic Party member of this Parliament.
The New Democratic Party government of the province of Ontario, together with myself and the Minister of Forestry, announced a program just four weeks ago of $95 million for restoring the economic health and diversifying the base of the economy of northern Ontario, an agreement that was celebrated by the NDP Government of Ontario as well as this Parliament.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, 75 per cent of all jobs lost in this recession have been lost in Ontario, chiefly southern Ontario.
Windsor is typical. It has the highest unemployment rate in the country, 13 per cent. Like the rest of southern Ontario its welfare case load has increased by 24 per cent. Because of the deindustrialization of southern Ontario and because of cross-border shopping, our retail sector is in a terrible state of affairs.
My question to the minister is: Are there funds in the reserve fund or some action this government plans to take to correct the situation in Windsor, Chatham,
Sarnia, Brantford, Kitchener, Waterloo, Hamilton and the rest of the cities in southwestern Ontario that are hurting?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, we know what the hon. member is trying to do. He is trying to imply that to do something for Quebec and Montreal in particular is somehow wrong. That is really what he is trying to say.
Let us now take a look at southwestern Ontario. We have lower unemployment in southwestern Ontario than we have in other parts of Canada, but also southwestern Ontario has benefited in large measure from a number of federal programs: duty remissions on automobiles. We have just had an opening of a third line at Chrysler in Windsor. Dufy remissions on manufacturing equipment, defence spending, this is largely concentrated in southern Ontario. Southern Ontario has been well treated by Parliament for many decades and continues to be.


GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my good friend the Minister of Fisheries.
As he knows, the farmers got $800 million and they deserve that and more. Quebec today gets $160 million and deserves it. He also knows that Atlantic fishermen and plant workers are getting $39 million only.
I ask the minister how he can justify this unfairness, this pittance, this almost sick joke, in his type of language and will he now agree to go back to the well one more time, to go to bat for those fishermen and plant workers and get them the kind of dollars they deserve?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, there is no element of unfairness at all. Never in Atlantic history has so much assistance for fishermen been arranged and given to them as in this present year. The amount is $57 million; $18 million in ice compensation, that has never occurred before and $39 million more to assist those who are suffering from a catch failure.
November 28, 1991

The hon. gentleman should get to his feet, be honest for a change and congratulate the government for what it has done to assist fishermen.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask hon. members to refrain from making comments that put the Speaker in a position of having to perhaps judge them as unparliamentary.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that no amount of doubletalk can hide the truth, which is that he lost the battle in cabinet-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I am trying to do the best I can with both the hon. member and the minister. I am going to need a little help from both of them. The hon. member will put his question.


Roger Simmons: Why will the minister not admit that he lost the battle in cabinet on this one? He and his colleagues from Atlantic Canada were snowballed.
Now that the Prime Minister has had a change of heart and admitted yesterday that those fishermen and plant workers need a bit more attention, will he get together with the Prime Minister. More specifically, is he now prepared to go back to cabinet with a proposal for increased funding to those people who are in real need down there, including his own riding, so that they will get the kind of dollars they deserve to see them through this winter.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. gentleman-by the way, I want to help the Speaker all I can. With the group that the hon. Speaker is dealing with, he needs all the help he can get.
I hope the hon. gentleman opposite will be supporting my new proposals for reform in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans so we can get rid of the minutia of giving out licences and making allocations and deciding whether John Brown should have a licence or John Smith should have a licence and help us to spend all our time devising schemes for getting more money out of the rest of the government.
Oral Questions UKRAINE


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Last August in Edmonton the Prime Minister said and I quote:
Canada pledges to respect the free and democratically expressed
wishes of the Ukrainian people, whatever that decision might be.
We now have the secretary of state saying something quite different and attaching a series of conditions to Canada's recognition of Ukraine.
I want to ask the minister why the government is now reneging on the commitment made by the Prime Minister last August?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question of reneging on any commitment that was made.
First of all, we have an historic referendum coming up this weekend that I think Canadians from all backgrounds will welcome.
Second, the Prime Minister made a commitment that we would respect the democratic process. That remains the commitment of the government and that is exactly what we will do.
What we have said is that there are obligations of all nations to sign on to certain principles, including nuclear disarmament through the treaties that have been signed, including conventional forces Europe. The Prime Minister has said that in interviews and so have I. The democratic process will be respected and we are looking forward to seeing the results of what will be a very important day on Sunday.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, this morning in front of the external affairs committee, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Russia Federation said that there have been communiques and agreements already signed between the President of the Russian Federation and Mr. Kravchuk from Ukraine, which explicitly set out that there will be joint control of nuclear weapons, and Ukraine will control all the arms control agreements.

November 28, 1991
Oral Questions
What is the concern? What is the hold-up? What is the back-tracking on that commitment? Why do the minister and the government not live up to what they said on August 30?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am very amused because the referendum has not even happened yet. Nobody can renege on anything at this point.
What we are looking forward to is the event on Sunday. We have been totally consistent from the beginning. I too have discussed this with the foreign minister of Russia and with many other people, including our NATO allies and some of our other allies.
There is nothing to renege on until it is over. I think the hon. member is jumping to the conclusion that there will be something reneged on, when there is absolutely no reason to believe that.


CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun -Saint-Paul):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
Once again the Canadian Union of Public Employees is in hot water, this time in its aviation division. The minister is no doubt aware of the lock-out of flight attendants at Nationair since November 19 this year, and I am referring to flight attendants based in Montreal and Toronto. The lock-out is due to the fact that the union, after receiving the company's firm offer on November 12, refused to submit these terms to its members at a general meeting, so members can vote on the offer.
Considering the lack of professionalism and lack of good faith shown by union leaders, is the minister considering legislation that would oblige it to submit the offer so that members will have the option of voting a genuine option, I hope to return to work?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, we are now revising Part I of the Canada Labour Code, a process that will probably result in a number of reforms,
including one concerning pregnant women working on video display terminals.
As for the hon. member's question, I must say that I was watching very carefully what happened in Toronto, when Premier Bob Rae used a clause similar to the one my colleague would like to see in the Canada Labour Code. For the time being, we are looking into the matter, and I hope to be able to submit a recommendation to cabinet within a few months.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds.
Today the Vancouver Port Corporation, grain companies, employers' organizations and affected workers all condemned the federal government for creating economic uncertainty in the grain export industry with the shipment of grain out of the port of Seattle.
Will the minister clear up this uncertainty and help the industry by indicating exactly under what circumstances grain will be allowed to move through American ports?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should understand two or three things.
First of all, the Wheat Board assures me that the grain that is moving through Seattle is additional capacity to what would otherwise be moved.
I assume the NDP supports the Wheat Board, so I am taking the Wheat Board's numbers. It means additional sales for Canadian farmers who were yesterday in the galleiy. If the hon. member is against that, he is against farmers.
Second, the Wheat Board has also said that this could result in additional work for Canadians because if we can satisfy a customer now when we are booked up to capacity and develop a business relationship with that customer, it means that country may come back again and make additional work for people in Vancouver.
November 28, 1991

What we are trying to do is what is in the best interest of Canadian farmers. In the process down the road, potentially we will have more work for the kind of people he is concerned about.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, that is not what the release said today.
The Canadian Wheat Board has stated it had to use Seattle because there was no room in Vancouver. It also said that it would be cheaper for farmers if the grain was moved through Seattle. Today's press release states that neither of these statements are in fact correct.
Will the minister advise the Canadian Wheat Board to correct these inaccuracies? Will he direct the Canadian Wheat Board at least to make public the final costs of this cargo diversion.
The Canadian farmer has a right to know, the grain industry has a right to know and the taxpayer has a right to know.


Charles James Mayer: Just to say again, Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board has advised me that this is additional tonnage that would not be moved if we did not take it through Seattle.
The other thing the hon. member should know, if he is concerned about doing business with the Americans, so far this year we have trans-shipped through transfer houses along the St. Lawrence over a million tonnes of U.S. grain. We regularly do business with the Americans, which creates jobs for Canadians by moving American product. I do not think there is a lot wrong with using U.S. facilities if it helps Canadian farmers now with the potential to make more work for Canadians tomorrow.
% sk *


CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN
Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for national health and welfare. The government of Manitoba has recently converted the manner in which the provincial tax credits will be paid to welfare recipients. Instead of receiving a lump tax credit as all other Manitobans receive, welfare recipients will now have a
Oral Questions
portion of the credit included in each monthly social assistance cheque.
My question is simply this. Is this discriminatory practice allowed by the federal-provincial arrangements under the Canada Assistance Plan?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting twist and I appreciate my colleague from Portage-Interlake bringing this to our attention.
It is my understanding that the department received some brief information this morning on this particular proposal. As it is quite complex dealing with the Canada Assistance Plan it is going to take some time to directly assess whether proposed supplementary benefits will indeed be replacing the tax credit.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, as well as all my colleagues that the Canada Assistance Plan is very important to each and every one of us. It supports many Canadians and I thank the hon. member for his question.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works or his replacement here today.
I want to go back to the termination of the contract for the construction of the veterans affairs building in Kirkland Lake. Since termination will result in the loss of more than $800,000 to firms across northern Ontario and since the original developer has now demonstrated his ability to meet Public Works criteria, why does the minister and his department continue to refuse to reconsider and reactivate the original contract?


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the developer who was low bidder on that contract was given the contract in good faith. He indicated to the Department of Public Works that he had financial difficulties.
After two extensions he was not able to produce the bid bond that was required and so the contract was terminated. The discussions were then undertaken with the second bidder and those discussions are continuing in good faith.

November 28, 1991
Oral Questions


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, ray question is for the same minister.
I want to know the real reason behind this nonsense. Is it because the owner of the second site and the member for Timiskaming just happen to be brothers-in-law?


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, I am terribly disappointed because that same member in discussions earlier with me indicated that she knew that that was not a factor in these bids.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Dave Worthy: I can say, Mr. Speaker, that the brother-in-law is not involved in the development. He is a minor shareholder in a piece of property that may be involved, but I would like to remind the member that this does not do her or her party any benefit by bringing it up this way.


An hon. member:: It sure helped the brother-in-law.


Sheila Maureen Copps: All in the family.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. As he will know, Sydney Steel Corporation is suffering because of the countervail imposed by the United States in the amount of 105 per cent against the importation of head hardened rails by Sysco into the United States even though the only other producer in North America is back ordered for 18 months.
France and Japan are now supplying these rails to the United States even though they do not have a free trade agreement with the United States yet Canada cannot.
I want to know what the government is doing to get rid of this countervail so that the Sydney Steel Corporation can compete on an even footing in this United States market.


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we have the free trade agreement is so we can object to the countervails as they
are launched against us and that is exactly what we are doing.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the United States needs to import these rails and Sydney Steel needs the market.
Why does the government not take some action to get rid of this countervail and do for Atlantic Canada, and particularly Cape Breton, what it said the free trade agreement would do?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, we are taking action against the countervail. We are doing exactly what you have asked us to do.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for grains. In the last few hours, we were able to observe his colleagues, who had gone to Geneva to meet Mr. Dunkel, leave the meeting on their knees. Indeed, the Minister for International Trade told us that he did not get a lot of support, while the Minister of Agriculture himself said that Canada seemed unable to obtain the support needed to strengthen article XI. He then wonders why farmers are worried.
Since the senior ministers of this government admitted that they were powerless yesterday in Geneva, is the Prime Minister prepared to go himself to ensure that article XI is maintained and strengthened, as they promised in the debate on free trade?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody came out on their knees, if that is what he is suggesting. I read the transcript of the press conference that both ministers had over there from start to finish. They did have a chance to make their case very explicitly and very directly to the Director General of GATT, Mr. Dunkel, so that they understood Canada's position clearly. I think that is what the member and the people he represents would expect us to do as a government; to represent our people's views as strongly and forcefully as we can.
November 28, 1991

Our position, as I said, has been developed with the industry and it will continue to be exactly the same as it is until or unless the industry asks to change. If he is saying that we should not go to Geneva and that we should not when we go to Geneva take producers with us because we are not going to get our way all the time, that is not the way you conduct negotiations and that is not the way we have been successful on behalf of Canadian farmers in the past.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. One of your partners, the president of the Quebec farmers' union, recommended that you reject outright the Dunkel report, as France and Ireland did. Can the minister tell me why he considers the Dunkel report to be a basis for discussion, when it means the end of Quebec agriculture?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, again the member is dead wrong. I read both papers that Mr. Dunkel put out, one I think about November 8 and one last week which was some 30 pages. If you read it carefully, there is no prejudicing of anybody's negotiating position in that paper.
It clearly lays out the parameters under which discussions can take place, but there are also exemptions in there. There are provisions for snap-back. There are all kinds of things to protect marketing boards.
Again, I think it is fair to say that is what the country would expect of us; to make our position just as strongly and as clearly as we can to the appropriate people. That is what we are going and will continue to do.


PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE
Guy Ricard: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. The President of the Public Service Alliance made a statement that shocked many people and which the National Citizens Coalition considered to be violent against women. I would like to know whether the
Point of Order
minister intends to ask for his resignation and if not, what does she intend to do to correct Mr. Bean?


Mr. Speaker:: The question, while very interesting and perhaps important, does not involve the administration of the government.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw members' attention to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Andrei Kozyrev, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on a business question to the government House leader, I would like to-


Mr. Speaker:: Excuse me for a moment. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is seeking the floor for the usual Thursday question. The hon. member for Kamloops I think may have been indicating a part of that on a point of order. I will hear the hon. member for Kamloops.


POINT OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a short point of order.
During the statement period today, my hon. friend from Portage-Interlake made some statements regarding the president of PSAC, indicating some points that were factually incorrect.
I want to remind the member of Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 493 which states:
(4) The Speaker has cautioned Members to exercise great care in
making statements about persons who are outside the House and
unable to reply.
There are a number of other areas that mean about the same thing.
Many of the statements of my hon. friend were factually incorrect, such as: "Mr. Bean is an officer of the New Democratic Party". This is not the case, so would he be the gentleman that he is and withdraw his comments?

Business of the House


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I rise on that same point of order. I listened to what my colleague from the opposite side said with respect to my statement. I found it to be very much in order from what I read. Anyone who condones sexism and violence as a person should be condemned by him and his own party.


Mr. Speaker:: I will consider the comments of the hon. member for Kamloops and I will review what has been said. There has been a general sense in this place of course that if it was unfair to attack someone who cannot answer for themselves and someone who is outside the Chamber that certain restraint should be exercised. I will look carefully at the matter that is raised.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Leroy Legere, Minister of Labour for the Province of Nova Scotia.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader what the business of the House will be for the remaining part of today and Friday as well as on Monday and Thesday.
While the government House leader is on his feet he might also be able to respond as to when the government will be introducing the legislation to allow for a national referendum to take place.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, we momentarily intend to commence the debate on
third reading of Bill C-39 and we are hoping for completion.
There have been discussions among the parties with respect to Bill C-44 which is amendments to the Canada Labour Code. These are non-controversial and would help bring about the end to a labour dispute. I hope those can carry on and we can find some opportunity to pass that bill as soon as possible.
The outcome of tomorrow depends on the outcome of today. If C-39 has completed third reading, which I hope it will, it would be my intention to call third reading on the financial institution package.
On Monday and TUesday it would be my intention to call Bill C-20, the Budget Implementation Act, 1991. There are certain provisions in there that need to be passed prior to January 1, therefore we have to get it passed through this House so the other place can consider it prior to the Christmas adjournment.
Later that week I will be engaged in the usual discussions with members opposite to see what business can be appropriately dealt with.
In terms of the plebiscite legislation, we discussed at our House leader's meeting on Tuesday the practicalities of what that bill would contain, such as who would be allowed to advertise and what groups would participate because as hon. members know our existing Elections Act may be in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in terms of limitation on participation. We are awaiting the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, the Lortie commission, to see what recommendations can be made in respect of advertising limits, enumeration, broadcasting, availability of free time, allocation of broadcasting time, all of those practical things which are in our Election Act but which cannot be transferred over automatically to plebiscite legislation.
Those kinds of things, as I indicated in the meeting we had on Thesday, are things we are wrestling with. I do not expect to have an answer to that prior to Christmas. As the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs indicated to the leader of his party, we were unable to bring in any such legislation prior to Christmas.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, a point of order on House business.
November 28, 1991

I am most interested in House business. I have several points. I could not get the eye of the Speaker today and I have a whole point on that.
I really want to find out if there is any sense in getting off your seat if you are not on the list in the House. If you are not, then let us face facts. It is now Thursday and usually someone else is in the chair. I will pay my dues and get up for the first or second day. By the time Friday comes there is a new Speaker and that Speaker thinks you are just doing your first baptism. I am a good Baptist but I am getting tired of getting dumped all the time.
On House business, I wonder if the House leader, in the afterglow of Remembrance Day, knowing that there is a unanimous report from the defence committee and in view of the fact that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka asked a similar question last Friday, I think, to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, could find some way to implement those recommendations for the merchant mariners who are a dying breed rather than procedurally waiting for the 150 days to respond to that unanimous report which is finally addressing one of the last groups that helped defend this country and fought so valiantly and had the highest rate of casualties of any group in the armed services.
Let us do something good and nice and make Canadians feel good. Since we have missed the Remembrance Day period, let us think about the Christmas period and the New Year for those dying merchant marines. There are different figures that one or two die every week because of their age group. The government should respond in a positive way.
Quite frankly we are finding money to do different things. There is a moral element, as the chairman of the defence committee said, about paying for it. Surely the House leader who is a very compassionate person outside the House could appreciate the morality of doing something before this breed becomes extinct. In other words, do not procedurally wait for the 150 days.
I could not get a question to the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs and frankly I had several, so could the House leader please tell this member what the difference in a loaded word is between "referendum" and "distinct society", and where the government is going to change and flip-flop because of the implications
Business of the House
of one and that it is still proceeding gung-ho on the other. Is there any sense in continuing the whole thing anyway?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, on the question of giving veteran status to members of Canada's merchant marine, I know the Minister of Veterans Affairs has said on a number of occasions that he views this as very important. He is working on it.
There is no desire to work to 150 days, but the hon. member will appreciate that these times are different than they were in the early days when we were both here. He was here before me when the question of new spending was a trivial matter because the money was rolling in and our credit rating was still good.
Unfortunately, we are not in that position any more. Where he says that we can find new money, I wish that were true.
The hon. member has a suggestion for some minor savings, but saving a dollar and committing to 10 is not exactly what is going to help. Nevertheless, I will pass on his representation to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
There was a matter of debate as to loaded words and so on. I noticed some snickers earlier when I used the word "plebiscite". I did that because I am an engineer and engineers are very precise in their language.
I happened to look in the Oxford dictionary and "referendum" is a binding decision taken by vote and "plebiscite" is a seeking of opinion.
As you know, there is no ability under our constitution to change it by way of a binding, direct vote because of the amending formula that exists. At best, what you can do is have a plebiscite to seek opinion but cannot be binding. Therefore, it is a plebiscite and not a referendum according to The Concise Oxford Dictionary.


Mr. Speaker:: I am impressed. It is wonderful to hear from an engineer, especially when you come from a legal background. Calling upon The Concise Oxford Dictionary is of great guidance to the Speaker.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the government House leader on being an engineer and on the fact that they are precise in language.
Many Canadians are probably wondering if they are very precise with regard to cost estimates.

Business of the House
My question relates to the Canada Labour Code legislation which he indicated might be brought back. I think he recognizes that members of this House will have a problem if it is not brought back soon.
There is no use in the House of Commons rushing this legislation through all stages if there have not been arrangements made with the Senate to deal with the legislation this afternoon.
It does not appear to me, and I have asked the government House leader, that it would be valuable for this House to pass the legislation in all stages unless we have a guarantee that the Senate will be available to do the same later on today, and not next Tuesday.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am giving second-hand information here, so please do not hold me to it if it turns out to be wrong, but the latest information I have is that the Senate was prepared to work up until later this afternoon.
If we were prepared to deal with the legislation now, we could get it over there in time for it to pass it this day. It would take four days off a four-month strike.
If the strike goes on for four months and four days, I guess only those who are inconvenienced and out of pocket by the strike will have to complain. I do not think I should comment more about the Senate's attendance or I am liable to make more enemies than I already have over there.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, this is just for clarification for the public.
We are not dealing with back-to-work legislation. By the minister's referral to a strike, he ignores the gist of the legislation which is basically to enforce the employers to negotiate under the Canada Labour Code.
I think for the benefit of the public it is not a matter of ordering people back to work. This is legislation which is clarifying the Canada Labour Code to make sure that the employers are able to negotiate as one body.


PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY
Mr. Speaker:: I am pleased to table the report of the Auditor General of Canada concerning the operations and administration of the Library of Parliament.
This audit was originally requested by the Parliamentary Librarian and was endorsed by the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons.

I should point out that the Auditor General's first observation in this report is that:
The Library of Parliament received strong endorsement from
parliamentarians regarding the extent to which it meets their needs.
I would like to say on behalf of the House of Commons our thanks to the Auditor General and his staff for a constructive review of the Library of Parliament and I understand that his suggestions will be taken into consideration, studied and acted upon by members of the staff of the Library of Parliament.
Again, I want to extend to our librarian, Mr. Spicer, and his staff our well-deserved thanks for their ongoing commitment and dedication to serving the information requirements of parliamentarians and making it easier for members to do their work on behalf of our country.
I now have the ruling that I referred to earlier today in an exchange with the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and I hope that the ruling will help all hon. members to understand certain procedures that are taking place with some legislation.
I wonder if hon. members could perhaps take their conversation behind the curtain because I think it is being picked up by the microphones. I would ask hon. members to take their conversation perhaps just a little bit farther away. Thank you.
November 28, 1991


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: On Friday, November 22, 1991, as the House was about to begin the third reading debate on Bill C-35, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond rose on a point of order related to that bill.
The hon. member sought guidance from the Chair concerning Part III of the bill entitled "Bills introduced but not yet assented to" which puts forward amendments in relation to six bills that are at various stages in the legislative process.
Specifically it proposes to amend under certain conditions Bill C-3, which received third reading in the House on Friday last, Bill C-4 which is on the Order Paper at third reading, Bill C-18 which is now before the Standing Committee on Finance, Bill C-19 which is on the Order Paper at third reading, Bill C-22 which is now before the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations and Bill C-26 which awaits second reading in the House.

The Chair wishes to thank the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, the hon. member for Kamloops and the parliamentary secretary and hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin for their interventions last Friday and for their cooperation in permitting debate to commence, pending the Chair's decision on this matter. I am now ready to render a decision.
This is not the first time that members have raised concerns about a bill before the House appearing to be dependent on other bills still under consideration. On June 8, 1988, the Chair reviewed precedents on the subject, notably the decisions of Speaker Lamoureux of April 20, 1970 and February 24, 1971 as well as Deputy Speaker McCleave's ruling of February 5, 1973.

Speaker Lamoureux had found nothing procedurally wrong in having before the House at the same time concurrent or related bills which might be in contradiction with one another either because of the terms of the proposed legislation itself or in relation to proposed amendments. Accordingly, he ruled that second reading motions could proceed as the House was not giving final approval to the bills in question.
Today, however, the House is faced with giving its final
Speaker's Ruling
approval to Bill C-35 and the Chair must determine whether third reading of Bill C-35 can proceed when Part III of that bill amends six bills now at various stages of the legislative process.
In its careful review of the terms of Part III of Bill C-35, the Chair has examined testimony presented before the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General on November 19, 1991, when members sought clarification on the intent of Part III from the officials of the Department of Justice.
Let me first say that I was dismayed to find in that exchange that a ruling of June 8, 1988, has been misconstrued as carte blanche for an interdependent approach to drafting complex legislation with the committee being told: "the Speaker ruled in 1988 that the inclusion of these clauses was perfectly proper".
A close reading of the June 1988 ruling reveals rather that the Chair permitted second reading of Bill C-130 to proceed despite objections raised to conditional references to Bill C-60 and Bill C-110. As it happens, events overtook those bills. No objections were raised at third reading of Bill C-130 and on dissolution Bills C-60 and C-110 had been assented to while the free trade bill died on the Order Paper.
I want to make it very clear that the situation before us where objections of this sort have been raised at third reading is according to our research unprecedented.

In the ruling of June 8,1988, the Chair declared " the practice of one bill amending another bill still before the House or not yet given Royal Assent is an acceptable one". However, in keeping with the earlier warnings of Speaker Lamoureux, the Chair went on to caution that "if at third reading, circumstances exist whereby the bill is amending another bill still before the House, then I would be disposed to abide by Speaker Lamoureux's decision and hear further argument at that time".

November 28, 1991
Speaker's Ruling

This is precisely the situation before us today.
Having carefully examined the terms of Part III of Bill C-35, the Chair has grave concerns about this manner of proceeding since taken to the extreme it puts the House in the invidious situation of legislating in the subjunctive. For example, clause 157 of Bill C-35 proposes an amendment to Bill C-3 which is intended to deal with an anticipated anachronism. It amends the definition of department in Bill C-3 which rests currently on a reference to provisions in the Financial Administration Act which provisions are being amended by Bill C-35.
If the definition now in Bill C-3 remains and Bill C-35 is assented to without clause 157, Bill C-3 would even on being assented to contain an anachronistic reference to the Financial Administration Act.
That being said, the Chair has some sympathy for the dilemma facing those drafting proposals for the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act. Testimony before the committee reveals that this is an ongoing and painstaking process and that the very length of the process militates in some measure against its success as a comprehensive exercise. At the time such a bill is enacted, other legislation being considered concurrently by Parliament may require consequential amendments of the kinds included in Part III of Bill C-35. In the case of Bill C-35, and this is a key consideration for the Chair, the House is considering the traditional omnibus bill for corrections to certain anomalies and inconsistencies.
The drafters of Bill C-35 have in their zeal placed before the House not only corrective measures for such matters identified in existing statutes but in Part III they propose corrective measures for matters which will in all likelihood come into existence in this parliamentary session. Do these proposals offend the procedures of the House of Commons?
It is the duty of the Chair to safeguard the right of members and the House to make fully informed decisions on the matters before it and in the final analysis the Chair must be guided by what Deputy Speaker McCleave described in 1973 as a matter of how best to achieve logical progression of companion or interdependent bills through the House.
The legislative process affords ample opportunity for amending proposed legislation during the detailed clause by clause study in committee and again at the report stage in the House.
In the case of Part III of Bill C-35, members could have voted against or moved to delete any or all of the six clauses in question. Now at third reading the House has a final opportunity, should it so choose, to recommit Bill C-35 to committee for reconsideration.
Alternatively, the House could decide not to proceed with third reading of Bill C-35 until the six bills touched on in Part III have completed the legislative process.
All of these avenues offer members full remedy to this conditional approach to legislating should they object to it. That decision rests with the House.
After careful reflection on the technical nature of the amendments and their effects and on the opportunities there have been and continue to be for the House to reject Part III of Bill C-35, the Chair is not inclined to intervene on procedural grounds in this instance. Accordingly the Chair rules that Part III of Bill C-35 is properly before the House and third reading of Bill C-35 can proceed.
I want to add to these comments of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond that the point that has been raised is not an easy one. I hope that this is of some assistance to the House. It is a complicated matter and as I mentioned in the judgment, this approach is not altogether satisfactory and I have had to the best I can with a very difficult situation. I thank the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond for bringing the matter to the attention of the Chair.


David Charles Dingwall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for a detailed decision but I am wondering if the Chair could perhaps elaborate considering the Chair's distinguished legal background and appreciation for parliamentary procedure.
In the ruling I take it that Part III is now in order. You did suggest, and correct me if I am wrong, that there is a remedy before the government. If it decided not to proceed with third reading of Bill C-35 until such time as the previous acts in question have been assented to, that would certainly make it appropriate. Am I reading the Chair correctly in that assessment?
November 28, 1991


An hon. member:: Be careful.


Mr. Speaker:: I heard somebody say: "Be careful". I think it was said to the Chair and I accept it as assistance.
There is a great temptation sometimes for the Chair to put on another hat. I am going to refrain from that and resist the temptation for the moment. I think the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has summed up pretty carefully and accurately the remarks of the Chair.
I ruled that the matter is procedurally before us. It is procedurally acceptable.
If members feel that it might be appropriate to delay or as I said to defeat it, then that of course is for the House to do.
That of course is something which is entirely for the House to do and it is not something for the Speaker to suggest or favour or to reject.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker I want to thank the Chair and I want to thank the Table for the preparation of the decision.
I had asked on several occasions to have this decision completed expeditiously. I hope that my interventions were not interpreted by the Chair nor by the able representatives at the Table as trying to be a nuisance to them and to the Chair. I did believe then as I do believe now that this is a very substantive point with regard to the procedural aspects of the House of Commons. I wish to thank the Chair. I will not reflect on the decision in the House but I do want to thank the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I will say to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond first of all as I indicated it is a complicated and difficult issue. It was most properly raised. I can only say that I am sorry that we were not able to come with a ruling a day or so earlier. I appreciate what the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has said in appreciating how much work went in this decision. The officers of the Table have been of great assistance to me in coming down with a decision which gave me some trouble indeed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do not want this opportunity to pass without adding my thanks to the Table and to the Speaker for making such a difficult ruling and spending to much time and effort on it. We are pleased
Government Orders
to find that this particular process is procedurally within the bounds of the House of Commons.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, may I pose a question to my distinguished colleague the parliamentary secretary and friend to the government House leader. Note the word "distinguished".


Mr. Speaker:: I just want to remind the hon. member from Cape Breton-East Richmond that I use the term generously.
Mr. Dingwall Mr. Speaker, it was used on me one time but the person that was giving the remark called it "extinguished". I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary in view of the decision which has been rendered by the Chair if he would give serious consideration to withdrawing Part III of Bill C-35?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to my hon. friend in view of the Speaker's ruling there are obviously a number of options available to the government and to the House and I would not want at this point to preclude any of them.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-39, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Family Allowances Act and the Old Age Security Act, be read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Debate.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-39 at third reading. I wish to convey to this House the regrets of the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the unavoidable absence here today. He is most regretful.

November 28, 1991
Government Orders
Members from all sides of the House do know that there is an urgency to this particular bill and really have shown truly excellent co-operation ensuring that it could move forward to the other place and then on to have provincial approval and come into effect January 1992.
First, I wish to thank the member for Hochelaga- Maisonneuve who chaired the legislative committee. I also want to thank the hon. members for Winnipeg North and Kootenay East.
I would like to extend my appreciation to all those who brought forward their concerns, especially those with respect to the disabled. In this regard, note should be taken of the contributions of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia and also of the hon. member for Don Valley East, whose proposed amendment to the disability provision of the CPP is contained in Bill C-280, which received third reading here on Tbesday evening.
I would also like to note the particular concerns raised in the committee by members regarding the CPP, the definition of "disability", the time limits on applying for a disability pension, and the protection for persons who stay at home to care for disabled persons.
I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to all the witnesses representing the disabled community who appeared before the committee. A brief on Bill C-39 was presented by the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped, the Canadian Disability Rights Council and the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped. They raised many important issues and they revealed the serious concerns many persons have about the disability provisions under the CPP.
It was also noted that some Canadians simply lacked the information or the knowledge about the plan's provisions. Because of this an application for disability benefits may be delayed too long and unfortunately this may result in the loss of eligibility for the benefits.
I might add that the Department of National Health and Welfare has undertaken a stronger communications effort in this particular area. However it really is clear to me and to all of those who sat on the legislative committee that more has to be done. I really welcome all suggestions from the members here in the House and all
members of Parliament as to how we might better inform Canadians about the CPP plan and its provisions.
Certain amendments designed to improve the disability provisions under the CPP had been made through Bill C-116, which took effect in 1987. The changes enhance the flat rate disability benefit as well as ease the eligibility rules by including a new recency provision. Bill C-39 also includes important provisions for the disabled. Greater benefits will be paid to the children of disabled contributors, and the benefit eligibility of CPP contributors who were unable to apply in time because of incapacity is going to be protected through one of our amendments.
It is clear that hon. members want more. Bill C-280, which I have mentioned, is a private member's bill and it was sponsored by the hon. member for Don Valley East. The bill was passed in this House Tbesday and now is in the other place for discussion.
This bill would further ease the contributory requirements for a disability pension. Under the provisions of the CPP, the terms of that bill will require notice to, and approval by, the provinces.
I also wish to indicate my appreciation to the witnesses from the Canadian Institute of Actuaries who appeared before the legislative committee. Their testimony confirmed that CPP is funded on the basis of sound actuarial principles and that this legislation here before us today is solidly based on those principles.
I would like to now briefly summarize the major and the important minor provisions contained in this bill.
As members know, the bill contains two major amendments. It amends the current 25-year schedule of CPP contribution rates and extends the schedule by an additional five years.
The bill increases benefits for the children of disabled and deceased CPP contributors by $35 a month.
The bill contains a number of minor amendments which are really insignificant in cost, but the minor amendments would provide for the conversion from a CPP disability contributor's child benefit to a CPP orphan's benefit without the need for application. It would provide CPP children's benefits to a child who comes under the care and custody of a CPP contributor after the contributor becomes disabled.
November 28, 1991

These minor amendments allow for the protection of benefit eligibility of CPP contributors who are unable to apply in time because of incapacity and for the reimbursement of CPP disability benefits to the administrator of a disability income plan under approved conditions at the beneficiary's request.
Another minor amendment concerns the sharing of information among the Old Age Security, the Canada Pension Plan and the family allowance programs. This will provide improved service for all our clients. Another minor amendment concerns information sharing between these three programs and provincial administrators in limited circumstances which would allow for the faster provision of provincial benefits in services for dual clients. A number of other minor administrative and technical changes are incorporated within the bill.
In closing, I thank all members in the House and members on the committee for their very constructive and their truly co-operative efforts in dealing with the legislation. This package of amendments is a fine example of federal and provincial co-operation and negotiation.
The amendments will, among other things, ensure that the plan remains soundly financed well into the future. The children's benefit increase for dependent children of the deceased and disabled CPP contributors is truly a significant benefit improvement for a particularly vulnerable group.
As members know the legislative timeframe we are working under is very tight. The target date for implementation of the proposed changes is January 1, 1992. After Parliament has approved the bill, the approval of two-thirds of the provinces with two-thirds of the population is required to implement the legislative changes. I know the provinces have already put their machinery into motion so that they can be ready to act immediately once the federal parliamentary process has been completed.
Once again I want to underscore the minister's support and appreciation for the committee members' work, the witnesses' testimony and the suggestions put forward by all members of this House on how to improve the Canada Pension Plan.
The minister has asked that I inform the House today that he will write to his provincial counterparts and request immediate discussion on the proposed sugges-
Govemment Orders
tions which will allow for a better and a fairer disability coverage. Certainly we hope that the provinces will agree and in turn support further amendments to the CPP legislation. Indeed it is unfortunate that these proposals did not get included in Bill C-39.
The minister will also provide to the appropriate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare copies of these letters.
This is one thing that I promised at the legislative committee and indeed here this morning in the House. Concerns were raised by both my colleagues on this side of the House and the other side of the House with regard to the CPP legislation, how we can assist the disabled, and indeed credit splitting due to an fortunate divorce or separation within a family. These concerns will be addressed by the minister to the provinces with a copy of his letter to the appropriate committee.
I know that we can do more, that we should be doing more and that we will want to be able to count on the co-operation of all parties like we have had in future efforts to protect and improve the social insurance of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much and look forward to this debate at third reading.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to participate in this debate on third reading of Bill C-39.
The parliamentary secretary has outlined the position of the Government of Canada with regard to this particular piece of legislation. I wish to reiterate what my colleague from Winnipeg has said with regard to Bill C-39. We will be supporting Bill C-39 on third reading. That is not to say that we are completely pleased with all the contents of the bill or the lack of certain provisions in the bill.
I wish to state for the record we are aware, as debated previously, that Bill C-39 will result in an increase in Canada pension contribution rates both for employees and for employers. This plan is supported from coast to coast. The arrangements are somewhat different in the province of Quebec, but it is indeed a national program to which Canadians have contributed voluntarily-it is now mandated by law-and have done so for a good number of years.

November 28, 1991
Government Orders
We have taken notice of the government's assertion. An increase in the appropriate premiums of various individuals who are gainfully employed and who are not employed for this particular plan is important in order to make certain that the Canada pension fund itself is solvent and that we do not go bankrupt, thereby leaving a large number of Canadians without the appropriate compensation they thought they were going to receive.
The bill goes on to deal with the benefit levels for dependent children of disabled and deceased contributors to the plan. Federal-provincial agreement to such increases was reached I believe in January 1991, and we in this House are now cementing, consummating that agreement in its totality.
I want to say for the record that the increases which are tied in Bill C-39 are not whopping increases but are nevertheless increases. I think members ought to be cognizant of that increase and fully appreciate that those individuals who will be the recipients of these financial increases will certainly bear some benefit as a result.
I had hoped during report stage of this bill that amendments would have been allowed. Amendments were allowed by the Chair in terms of procedural grounds but certainly the substance of those amendments were not accepted by the government. That is a decision that every government duly elected by the people of Canada has a right to make. I think in this particular instance it has made this decision without sound substantive rationale.
I know the hon. member for Halifax West would want to participate in this debate. Perhaps we can hear from him later on. I do want to say there are some very perplexing situations that must be brought to the attention of the Chair, indeed the people of Canada, in terms of Bill C-39 and what it could have done. I have a number of cases in my own constituency where I make the comment that there are very sound and solid arguments for provisions of the Charter for discrimination both on sex and on age.
Bill C-39 could have incorporated some of those changes in order to rectify the problem.
I have a constituent who is a woman of 43 years of age who was receiving Canada pension benefits of $215 per month after the death of her husband. One day her benefits were reduced to $170 without any warning whatsoever. She found out that since health and welfare had not received confirmation that her son was still enrolled in school, she lost the benefits because he was no longer ruled as a dependent. I note that benefits cease for survivors when they reach the age of 18 and leave school or when they turn 25 if they remain in school.
This lady did not get her original benefits back even though the $215 per month was reduced to begin with. This was simply because she was a woman under the age of 45 years. This is the point. That is in the legislation. That is unfair to Canadians who have to put up with that kind of difficulty.
Here is another situation. A woman became a widow in 1985. She applied twice for Canada pension benefits. That was in 1985 and 1988. She was refused both times because she was under the age of 35 and had no dependants. The case went before the Human Rights Commission. I say to the those in the Chamber and to those who are viewing our proceeding across the country that our Canadian Human Rights Commission said it would not interfere because it involved pension plans. Health and welfare on the other hand told this lady she would get her benefits when she reached 65.
The Chair has had a tremendous career. It is one known for reasonableness, fairness and at times firmness which is quite appropriate. I would have to ask the Chair and members through the Chair to explain to me and others where the fairness is. Surely this must be wrong. Surely there is something inherently wrong with the law.
In Bill C-39 we had an opportunity to correct that very grievous error but we did not. Members opposite voted us down and as a result it could not go forward.
Think of it. Let me personalize it just a little bit. You are 22 or 23 years of age and working and you make a decision to get married. You live together as man and wife and you make a conscious decision not to have any children until you pay your student loans.
November 28, 1991

To inform those who are in the Chamber, student loans can vary. If one goes on to professional school or pursues a doctorate or a masters thesis domestically or internationally, the bill is rather large.
What happens if two people are married and both have student loans and say: "We are not going to have children right away. We are going to wait a number of years because we want to pay off our debt in terms of student loans. We do not want to give our money in terms of rent to a landlord. We would rather have some equity. Therefore we will take a few years save some of our money make a down payment on a home and try to make our mortgage payments so that we are not going to be in a situation which some Canadians have determined to be 'house poor."
That is you do not want your mortgage to be of such an extent that you have very little income left for anything else. The couple gets married. They pay off their debts or attempt to pay off their debts such as student loans. They save money for a down payment on a mortgage. The mortgage rates just recently just came down. In some areas of the country they have been very, very high as my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood will attest to later on.
Then all of a sudden tragedy hits whether by accident or by disease. One of the couple is deceased. You have paid your benefits into the Canada Pension Plan and you are a survivor. But because that lady has no children she is denied the benefits of a program which she quite justifiably placed monthly payments in each and every month and each and every year.
I suggest that that situation is not fair. The law as I said earlier this morning is wrong and ought to be changed.
What about the widow who is 43 years of age who does not have a bankroll of cash. She does not have a situation whereby someone from afar could send cheques in large amounts of money but who does everything she can to raise her family and provide them with the necessities of life that many of us have taken for granted so often in this Chamber.
She has a couple of children. She assists them in going on to pursuing their education but because of an oversight her benefits are dropped substantially. Members might say: "Well, $215 down to $170, come on, that is $45, not a lot of money".
Let me tell you about $45 and what it can pay in terms of the family income which is basically limited.
Government Orders
It might help to pay for the telephone which is a monthly expense. Notwithstanding the interventions made by Bell Canada and all of the telephone companies, the telephone rates have not come down. They have not come down. That is one expense.
It can be used to buy bread. You can buy bread with that $45 a month. You can buy milk with that $45 a month. You can also buy such things as snowsuits for your child who may wish to go to school and participate with other children in various activities both on the school grounds and off the school grounds when the weather is cold.
It may also pay for swimming lessons. It could be used as a transportation subsidy for a child under the age of ten who after school may have to travel a distance to get home or because of some special arrangements there might be sickness in the family or one might have to go to a dentist.
But the Government of Canada in this law, the Canada Pension Act, has denied that individual of that amount of money.
Mr. Speaker, I say to you with great respect that that is unfair. The law is wrong. Bill C-39 could have rectified that situation. It has not done that.
We are not talking here about a substantive sum of money but we are talking about a substantive sum of money for the recipients of the program. I have used the figure of $45. Well, $45 is almost $600 a year. It is well over $500.1 think I am correcting my addition here. Let us forget about bread and milk, snowsuits, transportation subsidies. Let us talk about other things.
Do you know that there are numerous Canadians across this country who have to pay each and every month for something which many of us never think of. It is called a power bill or a utility bill. You may live in the regions of the country where sometimes the weather can be quite erratic. That is not to suggest that the weather is neither cold or erratic here in the nation's capital. But I just bring it to the Speaker's attention. Many individuals are on a plan whereby they spend each and every month a set sum. If the weather is extremely cold they still pay that sum of money which is that $45. If the weather is very warm they still pay the $45. It provides the home with heat. It provides the family with light. People do their homework under the light and some people wish they did not do their homework under the light. But it provides a necessity. We have not rectified this error in this particular bill.

November 28, 1991
Government Orders
I say to you, Sir, and to members opposite and to my colleagues that that is wrong. We ought to change it. I hope the parliamentary secretary will be true to her word. I have every reason to believe she will. I hope this matter will be brought to the attention of ministers of health across this country for subsequent change and amendment and to rectify the situation.
I make reference to these particular cases because I think it important that members of Parliament and those in the viewing audience realize that sometimes we deal with a lot of technical stuff. Sometimes we deal with miscellaneous statutes where you have different bills that are affected and affect other bills.
My colleague from the New Democratic Party was so right today when he stood in his place. He did not necessarily agree with me, but he was right in terms of pension reform. He was right. I do not think anyone doubts that. Surely there is an obligation on all of us not to just push through with a quick hand a statute like Bill C-35, which has 90 different federal statutes and umpteen different amendments and various consequential amendments. It is very important for us when dealing with Bill C-39 to make substantive changes which affect the lives of Canadians.
A number of organizations have applauded the government in terms of the increases that will occur as a result of premiums both on the employer and employee sides in order to make the fund solvent. We on this side hope that these changes, which were made to rectify an error, and were done certainly with good faith on our part and hopefully on the part of the government, will be consummated again on the passage of third reading of this bill.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping you will allow my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, to continue on in the debate in the time that remains. However, I do want to say through you to the parliamentary secretary, who said some very kind words earlier this day, that she will be true to her undertaking and the suggestions we have made she will bring them to the attention again of the minister and to the ministers of health to see whether some political will can be gathered across this countiy to make those kinds of substantive changes which we believe to be important both in terms of assisting the recipients of this particular
piece of legislation, and also be able to facilitate the implementation of changes that we are recommending.
I would hope that the parliamentary secretary would share with me the letter that she will be forwarding to first ministers. I just want to see the body of the letter. I do not have to see the salutation of "My dearest colleague" or whatever it says, and I certainly do not want to see the signature with all the xs and os that will go to the various provincial ministers across the country. I hope the parliamentary secretary will be kind enough to send members on this side of the House a copy of that letter.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I will take the remaining moments from my colleague's time. As he said earlier, we salute the government for putting this bill on the floor of the House and putting the fiscal framework of the Canada Pension Plan back in order. It is something that the senior citizens of this country would appreciate. I know that in my own riding, 22,000 seniors count on this national plan to be properly managed. When they hear that we are putting the time and effort into making sure that the solvency of this fund will always be maintained, I am sure this will be good news to those constituents, not only in my riding but right across the country.
I want to talk about another aspect of this particular piece of legislation. It has to do with pensions for the disabled. I have talked about this-I guess it was second reading and I brought it up earlier today.
I am going to repeat myself because when you are a new MP there are days when you can stand in this House and feel good about what you are doing.
There are other days when you wonder what you are doing here: "What a waste of time. I think I could get a lot more done if I were not an MP".
At this moment with the case that I hold in my hands I feel that I am spinning my wheels. It is a case that I personally have been working on since August 8. It is a case that was brought to my attention by one of my constituents. It involves a man in my riding who volunteered his services to a fellow neighbour in rebuilding a roof on his home. My friend, Mr. Baxevanis, is a craftsman and he was on the roof of this home. He fell and broke his hip, his legs and his arms. He was lucky. I think the only thing he did not break was his neck. He had over 30 different major operations and has not been able to work for just under three years.

This is a man who has contributed to the economy of this country throughout his entire life. This is a man who is married and has three beautiful children. It is tough for somebody who has had that kind of experience. All of his life he has been active and then all of a sudden he is disabled.
It is at a time like this when you count on your national government and a program like disabled pensions to come into play.
The first letter I received on this was May 23, 1990, from a city councillor, Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, who talked about this case. My first letter on this case was August 7.1 produced all the paperwork necessary. I have written subsequent letters. I have tried to get information and I think we finally have it now from Revenue Canada, which I must tell you is just a painstaking exercise.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Did he file late?


Dennis Joseph Mills: No, he did not file late. He went through the normal process and there were difficulties in getting paperwork out of Revenue Canada. I wrote to the minister and I had difficulty. One day my colleague in my office basically lost it. I have never raised this in Question Period before. Here I am and it is almost Christmas Eve and I still do not have this case concluded.
Here is a man whom anybody with any common sense can see is physically disabled. He will never be able to work as a craftsman for the rest of his life. Thank goodness for the community that came to his assistance and his family's assistance and helped them maintain their home and made sure the children had the necessary food and clothing so that they could continue on their normal existence.
I bring this case to the floor of the House of Commons for one reason. I do not believe there is any intention by department officials to give this kind of a case the "mad" treatment, the maximum administrative delay treatment. I would never impute ill will to a public servant.
We are sloppy and inefficient. If this happened in business, if we treated a customer like this, we would
Government Orders
soon be out of business. No wonder there are times when our constituents, the people of Canada, wonder what we do here. I say humbly that this case makes me feel useless. It makes me feel useless that I cannot move a department on an issue that is substantive and addresses fundamental social policy in this country. This is not a man who is looking to have some kind of quick grab of the treasury of this country. This is a legitimate case.
I fear that there may be many other cases like this from coast to coast to coast in which the spirit of public service or the spirit of the bill is not being addressed.
As I said earlier to the parliamentary secretary for the government, I have enormous respect for her. She is a very hard working, efficient person, I would appeal to her and plead with her to somehow communicate to officials, the Public Service, not to find reasons why a case like this should be delayed and not processed, but to try and find ways to make the spirit of the law work for cases like the Baxevanis family.
Governance is not for people who are advantaged. It is to help people who are disadvantaged. One of the reasons I felt good about addressing this bill today on pension reform is because by and large we are talking about a piece of legislation that really looks after a lot of people in our community who from time to time are disadvantaged. I would implore the government to try and figure out a way to make the Public Service of Canada more efficient in delivering the act we are about to pass.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak on Bill C-39, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Family Allowances Act and the Old Age Security Act.
Last Monday evening I represented my party on the legislative committee examining Bill C-39. I must say that it was an uplifting experience. Why do I say uplifting? I use that word because members from all parties sat and listened to witnesses from the disabled community and I think all committee members were moved by the testimony.

November 28, 1991
Government Orders
We were not only moved emotionally, we were all moved to action. In four and a half hours we had reached agreement that existing disability provisions within the CPP were not adequate.
I guess we could ask ourselves: what does this bill really do?
What it does is provide a $35 per month increase in benefits paid to children of CPP contributors who die or who are disabled. All recipients would receive the increase on January 1992, after the regular cost of living adjustments is made to current payments of $113 per month.
Thus, on January 1992 the benefit would be $154.54. We are talking about an increase to these children of disabled people of $35 a month. Does it really provide $35 a month?
I guess I will put these questions to the House. Can we expect the provinces, private insurance or other players to decrease benefits by $35 a month as of January 1992? If this is the case, where is the real benefit for Canadians with disabilities? What can be done to ensure that Bill C-39 benefits disabled Canadians and is not merely a subsidy for private insurance companies or the provinces?
I was correct. I was told by the actuary and by the officials from the department that if the provinces decided to counteract, they could decrease it by that amount. Regarding the private insurance company that has this person insured, if the clause is in there, it could.
Here we are with a bill that may be subsidizing other sources. Really, it is a bit deceiving. The department estimates 170,000 children will be eligible to receive this higher benefit. Every one of them will receive the benefits. We know that, if the provinces agree to it.
It may be offset, and the people should be aware that it may be offset. I know I will be watching my province of British Columbia to ensure that it does not. I am sure it will not.
I want to go a little bit deeper into the bill if I may. I would like to refer to The Regency and Retroactive Rules Affecting Disability Benefits, a report to the Minister of National Health and Welfare by the Canada Pension Plan Advisory, May 1990.
As we sat in that committee, we had the people from the disabled group there. One of the gentlemen was a man in a wheelchair. He had two children. He receives
$785 a month to pay his rent or run his home and for his children. He told me at that committee his children cannot go to hockey games. He cannot afford to supply them with the equipment to play hockey.
He cannot go out and retrain himself to be able to carry on an active life. He cannot go out and take a part-time job because if he did Canada Pension would disqualify him from disability. What kind of legislation have we got in Canada that would allow someone to be designated as disabled for the rest of his life and not give him the incentive to go back out to try to train himself or re-educate himself?
I am told in committee that there is provision in some provinces where there are some pilot projects going on, one in British Columbia and one in Ontario, which allows for experimenting in these areas.
I want to refer to a case that I was first initiated into, the Canada pension disabilities. There was a young boy who played hockey with my son. I knew the boy. He got married and had two children. At the age of 28 he found himself in an accident in which logs fell from a truck and crushed him to the extent that he was literally immobilized.
When they shipped him off to Vancouver, they had to ship him on a passenger train, take the window out and put him on in a stretcher. His wife and children had nowhere else to go and so they came to me. They were looking for a disability pension. He was denied. He was allowed to go to the appeal board. I went to the appeal board and sat in on the appeal procedures. During that procedure the government appoints someone, in this case someone from a federal department. The claimant has someone appointed to represent him on his behalf and then an independent judge sits to chair it and then they make their report.
He won his case and has improved immeasurably since that time. If he were to try to retrain or find some mechanism of trying to find some part-time work to be able to put himself back into the work force, he would lose his disability pension.
Surely to goodness, in this day and age, with the new technologies we should not and we must now allow legislation to give that kind of a disincentive to people who could find themselves retrained and try to put them back into the workplace.
November 28, 1991

I want to talk for a moment, as I said, about this report from the ministry of health. It has recorded, it has done some studying and it appoints various people. In August, the chairperson of the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Board received a letter from the Minister of National Health and Welfare expressing concern regarding the provisions governing eligibility for disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. In particular, the minister requested that the board examine current provisions regarding regency and retroactivity with a view to determining whether any changes were necessary.
After some consultation by the board on retroactivity: "The plan also provides that no person shall be deemed to have become disabled earlier than 15 months before the month in which the application for disability is received. Departmental officials suggested that it would be very difficult, in many cases, to establish the onset of disability fairly if the retroactive period was extended beyond 15 months".
We have got case after case. Its figures show that as much as 5 per cent or 6 per cent of the applicants who have paid into the Canada pension scheme are disqualified because they did not apply at the proper time. They paid into a pension scheme and because they thought they were going to get better or possibly because they were getting money from unemployment insurance or possibly from some other source, they did not apply. All of a sudden someone informs them that there is a disability pension under the Canada pension. Finally, they come to make their application and are told: "Oh, I am sorry but you are disqualified now". If someone is disabled and has the credits, surely to goodness if he has not applied in time all the ministry has done is save itself a bunch of money, and the longer it takes for him to apply the more money the ministry does not have to pay.
There are provisions that would safeguard the plan because the retroactivity only goes back for one year. If someone is disabled in 1980, comes forward in 1990, has paid into the plan and can prove that they were disabled, surely to goodness the plan should be laid out in such a way that they could say: "Yes, you are entitled to it because you have paid into it, but you will only get it retroactive for one year".
Government Orders
That is not how the plan works. Many people out there are finding themselves in a situation in which they did not know because many of them do not have their trade unions to tell them that these provisions are there.
Canada pension has not really given out the kind of information with regard to disability pensions because we questioned the officials on that. Clearly we have got a situation in which the bill, the Canada Pension Plan Act, must be changed. Bill C-39 addresses one very little area and we are going to support it. We definitely will be supporting it because it is an improvement.
However, I do not want to leave the impression that we have done our job. There is a big job to be done there.
I heard the Liberals speaking with regard to the problems with the disabled and so on. I want to ask the Liberals: where were you between 1966 and 1984? Those same things that are going on right now were going on during that period of time and you could have gone into this legislation and tried to redraft it, but you did not.
I would hope the kind of atmosphere that went on in that legislative committee and in the hearing, and the kind of compassion that was coming from all sides of the House, will prevail and we will sit down as a committee and start to look at revising the whole Canada Pension Plan Act and not just these small portions of it.
There are other areas of horrendous problems within the Canada Pension Plan. I can recall several people who had received their disability pension and received a back cheque for somewhere in the neighbourhood of $17,000, $18,000, $20,000 and were not told that it was taxable. They were not advised that it was taxable. Goodness knows if you are disabled and you have got these problems and it takes so long to get your cheque, and it is a retroactive cheque, you need the money and you spend the money. Then in April they are told that they have income tax to pay on that and they must pay it. Again, there is another area.
I have been advised by people in the department that there are some changes coming with regard to the income tax, it will be deducted at source and I am pleased to hear that. I was very pleased to hear that kind of co-operation coming from that department and from the department heads. They realize the seriousness of the bill and the inequities.

November 28, 1991
Government Orders
I want to refer also to the point about the late applications. That is the area in which many people are suffering and not getting the kind of help they should be getting. Statistics on the number of late applications are not available. However, departmental officials have indicated that approximately 5.5 to 6 per cent of applicants are denied because the individual is not eligible for benefits because of lack of earnings. It is not only because of lack of earnings. It is because of the late application and the late filing. That is what I am finding in many cases. The individual did not know that they were entitled to Canada Pension and they did not apply. When they do apply they are told: "I am sorry, you're too late, so you can't get it".
Whether the government chooses to amend the definition of disability or expand educational or retraining programs into the CPP disability system, I believe that progress must be made. I hope the minister carefully reviews the minutes of the committee to see the level of support for these proposals from all sides of the House. I cannot over emphasize that point.
As the witnesses indicated, they do not want to be sitting at home in their rooms and not be given the opportunity to try to lift themselves up and to retrain or try to find even the very simplest of work. If they do that they are going to lose their pensions.
There is another area which is probably of deeper concern to every individual out there paying into the Canada pension. That is the funding of Canada pension.
The actuary came before our committee and ten minutes before he introduced his memo to the government House leader so that he could come and speak on his concerns.
There are some very serious problems on the graphs he is showing. The funding of the Canada pension as he has indicated needs to be very seriously looked at. Not only the funding of the Canada pension, but also the funding of our medicare system, our social assistance programs and our Old Age Security program need to be looked at, because it is all relevant; the age of our people, the changes of the age limits in the work force,
the changes in the work force and the amount of money going into the Canada pension. By the year 2021 our young people could be faced with some very, very serious decisions to be made.
We have about 20 years to get this thing done. I would urge the parliamentary secretary to the minister of health and welfare to try to convene the committee and let us start starting. I am not talking immediately, but I am talking about reconvening the committee to have a look at the Canada Pension Act from one end to the other, and spend our time doing something constructive as a committee.
We all know those problems are there. We know there are certain procedures we have to follow, but we should start immediately to go through the Canada Pension Plan, really look at those areas as a committee, start to do something in advance and start to talk to the provinces. Then coming back in a meaningful way at the proper time we could bring about the kind of required changes that are going to be needed for the whole Canada Pension Plan. Let us get on with the new technologies, let us go on with the provisions of some retraining, let us go on with the provisions of allowing disabled workers to get back into the workplace in some meaningful way.
I enjoyed that committee very, very much. I think the witnesses, the people, the actuary and the information we received were excellent. I still say let us not leave it there now, let us continue on in a meaningful way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? Debate? Before I recognize the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38-

-to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Racism; the hon. member for South West Nova-National Defence; the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre-Agriculture; the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina- Immigration; the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas- Cross-border Shopping.
November 28, 1991


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak again on the subject matter of this bill. It is now at the third reading stage, and I want to say that I am in support of Bill C-39 over all. I think it is an improvement over what we have had. It improves the child benefits, it improves the funding arrangements to maintain the solvency of the Canada Pension Plan, some pretty fundamental and important changes.
What I have to express again though is my disappointment with some things that perhaps ought to have been in this bill and are not. I guess I do so simply to flag them for the future. My pet peeve in this thing is the situation of those Canadians who have contributed over the years through their wages or employment into the Canada Pension Plan, who develop a disability and as a result of the disability have to leave their employment, and who wind up applying late because they did not know of the existence of the Canada Pension Plan disability pension.
By the time they learn of the availability and make their application, lo and behold their eligibility time has run out. At the present time they had to have contributed for two of the past three years or five of the past ten years.
I want to refer again to the really classic case of Mrs. Donna Sinclair of my community of Swift Current, Saskatchewan. This lady contributed to the Canada Pension Plan through her wages from the inception of the CPP in 1966 until 1978. She contributed for 11 of those 13 years. She did not know about the existence of the disability pension. She became disabled and had to leave her employment and it was not until 1987 that she applied. At the time of the application and looking back, it was discovered that she did not meet the required number of years in the contributor period, despite having contributed for 11 out of 13 years when she was working and up until the time of her disability. I believe it is an unfortunate injustice.
That may be partially remedied as a result of the passage earlier this week of Bill C-280, a private members' initiative that was put forward by my hon. colleague from Don Valley East. The gist of that bill would be to change the eligibility criteria to people having contributed in at least one third of the years in the contribution period.
Government Orders
If that bill does receive the approval of a sufficient number of the provinces with a sufficient amount of the population, then it may be that people like Mrs. Sinclair will qualify. We will have to wait and see.
I am disappointed with what I believe to have been undertakings in this place in 1988 and 1989 that this particular problem would be reviewed and it would be discussed the next time there were federal-provincial discussions about amendments to the Canada Pension Plan legislation.
Unfortunately, despite those commitments it is apparent it never did occur. I note again that those kinds of commitments have been given. However, I do believe that this time something will come of it. The hon. parliamentary secretary has indicated that the minister is sending letters to his provincial counterparts concerning this particular problem and that copies will be made available to the House and to the appropriate committee. One can only hope that the next time this comes around the subject matter will be addressed.
I want to at least congratulate the parliamentary secretary and the minister for taking hold of this initiative at this time. I think it is very regrettable and I think a number of disabled Canadians will find it regrettable that this action was not undertaken sooner.
I simply want to go on record again as being in favour of the improvements to the Canada Pension Plan regime that are contained within Bill C-39, but would certainly want to see further improvements. I do hope the provinces will see fit to approve the measures contained in Bill C-280, which was passed in this place earlier this week. I do look forward to some fine tuning of the act in the future as it relates to the plight of those disabled Canadians who apply late for their benefits and who are accordingly excluded because their qualifying period has expired.
I want to conclude my remarks at this point. I would be happy to answer questions any member may have.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise today to take part in this debate, listening to all the great debaters who have spoken on this issue before me today, I wonder as we look down the road at this great Canada Pension Plan what kind of a program we are going to have at the end of the day.

Government Orders
I ask myself and this House, are we going to have a better program for the people who are out there or are we going to have a program which fails them as the years unfold?
It is said in order to avoid passing on current debts to future generations of Canadians we must increase payments today. The failure to provide funding today, keeping in mind that today refers to a day, this day, still in recession, means that a lot of jobs are still being lost. It means retraining those workers who are now out of the work force. Today also reminds us of those people being laid off at ages 50 and 55.
Let us be honest here. These people cannot go back and be retrained. They are not going to be able to contribute to this Canada Pension Plan any further. As we look at the acts that have been talked about and dealt with, Canada Pension Plan, the Family Allowances Act and the Old Age Security Act, we can see that these are three very important pieces of legislation which have been at the centre of our social safety net for years.
As tough times come in their days, we promised to always look after our younger people, our older people and our disabled people. I want to, as I did some time here before, quote a statement made by the late great Senator Hubert H. Humphrey: "The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of their life, the children, those who are in the twilight of their life, the aged, and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped".
I think this is what we need to look at today as we prepare to make amendments to this bill. Are we adequately preparing ourselves as members of Parliament and contributors? Are we as the custodians of this pension fund looking after the interests of the men and women of our society or are we looking for another way, a cheap way, to take another tax grab from the public? If this is another tax grab, then it is wrong.
I believe fully and wholeheartedly and have supported unconditionally anything that will increase the pensions and the benefits of Canadians. I believe that this Canada Pension Plan is one of the greatest pieces of legislation ever introduced in this country. I wonder if we are doing
the right thing. Are we sincere? Are we really going to make this a better plan? Are we committed to it in this House?
It is a contributory plan, contributed to by the employer, the employee, by self-employed people and by the interest that it earns itself over the years. I believe as we look at the pension plan this is the only pension plan that a lot of Canadians have or will ever have. They are not fortunate enough to work at a company or be in government where they can contribute to another private plan or government run plan. They must look in their later years to have this and hopefully still have the old age pension plan to go along with it.
I really wonder as I take part in this debate and listen to all of the debates across the floor here today and yesterday if we are doing all we can as legislators. Are we making sure that this pension plan is going to be there for the people growing up, for the people who have not yet entered the work force?
I believe we owe it to Canadians to make this a plan that is the envy of the world. I would hate to be one who would take part in making it lesser than that.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague from Prince Edward Island on a very excellent presentation.
As we discuss Bill C-39 today, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Family Allowance Act and the Old Age Security Act, my colleague spoke fairly eloquently about certain aspects of the bill. However, I would like to ask him if he could elaborate a little on some of the cases in his riding and some of the difficulties people in his riding might have had in trying to get their pensions and trying to make ends meet.
According to some of the reports such as the one prepared by the National Council on Welfare, it seems that a senior citizen, for example, who is to receive the maximum CPP and the maximum Old Age Security pension as well as the Guaranteed Income Supplement, according to 1989 statistics, would end up receiving approximately $12,217 which, for a city such as ours here in Ottawa, is at most about $200 above the poverty line. In a city such as mine, Ottawa, the maximum a senior is receiving is just about at the edge of the poverty line.
November 28, 1991

I wonder if my colleague can share with us what is happening in Prince Edward Island and what kinds of problems are being faced by the its seniors.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the comments and the question he has posed.
I am concerned, as are most people in this place, about the adequacy of these pension plans. Many seniors have worked all their lives and are in a position in which they have not been able to pay into another private pension plan and are now looking to this pension plan and the Old Age Security as the only pensions with which they can pay their rent, groceries and other living expenses.
I find this very unfortunate. I believe that we, as members of Parliament, always have to be on the lookout to make sure that when we amend legislation such as this, we are doing it with the full interests of all Canadians at heart. I hope to see some day everybody in Canada, the younger people coming up, having the opportunity to pay into pension plans and that this pension plan is one that is adequate to look after people when they reach an age when they can no longer work or do not want to work any longer, when they want to retire with some dignity.
There are many organizations in this country, along with government, that have that responsibility. It is unfortunate that many of our senior citizens today find themselves in that category. I know people in my riding who retired from companies. A lot of them were Crown corporations. They retired back in the 1970s on an amount of money, let us say $500 a month, and today it is still $500 a month. That is not very much money to live on.
I believe there has to be over-all pension reform to ensure that this never, ever happens to the younger people of our society.
Regarding the hon. member's other question of people coming into my office asking about the Canada Pension Plan, and I am sure I have the same type of people coming into my office as you have, one of the big problems is the eligibility for receiving disability benefits from the Canada Pension Plan. Hopefully these amendments will speed up the process. It seems that everybody I have dealt with who has this problem of not being able to work and has no money coming in applies for Canada Pension and is automatically turned down. There must be some way of changing that situation, making the
Government Orders
disability benefits more accessible to these people. I do not think that somebody should get it and I am sure nobody applies for it that is not eligible for it. But this seems to be the norm, that everyone who I deal with who applies for it is turned down in the first instance. They go through an appeal and are probably turned down in the second instance and eventually they are eligible for it.
I heard many speakers say here today when they were talking about speeding up this process that the people who are doing it have to work within the laws. I think we as the legislators have to be able to change the laws to give that person who is applying the benefit of the doubt. We have to give them the opportunity that they are going to be able to get that and that they know they are not going to lose their house or apartment by not being able to pay their rent. These are areas that we have to make sure are taken care of.
I again go back to the questions asked about the amount of money people are getting. Certainly there is not enough money and there is never going to be enough money. I am a great advocate of pension plans and I believe that everybody should have the ability to pay into a pension plan. As legislators we should make this Canada Pension Plan a much more lucrative plan. I believe that Canadians would be willing to contribute more money to have a better pension down the road.
It is a hard sell to young people who have a pension plan in their company. I saw this happen two or three years ago where the company said: "Okay, you have two choices this year. You can lower the eligibility age or you can put in money to index the pension". Of course a lot of the young people said: "Well, we want to lower the age that we can go on pension". Those are things you pay for in years to come. There are people now who would like to have had that indexing in there and it is not there and that is unfortunate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I go into Private Members' Business, I have received written notice from the hon. member for The Battlefords- Meadow Lake, Mr. Taylor, that he is unable to move his motion during Private Members' Hour on Friday, November 29, 1991. It has now been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence, pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(a).

November 28, 1991
Private Members' Business
Accordingly I am directing the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(b) Private Members' Hour will thus be suspended and the House will continue with the business before it prior to Private Members' Hour.
It being five o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Rodney Edward Murphy: that Bill C-283, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (election expenses), be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee H.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to introduce this bill into the House of Commons. It is the first time I have introduced this specific legislation, although I have dealt with similar legislation in the past.
The purpose of this legislation is to clarify the definition of election expenses as it relates to the costs incurred by individual candidates and political parties during an election.
Members of the House who were here prior to the 1988 election will remember a committee of the House of Commons looked into the affairs of Marcel Masse, the cabinet minister, and his election expenses in the 1984 campaign. We were all shocked to find out that Elections Canada had deemed that a lot of expenses that were conducted by that campaign were not to be included in the election expenses. They were called by a new definition "campaign expenses" and did not come under the limitations that the legislation which was passed in the early 1970s called for. In other words by spending money in certain areas that candidate in his campaign was able to spend a lot of money and basically ignore the limitations that the legislation had called for.
As a result of that loophole we found out that that category had expanded in 1988 and that a number of campaigns had spent money in those areas. We do not believe that is fair.
The legislation passed by this House of Commons almost 20 years ago has been the law of this land for that length of time. It specifically calls for a limit on the amount that a campaign can spend at the riding level and a limit at what can be spent at the federal level.
I realize that there is a royal commission at the present time and that the royal commission has also been asked to look at this particular issue. I am concerned knowing that royal commissions of the past have tended not to report by the time that was specified. It does not look like the commission itself will report until January.
Even with the best of wills in this House of Commons and even a very non-partisan approach from the royal commission to the legislation that will come does not guarantee that any draft legislation or any follow-up legislation to the royal commission will be in place in time for the next federal election.
We know that traditionally we do not invoke parts of the election act until one year after it has been passed by the House of Commons. We know that in 1974 we had an election using old election legislation even though the House of Commons and the Senate had passed new election legislation.
The reason that occurred is that the election legislation that passed prior to the 1974 campaign was not passed soon enough to allow the mechanisms to be put in place and acted upon. I am very concerned that even if the royal commission comes down with a very firm definition on election expenses among the other things that it has to deal with in its mandate there is every chance that this House of Commons will not have passed new legislation in time for it to be in effect for the next federal election.
I basically tried to take a non-partisan approach to this legislation. The original wording came from the Ontario legislation obviously passed prior to the election of Bob Rae. It therefore obviously was not put together by the New Democratic Party.
November 28, 1991

Private Members' Business


Mr. Milliken:: It may have helped. I am sure it was all-


Rodney Edward Murphy: To make the hon. member from the Liberal Party feel good, yes, the legislation in Ontario which has been in place for some time now had been passed with the acceptance of all parties.
What I had done is basically taken that legislation, change it to reflect the federal situation and add a few categories where I believe we need some clarification.
The approach is basically this. We are saying that all amounts spent, all expenses and liabilities, including those related to opinion polls incurred for the purpose of promoting or opposing directly or indirectly during an election, "a particular registered party for the election of a particular candidate other than" must be included.
I have listed eight exceptions which I am sure all members of this House would agree on had they read the legislation prior to speaking in the House.
Here are some of the exemptions. First, things like the fees of auditors and accountants. We all agree that those should not be included in an election expense because they are basically fees that are required as a result of the election act to make sure that our books are in order.
Next, expenses incurred in holding a fund raising function. Next, expenses incurred for parties or advertising taking place after the close of an election. Most often those are thank you notes. Next, offices and equipment rentals for the purpose following the close of polls. Finally, the deposit of a candidate for nomination. These are certain things which should not be included in the definition of election expenses.
To be fair to all parties and all candidates, everything else should be included as an election expense. Then it is up to each of the parties and to each of the candidates to decide how they want to spend their money. So one does not create artificial areas where one spends money because it somehow is exempt under the election legislation. What we are saying is: "Let us treat everybody equally". If I decide to spend more money on canvassing and less money on radio, that is fair, that is a decision made by myself and my campaign. And we should include those amounts in the election expenses.
Some people who have been around in this House will recognize that the inclusion of polling is something new. Right now it is not included as an election expense despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent by each of the political parties on polling during an election campaign.
I think a definition which excludes one of the major components of all parties' campaigns is obviously a definition which is not accurate and which does not reflect the political reality of today. I think we could all guarantee that if there was not an election going on, this money would not have been spent. You can bet that Decima for the Conservatives or the other political polling units for the other parties would not be engaged in polling on a night by night basis if it was not for the fact that an election was going on.
We do know unfortunately that parties have changed their messages, their targeting of advertising and the communities that the leader visits on the basis of polling results. Unfortunately for some parties they basically changed their policies as a result of polling results.
For us to exclude polling and say that is not an election expense is to ignore the reality of today.
I would be the first to say that this legislation may not be perfect. But I remind the members of this House that this is private members' hour. I would ask them to look at the legislation and then allow it to go to a legislative committee because this was not one of the bills that was chosen for an automatic vote. That will not happen unless all members of this House agree. But we are not saying that this legislation must be passed. We are not saying that this legislation cannot be amended. And we are not saying that this legislation must come back to the House for third reading.
But what we are asking, and what I am asking specifically, is that the members of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party and the other blocs and independents who are not here right now let it go forward. We ask to let it be examined and let us be in a position that regardless of what happens with the royal commission, we have the ability to examine one of the most fundamental parts of our election legislation.

Private Members' Business
I say that not only because we need to clean up our elections act but because of the attitude that is out there in the public at the present time. We know the kerfuffle that has existed with regard to conflict of interest legislation. We know that with regard to the Parliament of Canada Act, there is a perception that we do not pass legislation which enacts against the interests of members of Parliament. I see members in this House who sat on that committee. That is the perception. And I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that the publicity that came out of the committee that looked into the Marcel Masse affair created that same type of atmosphere.
Here is an opportunity regarding conflict of interest which one of the members in the House-a Conservative member to be fair-raised in statements today. The disclosure of our expenses is an area where members of Parliament can help to clean up the reputation of Parliament. I would hope that members from all sides would take that approach.
I am not saying that this legislation is perfect. I said that earlier. But I think it is a step in the right direction. I know that members in this House who have sat on committees looking at the Elections Act and others who have appeared, including my colleague from the Liberal Party, before the royal commission know that this is an area that we have to act upon. To be fair to the Liberal representative, I believe that he has introduced similar legislation in the House of Commons and that the Liberal Party in a well thought out section of its brief to the commission basically plagiarized my private member's bill. At least I admit that.
I want to say that obviously this is not a partisan approach. I and representatives of other parties have gone before the royal commission to say this is what we need. I do not believe that it would be in the public interest or in the interest of Parliament or in the interest of any of us to go into another federal election with the definition of election expenses that does not hold any water.
It would be quite ironic if a member for Trinity-Spa-dina living well within the limits of the present election expenses spent $50,000 and was below the limit of that particular riding but at the same time was in a position to spend $40,000, $50,000, $80,000 or $100,000 beyond that on items that are not considered to be election expenses.
If my constituency or any other one spends $150,000 in an election campaign, that should be declared. That is the only fair way of dealing with it. Perhaps there are some items that should be excluded. Perhaps it could be money for the disabled. Perhaps it could be money for child care. Perhaps in large ridings like my own there should be an exemption for some of the candidates' travel costs. They should be included in terms of expenditures, but we understand that they are also costs which we may decide that in fairness should be excluded. These exclusions could be for the handicapped or for child care for women who might be going into politics. We do believe that the vast majority of items which are used in the regular ongoing activity of an election must be declared and must be subject to the legislation which was passed in the early 1970s.
To do otherwise just creates the suspicion that we really do not care, that we have passed legislation and made sure that such legislation has existed to benefit only us, and that we want legislation which is so loose that parties can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on polling and not have to declare it, so that we can spend money.
One of the ironic situations in the legislation as it is now drafted and has been interpreted is we can basically hire every voter in our riding to work for us for $10 on election day. As long as that is less than the minimum wage it is not an election expense.
Some people might find that suspicious. Under the interpretation, if we give an honorarium to someone to work election day and it is less than two-thirds of the minimum wage of that province times that number of hours of work, it is considered to be just kind of covering the expenses of a volunteer worker. It is a wonderful formula.
We have some very large loopholes in our elections act. Rather than encouraging people to use their imagination to abuse the system, let us pass legislation which shows that we in the House of Commons are concerned that elections be clean and fair and that the rules under which we conduct elections are honest and easily understood. Let us make it so that ordinary Canadians know exactly what the rules are and whether or not we are playing by those rules. To do otherwise I think works in the worst interests of all of us.
November 28, 1991

I would hope and ask for the co-operation of all members in the House this evening to pass this legislation.


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-283, introduced by the hon. member for Churchill. In his speech, the hon. member said that his bill would clarify the current definition of election expenses contained in the Canada Elections Act.
Perhaps I may start with a short summary of the current definition of election expenses. Under the act, the term "election expenses" means: (a) amounts paid, (b) liabilities incurred, (c) the commercial value of goods and services donated or provided, other than volunteer labour, and (d) differences between amounts paid and liabilities incurred for goods and services, other than volunteer labour, and the commercial value thereof where they are provided at less than their commercial value. All of which are for the purpose of promoting or opposing, directly and during an election, a particular registered party, or the election of a particular candidate. The act goes on to provide examples of such election expenses, including the cost of acquiring the right to the use of time on the facilities of any broadcasting undertaking or the cost of acquiring the services of any person, and so forth.
The hon. member tabled Bill C-283, which, according to the explanatory note, provides a broader definition of the expression. The definition we are considering today provides that "election expenses" means all expenses and liabilities, including those related to opinion polls, incurred for the purpose of promoting or opposing, directly or indirectly during an election, the particular registered party or the election of a particular candidate, other than certain expenses, fees, deposits and transfers of money, such as office rental expenses, fees of accountants, and so forth.
The hon. member pointed out that the Canada Elections Act needs a thorough review. I think we all agree that the current legislation should promote and reflect our democratic system, in other words, a fair and democratic electoral system that constitutes the basis of
Private Members' Business
any democracy. Some countries are still struggling to establish their democratic system. Canada is one of those countries that has a well-established tradition of respect for rights and democracy. The Canada Elections Act has been amended several times, always with a concern for having the best possible electoral system.
Our electoral system must work in such a way that candidates are able to express their ideas, and voters are able to participate as informed and enlightened citizens in the electoral process. Rules and control mechanisms are necessary to regulate this process.
I think we all agree that a review of the Canada Elections Act was necessary, which is why the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing was created in November 1989. The Canada Elections Act has not been subject to a thorough review since the middle of the seventies. The mandate of the commission is to investigate and report on the principles, procedures and rules regulating the election of members of the House of Commons as well as the financing of political parties and candidates during election campaigns.
The commission heard a lot of evidence relating to public financing, the financing of parties and controls, the organization and financing of riding associations, political party regulations, ceiling and posting of election expenses. The commission also dealt with the following issues: Should the expenses of local candidates continue to be restricted during federal election campaigns? If so, what should this ceiling be? Should the definition of "election expenses" be relaxed? If so, what expenses incurred by candidates and parties should be excluded? Should pre-election expenses incurred by parties or local candidates be controlled or not? To what extent should volunteer labour during a campaign be considered as a donation or an electoral expense?
I understand that the commission heard the testimonies of 30 some people who considered the definition of election expenses and ceiling. It seems that most of them were in favour of a more flexible and more precise definition than the existing one.
The Ontario Commission on Election Financing recommended that the federal law use Ontario's definition of "election expenses" and consider all expenses made by or on behalf of a candidate to be election expenses, unless specifically excluded.

November 28, 1991
Private Members' Business
Some groups and individuals recommended that limits no longer be set for some expenses, in particular administrative expenses, office rental and volunteers' expenses.
The Royal Commission on Electoral Reform should publish its report very soon. I think that we would be well advised to wait for the commission's results before taking a position on the question before us today.
Before I conclude, I would like to tell you that there is some question as to whether persons loaned by a company or a union at election time should be considered volunteers or full-time staff. The present law is ambiguous on it. This point was raised with the commission and many Canadians have questions about it. I think that on this score, I will wait for the commission's recommendations to clarify the situation. If he did the same, my colleague from Churchill might avoid remarks from some members of this House that he does not appreciate but which reflect reality.
One may wonder whether someone who takes a position as a volunteer but is officially paid or could be considered to be paid should be counted. I think that the commission should answer all those questions.
In conclusion, I come back to what I said at the beginning. I think it is somewhat premature and may show disrespect for the royal commission, which was created in 1989 and is to report on its work shortly, if we try to set up another parliamentary committee to study exactly the same issue as the royal commission.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I heard the hon. member for Portneuf and I regret that he finds it impossible to support the bill introduced by my friend, the hon. member for Churchill. The reason given by the hon. member is the same one we heard earlier today from the government House leader. We asked the government to introduce the enabling legislation for referenda and the government House leader said that he and his government were waiting for the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform.
I regret that the government House leader should have a problem on this. The government had promised to do it and now it might be withdrawing that undertaking. I believe it is a problem for everybody, but the fact
that a commission is studying the matter is no reason to stay idle when faced with the difficult questions raised by the bill in the name of the hon. member for Churchill.

The bill is one that I want to support whole-heartedly. The principle of disclosure of campaign expenses is a sound principle that we have supported before the royal commission in presentations that the president of the Liberal Party of Canada made, that the acting leader of our party at the time made and that I made as critic for election reform matters of this party.
The hon. member for Churchill in introducing this bill is advancing the cause. In his speech he referred to the fact that in our presentation to the royal commission we plagiarized his former bill on this subject as a definition of election expenses.
The term "plagiarize" is an unfortunate one that I know he did not intend. It suggests that somewhat what we did was improper. He ought to have said that we imitated his bill because after all imitation is the sincer-est form of flattery. We agreed with the hon. member in his definition. We thought it was a reasonable one and we adopted it and in our presentation we said it was his. We acknowledged that it came from that source. We were not seeking, in any way, to claim credit of authorship. We simply adopted what clearly had been worked on by the hon. member as a good definition and said we supported it.
We believe that the election law of Canada ought to be developed in a non-partisan way. We believe that it should be developed in this House primarily by all parties acting in concert in trying to achieve very significant and substantial agreement on what the law should be.
It is clear, in our view, that if there is no such agreement, if one of the parties in the House has a majority at the time runs roughshod over the others or, indeed, if two parties gang up on the third party and run roughshod over its rights in forming the electoral law, then we will undermine credibility in our electoral system which, of course, is not in the interests of anyone in this country.
November 28, 1991

Canada is perceived as having a pretty fair and balanced electoral system with problems here and there, but by and large our system has been the envy of many. We must do everything we can, as parliamentarians, to uphold the integrity of that system. That is why I think the bill introduced by the hon. member is an important one, because it advances the principle of disclosure of public information about the way elections are run and the way they are financed.
The whole thrust of our electoral law for the last 25 years has been to further this cause of disclosure and to set a limit on election expenses. The imposition of the limit has been vital to the success we have had in controlling election expenses in Canada. The limit that is placed on the constituency associations and candidates in the constituency during an election campaign is very important and the amount we spend is significantly less than is spent by candidates in the United States where there is no such limit on expenditure.
The fact that there are so many expenditures that are excluded from the current definition is a cause of concern because those expenses can career out of control. The fear is that the poll will be used as a means of campaigning in future. I think the hon. member, in advancing his bill, perhaps did not stress that aspect of polling very strongly. It is one of which we are keenly aware. Certainly it is clear from the American experience, from what I was able to learn as result of the work with the royal commission, that pollsters take advantage of the fact that they are polling to pass on a partisan message in support of the candidate for whom the poll is being conducted. In other words, the poll may be there to elicit certain information, but it may also be conducted in order to convey support for or information about a particular candidate and thereby assist in the election of the candidate, not merely solicit information.
If that kind of poll is allowed to go on and the cost of the poll is not included as an election expense, then clearly we are putting coach and horses through the election expenses law that we now have in place. The hon. member's bill accordingly seeks to correct that anomaly. I think it is a fair and a proper correction. I hope that we could advance this.
Private Members' Business
I see no reason to wait for the report of the royal commission. I know the government is very keen to wait for that report, but when the commission was initially set up we were told the report would be forthcoming in September of this year. It will be December next week and we know that the commission report is not coming down this month. It is late. The next election is expected next fall. If the government follows normal constitutional practice and gets out of office at the end of four years, as it should do, then we will have an election next autumn.
There is not time for Parliament to deal with a major change in the electoral law between now and next autumn and have the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada in a position to administer that new law for an election next September, October or November.
I know the hon. member for Halifax West is reluctant to go to the people that soon. He is aware that if he does he will get thrown out. That is too bad but that is the price you pay for running a bad administration. The hon. member should be enthusiastic about going to the people and giving them an opportunity to express their views on his government's record, the government that he supported. If he thinks the record is so good, then I know he will be confident in going to the people because he knows he will win.
If he recognizes, as we do, that it has been very bad, he will be reluctant. I can see the reluctance is there. I suspect he knows the truth. Perhaps that will keep him quiet for a few minutes.
It is important that we look at the question of dealing with this legislation immediately. In my view, there is a lot of legislation, a lot of bills on the Order Paper dealing with elections, including my own. The hon. member referred to a substantial item which, unfortunately, I cannot get drawn. I notice there was another draw today and I have missed again. If I could win a draw on a bill, I assure the hon. member I would bring this forward in a serious way to try to deal with this issue. I am afraid that by the time the report of the royal commission gets here, and by the time the government decides what it is going to do with the report, it will be too late for us to put in place the changes in the electoral law that we ought to have in place in order to run the next campaign.

November 28, 1991
Private Members' Business
That is why I have had this bill sitting on the Order Paper for over a year and why I have sought to advance it. Unfortunately, because of the luck of the draw, I have simply not been able to do so.
This is a significant but small move as part of what I believe should be a larger package of reform. I am happy to support the hon. member in his efforts. I wish the government would give its unanimous consent today to allow this bill to proceed to committee where we could study it in some detail. As I say, it represents a substantial improvement in the law and we are happy to support it. I hope the government will do so in order that we can get on with this important matter.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-283 submitted by the member for Churchill.
This bill would involve an amendment to section 2 of the Canada Elections Act. Specifically, it proposes changing the definition of an election expense.
I am not going to imitate the opinion of the member for Kingston and the Islands but I must agree that the definition of "election expenses for candidates and political parties" is vague and can be subject to widely differing interpretations. At times the application of the definition can seem to be quite arbitrary and this has led in many cases to confusion and the possibility for both intentional and unintentional abuse.
This is my first term in this place and the election of 1988 was my first. I was lucky to have an official agent who was a stickler for detail. He insisted that we follow his very strict definition of what an election expense was. We did, but there are still many, I do not want to call them debates, but we had a lot of active discussions about what was and what was not an official election expense.
I have talked to more experienced members in this place and know that the concern about interpretation is not limited to new members. The problem has been recognized and it is already being addressed outside the context of this bill. The Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing was set up by the government in November 1989 to do a comprehensive review of electoral legislation.
I am advised that the commission has heard and read many submissions which address the definition of election expenses. The sponsor of this bill and all of us who
have been through the electoral process understand why these submissions have been made. The very fact that this topic was considered to be an issue by so many people should tell us that it is time to consider a clear and comprehensive definition of election expenses.
Many of the submissions to the royal commission contained recommendations on how to change the legislation with respect to election financing. Most of the recommendations contained proposals to change the definition of an election expense. This is a recognition of the pivotal role played by the definition of election expenses in the application of the election financing laws. Proposing a new definition for election expenses is no doubt a challenge. However, there are so many related issues to examine and questions to consider.
The Canada Elections Act contains many complex rules with respect to accounting for election expenses. Therefore, the definition of an expense must be very carefully laid out.
Decisions involving finances have to be made quickly and candidates and their parties have to be aware of their rights and obligations. I do not agree with the haste put forward by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I do not think there is a great hurry because we have about two years before the present mandate expires. We have two years before the next federal election is required.
There are many important initiatives that have to be completed before this mandate does expire and I look forward to seeing them completed. However, at the same time, even two years goes quickly. Time seems to compress itself.
I do think it is important that we proceed fairly quickly because in order for the electoral process to work properly in the next election and in subsequent elections, candidates and their official agents must be able to judge whether their particular expense will qualify as an election expense or not. This is one of the fundamentals. It seems that the process could be improved through a revision to the definition of election expenses.
The member for Churchill has made an attempt to improve the electoral process by introducing Bill C-283. We, and many members of this House, can applaud him for his efforts although we do not necessarily agree with all the results.
November 28, 1991

There is a place in this House for private members' initiatives, a very important place. Private members' business should have more priority than it does, but I am concerned that this issue is more complex and the impact more far reaching and is far too involved for us to resolve within the context of a private member's bill.
The proposed definition in this bill is more all inclusive than the current definition. It says that election expenses mean all expenses and liabilities and then lists specific exclusions. The current definition simply lists those items included. The definition contained in this bill is seen as broader than the current definition of an election expense.
Before we examine this definition any further, it should be pointed out that the definition of election expenses is central to the regime set up in the elections act for the control of election activities.
It is therefore impossible to agree to the contents of this bill without considering how it affects other provisions in the act and the way electoral campaigns will be run. Any change in the definition of election expenses will have far reaching consequences.
One of the significant consequences of changing the definition of election expenses is its impact on spending limits. As we all know, the act imposes a limit on spending of election expenses for a candidate during an election. The limit is based on a formula related to the number of names on a preliminary list of electors and the candidate's electoral district.
Those of us in this House will know by experience, but for the sake of those reading or anyone watching this debate, we should mention that the base amount begins with a dollar for each of the first 10,000 names. It is 50 cents for each of the next 10,000 and 25 cents for each name over 25,000.
As I understand it, the limit is then adjusted if the number of names on the preliminary list is less than the average for all electoral districts or if the number of electors per square kilometres is less than 10. The spending limit is also raised annually in relation to the consumer price index.
Private Members' Business
Since the expenses definition in this bill is more inclusive and broader than at present, this will almost certainly mean that candidates will reach their election expenses limit faster since more items will be included. In other words, the inclusion of many more activities and expenses within the definition would increase the total expended.
This would mean that unless the limits are increased, the definition may create hardship for parties and for candidates. I have to indicate my strong, personal objection to increasing those limits. It is time for politicians of all parties to start setting an example of fiscal responsibility and respect for taxpayers' dollars.
It is time to lead by example, and it is not the time to increase the amount of money we can spend on elections or any other thing. I sincerely hope we are all aware of the importance of spending limits and financial controls for the electoral process. They are there to provide some assurance that one particular candidate cannot because of access to more funds have an unfair advantage over the other candidates in the campaign.
We talk a lot in this House about a level playing field. This is the level playing field which allows all candidates to present themselves fairly to the electorate.
I cannot over-emphasize how critical this concept of spending limits and the related concept of election expenses are to our democratic system. Not only does the definition of an election expense affect spending limits, it will have far reaching implications with respect to other provisions in the act.
It is one thing to suggest a new definition for a single concept in a piece of legislation, it is quite another to consider all of the implications the new definition may have on the piece of legislation as a whole. That is what this bill is missing, it is missing the over-all comprehensive assessment of the election expenses scheme and that is why I cannot support it.
As I mentioned earlier, the royal commission has been receiving both oral and written submissions on the issue for two years. Included in the submissions I understand that some 30 interveners have commented on issues related to the definition of spending limits on local campaigns.

November 28, 1991
Private Members' Business
Most of the interveners favour the development of comprehensive definitions of election expenses, a comprehensive definition which is much clearer than the definition which now exists. The royal commission will be reporting to us in the near future. It has been working on this issue for over two years. I believe it is our obligation to hear what the commission has to say on the topic of election expenses before we take legislative action in this House. To do otherwise would indicate that we have no respect for the judgment of the commission or those who provided input.
We have all had the opportunity to sit on committees of this House. Most of us have presented reports and several of us have been irritated when those reports seemed not to have been listened to. Let us not jeopardize the future recommendations of this commission by making a premature decision.
The commission will have taken into consideration the full implications of changing the present definition of election expenses. That was a key part of its mandate. It will have looked at the issue in depth, and I am sure we can benefit from its efforts.
As I said, the commission's report is expected very soon. We should provide it the opportunity to fulfil its mandate and, when it does so, we can look at its recommendations as a package, it is my view that changing the definition of election expenses could have such vast consequences for the Election Act as a whole that we have no choice but to look at this in the context of a package of reforms.
There is little doubt that if we amend the provision in the act containing the definition of election expenses we will need to amend other sections in the legislation as well. An integrated set of reforms is what is needed.
The definition of election expenses is not the only imperfection in the election laws. There are many other issues before the commission and these too will be addressed in its report.
My position is that we should wait until the royal commission delivers its report and we have had the opportunity to review its findings before proceeding with any amendment such as that presented today in Bill C-283.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, let me begin my remarks on Bill C-283 by underlining those made by the member for Red Deer when he said
that the obligation of this House of Commons is to await the report of the royal commission on electoral reform.
To do anything else by way of tinkering or tampering with the provisions of the Canada Elections Act would be to fly in the face of the efforts being made by that royal commission which really represents not only the Government of Canada but the people of Canada in the process of electoral reform. It has given an opportunity to all Canadians to appear before the commission and air their views on changes in the Canada Elections Act.
This is especially true of the matter of election expenses which lies at the heart of the whole electoral control system. We could talk about election expenses on the one hand and the definition of election expenses, but that extends over into the limits on election spending and a number of other areas that are really at the heart of the control of elections across Canada.
I do not think there is any doubt that the proper course for the House of Commons is to examine this bill and take an interest in any recommendations for change in the elections law, but when it comes actually to changing the provisions of the Canada Elections Act we should only do so on the basis of recommendations made by the royal commission on electoral reform.
I want to make some remarks about the whole process of election expenses. I have a very personal interest in the matter because I happened to be involved in the first elections that took place in Canada under the new provisions governing election expenses. These were the by-elections that were held in 1978. Since then I have faced the application of the Canada Elections Act in four subsequent elections. It is amazing how the attitude toward the provisions has changed over those five elections.
At the outset there was a fairly flexible interpretation of the rules. Over that decade the interpretations have become more fixed and more definite. The election officials are always reaching out for clear definitions.
If I may, I will at least support the member for Churchill to the extent of saying that we all recognize the need and desirability of having a very carefully crafted definition of election expenses, but I question whether this House of Commons and members of the House are at this stage of development prepared to decide in exact terms what that definition should be. I question whether we have the ability to make that determination at this point.
November 28, 1991

There are a number of myths that I would like to explore connected with elections and election expenses.
The first is that there is a correlation between the amount one spends and success in an election. I do not have to look any further than my own constituency and the last federal election to disprove that point.
In the last federal election expenditures in Halifax West, my own constituency, by the New Democratic Party candidate exceeded the expenditures made on my behalf in the election campaign by a considerable amount. I think it well may be that New Democrats saw the possibility of victory in their own defective way and that caused them to spend the amount of $44,434 on the election. Whereas in my own case the amount was $36,535. It was a very modest amount considering the limitation applicable to Halifax West, but here is the point that I want to make.
In 1988 the number of votes acquired by the New Democratic Party in Halifax West dropped to 9,011 from 11,626 in the 1984 election. That drop represented a decrease from 20.8 per cent of the entire vote to 16.3 per cent.
I can understand in a way why members of the New Democratic Party are concerned about election expenses. It is because they proved, at least in the case of the federal constituency of Halifax West, that the greater effort in terms of expenditure of funds did not produce the electoral result they presumably wanted to achieve. Their vote dropped in terms of numbers and percentage and their election expenditure went up very dramatically-
We ought to recognize that there are a number of aspects and factors involved in expending money on an election campaign. If I had my own desire, the amount that one could spend would be dramatically limited. Some items could even be excluded such as signs on lamp posts and other public places that are an annoyance in some cases to the public and contribute very little to the electoral process.
I think we should be considering some of those items. What is an appropriate object of an electoral expense? This can be done by a group like the royal commission on
Private Members' Business
a non-partisan, objective basis. That would result in a better election law for all candidates and in turn for all Canadians.
If we review the current definition of electoral expenses which we all agree is inadequate and causes amazing difficulties, I do not think anybody would support continuation of the exact provisions of the current definition of electoral expenses. But whether the provisions proposed by the hon. member for Churchill in his Bill C-283 are an appropriate change and reform is another question.
Let me give one example. The member for Churchill mentioned that under the current definition one could expend money on election day to provide financial assistance to workers. Provided it was below a percentage of the minimum wage it would not be considered an election expense. I think that determination is fraught with error. I hasten to point out, in case anybody is interested, that my largest election expense included in that very modest amount of $36,535 was $14,000 for that exact service, to defray the cost of those who worked on election day knowing that they had to pay for child care, knowing that they had to incur expenses for meals, knowing that they had to provide transportation. In the case of each poll we provided a modest amount of money to defray those kinds of expenses. The total of all that expenditure was $14,000 and was over a third of the total expenditure.
When the member says that amount does not have to be included in election expenses, I wonder what other members did with respect to the reporting of their election expenses. The point I am trying to draw from that is that there is a definite lack of uniformity in accounting for election expenses.
When we look at the division and the classification of election expenses as we go over the report of the Chief Electoral Officer respecting election expenses, we are left in the dark in terms of what exactly was expended and for what exact purpose.
As I have clearly indicated, an item that was a major item in my election expenditure is not even considered an election expenditure by some other candidates because it involves a modest amount paid to party workers to defray their expenses.

November 28, 1991
Private Members' Business
What all this leads to is the conclusion that while change is necessary and desirable and while reform is required, the appropriate body and authority to carry out those reforms is the royal commission on electoral reform. It was appointed on November 15, 1989 and involved five members of acknowledged abilities and expertise. They have held, as I said, public hearings. I think their conclusions will provide a basis for the changes that will enhance the elections law of Canada and improve the Canada Elections Act.
We all know that not only members of the House of Commons have commented unfavourably on the current provisions, but the Chief Electoral Officer in 1986 suggested the need for changes in the definition of elections expenses. That was repeated after the last federal election in 1988. I think we can all agree that change is necessaiy and required, but we cannot agree on this very day on what is the process by which those changes are made and the ultimate result of that process which would be the new provisions to be placed in the elections act defining election expenses.
Other members of the House in their presentations pointed out the correlation of election expenses to limits on election expenditures. If we are going to give a broad definition of election expenses we have to consider the impact of that definition on the total limitation of election expenses. I think that everyone involved in election campaigning will tend to agree that the better course is a lower limit on election expenses. It is the higher limits that can lead to poor practices in the course of campaigning.
In the case of my own constituency of Halifax West in the province of Nova Scotia, it encompasses five or more provincial constituencies. Each one of those provincial constituencies permits electoral expenses greater than the whole of the federal constituency of Halifax West.
In 1988 when a federal election took place in November-it was called after a provincial election took place in September 1988-1 was faced with party workers who had acted under electoral expense rules five times as generous, if generosity is the right choice of word, as the federal limit. We had to tell people constantly that we could not provide elaborate signs and that we could not provide the written material, the printed matter that was available in provincial elections.
My clear conclusion from that experience is that the provincial election limits in Nova Scotia-and I cannot speak for any other part of the country-are far too high. That in turn involves large-scale collections in the course of a campaign. It involves too many people contributing too much money to an election campaign. That is what gives rise to public concern for mischief in the political systems.
We would do ourselves a service and we would do the people of Canada a service if we carefully reviewed the recommendations of the royal commission on electoral reform that I am sure will relate to the matter of election expenses, the definition of those election expenses, what ought to be encompassed in the definition, and what limits ought to be placed on election expenses.
If we follow that careful process, we will benefit not only the electoral process of the House of Commons but the whole Canadian electoral system.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me to rise and speak in this debate concerning Bill C-283, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, as has been put by my hon. friend from Churchill.
In speaking to it I would very much want to associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague from Halifax who just spoke. I noted the remarks made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I believe he indicated that he viewed this bill as a small step toward a needed larger package of electoral reforms. I feel that, given the proximity of the report of the royal commission which is busy studying electoral reform, this House would be well advised to wait until that report has been received.
The issues raised by the hon. member's bill are being considered by the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, which was established in mid-November of 1989. Five commissioners were appointed under the Inquiries Act to inquire into and report on the appropriate principles and process that should govern the election of members of the House of Commons and the financing of political parties and of candidates' campaigns.
November 28, 1991

Over the past couple of years the commission has held cross-country hearings and has received hundreds of submissions, some of which deal with accounting issues. The commission was given a very broad mandate by the government and was asked to do a comprehensive review of the electoral legislation. I am advised that the commission is expected to make its report in January of 1992 and one would fully expect that commission, after over two years of work, would address the issue of election expenses and make appropriate recommendations for this House to consider.
The amendment proposed in this bill may well be worth while. I am not disputing that. I cannot find myself supporting it at this time because, as the member for Kingston and the Islands indicated, we need a larger package of reforms and I think we should be looking at the larger context of electoral reform before we proceed with any one single amendment. There may well be other provisions in the Canada Elections Act which would need to be amended as a consequence of this.
In conclusion I just want to say that I think members would be well advised to wait for the report of the royal commission which will be received shortly.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
['The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).']
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, on September 19, I asked the Prime Minister if he would implement stronger measures to combat increased racism in Canada, but unfortunately I did not get a very satisfactory answer at that time. I have referred the matter to the adjournment debate tonight.
I pointed out on that occasion that during the past summer there were several serious racist incidents in
Adjournment Debate
Canada, particularly in Halifax, in Montreal, and in other Canadian cities as well.
A major story was printed in the Montreal Gazette of July 31,1991, following the killing of Marcellus Francois, a young black person by a Montreal policeman. The Montreal Gazette reported it and the headline was as follows: "Race Relations; Official Silence is Deafening. Politicians have to speak out to ease tensions and to soothe tempers".
Not enough action and not enough leadership have been shown by political leaders at all levels, and that is why I was asking our government to take more effective action.
I realize that the responsibility for these incidents is not just the responsibility of the federal government. It is important that leadership be shown. I think there are many things we could do at the federal government level that would show examples to the other levels of government, the provincial governments and the municipal governments. We could implement more affirmative action, especially in the justice system, with our police forces, in our courts, in our prosecution and in our parole.
Unfortunately we do not see many black faces in our justice system. Consequently, when the matter of law enforcement is necessary, it is very often whites against blacks in certain situations.
In Montreal over the last few years, three young blacks have been killed by the police, two without cause in the cases of Anthony Griffin and Presley Leslie. There is the recent case of Marcellus Frangois, and that case is still under investigation.
There seems to be an attitude at times that if you are black or if you are an Indian, then you must be guilty, and our justice system reacts accordingly.
In Halifax, on September 12 of this year a special committee said that sweeping changes were needed in Nova Scotia to deal with increased racism. That committee was set up after the riots which took place in the month of July. That committee made 94 recommendations, some of which applied to the federal government and in particular to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. All the recommendations of the royal commission with respect to Donald Marshall have not yet been implemented.

November 28, 1991
Adjournment Debate
In any case, there are certain things that the federal government can do. Right now the employment equity legislation is up for review after five years. As we know, racism is linked to high unemployment, to poverty, to the lack of education and to the lack of training. I would suggest that there are many things that could be done to strengthen the employment equity legislation in order to give a better break to the visible minorities in this country which make up one of the target groups under the legislation.
Right now in that legislation there are no effective sanctions. Although the law says that companies under federal jurisdiction must have affirmative action programs for visible minorities, there is no sanction if they do not do it. In addition, the law only applies to companies with 100 persons or more and it does not apply to the federal government.
In conclusion, I would urge the government to take more effective action to combat racism in this country, to show more leadership and stop this cancer before it takes hold.


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, since the coming into force in 1985 of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms concerning equality rights, Canada has made great strides.
The federal government is committed to playing a leadership role in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. That is why, last summer, following the events in Halifax and Montreal that gave rise to racial tensions, the hon. Gerry Weiner created in Nova Scotia the Interracial Relations Advisory Group.
The advisory group, which is composed of representatives from the three levels of government and from the black community, has the mandate of developing a plan of action and of presenting recommendations toward the fight against racism. Thus, in 30 days, the advisory group has succeeded in preparing a report which it submitted to Mr. Weiner. This is an excellent example of what can be accomplished by working together.
Canada continues to uphold the basic principles enshrined in the Canada Multiculturalism Act.
Among the initiatives taken in this field, there is the creation of the Canadian Police Centre on Interracial
Relations. This centre, whose head office is in Ottawa, functions as an independent organization. Its aim is to improve relations between police and the different cultural groups in Canada.
Other initiatives have been taken in order to implement a global strategy in this field such as the financing of conferences on visible minorities and the police in the Atlantic provinces and the giving of a grant to the Canadian Association of School Boards which is developing policies and strategies for eliminating barriers to equality in the schools.
Together, Madam Speaker, we can make Canada a genuine land of hope, a country where Canadians of all origins will be represented in our institutions, a country where the dignity and the diversity of citizens are protected and promoted.



Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: On September 241 asked the Minister of National Defence why a naval reserve facility would still be built when he had just set up a committee to study the excess infrastructure in the Canadian Armed Forces.
The minister said that it did not refer to that particular naval facility. It seems to me to be unfair that this new facility will cost millions of dollars in light of other closures that will be happening with the defence policy announced by the minister.
I want to tell the minister, through the parliamentary secretary, what the cutbacks mean to a base like Cornwallis which has a long history in the military and a long history in the navy and to now see a new naval facility being built when we are cutting back in an area which represents approximately 20,000 people who gain the benefits from that.
The Department of National Defence earlier on this year announced that the recruit levels at Cornwallis will drop by 60 per cent. Cornwallis graduated 4,100 recruits in 1989-90 and it will graduate under 2,000 from this coming year until 1996. When you think that we had a white paper in 1986 which was going to increase our defence forces and now we have one that is going decrease our defence forces, it does not seem right to the Canadian people that you can change policies like this and affect the livelihood of people.
November 28, 1991

Last week the base commander, Captain Jones, met with the people in the area to explain what this drop in recruits would mean. It means that the military staff at the recruit school would be reduced. It means that the amount of money spent in the area would be reduced. It is stated that it will drop from the anticipated $26 million that would have been spent in the area if the base were continuing in the operation mode it has been under an aggressive Armed Forces.
It is a question of fairness. Why is the minister closing bases when he is giving money to other facilities that resemble ours and that have the capacity to take on that new role? I repeat to you, Cornwallis started as a naval base.
I have tried, as an experienced member of Parliament representing an area that is very dependent on this base, to ask for other things on behalf of my constituents. One of the programs is the YTEP program which would bring in youth and encourage youth from across Canada who are unemployed to join the Armed Forces for a period of 15 months and receive training. This would keep Cornwallis going while we see, in the future, new recruits.
We have had a program and a proposal submitted to the Prime Minister on a peacekeeping training centre for Cornwallis. We have asked for more reserves and more militia to be sent to Cornwallis now that the militia and the reserves will be increased.
The minister is asking me about my time. I started at seven minutes after, Madam Speaker, and it is only ten after. I think if you check with the table you will see that there is still time left.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There might be 30 seconds left.


Coline M. Campbell: I do not like to see someone standing and someone else looking at me as if I have to stop before the time has expired.
This is important and I cannot help it if the House is in such a hurry to give me an answer when my constituents, the 20,000 people who are dependent on CFB Cornwallis, are seeing policies that are not helping the nation,
Adjournment Debate
that have not really helped the defence policy, zig-zagging back and forth. We have produced constructive proposals to help the area and yet we are seeing the layoffs, we are seeing the reduction in the base and the recruits.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Out of the six minutes there might be 30 seconds left for the hon. parliamentary secretary.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Madam Speaker, in Question Period on September 24, the Hon. Marcel Masse clearly indicated that the mandate of the advisory group on defence infrastructure was to draw up a list of criteria for restructuring the Canadian Forces and that this mandate did not extend to existing programs.
The planned naval reserve for Pointe-a-Carcy, Quebec is one of these existing programs. In fact, the plan to develop a fleet school for the Canadian Forces in Quebec City was initiated in 1982, when the project for a naval presence in Quebec was announced. The Canadian Forces fleet school project in Pointe-a-Carcy is already in phase III of the commitment made in 1982. Facilities for training the naval reserve that will operate the new fleet of ships dedicated to coastal defence have been built.
Quebec City was chosen for these facilities on the basis of cost and efficiency. Most reservists live in central Canada. The Pointe-a-Carcy site saves the reservists travel time and expense. Moreover, it will reduce the total cost by bringing together in one and the same complex various organizations located in different places in Quebec City. These organizations are the Naval Reserve Headquarters, the Naval Reserve Division and two cadet corps.
The naval reserve must have the resources it needs to carry out its many tasks and to acquire the skills needed for coastal defence and for the control of commercial shipping in our ports and waters.

Adjournment Debate
Therefore, Madam Speaker, the Department of National Defence maintains the decision made in 1982 to establish a naval presence in Quebec City.


AGRICULTURE
Mark Joseph Assad: Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago, I rose in the House with a question for the Minister of Agriculture and received a reply from the Minister of State (Agriculture). My question was about the GATT talks in Geneva, which are extremely important in connection with Quebec's supply management programs.
At the time, the government was veiy confident that its negotiators would be able to get the other countries on side and that our supply management system, which has worked very successfully for our farmers, would be maintained. Our defence was that it was extremely important to us, and we had plenty of evidence to prove it. In fact, we were not alone, since Japan and Ireland were also involved in these talks. However, as the weeks went by, we realized that any hopes we had in Geneva had been dashed.
I would like to raise a point which I think is very disturbing. I have here the minutes of meetings that took place with the Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec, when in 1987, the Minister of State for Agriculture and the Minister of Agriculture had managed to convince farmers-or so they thought-that the free trade agreement was not a problem for them. They knew perfectly well the Americans never liked our supply management system.
During the free trade talks, the pressure was on, and we were finally faced with a fait accompli, once the free trade agreement had been signed and adopted by a vote in this House. Despite the fact that marketing boards had not been excluded from the free trade agreement, farmers still thought they could get the support of GATT and that article XI-a household word by now-could be used to protect our farm product quota system.
However, there were some doubts, because in 1987, the Union des producteurs agricoles and the Official Opposition said that one item that could turn out to be very important had been dropped and that we had to bear this in mind. At the time, I was sitting in the National Assembly, and the Minister of Agriculture felt there was a risk. He was right, and we are now faced with
a situation that is extremely disturbing for farmers across the country.
What we have here is a fait accompli, and in the next few days it will be too late to do anything about a decision that may have enormous consequences for our farmers.
I hope, for the sake of the Department of Agriculture and all those people who managed to convince farmers in the past, that our farmers will have nothing to fear and that they will be well protected. Since all farmers will be affected, I hope that the Department of Agriculture will find a way to provide genuine protection for all our farmers.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Madam Speaker, it is absolutely clear that our position in the multilateral trade negotiations has not changed. Our negotiators are still determined to reach the MTN objectives arrived at after consultation with the agricultural industry and the provinces. These objectives are: significant reduction of trade distorting subsidies and in particular export subsidies; better access to export markets; clarification and amendment of GATT's rules, especially article XI, to make them fairer and more effective; establishment of rules to prevent improper use of health and safety regulations to hinder trade.
Canada is still determined to have its proposition to clarify and strengthen article XI accepted by GATT. The government is still committed to protecting our supply management systems. Article XI allows countries to restrict imports in support of supply management efficiency. However, some conditions are not veiy clear and almost impossible to meet, and are the subject of controversy. We must agree on an interpretation of article XI in order to strengthen it and clarify its meaning. To that end, all parties must agree to negotiate.
Canada introduced a proposal to clarify article XI. Our negotiators have worked very hard to find support for this proposal. Our ministers have also done their part, explaining our position to all parties involved. In September, Mr. Blais went to Geneva, and Mr. Wilson and Mr. McKnight were there this week. They all reaffirmed Canada's determination to have this proposal regarding article XI approved. Canada will continue to follow the same objectives-clarification of article XI in particular-throughout the Uruguay Round.
November 28, 1991

To conclude, I will say that one of the main objectives of Canada in the Uruguay Round is to improve GATT's trade rules. Our proposal on article XI brings us closer to our objective as it clarifies it and makes it fairer and more effective.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (THnity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, on October 9, 19911 asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration to increase the number of refugee women brought into Canada annually under this government's program called Women at Risk of which this government likes to boast.
The minister did not answer my question but instead boasted about other parts of Canada's refugee program. In fact, Canada has done very poorly on this program of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees that Canada undertook four years ago.
Women at Risk are those who the UNHCR has found to be real refugees. It also has found that they are especially at risk. I quote from the immigration manual of this government, section IS 3.13 as follows:
All Women at Risk applicants selected will be Convention refugees or members of the designated classes.
a)	Women at Risk will be in precarious situations where the local authorities cannot ensure their safety. This includes women who are experiencing significant difficulties in refugee camps, such as harassment by local authorities or by members of their own communities. Urgent protection cases, such as women in physical danger, or in danger of refoulement are to be accorded first priority.
b)	Women at Risk may also be applicants who are not in immediate peril, but who are existing in permanently unstable circumstances which allow for no other remedy. Because of a low level of skills, or because they are accompanied by small children, or other factors, these may be women who have been passed over by Canada or by other resettlement countries in the past.
That is this government's regulation. Yet in 1991 out of 540 convention refugees identified by the UNHCR as Women at Risk, Canada brought only 29. We brought only 29 of 540.
In the past four years Canada brought only 127. Why is this? Was there no more room in Canada's immigration plans? That is definitely not so. This government set a target of 13,000 refugees to be sponsored by the government from overseas in 1991. Yet it brought less than
Adjournment Debate
8,000. Why the shortfall of more than 5,000? This government says it could not find enough refugees suitable for resettlement. It said the UNHCR did not provide them.
Yet the UNHCR had a list of 540 women at risk of which this government took only 29. For shame. What a hard heart toward the most vulnerable of refugees and what dishonesty for this government to claim it could not find them when the UNHCR had a list.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, to provide additional information concerning the questions raised by the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina in this House on October 9.
Canada was the first country to set up a special program to help refugee women. This program was well received. Moreover, it has been very successful, even though it is still very limited in scope.
There is no limit as to the number of applicants that can be selected each year under the Women at Risk program. In fact, as of September 20, 1991, more than 100 women had been admitted to Canada under that program.
The names of candidates likely to meet the requirements can be submitted to local offices by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, a Canadian visa office or a non-governmental organization.
If the hon. member knows a refugee woman who could avail herself of that program, Employment and Immigration Canada officials will examine the circumstances of her case and determine if she meets the requirements for admission under that program.
The member's comment that the government granted landing rights to only 32 women under that program is inaccurate. Here are the statistics on the number of women admitted so far: in 1988, 40 cases, 97 women in total; in 1989, 30 cases, 88 women in total; in 1990, 28 cases, 67 women in total; and in 1991, as of September 20, 46 cases, 102 women in total.

November 28, 1991
Adjournment Debate
I believe this is a very commendable effort that contradicts the data provided by the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Robert (Bob) Kilger: Madam Speaker, in my question to the Minister of National Revenue on September 181 tried to inform the minister about the impact cross-border shopping is having on Canadian border communities and on Canada's over-all economy.
The number of Canadians who shop in the U.S. is staggering. In the first nine months of this year 45.4 million same day trips were made to the U.S. This represents a 15 per cent increase over the same period last year.
While statistics for the month of September indicated a reduction in these trips, most observers attribute the decline to slowdowns at border points brought about by the Public Service strike. Nonetheless the numbers are high and so is the economic damage.
Cross-border shopping has reached a state where billions of dollars are being lost and Canada's over-all economy is feeling the impact.
Local businesses and municipal governments in border communities across Canada have taken a number of initiatives to reduce cross-border shopping. As an example, in my riding of Stormont-Dundas a retailer in the village of Winchester asks his customers to retain their sales receipts so that they can obtain discounts on future purchases. In the city of Cornwall a local grocery store offers very competitive prices on milk and bread. These two items are used as drawing cards by neighbouring U.S. grocery stores to attract Canadian food shoppers.
The Cornwall Chamber of Commerce business council has also created a customer service excellence awards campaign and a fair exchange program. The customer service award focuses on improving the calibre of service to customers. The fair exchange program assures U.S.
customers that they will receive a fair currency exchange rate when they shop in Cornwall.
The council has also conducted a survey to examine consumer purchasing patterns. It looks at the perceptions Canadian consumers have on shopping in Canadian stores, the prices being charged and the reasons why they shop in the U.S.
Local governments, in conjunction with business, labour and consumer groups are not giving in to crossborder shopping. They are trying to do something about the problem and I commend them on their efforts.
However I believe the federal government must assume its responsibility to do its share. The government should implement effective programs to curb the consumer migration south. I believe the government should undertake an immediate public education campaign to inform Canadians of the damage cross-border shopping is having on our country.
The government must take full advantage of its membership on the national task force on cross-border shopping to work with border communities, business, labour and consumer groups to devise a comprehensive strategy that will achieve results. The groups and individuals I have mentioned cannot do it all by themselves. The federal government must show leadership and take the necessary measures needed to combat cross-border shopping.
Some view cross-border shopping as a form of tax revolt by Canadians fed up with the goods and services tax. As well, in border communities the lure of cheaper gas due to lower U.S. taxes on gasoline brings Canadians across the border.
In my riding there is also the compounded problem of considerably cheaper gasoline being available on the New York side of the Akwesasne Indian reserve. I might add that we are speaking about $1 U.S. per U.S. gallon.
My colleague, the member for Sarnia-Lambton, has put forward a proposal suggesting a border community gasoline tax benefit. I urge the government to give this proposal serious consideration.
November 28, 1991

In conclusion, I hope the government will soon take action on the serious threat cross-border shopping poses to Canada's economy and to the continued economic viability of our border communities.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer with more details the question asked by the hon. member for Stormont-Dun-das concerning the effects of the goods and services tax on cross-border shopping.
As the hon. member knows, a recent issue of the Canadian economic observer stated that the goods and services tax does not seem to have increased cross-border shopping. That conclusion was based on a trend analysis of movements at the border, before and after the goods and services tax was implemented.
The goods and services tax is not to blame for cross-border shopping. Indeed, this shopping already existed before the tax came into force. As Statistics Canada clearly showed, cross-border shopping is a longstanding problem and it is simplistic to argue that the shift from the old tax, the manufacturers' sales tax, to the goods and services tax, caused cross-border shopping.
Revenue Canada (Customs and Excise) spent a lot of time and effort to devise more efficient and effective
Adjournment Debate
ways to fulfill its mandate as given by this House. Officials from the department dealt with the issue of cross-border shopping and I can assure the hon. member that the department continues to do all it can to improve the processing methods.
In addition to improving on customs operations, the department has actively helped other concerned parties reach an agreement on the complexity of cross-border shopping through meetings at all levels and in all regions of the country. The response to that action has been positive and the support for the department's projects is encouraging.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to mention that by associating the goods and services tax with the cross-border shopping we are not doing any good to those who have tried hard to work out a solution to this extremely complex problem of cross-border shopping.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 29,1991