1992-06-08

[Stage Direction]
[English ]

Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Constitution should
enshrine the obligation for the government to provide universal,
publicly funded hospital and medical care to all citizens.
She said: Mr. Speaker, in a matter of days, the first ministers of this country will meet in the hope of drafting a constitutional accord that will be acceptable not only to themselves but to Canadians.
These ministers will collectively be the target of public wrath if they fail to reach an agreement that justifies so many years of constitutional wrangling at taxpayers' expense.
The Prime Minister will have to reconcile the crippling price that the nation paid for his pursuit of a footnote in history. The Canadian Confederation was put at risk to extinguish the regional discontent that his government resurrected and inflamed. This government opened a Pandora's box and the entire nation has been engulfed in the fall-out. Millions of dollars of taxpayers' money have already been lost while the nation's economic crisis has been sorely neglected and mismanaged by this government.
After investing so much in a flawed and misdirected process, Canadians are now demanding a return. They will not settle for a raw deal that merely shifts powers among the politicians. Most citizens see no benefit in the transfer of authority from one bureaucracy to another. In
the end they will be asking whether all they got from the last several years of constitutional noise was the bill. Voters in any national referendum will be expecting an accord that is intimately relevant to their lives and their needs.
That is the reason I am proposing here today:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Constitution should enshrine
the obligation for the government to provide universal, publicly
funded hospital and medical care to all citizens.
There is nothing more relevant to Canadians than their health. From St. John's to Victoria, Canadians regard our system of universal health care as the most identifiable privilege of being on Canadian soil.
The right of Canadians to health care is not protected by our Constitution and consequently it must endure the deliberate efforts of the current government to pillage our health care resources to finance their experiment in neo-Conservative dogma, the abandonment of the just society.
Since 1984 this government has made seven unilateral reductions in transfer payments to the provinces for health and post-secondary education. This will represent a $97.6 billion loss to these services by the year 2000. This government's commitment to health care is clearly focused on ways to dismantle it.
On March 21 the Minister of National Health and Welfare terrified many Canadians by labelling medicare as sacred. We all know that sacred in Tory double-speak means next in line for the axe. Within 10 years the federal government will no longer be making any significant cash contributions to health care in this country. It will no longer be able to enforce the provisions of the Canada Health Act by threatening to withhold payments. This will open the door to the imposition of user fees by provincial governments.
User fees will be a decisive first step toward an American-style system of commercial health care. It is a system where those with the means to pay are served, but those unable to pay must go without or lose their homes or life savings to pay for treatment. American health care is nothing more than a half trillion dollars a

June 8, 1992
Private Members' Business
year extortion racket. Americans must pay up or risk bodily harm by being denied treatment.
In pre-Tory Canada our focus was the quality of medical care as opposed to the size of medical profits, a matter which dominates attention south of the border. Canadians are too civilized to accept the barbarism of cash and carry medicine which this government is ready to import from the United States. This is one product that all Canadians want stopped at the border.
Already under-funding of Canadian health care has caused many patients to escape lengthening waiting lists for elective surgery or specialized tests by travelling to the United States where timely treatment is available although only at a premium. Effectively Canadian governments have contracted out certain services to American facilities by not making the same services sufficiently available in Canada. Such measures threaten the comprehensiveness of health care services in Canada and make them a more appealing target for privatization.
Canadians need their Constitution to insulate medicare from the chills of ever-changing political agendas. Even the loud advocate of the social charter, the NDP premier of Ontario, backed away from full protection of medicare when he chose to cut health services in his own province rather than curtail his socialist agenda.
The temptation to shirk the largest and most important responsibility of his government was too great for Premier Rae to resist. The social charter now declawed and renamed the social covenant is little more than social fantasy.
If a government were to renege on its so-called commitment to medicare utterly there would be no recourse at all through the courts on constitutional grounds. However, the social covenant may lull many Canadians into being complacent about the continuing threats to their health care system. Some will believe the social covenant will morally bind all governments to preserve and promote universal health care, but most Canadians know only too well that commitments do not bind political leadership. Only the courts can do that.
Canadians do understand the difference between a legal right and a rhetorical blight. A right not protected
by the courts is no right at all. A social covenant will not deter the current federal and provincial governments from discrediting our medicare system through a policy of decay that will ultimately render medicare unable to meet the needs of Canadians.
A social covenant will fail to raise the status of medicare on either the big business or the big labour agenda. Canadians are justifiably suspicious of political commitments and the politicians who glibly make them.
They understand the fate of Canadian medicare is in the hands of individuals who would never feel personally threatened by American style cash before cure health care. They know that members of this House and other legislatures across the country are in general people who have a hard time relating to the working poor in this country because they have only experienced poverty as spectators.
Many politicians cannot believe that a family would find U.S. medical insurance deductibles of $250 to be cause to postpone or forgo treatment even for their children. The struggle to make ends meet is foreign to the opponents of medicare. We in this place must understand that we are each creations of our own experiences. We must defiantly reject the message that is promoted by the right wing groups who tell us that we have shared too much and those who cannot afford are not deserving.
That is the philosophy that has created so much suffering and disharmony in the United States, but medicare is not merely a social program for the less fortunate. It is a security blanket for every member of our society, rich or poor.
Canadians do not have to negotiate with insurance brokers to be sure their children will get the care they need if they fall ill. No Canadian will have to cancel an operation because his employer laid him off and cancelled his health insurance. We as Canadians have a security, a peace of mind that cannot be found among American workers.
Unfortunately what Canadians have taken for granted their government has taken to the pawnbrokers. The enemies of medicare will not only deny the benefits that universal health care services offer to the majority of Canadians, but will also ignore the undeniable economic benefits to our nation as a whole. We have been able to
June 8, 1992

insure all Canadians using less than 9 per cent of our gross national product when it costs the United States 11 per cent to operate a private system that leaves 40 million people bereft of any medical protection at all.
Canadians understand what the demise of universal health care will mean to them and to their families. Many have already experienced the culture shock that comes with U.S. medical practices.
While sensational stories of people being denied life-saving treatment and the potential for medical refugees coming to Canada from the United States may impress television viewers, Canadians travelling to the United States experience firsthand the inhumanity of the U.S. system. Patients are treated as customers while health care workers are more bill collectors than they are caregivers.
One of my own constituents recounted an occasion while vacationing in Florida when his five-year old daughter fell in a bathtub and required stitches to close the cuts to her face. Her father was shocked and enraged when the hospital workers refused to treat his bleeding five-year old child unless he paid in advance or produced insurance documents.
Fortunately he had the necessary insurance but, nevertheless, the experience left him and his family eager to return to medical civilization north of the border.
This was not a dramatic case of life and death but demonstrated the humiliation and despair that is felt by Americans who do not have full medical coverage. Forty million people in the United States who are not covered by any insurance plan live in fear of the day that they will need medical treatment and be denied.
We in Canada like to believe that we live in a more caring and less predatory society than the United States.
It is experiences like the one I just described that have caused Canadian universal medicare to be so prized and the American alternative so despised. So cherished is medicare in Canada that there are many groups that would claim to have fathered the Canadian philosophy of universal medicare.
Private Members' Business
We on this side of the House know that medicare was conceived at the national Liberal convention in 1919 in a speech by William Lyon Mackenzie King. He envisioned more than seven decades ago that Canada should have a system of insurance against sickness. He called for effective legislation for the conservation of human health.
It was not acceptable for a worker when sick to be helpless in the matter of meeting the great problems of invalidity, said King. He and his successors as Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada fought against great adversity to implement the universal health care we enjoy today.
Opposition came from short-sighted organizations whose own economic position, they thought, was enhanced by the suffering and insecurity endured by those who could not afford the medical treatment available to those with the means to pay.
While Liberal governments braved the scorn of the intolerant, the greedy and the indifferent, the voices of those who would have us reverse our progress toward a more civilized society have not yet been silenced.
If universal publicly funded health care is not enshrined in the Constitution as a justiciable right, the implications will not be lost on the Canadian public.
The NDP Government of British Columbia has already brought in health care premiums that have caused a small but significant portion of its population to be uninsured and financially vulnerable to sickness. Effectively universal health care has already been compromised by the NDP government in British Columbia.
It is not surprising to find that this particular government will not sign an agreement that will make its own policies unconstitutional.
This is the dilemma that gave birth to the toothless social covenant. Canadians have learned to anticipate the worst from their governments. They know that a government unprepared to protect universal medicare is a government preparing to dismember it. That is the basis for our Liberal dissent position in the report of the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee where we advocated precisely the terms of the motion before the House today.

June 8, 1992
Private Members' Business
Unlike the other national parties we Liberals are not willing to compromise on our obligation and responsibility to uphold the principles of universality and fairness in health care.
Canadians should scrutinize the events of the next few days very closely indeed. Front page promises and back page retractions have formed the strategy of governments of the day for too long. The entrenchment of medicare will distinguish this round of constitutional bickering by yielding a tangible and recognizable benefit to Canadians from every part of this country.
If this constitutional round were able to arrest the decay of Canadian medicare then Canadians would truly be better off through the efforts of politicians, and that would be historic.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent to move a motion for concurrence in the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on House Management.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Guamieri (p. 11527).
Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak this morning on the federal government's commitment to vital social programs, notably health care.
I would like to assure the House that the government's commitment to universal health care services is not in question. The Canada Health Act ensures that all Canadians, wherever they reside, are entitled to equal access to hospital and medical care. The government has reaffirmed this commitment time and time again.
Our commitment to health care is only one example of the government's efforts to improve the well-being of Canadians. I would like to take a few moments to describe some of the other recent social initiatives of this government.
The health and well-being of our children are a primary concern of this government. In the throne speech, we said our objective is to see our children "better educated, better protected and better nurtured so that they can make their own contributions to our future".
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the government has recently announced major initiatives to assist children and their families. In the February budget, the government proposed a new child benefit which is fairer and simpler than the patchwork of previous income support measures for families with children.
The proposed child benefit will consolidate the existing family allowances, child tax credit and dependent child credit into a single monthly tax-free benefit. It is simpler, fairer, more responsive and more generous than the current measures in place.

I would like to comment on each of these points in turn.
It is simpler. It will replace today's patchwork of measures with one monthly payment. Unlike family allowances, these payments will be tax free. Parents will know what benefits they receive and can apply their full value to meeting their children's needs.
It is also fairer. It will go to families who need it. As family income increases, the benefit received will decrease. It is also fairer because families in similar income brackets will be treated in a similar way. Unlike the present system, it does not matter whether one or both parents work. The level of benefits is based on the income of the family.
It is more responsive. Tax free payments will be received by parents every month to help them meet their children's needs.
This system is also more generous. Until now, some $4.5 billion per year has been provided by the federal government for income transfers for children. Over the next five years, the proposed child benefit will put an additional $2.1 billion in the hands of Canadian families with children. Over-all, this initiative will result in a more targeted and effective system of benefits.
The government has also been keenly aware that a child's future health and well-being can be jeopardized by risks such as low birth weight, injuries, malnutrition and neglect.
We have responded with the recent announcement of Brighter Futures, and with the child development initiative aimed at preventing and reducing conditions of risk among children. The government intends to devote $500 million over the next five years to this program directed at intervention in the early stages of the lives of children at risk. By children at risk, I mean children who face greater than normal risks of poor health and nutrition, mental health problems, disability or injury, or abuse and neglect.
The child development initiative will help ensure that children get a good start. A good start increases the likelihood that a child will achieve his or her full potential later in life. At the same time, our early investment in a child's development can lower costs for social assistance, health care and law enforcement in the years to come.
Private Members' Business
The initiatives I have described testify to our strong commitment to improve the health and well-being of needy children. I should add that the federal government is not alone in this commitment. We rely on strong partnerships with all Canadians to secure a better future for our children. We recognize that healthy and well-adjusted children represent an essential investment in the future for all of us.
In the context of the motion before us this morning, we should perhaps remind ourselves of the partnership which currently exists between the federal government and provincial governments for the delivery of these vital programs and services.
For example, the delivery of health services is a constitutional responsibility of the provinces. It is their responsibility to determine needs, to make services available and to manage health costs. The primary role of the Government of Canada is to make a financial contribution in support of provincial health programs. Under Established Programs Financing, transfers to provinces for insured hospital and medical services and extended health care will be $14.8 billion in the current fiscal year.
In addition, the less wealthy provinces of Canada will receive equalization transfers totalling more than $8 billion this year. Equalization is provided to provinces on an unconditional basis. Each province is free to allocate these funds according to its own needs and priorities, including medical and hospital care.
The motion before us asks this House to enshrine in the Constitution the obligation of the federal government to provide universal, publicly funded hospital and medical care to all citizens.
We have seen that this government has not needed a constitutional directive in order to demonstrate its commitment to medicare. Our commitment to providing quality health care for all Canadians is not in question.
Nevertheless the motion before us raises an interesting issue, one of many on which this government has consulted Canadians in the current round of constitutional negotiations.
In March the Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada released a unanimous report. This report made a variety of recommendations to assist the government in renewing the Canadian federation. The committee dis-

June 8, 1992
Private Members' Business
cussed the issue that is before us today. It looked at the government's commitment to vital social programs, including health care. The committee recommended a social covenant as a means of expressing governmental commitments to social programs which Canadians see as part of their national identity.
This covenant would be achieved by adding a new section to section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Among other things, the new section would reaffirm the commitment of all governments in Canada to fostering comprehensive, universal, portable, publicly administered and accessible health care. These are the commitments that are now contained in the Canada Health Act.
The joint parliamentary committee also recommended that the compliance of governments with the social covenant must be subject to public review, including public hearings and periodic reports by a specialized commission.
Therefore, the motion before us today is, in fact, part of the much broader package of issues under consideration as the government works to renew the Canadian federation. Representatives of the provinces have shown considerable interest in the idea of a social covenant. The federal government's position on this constitutional issue will always be consistent with our long-standing commitment to health care.
In closing, I would acknowledge that all members share the high priority this government attaches to the health and well-being of Canadians. The strength of that commitment is not in question.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to join the debate on the motion presented by the member for Mississauga East.
I have known the member for Mississauga East for many years. We have been on several delegations together. I know she is a very bright, intelligent and well-meaning person. That is why I was so surprised at some of the comments she made in her speech. I am particularly surprised at her lack of historic knowledge.
The member tried to lay claim to medicare as a Liberal invention by stating that in 1919 at the Liberal convention William Lyon Mackenzie King enunciated the notion of a universal medical care system. While the Tories and the Liberals in the past have fought over who was responsible in terms of who is the father of medicare, it is true that the Diefenbaker government of the day appointed the Hall commission and it is true that the Liberal government of Mr. Pearson introduced the legislation, but let me tell you that the mother of medicare was the province of Saskatchewan and Woodrow S. Lloyd as its premier. They suffered the birth pains of medicare.
I was there when we had our "Keep Our Doctors" committee, when the doctors in Saskatchewan went out on strike, funded at the time by the American Medical Association. I was there when the then premier Ross Thatcher went to the legislature and kicked on the doors of the legislature. That was the Liberal history on medicare in Saskatchewan. The major source of opposition to medicare came from the Liberals in the province of Saskatchewan.
The hon. member is particularly attacking the NDP provinces. She incorrectly states that the province of British Columbia under Premier Harcourt introduced health premiums. The fact is that B.C. under the Socreds have had health premiums for years. She also attacked the Government of Ontario, Mr. Bob Rae's government, claiming that because of the Rae government going on its socialist agenda, it could not find enough money to properly fund medicare.
I know we are living in an age that George Orwell described as 1984. I have generally attributed that double-think to the Tories, but I am afraid it has also infected the Liberals. Had Premier Rae put more money into hospitalization, the hon. member would have said: "Ah, ha, that is another indication of the socialist agenda". I ask, what socialist agenda? The Ontario government inherited a deficit situation from the Liberals, accelerated by the economic policies of this Tory government. It is trying to do its best to maintain social and health programs and making certain that the amount of interest it pays on the deficit is reduced as much as possible.
It is not an easy task, but it is not their fault. It is something they inherited from the Liberals and from the federal Tbiy policy.
June 8, 1992

I heard the hon. member talk a little bit about the cutbacks to the EPF, the program that transfers federal funds and tax points to the provinces. The Tory action has accelerated the decrease in what the provinces are getting. Let us not forget that this was started by the Liberals when they were in government under Pierre Trudeau. Half of the cutbacks and the costs to the provinces for medicare is because of the cutbacks introduced by the Liberals and because of the ceiling on revenue sharing, the six and five. It used to be that federal contributions to health care in this country amounted to roughly 50 per cent. The reality today is that the federal contribution comes to about 30 per cent of the total costs of medicare.
Do not be impressed when you see the Liberals crying crocodile tears over medicare. That is a farce. They were responsible. Let us have a look at some of the figures. For example, in the province of Ontario the provincial government is supposed to be carrying on the socialist agenda.
Since the cutbacks in the EPF, there has been a total loss of revenue to the province of Ontario of some $12,295 billion. Almost $6.3 billion can be attributed to the elimination of revenue guarantees and the six and five. In other words, half the money Ontario has lost because of the cutbacks in EPF is the result of Liberal cutbacks.
Let us look at B.C. where it is exactly the same. There is a total loss of some $6.8 billion of which almost $3 billion was a result of the Liberal cutbacks.
In my province of Saskatchewan we see as well the cutbacks that have occurred. We are dealing with a terrible deficit situation created by the cohorts of the Conservative Party, Premier Grant Devine and his Tories. There is a terrible deficit situation. We are paying hundreds of millions of dollars every year just on the interest on the debt that Mr. Devine and the Tories out there have left us. The federal cutbacks to the EPF have resulted in the loss to the province of Saskatchewan of $1.19 billion since the 1982-83 cutbacks introduced by the Liberals.
We see and hear both government and Liberal members shed crocodile tears about medicare, yet they are responsible for the cutbacks in EPF and medicare is under threat because of these cutbacks.
Private Members' Business
Since the days of Pierre Trudeau the federal government has consistently off-loaded to the provinces. I am all in favour of entrenching the rights to basic health services as well as education, housing, food, et cetera, to all Canadians and having that in the Constitution.
In fact, during the Constitution debates in the early 1980s I proposed that my party should have stood up and insisted on a social charter. What we had from Mr. Trudeau at the time was a 19th century Liberal constitutional document. I felt we should have moved forward and insisted on a 20th century document that had as well some collective rights.
There is no sense in entrenching a social charter in the Constitution unless there is a guarantee in the Constitution that no future federal governments can unilaterally change programs like the EPF program. I fail to hear the Liberals talk about that.
We can entrench anything in the Constitution but if there is no financial means to enforce it, we will see as we have seen the slow erosion of medicare. If we are going to entrench a social charter and things like medicare in the Constitution, we must insist and the provinces will insist that programs like the EPF are guaranteed, that no future Liberal or Tory government can unilaterally change those legal agreements. Then we might have a chance of preserving medicare.
Canadian people watching the proceedings today should not be fooled by the Liberals' crocodile tears over medicare. They are as much responsible as this present Tory administration for the erosion of medicare in this country.
I am sure the Canadian people will recognize that what Pierre Trudeau did in the early eighties set in motion the slow erosion of medical services right across this country. I am sure the Canadian public has not forgotten.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my friend, the member for Mississauga East, for presenting this extremely important motion to the House of Commons.
I could not help but notice that the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle was made extremely nervous by her presentation. Perhaps it comes as a result of the fact that the three provincial NDP governments that are

Private Members' Business
participating in the present constitutional talks have really not been very active in this particular area.
Once again, I would like to thank the member for Mississauga East for realizing that this is truly a Canadian issue.
This debate is very timely since the preliminary constitutional talks are approaching their conclusion and the issue of what is to be included in the final text is the subject of serious discussion at the moment. I support my friend's demand that the protection of our health care system should be included in the Constitution.
Canadians are rightly supportive of medicare. Given recent calls for the introduction of user fees and other measures, the need to maintain the integrity of our social programs is urgent.
I know that as a member of the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee my colleague heard from numerous witnesses about the need to maintain all aspects of our medicare system. The commitment of all Liberals to a strong health care system was evident in the dissenting opinions expressed on this issue by the Liberal members in the committee's final report. I quote: "The Liberal members believe that the protection of health care is so fundamental to Canadians that they recommend that the Constitution enshrine not only a commitment but an obligation of governments to provide universal publicly-funded hospital and medical care to all citizens".
That is the difference between members of the Liberal Party and members of the Progressive Conservative government and the New Democratic Party. That strong recommendation is a clear example of my party's dedication to safeguarding Canada's health care system.
The most recent demonstration of this commitment came two weeks ago in Regina when our leader spoke out strongly on the issue.
During his speech he pledged that under a Liberal government Canadians would be guaranteed the health care they need when they need it. In a very clear manner he reaffirmed the principles that have made our health care system the envy of the world.
A Liberal government would protect the universality, the portability, the comprehensiveness, the accessibility and the public administration of medicare.
Those five principles are the foundation upon which the whole system stands. Compromise one, and the whole structure is weakened.
That is the message that the Liberal Party is sending to the advocates of user fees and other quick-fix solutions. User fees are not the answer. The system cannot be repaired by attacking those least able to pay. Users fees contradict a basic philosophical principle of our health care system which is the care for everyone, especially those who cannot afford treatment.
Instead of instant non-solutions the Liberal Party is calling for solutions that respond to the concerns of Canadians. It is necessary to examine the system to find innovative ways to provide the same quality of care that Canadians are used to without sacrificing those five principles.
There are many ways in which the medicare system could be reformed to make it more efficient and more responsive to the needs of the community.
We should look into whether or not medicare pays for unnecessary tests or medication. One medical expert estimated that hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted every year on unnecessary drugs for senior citizens.
We could also examine how we use our hospitals. Could some basic fundamental problems be handled by community health clinics instead of hospital emergency rooms? Would the elderly and the disabled be better served if they could live at home instead of in a hospital?
What Canada needs is not user fees for medical care but a greater emphasis placed on home-care programs and local clinics. They could lighten the loads with which our hospitals are presently struggling.
Community based services such as those are the way of the future. A greater degree of community involvement is called for. In recent years, governments have demonstrated they no longer have the ability to provide for the needs of citizens. By using a more co-operative approach, governments would be able to use their consid-
June 8, 1992

erable power to help redistribute and co-ordinate services and improve on how they are delivered.
Obviously, there is some resistance to the idea of decentralizing the provision of services. The resistance must be overcome because the time for radical reform of Canada's health care system is fast approaching.
Canada's population is aging and it is aging rapidly. In 1986 young people made up 26 per cent of Canada's population and the elderly only 11 per cent. By the year 2020, it is expected that the relative share of these two groups will be identical at 19 per cent. This is of particular concern to young Canadians who have the responsibility to care for the elderly. It should also be of great concern to everyone in this Chamber. We all require care and the existing system, unless it is changed, may not be able to provide this care 20 years from now.
Now is the time to make the necessary changes. We must do so in order to maintain the high level of service that Canadians now enjoy as well as to prepare for the needs of the future.
We in the Liberal Party realize that the system must be reformed but we also know that the reform must not come at the expense of the five principles our leader outlined in Regina.
Our health care system is the cornerstone of the ideals of the compassionate society Canadians have built for themselves. It is one of those principal elements that makes Canada a great nation in which to live. At the foundation of that system is its generous spirit. It takes care of all Canadians regardless of where they live, how they live or how much they earn.
Some people are now threatening to undermine this system. They are camouflaging their attempts with claims that they can no longer afford to be generous. I say to them that when we can no longer afford to care for the sick, Canada will cease to be the Canada of which I have spoken. To strike a blow against medicare is to strike at the very heart of this great nation.
Before tearing down a structure that so many other people look upon with envy, I would suggest that the apostles of privatization should look at the United States of America, a nation often used as a model. In the United States, the only industrialized country without a comprehensive government health care program, there
Government Orders
is increasing pressure to introduce the kind of system that we have in Canada.
I am sure that eventually the supporters of user fees will realize how misguided they are. I am confident they will understand that our health care system requires a general overhaul, not a fine tuning.
In conclusion, we must protect medicare. That is why we should enshrine that protection in the Constitution. That is why this House should act on the motion presented by the member for Mississauga East.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: 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.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-41, an act respecting the energy efficiency of energyusing products and the use of alternative energy sources, as reported (with amendments) by Legislative Committee D.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There are five amending motions on the Notice Paper concerning the report stage of Bill C-41, an act respecting the energy efficiency of energy-using products and the use of alternative energy sources, all standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.

Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 will be grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.
I will now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 to the House.

June 8, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with the kind indulgence of the House, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House at this time to place before it two amendments that I believe have been circulated to the Table, or at least the Liberal Whip and House leader and the government House leader or Whip. That was my understanding at least.
The fact of these motions not being before the House in the proper fashion at this point is entirely my fault for which I do apologize and take full responsibility. If, however, having understood that, the House could find it in its heart to be indulgent in this instance, I would be most grateful.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have any problem with doing that at all but some of us who are interested in energy matters would like to see them. I have not seen them and I do not think anyone has.
Do you have to have consent now, or could we wait for a moment or two and carry on with something else in the meantime?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Meanwhile, until the House has been able to read the text of the motions, we will first proceed to consideration of the five motions standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-41 be amended in clause 2 by striking out lines 11
and 12 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
(b) importing or exporting energy-using products into or from
Canada, or
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-41 be amended in clause 4 by striking out lines 16
and 17 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
tured to another province, or import or export an energy-using
product into or from Canada, unless
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-41 be amended in the English version of clause 5 by striking out line 1 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
5.(1) Every dealer who ships, imports, or exports
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-41 be amended in the English version of clause 6 by striking out line 22 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
dealer who ships, imports or exports energy-using
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-41 be amended in clause 10 by striking out lines 7 to 9 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
owned by or is on the premises of a dealer of imported or exported energy-using products or a consignee of imported energy-using products or of energy-using products that are to be exported or there is any document or record.


Mr. MacDougall:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Could I have the consent of the House when our colleague's motions come forward to debate them all at the same time?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I think the hon. member's attention may have strayed when the Chair handed down its ruling. I repeat that all motions standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso have been grouped for debate, and that the vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to the four other motions. The hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity that is occasioned by your ruling to speak to my amendments as they have been grouped for debate and to the thrust and the substance of those amendments.
I would like to remind the House that Bill C-41, the energy efficiency act, is a bill to primarily set minimum energy efficiency standards for a variety of residential energy using products such as fridges, stoves, washers and driers, and household appliances of that nature.
This bill was discussed in committee. I might add that the discussion in committee was very favourable. There was a wide degree of consensus among all parties in committee as to the thrust and the importance of this legislation. In fact, members of the committee generally supported extending the scope and the meaning of the legislation into other areas. There was general support
June 8, 1992

for that even from the minister of energy when he appeared before the committee as a witness.
We support the thrust of this legislation on this side of the House although we have problems with some of the particular aspects of it. My amendment addresses a very specific deficiency in that legislation, something which was omitted. I believe my amendment is timely, given the discussions which are currently taking place on the environment in Rio de Janiero this week.
Bill C-41 restricts the interprovincial trade and movement across provinces of products that do not meet the energy efficiency standards provided as regulations to this bill. It also prevents the importation of products which do not meet those standards.
What the bill does not do is this. It does not address the issue of the export by Canada of products which do not meet the minimum energy standards which we will require in Canada should this legislation become law. In fact, if we look at clause 4 of this bill, it says:
4.(1) No dealer shall, for the purpose of sale or lease, ship an
energy-using product from the province in which it was manufactured
to another province, or import an energy-using product into Canada,
unless
(a)	the product complies with the energy efficiency standard; and
(b)	the product or its package is labelled in a prescribed form or manner, if any.
The other clauses that my amendment addresses would simply add export to the other provisions in clause 4 and the other related clause.
What my amendment does is require Canada to extend to other countries the same rigorous standards which we would want to apply to ourselves concerning the use of energy efficiency standards, and by extension the emission of greenhouse gases that are produced in the process of producing that energy.
My amendment would extend this discipline to other countries; the discipline we are requiring ourselves to abide by using these amendments.
We can ask the first question as to who would be affected by this amendment. If we look at the exports of these types of appliances by Canada, we would see using the 1990 trade statistics for major appliances of this kind that there were $153.5 million worth. Of that, the bulk or 82 per cent of those exports were to the United States,
Government Orders
which already has higher energy efficiency standards than we have in Canada.
The remainder of those exports would currently be 4 per cent to Europe, 7 per cent to Asia, and another 7 per cent to other countries. There is a small portion of our exports that would potentially be affected by this legislation according to these statistics.
The amendment I propose, if it is restrictive in any way to those manufacturers of these products outside of the United States, would be to a very limited degree at the present time. However, that does not deny the importance of the amendment because essentially what this amendment would do would be to require Canada to set its standards in its exports to other countries, standards that it is maintaining for itself.
For that reason it would create a signal to the international community in a very small but important sense that we are prepared to practice what we preach internally in respect of our trade to other countries.
We would be saying with these amendments that we will not export inferior products from an energy standpoint to, for example, a country that could potentially be in the future a very large consumer of these products. We would provide products in those countries that meet an energy efficiency standard. That is what this amendment would do.
I realize we are dealing with, in a sense, a policy dilemma here. The dilemma we face is whether or not we should apply our standards to other countries concerning the environment or energy efficiency in this case.
The debate being brought forward at this time is that we in Canada proclaim our adherence and this government proclaims its adherence to the importance of concern for the environment and the desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The desire is to set an example in terms of energy efficiency, an example that it is willing to impose not only on itself but also in its relationship with other countries.
There is an additional reason for the time limits of an amendment of this kind and for having this subject brought forward for debate. We are currently in the midst of the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations. Although the environment has not been a factor in world trade discussions, clearly the environment is going to be a factor in future trade discussions on an international basis and the way in which trade law develops. It is

Government Orders
through the application of smaller agreements and legislation which sets that pattern in various countries.
Clearly this type of amendment sets the tone for the future conduct in Canada of its trade relations with other countries, it says in effect that we will apply to our trade law or to the aspects of our legislation that affect our trade the kind of concern for the environment that we want to impose upon ourselves. That is the point behind that particular amendment to this piece of legislation and why I am bringing it forward today.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few concerns with regard to the amendments that have been brought forward by my colleague.
I would like to first of all say that the work done by the committee certainly indicates that members who have concerns can sit down and readdress the bill on the legislative side and come up with proposals and changes to this piece of legislation.
Veiy briefly on the amendment put in by my colleague, Bill C-41 was generally a Canadian market and Canadian consumer piece of legislation. It addressed the appropriate energy efficiency purposes within this country. We believe that the compliance and monitoring activities of this bill as included over the next two years in this piece of legislation when it becomes law and that the international trade policies and practices can certainly be looked at at that time.
At this point the government is not prepared to support these amendments. We certainly understand that the member has done some good work in this, but we believe that the actions of the next two years and the direction of the government and of the energy policies and practices will be that which will allow for monitoring over the next two years on the activities of the piece of legislation.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, the reason that the bill was brought forward, the reason we are discussing this today, is that it is widely and generally recognized that conservation and increased energy efficiencies are absolutely crucial to the reduction of energy use generally upon which the fate of the planet may hang.
In applauding the government for bringing the bill forward, for making this small but nonetheless important first step, I would like as well to applaud the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso for bringing forward his amendments today. I think James Shaver Woodsworth said it as well as anyone could in his Grace Before Meat "What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all".
What that means, very simply, in terms of this bill is that which we wish to achieve in our domestic market in terms of the increased energy efficiencies that we hope the bill will foster, and in fact we know the bill will at some point require, those efficiencies should not be restrained to our domestic market, but rather where we have international customers we should as well grace them with those efficiencies.
There is no reason of which I can think to vote against these amendments on their principle. On the face of it there is no cause that I can see for continuing to allow the export of domestically produced, or imported and reproduced, goods to other countries, presumably in the Third World, of an efficiency lower than those which we would tolerate in our own country. In a sense, Mr. Speaker, that is a sort of conceptual insult to those countries.
I would strongly support these motions and would urge the government to reconsider, if not today then as the parliamentary secretary held out the hope, perhaps in the near future.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I remind all members that a vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: On division.
Motion No. 1 negatived.


Ross Harvey: On that previous point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the House is now ready to determine whether or not there is unanimous consent.
June 8, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mrs. Venne:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the members of the Bloc Quebecois are also willing to let the hon. member for Edmonton East table his amendments at this time, simply to prove their good will, as always.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I ask the hon. member for Edmonton East to stand and read the two motions, please.


Ross Harvey: Motion No. 6
That clause 20 of Bill C-41 be amended by striking out line 8 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"respect to the products' energy efficiency and prescribing the form and manner of any information required to be included in advertising promoting energy using products.
Motion No. 7
That clause 20 of Bill C-41 be amended immediately after line 8 by adding the following:
"and potential for cost savings"


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: These two motions are in order. For all members who want the text of them, it is available from the clerks at the Table.

The two motions proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton East will be grouped for debate. The first motion will be voted on first. The second motion will be voted on only if the first motion is rejected.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the goal of both amendments-I will speak of both of them together-is to lend further market effect to the bill.
Government Orders
In the first instance the amendment would have the effect of requiring that advertising of energy products include the information that the bill now requires be included in the labelling of the products. All this means is that the information, on the basis of which we hope consumers will make informed choices in favour of greater energy efficiency, will be available to consumers before they go to the shop floor. In other words, in reading the flyers that come in the mailbox or the advertisements in the Friday newspaper consumers will at that point be informed as to the relative energy efficiency merits of the product under consideration.
The reason for this was pointed out in testimony before the committee: most consumers, by the time they hit the shop floor, have narrowed down at the very least their range of potential products and often that range will be further narrowed by what is available in the store. If they have available to them ahead of time those crucial pieces of energy efficiency information, they will be able to make not only better informed but more effective choices before they ever leave their homes. That is the point of the first amendment.
The second amendment would be to require that the information presented both in the labelling of the device and in the advertising, if the first amendment carries, would be put at least in part in terms of anticipated cost savings. In other words dollars expressed on whatever basis and in whatever form the government chooses but nonetheless a presentation in terms of dollars. Brian Kelly, president of Marbek Resources, in his testimony before the legislative committee noted that dollars were the official language of Canadian consumers. We are not suggesting in this amendment that information like kilowatt hours per year be excluded from the label. Certainly that information is valuable and can be included. We are saying, as is the case in Jamaica, for example, that dollars be included on whatever base the minister or the Governor in Council may choose.
Both these amendments, therefore, are an attempt through the closer informing of consumers to give greater impact and greater effect to the principles of the bill. As such I would hope they would enjoy the support of the House.

Government Orders


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few brief comments on both motions put forward by my colleague.
With the first motion in particular, there will be jurisdictional difficulties with regard to the federal, provincial, retail and wholesale sides. That makes it next to impossible for us to consider this motion at this time.
On the second motion put forward by my colleague, cost saving is already in the bill. The cost difference across the country makes it difficult to be able to go further than we have at this time.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the two amendments which my NDP colleague has put forward. They reflect faithfully the tenor of the discussion which took place in committee and the purpose which all members of the committee wanted to see reflected in the legislation. There is the increase of information available to consumers to be able to make informed choices on the energy efficiency of the products they buy and the information which is provided is relevant and useful for that purpose.
In that respect I believe the House would do well to support these amendments.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point. It occurs to me that when I was asked to move the amendments I was not asked for a seconder. I believe the record should show that there was a seconder. Let it show that the seconder is the member for Trinity-Spa-dina.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The first motion will be voted on first. The second motion will be voted on only if the first motion is rejected.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: On division.
Motions Nos. 6 and 7 negatived.


Hon. John McDermid (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


David Kilgour: On behalf of the Official Opposition, I believe there is no objection to proceeding with third reading of the bill now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to proceed to the third reading of the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is no unanimous consent.


AN ACT TO AMEND CERTAIN ACTS WITH RESPECT TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES MEASURE TO AMEND
John Horton McDermid: that Bill C-78, an act to amend certain acts with respect to persons with disabilities, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-78, an omnibus bill to amend certain acts with respect to persons with disabilities.
The changes contained in this omnibus bill have been welcomed by persons with disabilities. They are certainly long overdue. However, the bad news is that there are so many important things not included in the bill, so many things that persons with disabilities have been expecting for a very long time.
I have seen first hand how much these legislative improvements are needed. I have travelled from coast to coast to meet with groups and individuals in their communities. I have heard and seen some appalling situations. I have come to realize how much it really matters that we get serious about these problems.

It seems to me that what we are currently saying to many persons with disabilities is that we do not want them to play a full and active role in society. I think, for example, of the disabled person who has significant disability related expenses. If that person somehow against all odds manages to get some training and to find a job, he may find that the government immediately cuts off the financial support it previously offered. He may find that he cannot really afford to work.
In effect we are saying to that person: "We don't want you to be a proud, independent, productive Canadian citizen". Unfortunately we have a system that is full of disincentives.
I want to relate a few examples of some of the cases I have seen or heard about across Canada. I can remember when the Liberal task force on disabled persons was in New Brunswick. I met an elderly woman who lived some distance outside Fredericton. She had serious eye problems and needed to see an eye specialist regularly. She could not drive and because the government had cut VIA Rail services to Fredericton there was simply no way for her to visit her eye doctor.
I have heard cases of persons in wheelchairs who made plane reservations weeks in advance, told the airline about the wheelchair, showed up in advance at the airport, and then were told by the pilot at the very last minute that they could not board the plane. Our laws currently give pilots the authority to do that.
Some of the most disturbing stories I heard came from isolated aboriginal communities. For example, persons with disabilities often need to see medical specialists who are located only in major urban centres many thousands of miles away. They told me horrendous stories of regularly having to travel vast distances to receive care.
These are the people who are looking forward to major improvements in long awaited omnibus legislation. I do not think there is any doubt they are deeply disappointed by this legislation.
I would like to quote Mr. Jim Dirksen, president of the Canadian Disability Rights Council, who said: "If this bill were all we were going to get, we would have to register tremendous disappointment". Mr. Dirksen compared the bill to a sod-turning ceremony which is more a commitment to build something rather than substantive changes on the ground.
Government Orders
I would also like to quote from an article on disability issues that appeared in The Toronto Star on May 21. The article is entitled "Government turns its back on disabled". It examines in considerable detail how this government has neglected Canadians with disabilities. This is how this omnibus bill is described in the article: "Sweeping changes were called for by the disabled community. Elaborate promises were made by the government but the law itself is a joke. The government failed to deliver. Nobody takes it seriously".
Finally I want to quote from an editorial that appeared in The Ottawa Citizen on May 23. Again, this editorial outlines how the government has disappointed disabled persons in Canada. It described the omnibus bill as pathetic and as a pale and sickly shadow of the draft bill produced by the Canadian Disability Rights Council. It says the bill is a far cry from the American's disability act that went into effect in the United States in January.
These are not exactly glowing endorsements of this bill. They are fair reflections of what disabled persons feel about it. It is simply lacking in substance.
The government made a number of related announcements at the time this bill was first tabled. These announcements were promises of further action on disability issues to be taken at some unspecified time in the future after further review and consultation.
All of us in this House realize that the words further review and consultation are code words for delay or inaction.
Last fall the Canadian Disability Rights Council presented to the government a 107-page brief outlining in veiy specific terms the legislative reforms it hoped to see in an omnibus bill. The brief even included draft legislation for such a bill. I will be quoting from this bill today in my remarks because it illustrates so well the huge gap between what disabled persons were expecting in this bill and what they actually got.
This brief represents a lot of work on the part of this group and I want to congratulate the council on the good job it has done. Many other groups have made similar briefs and presentations to the government in recent years. This is one reason why persons with disabilities are so disappointed with this bill. It was the government that funded the Canadian Disability Rights Council to prepare this brief. This was seen as an act of good faith in the community. Naturally there was an expectation that

June 8, 1992
Government Orders
the government would follow through with substantive changes.
Perhaps the process resulted in unrealistic expectations. I am not sure if there is a better way of doing it. All I know is that a lot of people are very, very disappointed and I do not blame them.
Before I move on a specific discussion of the act, I want to make a few comments about persons with disabilities in Canada. We know now that there are between three and four million Canadians living with some kind of disability. That is well over 10 per cent of our total population. This is not a small group of people we are talking about. Many of these disabled persons are seniors. If we think about it we can all think of a senior we know who has difficulty seeing, hearing or walking. It may be a parent, a grandparent, a friend or a neighbour.
I would ask hon. members to remember that many of us will have to deal with these disabilities ourselves someday.
Many of these people with disabilities live in poverty in a country that prides itself on its standard of living and its commitments to human rights. Women with disabilities are particularly disadvantaged, earning on average less than half of what disabled men earn. They are even more likely than non-disabled women to suffer sexual and physical abuse.
As well, aboriginals with disabilities are much more likely to live in poverty than other Canadians with disabilities.
I hope that all members would agree that it is the responsibility of the government that all Canadians have equal rights regardless of abilities.
The most substantive amendments in this act are changes to the Canada Elections Act. I suspect that the government is more aware of these issues because of the $18 million royal commission on electoral reform which made a number of recommendations in this area. Presumably the all-party committee looking at the royal commission may have been planning similar amendments. Anyway, it is good to see this increased awareness.
Bill C-78 contains a number of amendments to ensure that persons with disabilities are able to exercise their rights to participate in elections. I am sure all members of the House would agree that the right to vote is one of the most fundamental and important rights that we enjoy in a democracy. It is a right that most of us take for granted but we would not take it for granted if we were blind or in a wheelchair. For many disabled persons in the past, voting has been so difficult that they have been unable to exercise their democratic rights.
Among other amendments, this bill contains changes to ensure that polling stations will have level access, that disabled persons may receive assistance in the voting booth and that special measures will be taken to assist disabled voters living in institutions. These are all welcomed changes.
I would also like to point out that we have a responsibility to assist not only the disabled voters but also disabled candidates because the right to run for public office is an important democratic right.
Bill C-78 takes into account the special financial expenses of disabled candidates that relate to then-disabilities. These expenses will no longer need to be claimed as election expenses. The effect of this change is to remove an obviously discriminatory requirement from the election financing laws.
We only need to look at legislatures across the country to see that we have had a relatively low number of disabled candidates in Canada in spite of the fact that more than 10 per cent of Canadians are disabled persons.
The Canadian Disability Rights Council has recommended that the government should reimburse disabled candidates for any special personal expenses related to their disabilities and in this way encourage disabled candidates to run for office.
I would also point out that it is not only the government that has responsibility in this area. All political parties also have a responsibility to ensure that disabled persons are encouraged to run as candidates.
June 8, 1992

There are a number of other issues related to disabled persons in the Canadian Elections Act which were not addressed by this bill. Our party is hoping that some of these issues will be addressed by the parliamentary committee examining the recommendations of the royal commission on electoral reform.
I am pleased to see that the government has introduced amendments to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act so that people with disabilities are able to request information in alternate formats. This applies to people with sensory disabilities, that is, disabilities of sight and hearing. The alternate formats could be large print, Braille or audio cassette.
I am concerned about some aspects of these amendments. For example, the amendment allows the head of government departments to determine whether a request for alternative formats is both necessary and reasonable. I am concerned about the extent to which this may limit the rights of access for disabled persons.
Improvement to these acts are necessary because Treasury Board guidelines on alternate formats have been virtually ignored by many departments. Treasury Board has previously directed all departments to set aside a fixed percentage of their publicity and information budgets for producing materials in alternate formats.
However, according to the Canadian Disability Rights Council: "The reality is that few departments have adhered to this guideline. Recent surveys conducted by the National Library of Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Commission show that little action to encourage or require compliance has been taken by the Treasury Board and that very few departments have produced or are about to produce documents in alternate format".
This shows a rather callous disregard for the rights of disabled persons. I would certainly hope that this legislative change will help produce a change in attitudes in government departments.
I was also pleased to see that the bill contains an important change to the Criminal Code related to the rights of disabled persons in court. Changes to the code will allow a complainant with a disability to give evidence regarding certain sexual offences from behind a screen or outside the courtroom.
Government Orders
This will only occur in cases in which seeing the accused would prevent the complainant from testifying freely.
This measure is extremely important for disabled persons but it falls far short of what they were looking for. When we think about the circumstances in which many disabled persons live, we can clearly see that they are among the most vulnerable people in our society. There is great potential for abuse, for assault and sexual assault. The government has indicated that the Minister of Justice will review other sections of the Criminal Code and the Canadian Evidence Act which have been identified by the disabled community as requiring attention.
Again, we have to wonder why the need for further review. The disability community has outlined the problems very clearly and has made some very specific recommendations to address the problems.
According to the Canadian Disability Rights Council, disabled persons are up to 10 times more likely to be assaulted and sexually assaulted than people without disabilities. Often the abuser is not charged because of the difficulties associated with the disabled person's testifying in court. The result is that people who assault or sexually assault these vulnerable people in our society are getting away with their despicable crimes. It is no wonder that disabled persons have been so anxious for the legislative amendments required to change the status quo.
Unfortunately, this bill omits a number of important recommendations made by the Canadian Disability Rights Council in this area. For example, the council has recommended an exception to the hearsay rule that would allow a third party, such as an attendant, to give evidence instead of the victim where no other way exists to get the evidence in court. As well, we need to be taking advantage of the technology that allows a blind and visually impaired person to identify the accused through the use of voice line-ups. Disabled persons want the current provisions in the Criminal Code that deal with abuse by those in positions of trust and authority to be extended to include protection for persons with disabilities.
When you think about these problems you realize that some of them have been with us for a very, very long time. It is sad indeed that we have not yet been able to devise innovative ways of overcoming these problems in order to ensure greater fairness to people with disabili-

June 8, 1992
Government Orders
ties. They are entitled to the same legal rights and the same protection under the law as everyone else.
One of the most important areas for persons with disabilities in Canada today is that of access to transportation. That is no surprise when we think about it. Access to transportation is a vitally important element of life in the modem world. It is something that most of us take for granted, something that enables us to accomplish the things we do every day. Without it we simply could not participate fully in the work world and in community life. I can assure members of the House that over the past year or so I have heard some real horror stories about the difficulties people with disabilities often encounter when they want to travel by plane or bus, for example.
For those of us who travel routinely without these kinds of problems it is hard to imagine what it must be like to put up with such frustrating experiences. Bill C-78 makes only one change to the National Transportation Act. It is a change adding the words "access to persons with disabilities" to the preamble of the act as part of the preamble's over-all description of Canada's transportation system. Again, there is no time frame, no deadlines, no specific details.
The government also indicated that the specific recommendations of the Canadian Disability Rights Council will be considered as a part of a review of the National Transportation Act to be completed next year. Next year; again there will be more delay. This change to the preamble is of course welcome but again it falls far short of expectations. There seems to be little doubt that the transportation companies will continue to delay efforts to ensure access for as long as they can get away with it.
I recognize that removing barriers to access does cost money, but at some point the government has to bite the bullet, show that it is serious about access and impose some comprehensive deadlines and mechanisms to ensure the enforcement of access regulations and requirements. That is what is noticeably absent from this legislation. It is not more fancy words that disabled persons are looking for. It is action and results.
I have mentioned some of the problems that disabled persons encounter when travelling by plane.
I also want to mention the particular problems associated with bus travel. According to the Canadian Disability Rights Council, the bus industry has taken advantage of the confusion about which level of government has jurisdiction over it to escape regulating access altogether. Yet the bus is a key connector between towns and the rural communities. Buses provide services to places that trains and planes do not.
It seems to me that in the face of jurisdictional confusion, it is up to the federal government to show leadership and to ensure that the rights of disabled travellers are not overlooked.
The technology to make buses wheelchair accessible has been available for a long time.
I also want to point out that in the areas of accessible bus travel Canada lags far behind other countries. For example, the United States department of transportation recently announced that all new intercity buses purchased after 1993 must be fully accessible. Many of these buses are made in Winnipeg. The accessible buses are sold to the United States. The non-accessible buses are sold in Canada.
I have heard that because the United States is so far ahead of Canada when it comes to accessible buses, there is a real fear that the Americans will dump then-old inaccessible buses in Canada after 1993.1 find that a real embarrassment for our country.
These measures being enacted in the United States are the kinds of measures that disabled persons in Canada have been demanding for years. These are the kinds of measures they expected to see in the omnibus bill or in an announcement that accompanied the bill. They were not expecting to hear they Mil have to wait until next year, the year after, or the year after that.
Finally, I want to comment about some of the important issues that should have been addressed in this legislation but have been left out entirely for reasons that are far from clear to me.
One of these is broadcasting and particularly access to television. This bill contains no amendments to the Broadcasting Act despite the recommendations of the disability rights advocates.
Statistics Canada tells us that there are 260,000 deaf people in Canada and more than 1.5 million who are
June 8, 1992

hard of hearing. For quite some time we have had the technology to make television accessible to persons with hearing difficulties.
There are several different options but the preferred method is called closed captioning. Closed captioning means that subtitles appear on television screens equipped with special decoder boxes.
I want to mention that it is possible to have a decoder chip built into the television and this costs the manufacturer about five cents. This would save the consumer from having to spend anywhere from $80 to $200 for a decoder box.
In the United States, legislation requires manufacturers to include these chips in televisions. Without legislation businesses will be reluctant to include the chip because often, the same companies that sell televisions also sell decoder boxes. Naturally, they would prefer to make extra money on the sale of decoder boxes. Sadly, we have seen no move toward this kind of legislation in Canada.
I also want to point out that captioning is not only essential for deaf people, but it is also useful for people who are learning how to read, or people who are learning a second language.
Unfortunately, broadcasters in Canada have been very slow to provide captioned programs. Last year it is estimated that only 10 per cent to 15 per cent of programs in both public and private stations were captioned. Recent licence renewals for both the CBC and CTV networks provided for only 15 hours of captioned programs per week.
The CRTC has refused to require complete access for the hard-of-hearing as a condition of licence. What the disabled community expects is nothing less than 100 per cent captioning for all programs.
Again, I want to stress that this is not a small audience we are talking about. It is 1.5 million Canadians. These are Canadians who pay taxes just like the rest of us including taxes for the CBC. They expect to be able to watch television just like the rest of us. Will they get a tax rebate if they cannot understand the programming?
It has become very clear that it is not good enough to encourage broadcasters to provide closed captioning.
Government Orders
This voluntary approach has brought very disappointing results. The time has obviously come for the government to impose requirements and deadlines.
The government has announced that the Minister of Communications will be directing the CRTC in the areas of captioning and employment equity after further consultation with the disabled community and broadcasters.
Again, we have no specifics, no timetables and still more consultation. I am all for consultation but in this case it is quite obvious what the disabled community wants. It is equally obvious that broadcasters will attempt to do as little as possible because of the expense involved. We can only hope that the minister and the CRTC will regard this matter with the same urgency as the disabled community.
I could go on and on about all the issues that have not been addressed in this bill and all the amendments that have not been included.
As I have mentioned, disabled persons are disappointed that the bill contains no amendments to the Broadcasting Act, the Immigration Act or the Canada Evidence Act. Persons with disabilities also consider improvements to the Employment Equity Act a high priority. They are also looking for improvements to the Canadian Human Rights Act, the National Training Act, the Income Tax Act, the National Housing Act, Canada Assistance Plan Act, Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act, the Canada Pension Plan Act and the Canada Labour Code, among others.
The questions that disabled persons are asking now are: why the delay? Why is there a need for still more review and consultation? These are definitely not new issues.
There has in fact been extensive consultation with the disabled community. The community's recommendations have been quite specific and thoroughly researched. The government has had years and years to prepare this legislation. Why is it so skimpy? Why are there so many important issues not addressed in this bill?
Many of these issues were raised long ago. In 1981, the Obstacles report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, chaired by the Hon. David Smith, made 130 recommendations that touched on every aspect of the social, economic and legal

Government Orders
situation of disabled persons. More than 10 years later, many of these recommendations remain unfulfilled.
The feeling of disappointment is one that is all too familiar to disabled Canadians. They have been told time and time again that they will have to wait. They have waited and waited. They are tired of waiting. They are tired of being treated like second-class citizens. They are tired of having to wait for their rights.
We will be supporting Bill C-78. I suppose when you want to walk a mile and you can only go an inch, you have to accept that inch. The disabled community, all those who are friends of the disabled community and those who work with them and those of us in the Liberal Party are hoping that this really is just the sod turning, that within the next few months there will be some positive action.
We ask that the Prime Minister affirm to the disabled community that he will be taking some very positive action further than this omnibus bill in the next few months.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as Secretary of State and minister responsible for the status of disabled persons, I was honoured recently to introduce Bill C-78 in the Elouse. It is indeed a pleasure to rise today to participate in this historic debate. It is historic because in debating Bill C-78, Parliament is for the first time ever considering a bill that focuses exclusively on the concerns of the 3.3 million Canadians with disabilities.
The importance of this is worth noting, not only because it is a first, but because prescribing the requirements of equal access in law will have an impact beyond the specific acts being amended.
The provisions of Bill C-78, and the other measures that we have announced, represent a further step forward to the full social and economic integration of persons with disabilities. It is an important step toward ensuring that all of our laws reflect the needs, interests, aspirations and rights of all Canadians, including those with disabilities.
An important feature of the bill and related policy and regulatory actions is the process through which they have become a reality.
My department played a co-ordinating role with the Department of Justice and the other concerned departments in facilitating a close and effective partnership with the disability community. Over the past eight months, the government has worked with the Canadian Disability Rights Council in the development of this bill, and I want to thank them for their leadership, determination and insight.
Another important partner in the development of Bill C-78 was the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. It was the Standing Committee, in its 1990 report, A Consensus for Action, that first recommended a review of federal legislation to ensure that Canadians with disabilities are full participants in the social and economic mainstream. The standing committee provides an important forum for the disability community and other stakeholders to clarify outstanding issues and encourage government attention. I thank the members of the standing committee for their continued collaboration.
Bill C-78 is a good example of what can be accomplished when people with a shared vision can work together for a common purpose. In considering the provisions of this unique bill, our common purpose is the full and equal participation of persons with disabilities. We are single-minded in our determination that all citizens, regardless of physical or mental disability, have a right to be full participants in their communities. Surely we can afford nothing less than to benefit from the full contribution of every Canadian.
It was with this vision in mind that in September of 1991, the Prime Minister announced the National Strategy for the Integration of Persons with Disabilities. Under the strategy, the federal government made a commitment to provide access for persons with disabilities, to ensure their integration in the economic life of the country, and to promote their full participation in Canadian society. A comprehensive review of federal legislation was identified as an important element of the National strategy.
June 8, 1992



The measures set out in Bill C-78 are a central part of the government's national strategy and will significantly improve the opportunities for Canadians with disabilities to participate fully in the community.
Bill C-78 and the changes it proposes build on the past legislative achievement in support of equality and full participation of people with disabilities. For example, in 1985 section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect. Canada is the only country in the world whose Constitution includes a provision designed to protect persons with disabilities against discrimination.
Other significant legislative measures include first, the passage in 1986 of the Employment Equity Act; second, a series of changes to the Income Thx Act to better address the needs of persons with disabilities; and third, amendments made to the National Transportation Act in 1988 to empower the National Transportation Agency to set, administer and enforce accessibility standards for all modes of transportation within the federal jurisdiction.
All of those legislative changes have been made in close consultation with those most concerned, Canadians with disabilities. We have been listening to them and taking concrete action to address their needs and rights.
That is why Bill C-78, in which we are proposing to amend six federal statutes to remove barriers to the full and equal participation of persons with disabilities, is so important.
Citizenship is the key to participation. Bill C-78 proposes to amend the Citizenship Act to ensure that people who have disabilities have equal access to Canadian citizenship. The amendments would remove the word disability from the interpretation section of the act and more descriptive and appropriate wording would be inserted where the term now appears.
It is also proposed that the current ministerial provision to wave the residence requirement for persons with a mental disability be deleted from the act.
The most fundamental of all democratic rights is the right to vote. However, this right is sometimes restricted by factors such as accessibility of polling stations or problems in receiving the kind of assistance required to mark a ballot. Moreover, the freedom to run for public
Government Orders
office is sometimes limited for persons with disabilities. Candidates with disabilities who might require the services of a full-time attendant or sign language interpreters ought not to be disadvantaged as a result of additional costs. The suggested changes to the Canada Elections Act would ensure that people with disabilities can participate fully in the electoral process.
For example, proposed amendments include a requirement that all polling stations and returning offices provide level access. It would also provide the use of mobile polling stations to bring the vote to individuals residing in institutions and clarification of the definition of personal expenses to include additional costs incurred by candidates with disabilities.
Travelling without barriers is one of the most central concerns of people with disabilities. Without accessible transportation, full participation in Canadian life is not possible. For this reason, Bill C-78 proposes to amend the National Transportation Act to directly acknowledge for the first time the importance of accessible transportation. The proposed amendment to the declaratory clause of the act would ensure that our national transportation system meets the needs of travellers with disabilities.
I must add that as part of the statutory review of the National Transportation Act, a review commission was set up to study all aspects of the act and to make recommendations for further changes as required.
Like all citizens, persons with disabilities need to have full access to the justice system. Through proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, Bill C-78 would allow a complainant with a disability to give testimony from behind a screen or outside the courtroom if seeing the accused would prevent the complainant from testifying freely. At the same time, my hon. colleague, the Minister of Justice, is committed to a review of all other proposals put forward by the Canadian Disability Rights Council as part of a larger review of Bill C-15.
The availability of information contributes to an individual's ability to participate. For persons with disabilities, having access to information in an alternative format is critical. The purpose of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act is to ensure Canadians, permanent residents and persons present in Canada the right to access personal information and records held by government institutions.

June 8, 1992
Government Orders
Accordingly, Bill C-78 proposes to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act to establish the circumstances under which access to information covered by the acts will be provided in formats such as Braille, large print and audio cassette.
The proposed amendments would also give persons with disabilities a right to complain to the appropriate commissioner if they have not been given access to a record of information or an alternative format.
Taken together, these proposed statutory changes contained in Bill C-78 will significantly improve the lives of Canadians with disabilities. On a related legislative matter, my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, will soon introduce amendments to the Immigration Act related to the medical criteria used to screen applicants seeking admission to Canada.
These would address, among other things, the concern of the disabled community that the act currently discriminates on the basis of disability. These changes will be developed through continued consultation with the disabled community.
Our work is not finished. Bill C-78 is a step forward. In fact, the bill underscores the government's commitment to continued collaboration with the disabled community toward further legislative reform.

Our work has not finished with Bill C-78. It is a beginning, a step forward, an important step, but it underscores the government's commitment to continued collaboration with the disabled toward further legislative reform.
In speaking about Bill C-78, Jim Derksen, chairperson of the Canadian Disability Rights Council, used the analogy of a sod turning. Someone has to turn the ground in order to build. Removing the legislative barriers facing persons with disabilities cannot be done overnight. It is a building process. All of us must be involved. Only by working together, as we have in the development of Bill C-78, can meaningful change take place.
We may not change the world by taking these measures. We will, however, create a world that is open to future commitments, future changes, and will have one
more reason to say that Canada is the world leader in ensuring equality and quality of life for its people.
Since tabling Bill C-78 in the House, I have closely followed the discussions of the disabled and have listened to their proposals for amendments to the bill. As well, I received suggestions from the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons when I appeared before it on June 2.
The recommendations put forward by the disabled and the parliamentary committee, and in particular the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine, will strengthen those clauses in Bill C-78 dealing with the assistance provided to enable persons with disabilities to exercise the most fundamental of democratic rights, the right to vote.
The proposed amendments will ensure that any elector with a disability will receive the assistance required to mark his or her ballot. The changes will streamline the language in the bill, making it as inclusive as possible.
I am therefore pleased to support a proposal to amend clauses 25, 26, 29, 30 and 31 of Bill C-78 with regard to the Canada Elections Act.

In closing, I think the Chair will find that there is unanimous consent to complete second reading, Committee of the Whole and third reading of Bill C-78 today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Carried.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-78.1 must say that in many ways I feel like speaking about what is not in the bill as opposed to what is in the bill.
As I look through this piece of legislation I recognize that almost all of it deals with changes to the Canada Elections Act. In other words, out of about a 15-page act, less than five of those pages deal with any legislation other than the Canada Elections Act. Unfortunately that symbolizes the problems that exist with the bill. The government, in its desire to be seen as doing something for the disabled community of Canada, decided to do a
June 8, 1992

lot with regard to the Canada Elections Act but did very little in other areas of concern.
It is ironic that this piece of legislation spends so much of its time dealing with the Canada Elections Act and the amendments that the minister is about to make when we go to Committee of the Whole. They are strictly on the Canada Elections Act and are being done at the same time that we have a committee which I also serve on, a special committee which is dealing with the Canada Elections Act.
In one room later today we have a committee that will be discussing the Canada Elections Act. At the same time we have this bill, which is supposed to be concerned with a whole number of concerns that the disabled community has, being dealt with in the House. Those two items are being dealt with in isolation to each other.
We have one bill which deals with the Canada Elections Act, we have a committee which deals with the Canada Elections Act, and unfortunately the two have not been married and there has not been very much consultation between the committee and those clauses that are in the bill and those amendments that the minister just spoke of which he will be making later on this day.
It is unfortunate that this bill is so restricted. As I have checked the history of this legislation, it is not what the disabled community has asked for. Over two years ago the idea of omnibus legislation was presented to the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. A coalition of disabled groups, including the Canadian Association for Community Living, the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped and the Canadian Disabilities Rights Council, made that presentation.
The earliest version of the proposal included a real effort to make the laws of Canada reflect the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This first version of omnibus legislation that was produced by the disabled community proposed changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Broadcasting Act, the Copyright Act, the Access to Information Act, the National Transportation Act, the Immigration Act, the Canada Elec-
Govemment Orders
tions Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Employment Equity Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal Code of Canada and the Income Ihx Act.
In terms of action to complement legislative change, the disability coalition pointed out that the administration of such programs as the Canada Assistance Plan, the Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Persons program and the Established Program Financing, which authorizes federal-provincial activities, results in administrative measures that create impediments to the equality of persons with disabilities.
In addition, the federal government has delegated its authority in certain instances, such as interprovincial bus transportation, in which administrative bodies are not required to ensure the accessibility for disabled persons.
As I mentioned, two years ago this initiative for legislation had finally come from the community itself. This was late in the game, many, many years after the charter had come into effect. Why did it take so long for the government to begin to address the issue of inclusion of people with disabilities?
The New Democratic Party has long supported the inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of Canadian society, especially in our laws.
For too long the concerns of people with disabilities have been treated as add-ons to government programs and to laws. This means that their concerns have been treated as special rather than as a fundamental part of the legal and governmental system.
Whenever people are given this type of special treatment it can be seen as a favour and once granted it can also be taken away. That is not the approach that we would advocate.
For over 10 years my colleague, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, has worked on this very issue. When the Liberals were in government and when the Conservatives were in government he was our representative on the various committees that we had, including the special committee on the disabled and the handicapped which in its obstacles report made over 130 recommendations to include the concerns of people with

June 8, 1992
Government Orders
disabilities in the fabric of government policies, pro- Unfortunately, clauses like the one in the Immigration grams and laws.	Act which I referred to help perpetuate that myth.
The member for Beaches-Woodbine participated actively in the parliamentary discussions around the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to make certain that people with disabilities were guaranteed equality in section 15 of the charter. Currently, as a member of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, he works constructively with the government and with the Official Opposition to promote this progress.
For those people like the member for Beaches- Woodbine who are concerned with this legislation and for the disabled community there is a great sense of disappointment. Instead of the comprehensive list of legislation that was asked for in front of the committee and that the committee proposed to this House two years ago, the government has presented a very modest list of amendments to a very few acts of Parliament.
As I said earlier, if you take away changes to the Canada Elections Act there is not much left in this legislation.
Our party cannot understand why the minister was unable to include changes to the Immigration Act that the community wanted. Why is section 19(1) of the act not included in this bill? It would send a signal to all Canadians if this section of the Immigration Act were repealed because it prevents most persons with disabilities from getting landed immigrant status and from entering Canada.
According to the Disabled Rights Organization, this provision alone serves to perpetuate the misconceptions and misunderstandings about the abilities of disabled persons.
If I can add a personal note to this intervention, I know, as a former classroom teacher and a member of Parliament for 13 years, it has been that constant communication from the disabled groups within our country that has certainly educated me in terms of their ability to serve and participate in our nation. All too often there is a perception in the public arena that these people must be excluded for their own protection, that these people are not able to participate and that they would be taken advantage of.
We would like to see this act amended. We would like to see the government commit itself to some long-term, major changes to federal government laws and regulations as they affect the disabled.
We have been asked by the disabled groups to help the passage of this legislation through the House to ensure that it is passed today, but these same groups have also said that this is basically the first step, the first move in dealing with legislation that is required. In other words, they have been promised that a second piece of legislation would be coming down later that would deal with the more substantive concerns.
I always get nervous when I hear that because I have often heard governments make that type of promise, especially when their mandate is about to expire. It is very easy to move on a piece of legislation now which is very limited in scope and say we will deal with the major items one, two, three years down the road. Unfortunately history will tell us that in this House of Commons those second pieces of legislation often never appear on our Order Paper, or if they appear on the Order Paper at all it is just prior to an election and they are not passed.
I share the concern of the disabled communities when they say that they need some guarantee from the minister as to when that legislation will be tabled and when the government expects to proceed with it to ensure that it is passed before the next federal election.
Again, the minister referred to regulations when we all know that when there are changes to legislation, it is the regulations that follow and that quite often are the mechanism which make the legislation work.
When will those regulations be brought into place? When will they actually exist? Is it going to be one year, two years or three years from now? Again, why can the government not make a commitment to ensure that those regulations will be put in place and give the people, especially the disabled communities, a firm deadline as to when that would happen?
We have a lot of concerns with regard to the legislation. We are concerned especially with regard to the fact that so many areas were not dealt with. Earlier I read
June 8, 1992

Government Orders
from a list of legislation that the disabled communities society that suffer, unfortunately, from discrimination wanted amended. It is not dealt with in this legislation, and inequality.
There are a number of other concerns as well that I would like to put into the record at this time. They include the fact that changes to the Access to Information and to the Privacy Act would mean that fees for people with disabilities which other Canadians do not have to pay would be required in order for disabled people to use that legislation effectively.
We are concerned with the exclusion of senior citizens from the changes to the Criminal Code. We are concerned with the fact that the closed captioning which we are used to seeing with our television sets will be dealt with by cabinet order to the CRTC rather than being brought forward as part of changes to the Broadcasting Act. Government will do this in isolation with no public input and with no discussion through the House of Commons as legislation is being passed.
On the government's failure to follow through on previous commitments, the Minister of Transport promised that if the provinces did not make intercity buses accessible, the federal government would intervene. It has not done so. The government failed in the proposed amendments to the National Transportation Act to include a timetable for regulations that would ensure accessible facilities within the shortest possible time.
We have a lot of these concerns. We know that there are very few sitting days left before the House of Commons breaks for recess and perhaps for a referendum followed by an election. We believe that in the 10 years since we passed our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there was more than ample time to deal with the major legislative barriers to the disabled people of Canada from participating fully. We believe that the government could have done a much better job had it wanted to. We believe that this legislation, although we will support it in order that it pass the House very quickly, has so many shortcomings that it is not an adequate answer to the concerns of the disabled people of Canada.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, all of us in this House know that there are groups in
The federal government has been given the task of combating and defeating discrimination, intentional or not, wherever it might exist in our country. Until people are judged throughout Canada by personal characteristics that are within their control, there will be a role for this House and for the national government to seek out and destroy discriminatory behaviour.
The approximately 3.2 million fellow citizens who are disabled are without a doubt targets of intentional and unintentional discrimination. We have all seen that happen.
Over the past two or three decades Canadians have gradually become more receptive to the needs of mentally and physically disabled people. Canadians have not even begun to imagine the more subtle yet equally challenging obstacles which disabled people face in 1992.
As many as 40 per cent of the physically and mentally disabled Canadian women, according to one disability awareness group, will be sexually or physically assaulted. It is a staggering figure but when one thinks about it in more detail it is perhaps not surprising. After all, women are often seen as vulnerable members of society by those who subject them to actual abuse or threaten sexual and physical abuse.
Disabled women are even more vulnerable for obvious reasons. It is a proven fact that those people who feel it is their right to abuse women are always looking for the most vulnerable targets.
This brings me to Bill C-78, which is this government's sorry attempt to introduce omnibus legislation to deal with discrimination against disabled people. We on this side of the House will support Bill C-78 only because it is better than no legislation at all on a very important subject.
If the government really believes that it will adequately deal with the problem of discrimination against disabled Canadians, it is even more out of touch than most of us thought possible. What is worse is that the bill was introduced in this House last May, less than three

June 8, 1992
Government Orders
months after the government had axed the Court Challenges Program in its most recent budget.
If there was ever a tool for disabled people to exercise their rights under the charter-I sat on the human rights committee last year when we strongly and unanimously endorsed the Court Challenges Program and asked that it should be continued-it was that program because the courts will have to do what those opposite in this government will not do.
As we also all know, very few disabled citizens have the financial clout to sue for their right to have the charter apply to them.
A program that cost this government $2 million a year but was essential for less privileged Canadians to achieve equality in the eyes of the law has been thrown out the window. I wonder which member opposite will get up and defend that policy. It only cost $2 million, which is about the same amount of money spent yearly by the Prime Minister's Office to monitor the media.
The right hon. gentleman might think it is all right to put the livelihood of his spin doctors ahead of the principle of legal equality for all citizens of Canada, but most of us in this land do not share his priorities.
When we look specifically at the plight of disabled Canadians we see a large group of people that has been effectively disenfranchised from society's main stream for far too long.
Bill C-78 addresses a select few of the problems faced by disabled persons. I would like to focus specifically on what it does not do. Like so many other pieces of legislation introduced by this government, Bill C-78 is merely a smoke-screen, a temporary diversion from the real issues that affect disabled Canadians.
Like so many other pieces of legislation introduced by the government, Bill C-78 will likely stand out as a feel-good bill and nothing more. Those opposite may want to refer back to this bill when they visit their constituents this summer and say they know all about the obstacles faced by the disabled and are doing something about it.
The truth is that it has taken the government almost seven years to act on many recommendations forwarded by various disabled rights groups. The foot-dragging was taken to a point last year at which the Canadian Disability Rights Council was obliged to draft its own omnibus legislation. How can those on the other side of
the House take any pride in a bill when they forced a non-profit extra-parliamentary group to go out and produce the framework for this legislation in the first place?
Going back to the contents of Bill C-78, or lack thereof, I would like to point specifically to the amendments made to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. These amendments state that a person who cannot see or hear will be able to request government information in an alternative format such as Braille, large print or radio cassette. It sounds good, does it not? When we look at it further we find that the head of the government agency from which the alternative format information is requested can determine whether the request is necessary and reasonable.
To further complicate things, we find that there are no timetables or deadlines for the federal government to follow relating to implementation. I have seen a good deal of legislation go through this House since 1979 and I can say with some confidence that if targets, timetables, deadlines and other coercive forces are left out of some legislation then such legislation is destined to fail.
Recent surveys conducted by the National Library of Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Commission have shown that Treasury Board, under its present management, has not gone out of its way to encourage compliance or even simple preparation for this alternative format amendment. It looks as though this promise for alternative formats is likely destined for the trash heap of platitudes this government has built up over the past eight years and if there is one thing we do not need, it is new platitudes and new cliches from those opposite.
As I mentioned earlier, disabled Canadians, especially women, are doubly vulnerable to abuse in Canada; consequently it has become important for the federal government to give such people the tools to fight back against abuse.
Bill C-78 amends the Criminal Code to give judges and justices the power to allow mentally or physically disabled complainants to testify away from the courtroom or in isolation from the accused. I salute that part of the bill.
Bill C-15 which makes revisions to the Canada Evidence Act, addresses the problem of testimony from the disabled to a certain extent as well. However, neither piece of legislation addresses the broader recommendations made by the disabled community. Neither bill
June 8, 1992

provides for alternative evidence such as voice line-ups to prosecute assault cases more effectively.
More important, certain sections of the Criminal Code which provide for punishment of those guilty of abuse who occupy positions of power and authority are not extended to those in charge of caring for disabled people.
One could go on and on and on, poking holes in this bill.
Bill C-78 also amends the National Transportation Act to include transportation accessibility for disabled persons in the preamble of the bill, but we have no timetable or deadlines by which to do this. Does the government expect our transportation industry, in serious economic problems at the moment, to simply act on this half-hearted commitment based on a one-line amendment to the transportation act?
There does not seem to be any substantive commitment to making inter-city bus transportation accessible to disabled people. The member from Oxford knows, as the chairman of the human rights committee and the committee dealing with the problems of the disabled, that has been on the top of the litany of complaints by disabled Canadians for several years now, but Bill C-78 does not even mention it.
I mentioned at the outset that the Official Opposition is willing to support this bill only because it is a little bit better than doing nothing.
I would conclude my remarks by saying that if those opposite in the government think that this is the last word on equality legislation for disabled Canadians, it is deeply mistaken. Legislation like this would be almost laughable if it were not for the fact that so many other people out there want and deserve more from this particular House of Commons and this government.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to be able to participate in this debate on Bill C-78.
I would like to begin by expressing my extreme pleasure at the process we are going through here today. I think this represents parliamentary tradition at its best; namely, where the government brings in legislation and
Government Orders
the opposition parties take their time to express the shortcomings of the bill without obstructing it. I want to congratulate all of my colleagues on the opposition benches who were willing to see this bill go through the three stages later day in a fairly rapid process.
It is an indication that the needs of the disabled community in Canada are appreciated by people from all sides of the House, regardless of which party one happens to belong to. That kind of feeling is well received by the disabled community which likes to think that all of us here in the House of Commons have some concern for their needs.
Having said that, I do not want to repeat what the minister said or what my colleagues on the committee, the members for Hamilton, Edmonton Southeast and Beaches-Woodbine in Tbronto, have pointed out.
All have indicated the shortcomings in the legislation. All of us on the committee are aware of that, accept that, and indeed, the minister would be the first to indicate more has to be done. I think more will be done.
I want to speak a bit this afternoon about the history of the committee, what has been achieved in the recent past, and put the present bill into that context, indicating the course we will be moving on in further aspects of this in the years ahead.
Members will recall that in the short life of the Clark government in 1979, a decision was made to institute a special committee on disabled and handicapped persons. The decision was taken but the committee never got off the ground before the election was called.
Subsequent to the election in 1980 the then Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau established the special committee on the disabled and handicapped which, under the very capable chairmanship of Mr. David Smith from Toronto, gave us excellent leadership in coming up the following year, in 1981, with a report called Obstacles.
That report, with 130 recommendations, set the base line and the standard for what was needed by the disabled community. The acceptance of that report by people in Canada who knew the field and by people outside of Canada was such that the report went through

June 8, 1992
Government Orders
three printings. There was a great demand for that report.
I have to add that the member for Beaches-Woodbine and myself are the two remaining members in the House who were on that special committee so we do have a special interest. I am sorry he is not with us today. He has other commitments in the riding and his presentation was ably taken care of by his colleague from Churchill.
In the same year that we reported, the UN denoted it as the International Year of Disabled Persons. In response to that, Canada established a special committee, as I have indicated, on the disabled and the handicapped which identified the key obstacles faced by people with disabilities in Canada and outlined practical actions to overcome these obstacles. These were identified in the committee's report entitled Obstacles which as I say had about 130 recommendations in it.
The year 1982 began the UN Decade of Disabled Persons which by the way we just celebrated the close of a month ago in Vancouver. At the same time the Government of Canada included persons with a physical or mental disability in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was a major step forward in the movement toward full equality for all Canadians.
Among industrialized nations, Canada alone has included in its Constitution a clause which states:
Equal protection and equal benefit of the law without
discrimination based on mental or physical disability.
As the decade moved on Canada progressed along with the thinking and the changes that took place. In 1983 we note one of the key recommendations from the Obstacles report, was that the Secretary of State be designated minister responsible for the status of disabled persons.
This was a significant shift because it moved disability from being a health issue to being one with a citizenship perspective and that was very significant for the concerns disabled persons from Canada had.
In 1984 the Canada Labour Code was amended to ensure that people with disabilities were paid no less than the minimum wage.
In 1985 there was also a movement to protect the rights of people with disabilities. The Canadian Human
Rights Act was changed to remove discrimination on the basis of disability whether mental or physical.
The Prime Minister's declaration on the Decade of Disabled Persons was also made in 1985. It was based on the work of federal and provincial representatives setting out a number of principles to guide government activities. This declaration is viewed as a bill of rights by disabled persons.
I draw special attention to principles 5 and 6 which declare: "Individuals with disabilities shall be assured access to fundamental elements of daily life that are generally available to the community" and goes on: "Persons with disabilities shall be encouraged to engage in all aspects of society and to participate in social change to fulfil themselves and to meet their obligations as citizens".
In 1986 the Employment Equity Act came into effect making the economic integration of disabled persons with disabilities a priority for Crown corporations and approximately 375 federally regulated employers. Also in 1986 the government established the Federal Contractors Program, the Transportation for Disabled Persons Program and the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. Each of these programs were designed in consultation with disabled Canadians to deal with disability questions.
In 1987, following Rick Hansen's Man in Motion world tour, the government declared National Access Awareness Week an opportunity for communities to assess the level of accessibility and plan for and make changes in the five key areas of transportation, housing, recreation, education and employment.
Over 850 communities now participate in this National Access Awareness Week which, by the way, was just completed for this year at the end of this past week.
A standing committee of the House of Commons was established by all-party agreement in that same year with a unique mandate to examine and encourage greater efforts by all Canadians in advancing an agenda that addresses all aspects of disability.
I should say that the terms of reference as laid out in the House of Commons rules are very interesting because they give the mandate to the committee in four areas, namely, to propose, to promote, to evaluate and to monitor. These are four areas of work that other
June 8, 1992

standing committees do not have. It is interesting that we have this for this particular standing committee.
Now we have the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons as a permanent committee that consults persons with disabilities on an ongoing basis and makes recommendations to Parliament.
In 1988 the National Transportation Act was altered to give the National Transportation Agency the authority to issue regulations improving accessibility to federally regulated airlines, railways, bus systems and ferry services.
In June 1989 the standing committee released its report entitled A Consensus for Action, which called upon the government to work together with all sections of society to ensure the integration of people with disabilities.
In 1990 Environment Canada through the Canadian Parks Service began a comprehensive program to make national parks and historic sites accessible for persons with disabilities. Statistics Canada announced that it would carry out a post-sensal survey on disability in 1991 in order to establish a national database on disability related issues. Public Works Canada further announced a program to upgrade and improve accessibility to Crown owned and leased property.
In 1991, recognizing that people with disabilities have expenses related to disability, the federal government introduced new tax measures. These include modifying the disability tax credit and the medical expense credit.
Bringing us up-to-date, in the federal 1992 budget, eligible expenses were expanded once more and new deductions were added to the list of deductible expenses for disability related modifications to businesses.
Much progress has been made in removing the barriers to enable persons with disabilities to participate more fully in the community, but a great deal has been indicated here this afternoon and more remains to be accomplished. That is why in September 1991 the Prime Minister announced the launching of the National Strategy for the Integration of Disabled Persons here in Canada.
Government Orders
This five-year strategy involves financial commitment of over $158 million and addresses such issues as access to employment, training, housing, transportation, communications, public sensitivity and community integration.
This strategy is a unique partnership of federal departments and agencies working with the disabled community to achieve the goals of equal access, economic integration and effective participation. The five-year national strategy will enable Canadians with disabilities to participate more fully and more fairly in the work force in their communities and at home.
This omnibus bill, as it is called, Bill C-78, is a legislative proposal and is just one more step in our efforts to make equality a reality for Canadians with disabilities. It is part of our agenda for progress, bringing Canadians together to remove the barriers to full integration. It will create a greater awareness of disability-related matters and provide opportunities for new partnerships that will permit Canadians with disabilities to take their rightful places in the mainstream of the life of the nation.
In conclusion, as we reflect on the progress made during the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons, we look forward to the next decade of new ideas which will make full participation in Canadian society a reality for everyone. I do want to finally say that I think members of the House are right in supporting Bill C-78. The members of the disabled community in Canada want us to support that bill but, at the same time, they want the standing committee, this House and the government to move ahead in coming years to make even more effective changes that will enable disabled people to be more fully integrated into society in Canada.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-78.1 would like to begin by speaking to the House about a personal experience that I had two weeks ago in my riding.
I was approached by one of my constituents, a Mrs. Katerina Vlahof. She was telling me about an experience her daughter had just gone through with a company in the city. Her daughter, Zoe, I should mention, had only

June 8, 1992
Government Orders
20 per cent of her vision. She was saying that Zoe was totally frustrated and crushed because she had been working for a company in Toronto for about nine or ten months and according to all of the reports that were handed into the supervisors, Zoe was doing a terrific job. One day the principal of the organization came into this particular section where Zoe was working on computers, answering phones, taking messages and distributing orders. He noticed that this young woman had her eyes right up close to the screen. He asked what was going on. The supervisor said Zoe, who does a terrific job, only has 20 per cent of her vision. The principal of the organization could not handle it. He turned to the supervisor, and I do not know exactly what was said, but it led to a situation in which Zoe lost her job.
One of the reasons why Zoe lost her job was the concern that the principal of this organization had regarding Zoe's looking right up close to the screen, would possibly cause further damage to her eyesight, and he did not want to take the responsibility of being sued or being liable, even though there were doctors' certificates on file that would certainly have exonerated the corporation from being responsible if something like that had happened.
Naturally you can imagine a mother, who is so attached to her daughter, feeling the emotional disappointment when she loses her job for a reason like that.
She asked me if I could have a chat with her to see if there was some other place where we could get Zoe working. We walked over to their apartment where I sat and had a chat with this young woman.
First, I want to say that I could see that Zoe did have difficulty, with only 20 per cent of her vision. I must say that in terms of her intellect, her communications skills and her energy and enthusiasm, there was nothing wrong with Zoe Vlahof. She related the story of her employment with this company. I could see that really what we had here was a situation in which a lack of knowledge, a lack of sensitivity and a lack of real caring by this particular organization led to an insensitive action which was so unnecessary.
When I think that there are 3.2 million disabled Canadians in this country, probably many of whom are in the same condition and the same position as Zoe Vlahof, and when I think about why this is happening, it seems to
me that one of the reasons is that it is easy to look the other way in many of the cases in which people are disabled. However, with the proper assistance, instruments and tools they can do a job every bit as well as anyone else.
I listened to the member for Oxford earlier giving his speech and he referred back to the special committee on the disabled and handicapped in 1980-81, chaired by my good friend, the Hon. David Smith. The member for Oxford sat on that committee. He is absolute right. He is actually being very humble about his assessment of this committee. This is finest piece of work that has ever been done anywhere in the world on problems, solutions, recommendations for people who are disabled. I know a better piece of work cannot be found anywhere in the world on this issue. I salute the member for Oxford because I know he was an active member on that committee.
I urge all members to get a copy of this book. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. It is all here. What is the problem? The problem is political will. This is a perfect example of where there is no political will to address this problem in a substantive way. Every now and again we tinker. I do not want to suggest to this House or to the people of Canada that nothing has happened since this report was tabled. I know there have been many recommendations, some of which have been implemented and some have been partially implemented. However, many of these recommendations have not been implemented.
What is lacking here is political will. I would suggest to all in this House, if each one of us had a son, a daughter, a nephew, or someone close to us who was disabled, we would be on this report constantly.
It is very tough competing today with an economy that is going through a lot of pain. It is very tough competing for time on the national stage with a constitutional and national unity crisis. It is very tough, but this is an issue we cannot ignore.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will resume debate after Oral Question Period. It being 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
June 8, 1992


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, I have something to say today to Michele Ouimet, a journalist from La Presse, who had the nerve to write last Saturday a piece of garbage in which she said that "Abitibi is not beautiful, it is even ugly", that "Amos is definitely an ugly town with its cathedral" and that in Abitibi "people are slightly hypocondriac".
Mrs. Ouimet, the judgment you made shows that you are abysmally ignorant and that you suffer from a total lack of culture. Let me help you in that regard by telling you that the cathedral Sainte-Therese d'Avila in Amos, which is Roman-Byzantine, is unique in all of North America. Let me also tell you that we are all very proud of its spherical dome, with its round and full lines that make it a gem of Greco-Roman art in Abitibi.
I also hope that Michele Ouimet did catch in Abitibi the hypochondria that she says everybody suffers from. This will enable her to be more concerned about her intellectual and cultural state, which should be good for her as well as for her future articles.


CANADA POST
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Monastery, Orangedale, Mabou, Petit de Grat, and now Judique. These communities read like a Canada Post hit list.
Last week I was informed by Canada Post officials that the post office in Judique was falling under review. In other words, it has been targeted for closure. The postmistress, Kay MacDonald, retired recently and the postal assassins in Ottawa have wasted no time moving in for the kill.
The residents of this proud Scottish community on the west coast of Cape Breton are happy with their post office the way it is. They receive good service and they do not want it to change or disappear.
Judique is miles from the next post office, and indeed from many other services which many Canadians take for granted. As in several other rural villages across Nova Scotia, the post office is the heart of the community and represents the only federal presence.
I am preparing a private member's bill which, if passed, would make Canada Post consider these very important factors when it decides which post offices will live and which will die.
To the residents of Judique I say this: I will support- [Translation]
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but his time is now up.


MICHELE OUIMET, JOURNALIST
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, I would like to rise against an article published in La Presse, on Saturday June 6. In spite of its misleading title, the article written by Michele Ouimet says that the Abitibi-Temiscamingue area is not only not beautiful but even ugly.
To present our region as a haven for motels, bars, beer, and to talk about an ugly main street, a village in the middle of nowhere, a hick town, dilapidated houses, the end of the world, and a small world where culture is not obvious, is to revel in a mythical vision of our region and insult a population that has worked very hard in recent decades to establish a comfortable, pleasant and friendly environment that is a measure of the pride of our people.
I urge Mrs. Michele Ouimet to watch a movie made by Andre Melangon and entitled "Le soleil se leve au Nord". This documentary will provide her with a balanced, credible and contemporary description of our region.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, as a member of Parliament representing a province which has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country I wonder, as do thousands of my constituents and thousands of unemployed persons across the coun-

June 8, 1992
try, where the relief is for the problems facing this country.
What is the government going to do for the people who cannot afford to buy food for their children?
The government concedes that employment will not appreciably increase this year, but again it holds forth promises of jobs, jobs, jobs, a cry we have heard time and time again from this government. I would like to point out that saying it and doing it are two entirely different things.
The people of Canada want action now. We now have more soup kitchens and more food banks than we have ever had in Canada under any government. Yet the Minister of Finance proudly tells us that the government intends to continue on the same path that brought us where we are today.
I tell you one thing, I am very glad the Minister of Finance is not my doctor.


ORGANIZING FOR SOCIAL CHANGE CONFERENCE
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, no one can deny that Canada has its problems. However it is interesting to note the reaction and comments of delegates to the Organizing for Social Change conference sponsored by the International Federation of Settlements and Neighbourhood Centres as they toured downtown Toronto last week.
"If that is inner city it is nothing like we know inner city," said one American. "I am seeing blacks and whites and orientals all together. You do not see that in Cleveland." Another delegate said: "I feel pretty safe and secure anywhere I walk. I have yet to see any slums in Toronto".
Those comments underline the fact that the United Nations says that Canada is the best country in the world. However we must not be complacent. If we are going to keep it that way, each of us in our daily lives must practice, not just pay lip service to the principle of equal treatment for everyone. We must continually strive to
narrow the gap between the more and the less advantaged in Canadian society.


EARTH SUMMIT
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the House yet another shameful example of this government saying one thing on women's equality and doing another.
At preliminary meetings at the United Nation's earth summit in Rio de Janeiro, the government agreed to a target that all delegations should consist of at least 40 per cent women.
Sadly, the government missed the target and missed it badly. Only 5 out of 27 people in Canada's official delegation are women which is less that 20 per cent.
What is worse is the government's scandalous decision to leave at home Canada's international development minister. To top it all off, two other female cabinet ministers were not invited to the earth summit, the Minister of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
What else can other countries conclude but that the Canadian government is run by the good old boys who think that the environment, development and external affairs issues are unrelated?
In closing, let me point out that while the Liberal Party's delegation is only 25 per cent female, the New Democratic Party has once again lead the way in gender parity by sending a delegation that is 50 per cent women.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, the Alberta caucus is concerned about the Young Offenders Act. It has recently established a committee to pursue this issue with a view to making some necessary changes.
We have serious reservations about the act as it is constituted today. Society is changing rapidly. While the recent amendments improved the Young Offenders Act somewhat, the amendments did not go far enough.
June 8, 1992

I recently met with concerned family members of victims of young offenders who are circulating a petition in Edmonton. I pledged to do what I could to meet their concerns.


FIRE-FIGHTERS
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Canada's fire-fighters. These brave men and women often risk their lives for the benefit of society.
A few weeks ago, they were here and brought to the attention of parliamentarians a number of issues of great importance to them.
First, they would like to have a computerized national emergency response information system so that they can know what hazardous substances they are handling before they needlessly risk their health and welfare.
Second, they also would like to be notified by any emergency response personnel of possible exposure to infectious diseases when they deal with the casualties of those particular accidents.
Finally, they reminded us that they live dangerous and stressful lives. They would like to have parliamentarians look at the public safety officers' benefit plan and at possible early retirement. They point out that others who lead less dangerous lives than they do have these benefits.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, there are encouraging and accumulative signs that our economy is slowly but surely picking up speed.
Last week, Statistics Canada released figures that indicate the recession is coming to an end with a net increase of 31,000 new jobs in May creating a combined increase of 41,000 jobs in the past two months.
Further adding to economic recovery is the fact that prime interest rates are at the 20-year low of 7.25 per cent. The gross domestic product went up 0.3 per cent in March.
Bankruptcies are declining and manufacturing shipments are increasing. According to Royal Bank economist, Gerald MacDonnell, these numbers indicate a mending economy. Recessions end, and ours is ending.


CHILD CARE
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Madam Speaker, Canadians are in shock and mourning following the recent revelations of repeated child sexual abuse at an unlicensed, unregulated child care facility in Martensville, Saskatchewan.
While the children and families affected by this horror must deal with the tragedy, the Government of Canada has a responsibility to protect the children of Canada.
While studies and reports to the government offer ways to prevent child abuse, at minimum there is a need for safe, regulated child care available for every child who needs it.
At present, only about 10 per cent of children who need licensed child care have access to it. In other words, over one million children of working parents are in potential situations of risk at unregulated facilities. Yet the government has shelved its child care program.
I know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare considers stemming child abuse a priority. The events in Martensville clearly show the role of safe, licensed, accessible child care in the prevention of abuse.
I call on the federal government to take the lead in caring for Canada's children by making a commitment today to a national child care strategy.


HALTON-PEEL SURVEY
Mr. Garth Thrner (Halton-Peel):: Madam Speaker, I would like to share with the House some more of the valuable comments and advice that my constituents are offering me.
G. Rayner of Burlington writes: "Four thoughts of many I have about how we can make the future brighter are: one, reducing debt; two, accountability for welfare assistance, in other words work for welfare; three, giving parents back responsibility for their children, day care

should only be for single parents in other words; and four, accountability for medical visits".
Clarence Gilkes of Bolton writes me: "I believe that a Constitution should enshrine as many individual freedoms as possible. The right to quiet possession of my real property through protection from unwarranted or excess use of any government's right of expropriation is something I feel should be constitutionally protected."
Finally, D. A. Cutten of Burlington has some comments on the GST. "The timing was horrendous, but it is here and to a degree working. The rate of 7 per cent should be lowered but made to apply to everything. There are too many refunds and the GST particularly must be integrated with the provincial sales tax."
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing my constituents' voices to be heard in Parliament.


CANADA GEESE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, on March 19, 1992 I wrote to the Minister of the Environment concerning a very serious problem for farmers in eastern Ontario, namely the damage caused to agricultural lands by Canada geese.
The agronomist for Prescott county has estimated damages to fields to be in the order of $240 per acre. Unfortunately, the Minister of the Environment refused categorically to help farmers of Glengarry-Prescott- Russell with this problem.
First, we need a crop insurance system that will cover those kinds of damages. Second, we need to reserve lands for the spring migration of the birds, and third, we need to permit as in the past a limited kill of the birds, one or two per farm, in order to scare off other animals.
We must protect the Canada geese, but we must also protect another endangered species, the eastern Ontario farmer.


GASOLINE TAXES
Mr. Ken  Janies@Sarnia-Lambton: Madam Speaker, I rose quite recently in the House to report that in March of this year there was a month after month decrease in cross-border shopping. This is definitely a good sign, but the sheer numbers show that we have a long way to go in addressing this problem.
Sunday shopping was pointed to as an impetus for cross-border shopping in Ontario. Now we have Sunday shopping so it will help.
I still believe, however, that a crucial element in the same-day shopping problem is gasoline. Our high federal and provincial gas taxes are consistently giving Canadians a good reason to cross the border. Sure, we have taken important steps on other fronts, but Canadians have said more than once that they cross the border for gasoline.
I encourage some action on the issue of gasoline taxes. Perhaps the federal government could revisit a gasoline tax benefit for communities near the border, like mine, where our retailers are getting hit the hardest.
Gasoline taxes are an issue we have to deal with. Lower gasoline prices would give our residents another reason to shop at home.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, when the government came to power in 1984, it promised jobs, jobs, jobs. In 1984, on Cape Breton Island the unemployment rate was 14 per cent. Now the latest statistical information places the rate at 22 per cent.
The government is now openly considering the possibility of closing the cod fishery. Although fishermen in Cape Breton are dependent on the cod fishery, they have not been mentioned in any of the aid packages that have been proposed by the government.
The government proposes business aid for new industry and then cuts the amount available. They propose unemployment and job creation programs and then cut the amount available. When is this government going to realize that the people of Cape Breton Island are having an extremely difficult time. The present economic situa-
June 8, 1992

tion is inexcusable. Now is the time to do something, not cut existing programs. The people of Cape Breton are waiting for the government to do something on their behalf.


RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, article II of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child says the following: 'A child shall enjoy special protection and shall be given opportunities and facilities by law and other means to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration".
The Canadian government taxes child support payments, unlike what we find in the U.S., Australia, Britain, Sweden and in many other countries. While the average child support order covers less than half the minimum cost of raising a child, the government deems it fair to take perhaps up to one third or more of support payments that are meant to help feed and clothe children. It is time that this stopped and that justice and fairness be brought into our tax system, particularly in the area that influences the future of children.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

["Madam Speaker, the hon. member is accurate. I, other ministers and the Prime Minister have met with officials, including Jacques Delors and Mr. Dunkel.\nI believe right now he has asked the position of GATT. It is at a critical stage. The reform of the common agricultural program in the European Community has, I think, gone a step in the right direction in taking some of the pressures off the subsidies. There is still that area to explore.\nThe message that continually is passed to all those who we negotiate with is Canada's balance position, that trade distorting subsidies must be removed and that Canada's position of strengthening and clarifying article XI must be respected."]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
A full 40 per cent of federally appointed judges have not availed themselves of gender sensitivity courses. As former Supreme Court Justice Bertha Wilson agrees, until the judiciary, nation-wide, truly understands the experience of women there can be no assurance of true justice for women.
Will the minister finally make mandatory such courses for federally appointed judges?
Oral Questions


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will know, because she is a lawyer, that there is a constitutional relationship between Parliament, the executive and the judiciary and that is a relationship on the part of the judiciary of independence that has to be respected.
This government has sought all of the ways that are consistent with respect for that independence to provide support and encouragement for judicial education, first by creating the Canadian Judicial Centre which is the vehicle for creating judicial education programs for the federally appointed judiciary.
In addition to that we have funded and supported the creation of course materials for gender sensitivity training and those course modules are now mandatory for judges who take those courses. They are mandatory, not at the requirement of the Government of Canada which I think would be inappropriate, but mandatory as a result of the decisions made by the judiciary itself.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her answer. I think the women of Canada find it hard to believe that the Minister of Justice and her department cannot exercise a little more influence than that over 40 per cent of the sitting federal judges.
Escalation in the murder rate of women by their partners in Canada is truly frightening. Canadian women wait, on average, three weeks for peace bond hearings or restraining order hearings. Sixty per cent of men who murdered their partners over a period in the province of Ontario are already in the police records for violence against their wives.
What emergency action is the Minister of Justice prepared to bring in immediately to assist women in imminent danger of death?


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, regrettably I do not have the jurisdiction over the administration of justice throughout Canada. This is emergency action. If she wants such action it would be required to be done by the provincial Attorneys General. With respect to that one area where I do have responsibility for the prosecution of the criminal law, and that is in the territories, we

June 8, 1992
Oral Questions
have taken action precisely to bring in the polices with our prosecutors as she is suggesting.
One of the things we did that was within our legislative jurisdiction was to ensure that in Bill C-17, the amendment to the Criminal Code relating to firearms, we have required the courts in all applications for bail hearings and for restraining order hearings to consider the presence of a firearm in that situation. It is to ensure that in cases of domestic violence, which are very often the cases that generate the restraining order applications, the court will address itself to the presence of the firearms and get firearms out of those very dangerous situations.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, 60 per cent of the women who are murdered in Ontario are killed by their partners. These murders represent 60 per cent of the cases where the murderer had a police record. Obviously, the system does not protect women.
What does the government intend to do?


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, we intend to continue our activities to deal with violence against women and families. Responsibility in this area is shared by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, the Solicitor General and myself. We have set up programs to deal with family violence, but we will also keep working with our provincial counterparts to ensure that Canadian women do not become the victims of violent acts by their partners.



Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
It has been almost seven years since an all-party committee of this House unanimously endorsed a recommendation calling for the inclusion of sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The minister has consistently evaded the issue and has not given any consistent answers on this topic.
I would like to ask the minister when she plans on bringing forth these amendments.


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, the government's response to the "Equality for All" report in 1986, in making its various commitments, it also pointed out the difficulty of some of the issues.
We have been working very hard on those issues and I am expecting to bring forward amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is my hope to be able to table the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act before we rise for the summer.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the minister's comments on this because we have consistently heard that she is fleshing out or she is seeking more input or doing this or doing that.
I would like a firm commitment from the minister that these proposed amendments will be before this House before it rises on June 23.


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, that is not a commitment I can make because it depends to some extent on the co-operation of opposition parties in terms of the other business of the House.
All I can say is that I am working very hard. I am sorry that the hon. member finds such things as meetings with equality-seeking groups across the country as fleshing out, consulting and things that she does not consider worth while. I think they are very worth while because they have enabled us to do better work with respect to this very important file.


CHILD CARE
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Earlier this year this government broke its promise on establishing a national child care program in Canada and accepted the continuation of unlicensed and unregulated child care across this country.
The tragic child sex abuse charges that we have seen at the unlicensed day care in Martensville, Saskatchewan, serves as a striking example of the kind of results of an unregulated system.
June 8, 1992

I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister: will his government consider again introducing a national child care program with a national child care act, establishing minimum standards so that never again will any of Canada's children be placed at risk?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I am very surprised by the question of the leader of the New Democratic Party, trying to tie the problem of sexual abuse of children with the question of child care and day care systems.
I would even say that from the NDP it is totally irresponsible. I have to tell her something that she should know. Day care and child care are provincial matters. Normally we do not know where the NDP are at that level. What fits the federal level, it takes over and what does not fit goes to the provinces. This is a provincial matter first.
Second, the leader of the NDP should know something. The violence issue is not related to the child care problem. We face violence against children everywhere. With the unfortunate example mentioned, we see that it can happen anywhere. We will not close schools because we have problems with violence and so on.
I just want to ask the leader of the NDP to recognize that the problem of violence against children is a society problem. As said by the representative of the Liberal Party, we cannot afford what you can afford.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, that is a shocking statement and an abandonment of Canadian children and Canadian families who need a child care program.
The federal government certainly does have a responsibility. It has a responsibility to bring in a national child care program with minimum standards. This government made that promise in the last election. It broke that promise.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister again: will he and this government listen to the mayor of Martensville, Saskatchewan, and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women? Will this government listen to the Canadian Child Care Federation and the New Democratic Party, bring in a national child care program and show that all Canadians care about Canada's children?
Oral Questions
We are prepared to make an investment in the future.


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, the NDP is in power in three provinces. Why, except in Ontario, has it not put more money into its budget for child care and day care? Why did it not do it?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Benoît Bouchard: The problem once again is that the NDP spends money it does not have. It makes promises when it is in opposition. When it is in power, it does as other governments do. It cuts the budget to face reality.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I remind the minister that it was this government that made a promise in the last election to have a national child care program. It is this government that should be implementing a child care program, stop ducking its responsibilities and offloading them as it has on everything else.


THE CONSTITUTION
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
As the minister is aware, women's groups which are fighting for equality want to take part in the constitutional debate. One of their demands concerns participation in the First Ministers' Conference.
Is the minister prepared to consider these demands and as a start allow these groups to make a presentation at the constitutional meeting which starts tomorrow?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the question was answered earlier this morning.
The Minister responsible for the Status of Women here in the House and I had a chance to meet these groups. The question was raised, and I indicated that the First Ministers' Conference is a conference for governments, and that no groups can be added to the conference.

June 8, 1992
Oral Questions
However, I promised to ask my colleagues to meet privately for about 30 minutes with a group representing the National Action Committee, and to have an exchange of views, since the group is here in Ottawa. The various government ministers will be here as well. However, I made it clear this would not be a precedent.


COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, this government has axed the Court Challenges Program and the Race Relations Foundation.
It has cut Canada's tools of equity. When will the government address the real issues facing the cultural communities: justice, access and full participation in Canadian society?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, since 1988 we have had a program to bring forward integration and equality, and to fight racism and racial discrimination, a very high priority.
In fact, it was a first initiative by any government when we brought forward that program in 1988.1 am surprised the member is even asking such a question because it is one area where there is a genuine consensus across the country in support of the direction the government has taken in this particular program.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Visible minorities and cultural communities are suffering greatly under the Conservative government. The unemployment rate is twice as high among young people in those groups. The government should do something about equity and social justice and not just talk about it.
Could the minister tell us what he intends to do to help these young people find work?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will admit that after major changes in this country's employment programs in 1986, when we set up the Canadian Jobs Strategy, we made a point of channeling all funds under this program to the groups that needed it most. All these groups, these minority groups, have a priority under all these programs, as part of the Job Labour Force Development Program, so that there is no need to change the thrust of the programs at this stage.


PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Canadian consumers are shocked and somewhat angry to learn that in its haste to fast-track the approval of new drugs for the marketplace, health and welfare is effectively using Canadian consumers as human guinea pigs.
Experts at the minister's own department have warned that since 1987 the government has been dismantling the checks and balances that help keep unsafe prescription drugs out of the marketplace.
Why has the minister decided it is more important to keep happy the large multinational drug companies than to protect the health and welfare of Canadian consumers?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, the Canadian drug approval process is safe and recognized around the world as one of the best.
Recently we had two comments, one from the Winnipeg Free Press which said we were not moving fast enough in the approval of drugs, and today The Gazette which said we were approving drugs too quickly.
We are trying to keep the system as safe as possible. That is why I asked Dr. Gagnon from Laval University to review the process of drug approval and to make recommendations. We will see what we can do in light of those recommendations.
June 8, 1992

Once again I want to reassure Canadians the system is one of the best in the world and we want to keep it working.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, that is not terribly reassuring. It may be one of the best in the world but it is simply not good enough.
An internal memo from 21 doctors at the Human Drug Prescription Bureau warned the government that this fast-track approach, coupled with medically inexperienced managers at the department would "interfere with the health department's mandate to ensure the safety of drugs prescribed by Canadian physicians".
My supplementary question for the minister is this. How can the minister possibly stand by and do nothing when his own experts have warned that to allow this flawed system to continue one more day would put at risk the health and safety of Canadian consumers?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, I repeat what I said before. The system is working. It is a very complex operation within the department. The Health Protection Branch deals with a great many requests concerning compliance with regulations.
Now we are requested to move more quickly or less quickly. It is why I asked for an analysis from experts. They will report to me and in light of their recommendations we will attempt to do the best to maintain the system. It is normal that sometimes we face questions about the operation. As I said before we will answer the questions.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
This government talks about eliminating racism while it continues to practice systemic discrimination with its own employees. According to the Canadian Ethnocultural Council only 3.6 per cent of government employees are persons of colour compared to about 7 per cent in the general work force.
When will this government amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to give a stronger mandate to the commissioner to enforce employment equity in the Public Service as well as in the private agencies so that
Oral Questions
racial minorities and other target groups will have fair and just employment opportunities?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I believe every employer can make progress. I would not disagree that the federal government can make more progress as we go along.
I would like to state that the figures that have been used by the organization she refers to are based on targets that are very mobile. We do not agree with the numbers that have been used.
I would suggest that the hon. member look very carefully at the numbers we have for each of our four designated groups to see that over the last four years, for example, we have made more progress than ever before in the history of the Public Service in Canada.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I am not interested in statistical games. The fact is there is systemic discrimination by this government against its own employees.
I want to go back to the Minister of Justice. It is her responsibility to bring in new legislation in this field. Commissioner Yalden has called for a strong mandate in this regard.
My supplementary question has to do with the review of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Victims of racism now have to wait between two and three years to have their complaints considered and dealt with by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Since 1987 complaints rose by 100 per cent while the resources of the commission were only increased by 25 per cent. How can they do their job?
In view of this, will the minister undertake a review of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and provide adequate resources to deal with both systemic discrimination and individual complaints of discrimination?


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, with respect to the operation of the commission, I am not aware of the kind of backlog that the member discusses but I am very interested to hear about it.
We are addressing some questions in the operation of the panels in upcoming amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. In fact, there is a review of the Employment Equity Act going on that will provide a

June 8, 1992
Oral Questions
better context for understanding what should be done when it is completed next fall.
I am also hoping to bring forward in the fall provisions relating to the operation of federally appointed administrative tribunals in general to try to make them work better and to clarify some of the terms of reference with respect to their appointment.
With respect to the comments that the hon. member has made, I would be very interested to hear the kinds of concerns she has about backlogs and unacceptable delays in terms of people getting their disputes resolved because of course the whole purpose of administrative tribunals is to try to speed up the resolution of these kinds of disputes.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Sein Win and Mr. U Bo Hla Tint, Burmese Democratic Representatives.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


STEEL INDUSTRY
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Canadian steelworkers in Hamilton and in Nanticoke in my riding are watching their jobs disappear day by day while this government fails to get the Americans to act responsibly. The minister will be in Washington to deliver a message, but Canadian steelworkers want less talk and more action.
What specific action will the minister institute to protect Canadian workers and their jobs the very minute the Americans institute any action against our steel exports?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Thade):: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is well aware that the Prime Minister addressed that in the House last week. If there is an action it is likely to be initiated by the U.S. steel industry.
We have made it very clear to the U.S. administration that we think such an action would be quite unfounded because of the very integrated nature of the steel markets of the United States and Canada. We do not believe there has been dumping by our industry into the U.S. market. Indeed the share that Canada has of the U.S. market is some 3 per cent, whereas the U.S. has a 14 per cent share of the Canadian market.
Tomorrow when I meet with Mrs. Hills I will be expressing these concerns to her. I will be advising her that we will be fighting this issue with our industry as hard as we can to provide the support it needs, but we believe that this is an action which is unfounded and that our industry would be able to win.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, the problem with the minister's response is that the steel workers have heard it all before and they are still losing their jobs.
The government keeps saying that it is going to get tough. The question is, when is it going to get tough? When is it going to tell the Americans that any trade action against our Canadian steel industry will lead to an immediate response by this government?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I indicated that the actions likely to be taken will be actions taken by the United States industry.
It is quite likely that our industry would respond in kind because of the figures I set out just a minute ago.
If that is the case, certainly there would be the utmost of support for the industry in fighting this battle. We think there has not been dumping and we believe that the best thing we can do as an industry is fight the action as hard as we can in consultation with the provinces and the industry involved.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Madam Speaker, the Minister for International Trade said last month: "A North American free trade pact could exclude sensitive Canadian industries such as textiles and agricul-
June 8, 1992

ture", predicting that a final draft agreement could be signed by the end of June.
Is Canada pursuing a bilateral agreement with Mexico in these or in any other sensitive Canadian industries? If so, when will the text and the impact studies be made available?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I do not believe I said it would exclude. I said it might be done on a different track and I did use the examples of agriculture and textiles.
As my hon. friend knows, there has been an arrangement agreed upon in principle between the Mexicans and the Americans on the question of textiles. We have some very fundamental disagreements with it and have so advised them.
It is on that basis that we are seeking some greater access to the market through a quota system, a tariff rate quota, but there have been other proposals that have been put forward by the apparel industry in particular. We are following both of these as options. At this point our options are open until we complete the consultations and also pursue the negotiations further.


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, with the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement well into its fourth year a major gap remains. There is no definition of a subsidy.
Is this crucial element now being defined in the North American free trade negotiations or is a definition simply going to be lifted from the Uruguay round and placed in the NAFTA?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is correct when he points to the fact that there have been some very good negotiations undertaken through the Uruguay round.
The Americans and ourselves have agreed that we would get the broadest possible package of rules on subsidy and countervail and apply those to the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.
By taking the broadest possible package, as has been developed through the Uruguay round negotiations, we
Oral Questions
have seen a package that probably is broader than my hon. friend or many others, would have anticipated when the Uruguay round commenced some five or six years ago.
We are hopeful that we will see a successful Uruguay round and be able to apply those directly to the FTA.


MINERAL EXPLORATION
Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Recently, the Quebec finance minister changed the flow-through shares plan in order to stimulate mineral exploration in Quebec. Last month, the unemployment rate in Abitibi-Temiscamingue was 17.6 per cent.
Will the Canadian government wait until the known reserves in Abitibi-Temiscamingue are exhausted to find new deposits that can be mined? Will the Deputy Minister and officials in the Department of Finance in Ottawa realize the gravity of the situation for the mining industry, which is going badly?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the mining industry is experiencing some difficulties and the impact it is having on the region of Abitibi.
However I want to advise the hon. member that a number of initiatives were taken in the budget.
Canada does have a very favourable tax regime for the mining sector. There has been a major decline in interest rates which has a direct impact upon mining enterprises. We have the lowest interest rates now in almost 20 years. There has been some strengthening in commodity prices. The moderation in the value of the Canadian dollar has had a positive impact for the mining sector as well.
I can assure the hon. member that we will continue to explore with the provinces ways and means to improve the climate for the mining industry.

June 8, 1992
Oral Questions


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, black women and other women of colour are among the groups that are most vulnerable to violent sexual assault. Racial minority women feel marginalized by the government's panel on violence against women.
Will the Minister responsible for the Status of Women accept three new appointments to the panel from the National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women and the Congress of Black Women to ensure that the panel is truly representative of all women, including women who are most affected by violence?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Status of Women):: Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague is aware that the panel was established last year to give us a real sense of the nature of this issue on a national basis and to assist us in developing a national action plan. We indeed consulted with women's organizations for representatives on that panel and most of the members have come from the grassroots, including visible minorities, aboriginal women and francophone women.
In addition, the advisory committee to the panel includes an even broader representation from national women's organizations, including the Black Women's Congress, including NOIVM and including the disabled women's network.
The mechanism is there. The panel is going to be looking at how it can best utilize that mechanism and deal with any gaps in terms of its input.
If there are ways I can be helpful I have asked them to let me know and I would be very pleased to respond.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, there has been a precedent set with the royal commission on reproductive technologies. When the government was not happy with the make-up of that royal commission it sent in new appointees. There is a precedent to do this.
These women have said they have been humiliated by a panel they do not feel is representative of them. Will
the minister remedy this situation by ensuring that the panel itself is representative of all women?


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I have full confidence in the members of the panel. My hon. colleague knows many of them. They are Canadians of incredible expertise and I am sure they are going to undertake an excellent job.
The panel is going to be meeting with women's organizations to listen to those concerns. If they feel there are ways in which they need to expand the representative nature of the panel, I am sure they will let me know.
For example, the aboriginal circle which was my idea was something that we needed to focus on the needs of aboriginal women. I understand it has worked extremely well and has had a tremendous response from aboriginal communities.
I am always open and I am hoping the panel will discuss this with me very shortly.


WESTRAY MINE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism.
From information obtained in Washington from the Securities and Exchange Commission we have learned that the federal government loan guarantee agreement for the Westray project provided what is known as a sweetheart deal for one Mr. Clifford Frame.
The agreement states very clearly that millions of dollars were transferred to C. H. Frame Consulting Services, a company owned by Mr. Frame, even before one ounce of coal was mined from the Westray coal mine.
Can the minister explain to the House the reasons why the Government of Canada would enter into such an agreement that was so beneficial to one individual?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, we should remind
June 8, 1992

ourselves of the facts. In this particular instance, the Government of Canada extended a loan guarantee for 85 per cent of the term loan of $100 million. The federal government also participated in a buy down of interest to the limit of $3.75 million.
The Government of Canada did all this in accordance with the Atlantic Canada Enterprise Program, which required 20 per cent equity to be put in place by the participating companies.
This we did, and we did it because of a tremendous number of representations to us on behalf of Pictou county: mayors, reeves and others. In fact the member of Parliament for Cape Breton-The Sydneys under Standing Order 31 earlier brought our attention to the high level of unemployment in Cape Breton. We were concerned about the high level of unemployment in Pictou county. That is why we participated through the loan guarantee.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, the record should show that the minister did not respond specifically to the question. Either the minister was aware of the contents of that agreement or the minister was not aware, and he should come clean with the House.
The agreement entered into by the Government of Canada and the Bank of Nova Scotia and Curragh Resources honoured a commitment whereby Westray would transfer millions of dollars in management fees to C. H. Frame Consulting Services.
Will the minister inform the House of the exact amount of money that was transferred? Will the minister now table all the documents pertaining to this sweetheart deal?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, what the hon. member is trying to do is to make sure the government somehow in every internal financial transaction within a company in which it gives a loan guarantee must in fact say yes or no to the individual financial transactions.
What happened in this case was very, very clear. There was a public offering of stock. The proceeds from that were received, and with those proceeds various debts and other things were paid off. The public offering was
Oral Questions
before the opening of the mine, yes, but that gave an injection of new equity to the company to give it a more solid balance sheet. Based upon the contract with the Nova Scotia Power Corporation that public offering was a success.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the same minister. I must say this is an incredible performance today.
For weeks the minister has been arguing that the primary concern and responsibility of the Government of Canada is not in the area of safety-and we would contest that-but rather has been in the economic nature of this agreement and this project.
I want to ask the minister whether he would describe as normal the nature of the agreement that allowed the Westray mine to be used to create instant millionaires even before one tonne of coal was mined.
I also want to ask the minister why the Government of Canada entered into such an agreement, why the Government of Canada exposed the taxpayers for $80 million in an agreement that created a millionaire, transferred millions to one individual before even one tonne of coal was ever mined. Why that agreement?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, let us take an example from the hon. member's own part of Canada, Hibernia.
Is he saying that if the federal government gave a loan guarantee or an interest buy down in the case of Hibernia and somebody made some money, this would be wrong?	.
In fact this company had a public offering and raised millions of dollars on the stock exchange. It improved its balance sheet. It put this new equity on its balance sheet to be a stronger entity, and with that it also paid off a number of debts. That is what happened. That had nothing to do with the federal government.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, so the record is straight, this party does not envy success. It celebrates it.
What we are talking about here is a deal in which $80 million of taxpayers' money was made available by way of a loan guarantee, the result of which was a mine that made no sense economically, that was highly questionable from the safety point of view, and whose only result

June 8, 1992
Oral Questions
was to create a millionaire before a tonne of coal was ever mined.
Is the minister advertising now all across Canada that this kind of proposal is normal, that the Government of Canada is prepared to provide $80 million-in this case it will lose $80 million-of taxpayers' money in a venture that transferred millions to one individual before one tonne of coal was ever mined?
Is this normal? Is this proper? Is this the kind of-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the question has been put.


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to see that the old rat pack is back. Those kinds of questions are totally uncalled for, especially by him and his colleagues from Cape Breton. The federal government, for example, has put over $1 billion over the years into Cape Breton to help Devco. Perhaps millionaires were made through those particular subsidies, most of them under the Liberal government.
Our job was to guarantee the loan, to make sure that they were in full compliance with safety as carried out by the provincial government. This we did and further injections of equity in the company came through a public offering.
That is something that we in the Government of Canada not only do not interfere with but believe that it strengthened its balance sheet.


BREAST CANCER
Garth Turner: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Every day 40 more women are diagnosed as having breast cancer and sadly the rate is increasing. In 1991 Canada spent $750 per death from breast cancer, compared to $450,000 per death by AIDS.
Will the government consider changing its spending priorities and shifting funds from say government advertising to breast cancer research?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, I believe breast cancer is an important matter. In Canada we put about $10 million a year into cancer research and for breast cancer research it is about $1 million.
I know we put a lot of money into AIDS research, but I believe the House will concur that it was a matter where a lot of energy and resources had to be put.
I have to remind my colleague too that a subcommittee of the status of women committee is working on recommendations, which I should receive soon, in terms of the way we should deal with the problem of cancer research. Depending on those recommendations, we hope to take the direction that will respect those recommendations.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
There has been a general resistance on the part of the judiciary, even when criminal acts or violent attacks against individuals were racially motivated, to take racism into account in sentencing.
Is the government prepared to introduce amendments to the Criminal Code that would make the implication of racism in the commission of a crime an aggravating factor in sentencing?


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, what is very important now in the criminal law is that the state of mind of the accused is in fact a very important factor, not just in terms of the conviction that may or may not be obtained but in terms of the approach that the court takes to sentencing. All of those circumstances are quite bona fide.
We are bringing forward amendments to the Criminal Code relating to sentencing. We will be for the first time putting into the Criminal Code a statement of principles of sentencing. I would invite the hon. member at the time when we table that legislation, which should be early in the fall, to address the question again.
That may in fact be the appropriate context-it will be part of the Criminal Code-to address the question of
June 8, 1992

how those factors should be considered in sentencing. What we want to clarify for the courts is the social purpose to be served in sentencing. That includes not only providing a mechanism for the convicted person to pay his or her debt to society but also to satisfy society's needs to feel that the appropriate messages are being communicated by the use of that sentencing discretion.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I hope the minister appreciates that the judiciary has the same difficulty with the concept of racism as it has had with sexism. I would hope that the government itself would take the initiative.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question departs from that subject only slightly. I was surprised when I heard the minister indicate in response to one of my colleagues that she was unaware of the huge lag time being experienced by those who enter complaints with the Human Rights Commission. It seems to me that there is a good deal that we need to know about the implementation of employment equity in the federal Public Service.
For example, we have a federal court challenge because of frustration with the Human Rights Commission. We have several complaints in CIDA, health and welfare and NRC.
Would this government be prepared, with respect to the question of employment equity for minorities, to commission a task force such as that which prepared the document beneath the veneer with respect to employment equity for women, with respect to the question of employment equity for minorities?


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I believe in fact that the operation of the Employment Equity Act is under review and we are waiting the results of that review which I think is expected in the fall of this year.
When we receive that review, I will be open to any constructive suggestions to ensure that difficulties that are identified in that review are addressed expeditiously by this House.
Oral Questions WESTRAY MINE


Francis G. LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism. It concerns his answer to a previous question on the Westray mine.
In the minister's answer I believe I heard him say that the loan guarantee that the government made with Curragh Resources provided Curragh Resources 20 per cent equity on that loan. Will the minister share with this House what the composition of the equity for that loan was in precise terms?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, does the hon. member want us to do all his homework for him? It is all in the
2,000	pages that were tabled last week. If he cannot find that material in the 2,000 pages, I would be glad to find it for him.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism).
We have seen C. H. Frame Consultants Ltd. make millions of dollars through the arrangement. There was also a payment for hundreds of thousands of tonnes of coal whether they were produced or not. What I want to know from all this and what we have not seen so far in all of this arrangement is where do we see that the government had any reason to believe this company knew anything about coal mining or would follow appropriate safety procedures?


Thomas Hockin: I am amazed, Madam Speaker, that the hon. member, who is from a coal mining area, would not know that this company of course has been in major mining developments in the Yukon and also has major interests in other parts of the world in mining. It was very, very well versed in the whole field and my hon. friend knows that.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and is in relation to our position at the GATT.

Routine Proceedings
As we know the minister in the past four weeks has met with the Director General of GATT, Arthur Dunkel, and he has also met with European Commission President Jacques Delors.
Based on those meetings, I want to ask the minister what message he has taken to those members. What stage are we at in the GATT round? What progress is being made in relation to the Canadian position in the GATT round?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is accurate. I, other ministers and the Prime Minister have met with officials, including Jacques Delors and Mr. Dunkel.
I believe right now he has asked the position of GATT. It is at a critical stage. The reform of the common agricultural program in the European Community has, I think, gone a step in the right direction in taking some of the pressures off the subsidies. There is still that area to explore.
The message that continually is passed to all those who we negotiate with is Canada's balance position, that trade distorting subsidies must be removed and that Canada's position of strengthening and clarifying article XI must be respected.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, supply and services contracts by electoral ridings for the fiscal year 1988-89 through to 1991-92.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-69, an act
to amend the Criminal Code (air and maritime safety), without amendment.


BILL C-70-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-70, an act to amend the Criminal Code (jury), without amendment.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
David Kilgour: for leave to introduce Bill C-349, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (confidence votes).


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, briefly, it is a pleasure to introduce this bill, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act in relation to confidence votes. I do not think there is a member in the House who has not been confronted in recent years by constituents who are very upset with the way Parliament now operates.
One such matter which shrieks for reform in my view is the confidence vote. This bill would clearly indicate which matters should in future be considered to be votes of confidence, such as the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, a motion to the effect of expressing non-confidence or specifically, if this bill is adopted, it would I believe allow all members of the House in all comers of the House to better serve their constituents rather than serving party Whips. To designate, as we do now, nearly every single vote that comes up in this House as potentially a matter of confidence seems to be truly Draconian at the end of the 20th century.
I hope my colleagues will agree when we debate this matter at a later date.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Kilgour moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Bruce Halliday: Madam Speaker, I rise to seek leave of the House to present the following motion, which I think you may get approval for:
That, notwithstanding Standing Orders 132 and 140, the petition
for a private bill from the Royal Society of Canada, presented on
Tbesday, March 31, 1992, and reported upon by the Clerk of
Petitions on Wednesday, April 1,1992, be deemed to have been filed
within the required time limit and received by this House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the member to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege and honour to present a petition signed by many constituents who I represent in the federal riding of Brant. They call on the House to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government. They want the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments to be determined by a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada, together with a majority vote in a majority of provinces with the territories being given the status of one province.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I have four petitions today dealing with the Court Challenges Program, a program which we all know made it possible for individuals and minority groups to have their constitutional rights as they relate to language and equality rights clarified by the courts.
These petitioners maintain the Court Challenges Program was and should still be an essential instrument in the evolution of our constitutional rights and that all Canadians must be given equal access, whatever their income, to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Routine Proceedings
The petitioners want Parliament to consider reinstating the Court Challenges Program which gives all Canadians equal access to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Madam Speaker, I too like the member for Brant would like to present a petition on behalf of 56 constituents who call upon the government to hold a national referendum on any constitutional change.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 which has been certified correct as to form and content.
These many petitioners come from Red Deer, Black Falls, and Penhold. They are concerned about religious broadcasting and the CRTC and point out that the CRTC's legislative mandate includes providing programming that reflects Canadian attitudes and values and that Christianity has played a fundamental role in the building of Canada.
I therefore ask that this House direct the CRTC to re-examine its religious broadcasting policy with reference to its legislative mandate and actual Canadian values.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, my first petition deals with the goods and services tax on books and reading materials.
These petitioners from Manitoba ask that there be no tax. They point out that there has not been a tax since the beginning of our country. They also underline that reading is a cornerstone of our society, of a democratic vibrant country such as ours, and they ask that the tax be removed.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, my other petition deals with petitioners' requests from Manitoba that Parliament ensure that the CRTC regulate the use of foul and inappropriate language on radio and television. They feel it is not necessary in order to inform or entertain and they believe that it counters the efforts of the family.

Government Orders EDUCATION


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I present my final petition with respect to education.
These petitioners from Manitoba point out that when one attempts to respond to issues such as globalization, increased productivity, enhanced competitiveness, that any reductions in transfer payments are inappropriate.
They deplore the 3 per cent tax that has been added to student loans and the six months' additional interest. They point out that the transfer payments were cut last year by almost half a billion dollars and $250 million this year. They want education to be for everyone.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Madam Speaker, I have several thousand signatures on petitions. The petitioners feel there are serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system and that there are many vulnerable persons who have little protection under the current system. Women, children, and disabled persons are at particular risk.
They call upon the government to further reform the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972, and the Parole Act accordingly.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents from the city of Kamloops and the surrounding communities in central British Columbia.
They point out that under the Unemployment Insurance Act biological mothers are eligible for 15 weeks of maternity leave and that adoptive parents are eligible for 15 weeks of adoptive benefits.
However they say that any amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act under Bill C-21 will alter the current 15 weeks of adoptive benefits. The amendments propose to reduce the benefits available to adoptive parents to 10 weeks and offer an additional 50 weeks of maternity benefits to the biological mother only.
This bill has now proceeded. I simply want to announce on behalf of the petitioners that they consider this initiative to be discriminatory, regressive and inequitable as it is proposed. They urge the government to
reconsider this initiative which they believe is a slight against adoptive parents.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. de Cotret that Bill C-78, an act to amend certain acts with respect to persons with disabilities, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: At the suspension of the debate, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood had the floor. He has 11 minutes remaining.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, before Question Period I was talking about the fact that if more of us in this House had friends or family with a disability there might be a lot more political will being exercised on this particular bill. Also before Question Period I was referring to the 1980-81 Obstacles report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped chaired by David Smith.
During Question Period I happened to notice in the recommendation section some remarks that were made by the minister responsible at that time for disabled persons, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. When he appeared before that committee in 1981 he made the following statement:
Unless you are connected with a big line department with a lot of a clout and a lot of ability, you are limited strictly to a role of persuasion.
June 8, 1992

Referring to being responsible for disabled persons, he continued:
The portfolio should not be isolated because it would weaken the
position of the minister.
I think that is what is happening in this House. We just do not have enough political will being exercised.
The recommendations in this report were made almost 10 years ago. Earlier I referred to the member for Oxford. I recognize that some of the recommendations in the Obstacles report have been implemented. There are others in process. However it is not a front-burner issue.
We are talking about a large number, about 3.2 million disabled people, most of whom very rarely complain about their disability. My experience with disabled people is that they are sort of resigned to their disability. They are not as forceful as some of the other disadvantaged groups in our society.
As we have said in this House many times before, we are not here to speak for those who are advantaged in our society. We do not ignore anyone, but are here to speak for those who are disadvantaged. When we have a bill such as Bill C-78, an omnibus bill on persons with disabilities, it is very important to reassure disabled persons, their families and their friends that this government, this House of Commons, is committed to reviewing the Obstacles report and its recommendations.
I was moved when I met Zoe last week. As I mentioned before Question Period, there are employers out there who are almost nervous or afraid to hire disabled people. They are afraid of accidents. In the case of Zoe, when the employer saw that her eyes were so close to the computer screen he was afraid it might cause even more damage to her eyes. As a result he quietly let this young women go, a women who has so much talent and energy.
These are the kinds of things we cannot just let happen in our society and forget about. We cannot only talk about the Government of Canada addressing this issue in terms of our employment standards and practices. We have to urge the 1.7 million enterprises out there to take a chance, to get involved and get to know a bit more
Government Orders
about disabled people in our community who have ways of counterbalancing their disabilities with other skills.
I know, from a personal experience I had in the last two weeks, of a young woman who had only 20 per cent of her vision. She has intellect, passion and knowledge. Some day she wants to be a lawyer and I am absolutely confident she will be. It is important that all of us be receptive to people when they are tiying to become part of the mainstream.
I did notice in the amendments to this act that the bill establishes a complaints procedure for persons with disabilities who are dissatisfied with the handling of their requests for information. The government, after this bill has passed through the House, should somehow organize a way of communicating that fact to the families and friends of those people. If they do run into frustration with not just the government but even with the community, they should know there is a complaints procedure.
It does not say here exactly what that complaints procedure will be. Maybe through proper communication we could explain what it is going to be. Perhaps all members of Parliament should have that complaints procedure listed in our constituency offices and in our Hill offices so that when we are asked about this we have information readily available.
If not only government departments but businesses in general knew there was a system of accountability for those organizations that abused disabled people, I think they would think twice. I would not name the organization on the floor of this House which in my opinion was terribly insensitive to this young woman, but I can say that it is a corporation which has 99.9 per cent of its work with consumers. If its buying public knew that its principal had an attitude toward disabled people that was a little less than charitable, it would really surprise its market and have a profound effect on business. This amendment in the bill is a good one.
Another thing that is good about the bill is that people with sensory disabilities, that is, a sight or hearing disability, can request government information in an alternative format. The alternative format can be Braille, large print, diskettes or audio cassettes. These things are good and are heading in the right direction.

June 8, 1992
Government Orders
As the member for Oxford said earlier today, we are all working together on this issue. Naturally we would like to see much more attention, much more front-burner action on this tough issue to capture imagination with. It is important because it involves many talented people in the country. If we took this issue and made ourselves a model for the rest of the world, it would say a lot about the character of our country not only to our community but to the world community.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and to Minister of Multi-culturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise in the House to participate in this historic debate on Bill C-78, an act to amend certain acts with respect to persons with disabilities. It is a central element to the government's national strategy for integration of persons with disabilities.

Many efforts have been made to eliminate obstacles and to allow the disabled to participate more in the life of society, but much still remains to be done. For this reason, the Prime Minister in September 1991 officially launched the National Strategy for the Integration of Persons with Disabilities. Under this five-year $158 million strategy, we are acting on issues related to social integration, public awareness, employment, training, housing, transportation and communications.
The purpose of this quite unique partnership between federal departments and agencies and the disabled is to ensure equal access, economic integration and participation by the disabled.

The key element of the national strategy includes a comprehensive review of federal legislation. As recently stated by the Secretary of State and the minister responsible for the status of disabled persons, the barriers preventing people with disabilities from becoming full participants in society are coming down.
The tabling of Bill C-78 is a major step toward removing many of the barriers that still exist. Taken together, the proposed statutory changes in Bill C-78 will significantly improve the lives of Canadians with
disabilities and provide us with a springboard for future actions.
However, the legislation alone is not sufficient to remove the barriers. That is why the impact of Bill C-78 is being reinforced by a series of regulatory and policy actions to promote equality and full participation in the key priority areas.
Two sets of regulations under the National Transportation Act relating to the air transportation and personal training were published in the Canada Gazette earlier this spring.
These regulations require air carriers with aircraft with 30 seats or more to provide standardized services to persons with disabilities travelling in Canada.
In addition, owners and operators of terminals in federal jurisdictions will be required to provide a level of training to their employees who offer physical assistance to persons with disabilities such as guiding a person who is blind, handling a wheelchair and transferring persons from their own wheelchair to that of the carrier.
That is why the government will give careful consideration to amending a section of the Criminal Code to extend the practice of videotaping evidence given by people with disabilities in cases in which this would assist in their testimony. Moreover, the Minister of Justice is committed to review all other proposed amendments to the Criminal Code proposed by the Canadian Disability Rights Council.
This review is part of a larger parliamentary review of Bill C-15, which has already begun and is expected to report back to the House by the end of 1992.
In addition, coupled with an omnibus bill are related irregularity and policy actions on provisions of government publications in alternate formats and in the area of access to television programming. With regard to the former, adequate information is essential in order that the public may understand and respond to government policies and programs.
The Broadcasting Act gives the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, the authority to licence all broadcasters and to make rules and regulations regarding the services they provide to these people.
June 8, 1992

As a parallel action that relates to Bill C-78, we are currently examining a way in which policy direction to the CRTC on closed captioning and employment equity can be used.

In another area related to the status of the disabled many tax measures were introduced.
In 1986 the eligibility criteria for income tax credits were expanded to include all Canadians who must overcome obstacles in their daily activities.
In 1988, the deductions were changed into income tax credits and increased. The total amount of income tax credits rose from $125 to $700 in 1991 and in 1990, about
410,000	taxpayers took advantage of these disability tax credits.
Since 1984 more than 20 items have been added to the list of tax credits allowed for medical expenses.
The Income Thx Act was amended in 1991 to allow companies to deduct expenses in the year they were incurred for certain renovations to make their premises more accessible to the disabled.
More recently, the federal budget of February 1992 proposed broadening the definition of "income" for RRSP purposes to include disability benefits from the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans.

The introduction of Bill C-78 is a result of a close and effective partnership with the disabled community. Throughout the review the Secretary of State and the other departments consulted regularly in order to identify issues of priority to disabled communities. These measures are included in the bill, combined with the related regularity and policy actions and the commitment from the Secretary of State that we will not rest on our success to date and will respond to priority issues identified by the Canadian Disability Rights Council.
To the disabled community Bill C-78 is recognized as the first federal legislative initiative that especially deals with disability issues and is seen as a sod-turning on which to build for the future.
Government Orders
The bill underscores the government's commitment to continued collaboration with the disabled community toward further legislative reform.

In concluding I would like to add that this morning, I visited an association for the mentally handicapped in my riding and I even gave them a hand. That is why I am particularly pleased today to be able to take part in the debate on this bill. It is indeed a memorable occasion.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my comment is that the government comes out with an omnibus bill to give the public the perception that it really is doing something for the disabled and the handicapped. A lot of the things that are there are already being put into practice thanks to a special task force that was struck here by the Liberal government back in 1981,1 believe it was. It was a task force of seven members of Parliament from all three parties who travelled across the country and came up with the report Obstacles. I refer the government members to that report. It was an attempt to remove the obstacles for the handicapped in every field, everywhere in this country, be it in transportation, communication and so on.
A lot of the things that are being put into this omnibus bill are already practised out there.
What I would like to ask the hon. member, since the government is so considerate in helping the handicapped, is has it put anything into this legislation or is it coming up with any legislation to address the issues of people with head injuries? I have a constituent who was in a car accident. He has a bit of brain damage but there are no physical signs that he is handicapped. I have another one who was beat up on the subway coming home late at night. Some people jumped him, beat him up on the subway and he has brain injury. Again, there are no visible marks that this person is handicapped.
No legislation that I know of, be it federal or provincial, looks after these people.
Why is it so important? Because of the invisible head injury some of these people have slurred speech, they think slower, they act slower, and sometimes they are mistaken for being drunk on the streets. The police pick them up, they get harassed and so on.

June 8, 1992
Government Orders
Surely in 1992 the government has thought of addressing the handicapped, the people with head injuries. If it has not, then the government has not done its work.


Vincent Della Noce: As I said at the end of my speech in French, and maybe my hon. friend did not get the translation immediately, I was very proud to be here to present this bill as the parliamentary secretary because this morning I was with a group that had these kinds of problems. I was very proud to be there and I know how much we should do for these people.
I must tell the hon. member that it is in the bill and we are doing many, many things in the bill and I hope we will continue to sit on this bill, as I said before. I must tell my friend that there are all kinds of victims in this world. I have preached for the last six or seven years in my area where I have five jails, in case my hon. colleagues do not know. We have a lot of protection for all these victims- handicapped or not handicapped, I call them all victims. They have nothing, they have absolutely no protection. For the handicapped, it does not matter how handicapped they are, visually or otherwise.
What the minister announced, and I was with him in Montreal, was $158 million. This is a continuation. This does not mean that this was started by the Liberal Party. We are here to continue. It is never enough, if my hon. colleague wants to know. I have some of these groups in my area. I did not believe there were so many. I had to be in the field to see that. At 10 o'clock this morning I realized how many there were. Usually the people who get involved unfortunately have a disabled person in the family. I am lucky to have two children without handicaps and I hope those who are as lucky as I am will get more involved with people who have handicapped children. This is why we are bringing forward these kinds of changes.
I think my hon. colleague will understand that we do have a lot of changes. Bill C-15 is coming back before the end of 1992 I hope. I think the handicapped are waiting in the field to have this bill passed today. They are really waiting for it. I wish I could bring that kind of gift to all the handicapped people in my area and in the rest of Canada.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, what is crucially lacking in this omnibus bill are specific
timetables for the achievement of desired goals. Without those specific timetables for the variety of aspirations that the disabled have told us about, I think this bill suffers greatly.
In fact, the term omnibus, if I recall my Latin, means the total. If the government is saying that this is the total bill for disabled Canadians, this is really a serious hypocrisy. For example, it has failed to adopt a specific timetable and enforcement mechanisms to guarantee access to Canada's transportation systems. It has failed to amend the Evidence Act. Instead, it will review it only. It has failed to amend discriminatory sections of the Immigration Act because apparently the act is now under review.
I would like to use The Toronto Star's issue of May 21, some two weeks after the bill was tabled, which stated that this bill is a joke. Would the member reply to that and admit the serious omissions in this bill and that the time has passed from fine words to really fine action, particularly in the areas I have alluded to?


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, out of the respect I have for this House and my hon. colleague, I do not think this bill is a joke at all. It is not a joke because a lot of people are waiting for this bill. These people make up the community that really needs it, and if they like it, why not give it to them?
Of course it is not a total bill, I agree with my hon. colleague. In eight years in my area some wonderful progress has been made. Everything is accessible in my city now which was not eight years ago. I am not playing politics here. I am not trying to be partisan. My city did a lot and we have to begin somewhere. I can tell you that in 1984 you could not even have a wheelchair going down a sidewalk. Today I can guarantee to my hon. colleague that all sidewalks in the city of Laval are accessible to all disabled people.
Who started this and who did the continuation? This is not important because it is a success for the disabled. What is most important is that if it is not a total bill, let us pass this one through and bring in some recommendations. We do have some amendments that we will be proposing which are very interesting. Let these people have access to vote, to make an A if they can and how to do it. This bill will provide that to them.
June 8, 1992

My hon. friend says that this bill is a joke. I do not think it is a joke at all. It is a very serious bill for many people. They are waiting in the field and I must tell the hon. member that I try to get involved as much as I can, even if my children are not handicapped by any means. I do have a lot of respect for these people. I know they need our help and our help would be to pass this bill today.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-78 today. I want to make a number of points. It would seem to me that the more important fundamental issue whenever we present legislation, particularly legislation of this type, is to attempt to improve the human condition. What is that condition today among disadvantaged and disabled people? We know that we are talking about three million to four million Canadians. The numbers are very difficult to specify with any great deal of accuracy, but it is in that ballpark. We also note that they are among the poorest of the poor.
When we look at the situation in Canada today, for example if we were to look at unemployed Canadians, we would determine rather quickly that they have a disproportionately high number, not because they are unable, very often not because of their lack of skills or educational standards, but because of the attitude that we have toward the disabled and because of the systemic barriers that are there.
If we look for example at post-secondary education, colleges and universities, we recognize there again that we have an under representation of disabled Canadians and again, it is attitudinal and it is a series of systemic barriers. If we look at elementary and secondary education throughout Canada, even though there have been great strides made with respect to the integration of handicapped Canadians, there is still a long way to go. In fact, there is much more road to cover than that which has been covered, even though we have gone a long way.
If we look at those disadvantaged Canadians or disabled Canadians to whom I have already referred, and if we look at certain segments within that population, for example women, aboriginal peoples, and visible minori-
Govemment Orders
ties, we recognize as well that the situation is even more serious than the one that I have just mentioned.
We have to remember a couple of things. First of all, progress has been made here and I applaud that. At the same time we have to look at it within the total context, the total context of what is happening in government.

If we consider the budget cuts that were made in a number of areas, it is clear that although the government gives a little here, and has taken away a little more in many areas, if we add it all up, it is a lot.
Consider transfer payments for education, for instance, which affect not just Canadians in general but also this particular group. Clearly the enormous cuts between 1986 and 1995, which will total from $9 billion to $10 billion will have a negative impact on this group, which is unfortunate.

When we look at the Court Challenges Program, my colleagues know that this was of great potential benefit to disadvantaged Canadians.

What happened? It was cut and then eliminated altogether. This is a shame, because many Canadians took advantage of this program to ensure that their rights under the charter were not mere words but rights to which they had access.

Therefore, I want to point out that the government has given a little here, but it has taken a lot in a number of other areas that I have mentioned. I make just a couple of examples, the transfer payments for education and that affects also training and retraining in a number of other areas such as of course the Court Challenges Program which I find unfortunate.
If the government had wanted to be as progressive as it has suggested it wanted to be, I would invite it to look at what is happening in the U.S. where there has been recent legislation that has covered a number of sectors of society with very specific timetables and with teeth in the legislation that will ensure that that which is in legisla-

Government Orders
tion with respect to transportation, communications, education, services of various kinds, will in fact occur.

Perhaps the approach taken by the United States-I do not often take the United States as an example-deserves to be looked into and perhaps adopted as well.

As I have indicated, there are some positive changes here. There are some problems. I think it has been acknowledged by all sides of the House. This particular community of Canadians has waited for a long time for something to happen and there has been a great deal of impatience. They would also say I believe that there is some progress but not nearly enough in terms of their needs, not nearly enough either in terms of what not only that which they need, but not nearly enough in terms of the times for which they have had to wait for what is happening. We recognize there have been no changes in housing. In fact that is another area that has been cut by government and goes back to the point that I made before. You make progress on one front but if you remove it from several other fronts, what is the total? The total is not great if you look at it in an integrated, comprehensive kind of way.
I am disappointed that with respect to immigration there have been no changes. I recognize that it is not always easy to look as openly as one might at immigrants who might have certain handicaps and bring them into Canada.
We have to recognize that not all people with handicaps are a burden to the state. Quite to the contrary, they can and often do make major contributions.
I have a friend who has been admitted to Canada, at least temporarily and I hope it is permanently, who is an artist of some note and of great talent. He has a full-time job in a hospital and is in fact doing some meaningful work for himself, for his family, and for Canada. That is but one example out of a number of examples. If you were to meet my deaf mute friend, at first glance you might wonder whether or not he would become a burden to Canadian society. I have no doubt that he will not become a burden to Canadian society, that he will be a major contributor to Canadian society, not only because of his artistic talents but because of his
commitment to hard work, his desire to earn his own way, and his eagerness to excel at whatever he undertakes.
I do want to share with my colleagues as well a fear and it is always a concern that when one is critical one does it for partisan reasons. I do not. I want to stress that. I want to try to be constructive. I want to be sensitive to what the government has done. I have acknowledged some of the progress, but I have also pointed out that in this bill there has been just a little progress. When you take a look at everything the government has done, I am not sure there has been any progress.
I want to refer to my colleague from Hamilton Mountain who indicated that it was a timid and toothless piece of legislation that has taken seven years to prepare. Some people might say that is a partisan comment. I am not sure that it is because if you look at The Toronto Star, the edition of May 21, 1992, you note a headline that says: "Government turns its back on the disabled". I do not think that it would be accused of being partisan.
If you look for example at The Ottawa Citizen of May 23: "Disabled, Rights but no Laws". I think it is often forgotten-

-that people with certain disabilities still have the same rights under the charter. Those rights are there, not just for us but for them as well. They have rights, and those rights are guaranteed.
The purpose of this bill and I hope that will be the case in other sectors as well, is to ensure that all rights under the charter are respected, and not only respected but implemented, so that people can enjoy the benefits of rights which are theirs.

I want to point out as well that when you wait for so long for so little that there is a frustration that is built up and that is a malaise that has crept up in government. We often do not react until we have to and then we do so in order to try to counteract that which is happening.
I would like to caution us all to try to act before it is necessary to do so because it is only when we do that, it is only that we are indeed proactive, that we can in fact defuse the kinds of problems that we could create otherwise.
June 8, 1992



As I said earlier, I welcome the progress that has been made, but I do not want people to think this is enough. In fact, we have a long way to go. We have made some progress, but we have a long road ahead of us.
I think it should be said that, although we have made some progress at this point, the fact that a number of programs have been cut, as I mentioned earlier, means that there have been some setbacks for the disabled, in spite of the progress that has been made.

I would like to terminate my remarks by simply saying that while it is welcome, it is long overdue. Unfortunately, there ought to be more meat to this bill, more precision in terms of time lines, and more teeth to the legislation.
You are not without knowing as I do that the progress has been extremely slow, and that builds up frustration. People feel powerless, they get angry. They feel as if they are not being accepted fully as they should be. That is really unfortunate because our country cannot afford to have any Canadian, man or woman, whether he or she has a handicap or not, whether it is a visible handicap because most Canadians do have handicaps, not be a full contributing member of Canadian society.
I would hope in the very near future the government would move forward in ensuring other pieces of legislation that need to be changed in order to meet the needs of our handicapped Canadians, those who are among the poorest of the poor, those who talk and complain very very little about their plight, can in fact be met.
I would applaud such a bill and I would support it wholeheartedly.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from St. Boniface. As usual, he presented his debate with great care and eloquence. I recall that he once served in the provincial government advising ministers on issues. He mentioned the absence of time lines for the implementation of our goals to which I alluded earlier as well.
I would like to ask the hon. member whether he is seeing a pattern. We heard in the past about the absence
Government Orders
of time lines for employment equity, absence of enforcement mechanisms, as well as for the accreditation of foreign obtained credentials, for example, that truly is a big issue among the new citizens in this country. Could the hon. member please comment on that?


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his comments and his questions. He actually raises a number of important points.
One that I want to stress is related to an issue I had raised. We must not as parliamentarians wait until there is so much pressure that we cannot resist. Whether we talk about women's issues, ethnocultural challenges, problems that are directly related to handicapped Canadians, it does not matter what the issue is, we need to be much more proactive than we are.
Unfortunately what happens is there is a mental set where very often parliamentarians sit back and wait until there is nothing else to do but react. In the meantime they have created a very mauvaise ambiance, people are angry, and dialogue is not easy and neither is compromise.
What happens is just before elections, and I suspect we are going to be seeing a series of these, and it is not just this government, it is a pattern that happens in many many governments, they become extremely generous. They will bring forward legislation, make promises, new programs, augment the funding even though they have some serious funding difficulties. I think that is wrong. If I as a Canadian have a need today, surely that need must be addressed as quickly as possible. We must not wait and we must not just do it when it is most profitable politically.
I recognize this is politics but I also recognize that good politics is when you have the power to do something, and it is right to do that, then you do it. You do not wait until you are pushed over the edge.
I recall when I was the deputy minister and needed to deal with a number of issues, such as the ones that have been discussed today, I was forever battling those who wanted to wait. They were forever, forever, trying to say, "Let us do it because it is the right thing to do," as opposed to waiting until we have to do it at which point you sometimes lose control of the agenda. You sometimes can no longer control the cost.

Government Orders
In fact, you pay a very dear price, not only in terms of what you have done because you should have done it some time ago, but in terms of soured relations, in terms of your inability to dialogue and to come up with some meaningful creative solutions for the group that you are dealing with.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in the House today on second reading of Bill C-78, an act to amend certain acts with respect to persons with disabilities.
This bill was introduced on May 5,1992 and it proposes to amend six laws at one time in an effort to improve the lives of persons with disabilities in a number of priority areas by attempting to give them better access to Canada's national transportation system, acquiring citizenship, testifying in criminal courts and access in alternate formats to records and personal information under the control of government.
This attempt at bringing about meaningful change for persons with disabilities is a noble gesture, but this particular legislation falls a little bit short both in expectation and in meeting the very real needs of disabled people in Canada.
I want to make it quite clear that the amendments are welcome. It is about time. However, the people affected by this legislation, our disabled Canadians, are very disappointed that many important changes required to overcome discrimination have not been included in this bill.
The government consulted with the Canadian Disability Rights Council, CDRC, which is a national advocacy organization working in the area of disability rights and the law. In 1991 this organization put forward a document entitled Legislative Reform for People with Disabilities: Proposals for Change.
This report contains specific proposals for an omnibus bill. The government is trying to hide behind its own rhetoric when it claims that it consulted widely with disability groups. Yet its long awaited bill, Bill C-78, does not contain many of the recommendations made by the CDRC and other disability groups.
I would like to point out some of this bill's more serious deficiencies. Bill C-78 amends the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act so that a person with sensory disability, that is a sight or hearing disability, can request government information in an alternative format which would mean Braille, large print, diskettes or audio cassettes.
The bill also allows the head of the government institution from which the information is being requested to determine whether the request is necessary and reasonable. As well, the bill establishes a complaints procedure for persons with disabilities who are unsatisfied with the handling of their requests for information.
There is a danger in leaving open the possibility for abuse by both government and persons with disabilities. There can be requests for excessive amounts of material by persons with disabilities. As well, heads of government and institutions can unreasonably deny access to information.
In a related announcement, the government stated that Treasury Board will strengthen and promote its policy on the availability of alternate formats of government information already available to the public. No timetables were announced.
Treasury Board has previously directed all departments to set aside a fixed percentage of their publicity and information budgets for producing materials in alternate formats. Yet according to the CDRC the reality is that few government departments adhere to this guideline.
Recent surveys conducted by the National Library of Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Commission show little action to encourage or require compliance had been taken by Treasury Board and that very few departments produce or are about to produce documents in alternate format.
The amendment to the Citizenship Act that the requirement to take an oath in order to obtain Canadian citizenship may be waived for "any person who is prevented from understanding the significance of taking the oath of citizenship by reason of a mental disability" is no doubt welcome. However, it was certainly not considered a priority by disability groups.
June 8, 1992

Higher on the list of disabled groups would have been movement on the need for amendments to the Immigration Act which discriminates against disabled persons seeking to immigrate to Canada.
Bill C-78 amends the Criminal Code to allow a person with a mental or physical disability to "testify outside the courtroom or behind a screen or other device that would allow the complainant not to see the accused, if the judge or justice is of the view that the exclusion is necessary to obtain a full and candid account of the acts complained of from the complainant".
Bravo, that is a very important amendment but it is but one of many amendments to the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act which have been recommended by disability groups.
The government has indicated that the Minister of Justice will review other sections of the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act which have been identified by the disability community as requiring attention. This has begun as part of the parliamentary review of Bill C-15.
According to the Canadian Disability Rights Council, people with disabilities are up to 10 times more likely to be physically or sexually assaulted than people without disabilities. Often the abuser is never charged because of the difficulties associated with a disabled person testifying in court.
Bill C-15 made significant changes to the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act to facilitate the testimony of child witnesses and people with mental disabilities. However, disability groups believe that these changes did not go far enough in protecting the rights of people with disabilities in court.
The Canadian Disability Rights Council made a number of recommendations in this area which Bill C-78 omits. I quote:
An exception to the hearsay rule that would allow a third party, such as an attendant, to give evidence instead of the victim should be provided where no other way exists to get the evidence in court. New ways of identifying the accused through the use of voice line-ups for people who are blind must be allowed. Finally, the current provisions that deal with abuse by those in positions of trust and authority must be extended to include protection for people with disabilities.
Bill C-78 contains a number of amendments to ensure that many persons with disabilities will be able to exercise their right to participate in elections by ensuring
Government Orders
that polling stations have level access; providing mobile polling stations for persons residing in institutions; implementing public education programs to make the electoral process better known to persons with disabilities. They would allow election officials, friends or relatives of disabled persons to accompany them into the voting compartment to assist them in marking the ballot; providing blind or visually impaired voters with a special template to assist them in marking the ballot and amending the definition of personal expense for candidates with disabilities so that expenses related to the candidates' disabilities are not required to be included as election expenses.
A number of issues have not been addressed in these amendments. For example, the residence requirement in the bill discriminates against homeless people, many of whom are people with mental disabilities who have been deinstitutionalized.
The government has indicated that some of these outstanding issues may be addressed by the parliamentary committee examining the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing.
In its amendments to the National Transportation Act which will add the words "accessible to persons with disabilities" to the act's preamble as part of the over-all description of Canada's transportation system, the government is not truly dealing with the problem. For example, there is no mention of a timetable for making transportation systems to provide more accessible services within a reasonable period of time.
This is a major shortcoming of this bill. Many types of transportation are still not accessible to people with disabilities. We are far behind many other countries. For example, in the U.S. there is now a specific and ambitious plan to provide accessible bus service for persons in wheelchairs. The government has again deferred any real action by saying that specific CDRC proposals for improving transportation accessibility will be considered as part of a review of the National Transportation Act which will be completed next year.
It has deferred also amendments to the Immigration Act. At some unspecified future date, says the government, the Minister of Employment and Immigration will be introducing amendments to the act related to the

June 8, 1992
Government Orders
medical criteria used to screen persons seeking admission to Canada.
Section 19(l)(a) of the Immigration Act excludes most persons with disabilities from being granted landed immigrant status or Canadian citizenship because they put excessive demands on Canada's health and social service systems.
This applies to potential immigrants applying from other countries as well as persons applying within Canada for refugee status. The act presently fails to recognize that many persons with disabilities are able to be productive members of society and that they are eager to make a meaningful contribution to the Canadian economy.
The disability community has indicated that it considers amendment of this act to be a high priority. The government has indicated for seven years that it would introduce a definition of medical criteria for immigrants.
There are many other federal acts which require amendments to ensure equality for persons with disabilities which are not addressed in Bill C-78.
For example, there is the National Housing Act. The CDRC points out there are too few accessible rental units for disabled persons in Canada. Waiting lists in some cities are extremely long, in some cases three years or more.
The National Housing Act must be amended so that a greater percentage of all rental units built with funds from CMHC are accessible to disabled persons.
The Canadian Human Rights Act must be amended to enable, among other things, the Canadian Human Rights Commission to deal with complaints alleging discrimination in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation in the absence of an identified victim.
The Income Thx Act must be amended to ensure the fair treatment of persons with disabilities by taking into account their medical expenses and disability related expenses.
The National Training Act must be amended to ensure that persons with disabilities are adequately represented in federal training programs.
Why are these issues so important? It is because there are 3.3 million Canadians with disabilities. That is 13 per cent of Canadians. All face obstacles in their daily lives in areas that most Canadians take for granted such as employment, training, transportation, communications and housing. All want to contribute in a meaningful way to Canadian society. All we need do is remove the barriers. This legislation clearly does not go far enough.
In closing I would like to urge the government to review this legislation to ensure that priority needs are met and to place timetables on further initiatives. Otherwise this is "feel good" legislation which actually does very little to help those who need help the most.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before resuming debate, 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 Bonavista-Trinity-Conception-Unemployment Insurance; the hon. member for Moncton-National Defence; the hon. member for Don Valley East-Small Businesses; the hon. member for Argen-teuil-Papineau-Perley Bridge; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing-Child Poverty.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because I know time is very important.
I would like to congratulate all the speakers, particularly the hon. member for St. Boniface who made a very good speech and comments. He agrees that we are making some progress.
I say to my hon. colleague who just spoke that she must understand that the government acknowledges that section 19(l)(a) of the Immigration Act requires revision.
My colleague must also know that the proposal falls into two categories. The good news is-there is some good news-if we pass this bill as soon as possible, because these people are waiting for it, my colleague, the Minister of Justice, has already indicated that she will fully consider the CDRC for the proposal which is Bill C-15. Also, the Minister of Employment and Immigra-
June 8, 1992

tion has agreed to collaborate and to amend section 1901. We know that and this is good news, as my hon. colleague from St. Boniface said. We have a lot of kilometres to go and we are proud to sit with you in the same car to do this for the people we love and we would like to have this because it is their proposal that we are listening to. Of course there are some changes and we are going to keep listening to them, because for the government and for you on the other side these people are very important.
I want to thank my hon. colleague for what he did for them and for what he is saying, that it is very important that you know there are two categories and we will do the next part. Our two ministers have already expressed their views that they will do something, which is the article 1901.


Beryl Gaffney: I appreciate the point of the member opposite. I did say several times in my comments that this bill was a very, very important bill and it was carrying it up to a certain level of importance but there were still a few more things to be done. I did recognize that.
I felt good about his complimenting my colleague from St. Boniface. I thought he gave an excellent and very positive speech.
I did not mean to give the impression that the bill should not go through. I want this bill to go through and go through swiftly. We will move on to the next step and hopefully we will achieve that in a short period of time.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure here that I was not misunderstood. I said un petitpeu deprogres, a little progress. I said let us look at Vensemble and I did say that there were cutbacks, for example in transfer payments, that had an impact and the Court Challenges Program had a negative impact as well.
When you look at the whole it was un petit peu de progres. I recognize the advances made in the area of elections and I think that is good, but we cannot deny that housing, transportation and the whole area of communications have been cut back. We still need to go much, much further. The whole notion of closed captions is not well addressed with a great deal of precision.
Government Orders

There has been some progress indeed, but let us not go too far with this, because on the whole, very little progress was made.

I wonder if my colleague heard that message. Perhaps my other colleague did not hear it quite that way. Is that the way you heard it?


Beryl Gaffney: Yes, I absolutely did hear that message, although my colleague from St. Boniface certainly said it in a much more demonstrative way. He is much more demonstrative and much more eloquent than I am. I really think that we were saying the same thing, that a lot more needs to be done. The message was just put in a different manner.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 100,1 do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and by unanimous consent the House went into committee thereon, Mr. DeBlois in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-78, an act to amend certain acts with respect to persons with disabilities.
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 6-


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Chairman, the old definition in clause 6 reads: "Disability means the incapacity of a minor or a person who is mentally incompetent". The new bill would repeal that definition totally. What definition are we giving people for a disability? I think now of people with a learning disability, an emotional problem, et cetera.

June 8, 1992
Government Orders


Vincent Della Noce: The answer is yes.
Mr. Flis Mr. Chairman, my question was what is the definition? You say it has been replaced but what is the definition? Does the new definition cover people who are not necessarily blind or deaf but do have a learning disability? There are thousands of individuals with these disabilities in our school system now. There are people with emotional problems whose communications can be affected.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Chairman I apologize to the member. We do not have to define it any more because it is now included in the act. We defined it completely in the act. It is in clause 7.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could read the definition as it is in the act.


Vincent Della Noce: Yes, I was going to do that. The purpose of this clause is not to permit the repeal of the disability definition in the interpretation section of the Citizenship Act and enable its replacement with more appropriate wording where the term appears.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It is my understanding that my colleague was asking the parliamentary secretary to actually quote the definition. I would certainly be very interested in hearing that; the definition he referred to which is now in the act.
[Translation\


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Chairman, there is no definition per se any more. The circumstances are described in clause 7.

We have the definition. We do not define any more. The definitions have changed. We give all the definitions here in clause 7, which I can read for the hon. member if she wishes.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up any more time of the House but I want it to be known on record that we now do not have a definition for disability.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. There is no definition. We describe in clause 7 the circumstances.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
On Clause 8-


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if I am out of order on this but just listening to the exchange in
terms of definition, can the parliamentary secretary give us a reason why there is no definition?


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Chairman, the definition was outdated and offensive. That is why it has been removed, for a better definition.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
On Clause 10-


Mr. Milliken:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to express some reservations about this.
There is a special committee of this House appointed to deal with electoral reform and the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing. That commission made numerous recommendations with respect to persons with disabilities as part of its report and appropriate changes to the Canada Elections Act.
The Special Committee on Electoral Reform is charged with this responsibility and was mindful of the fact that this bill had been introduced in the House. I may say that 10 pages out of 15 in this bill deal with changes to the Canada Elections Act.
Some of the changes that are in this bill, it is expected, might be superseded by amendments that are made by this House after the committees had an opportunity to go through the report of the royal commission. We have been actively working on that report for some time and I was very surprised to learn today that an arrangement had been worked out to adopt this bill in all stages today.
I have been through the bill with some care and I do not object to any of the changes that are proposed in the bill-far be it from me to do so. I do indicate to the Committee of the Whole that I think this is an inappropriate procedure for such an important piece of legislation. I think it would have been better to refer the bill to a legislative committee so that the Special Committee on Electoral Reform might have had an opportunity to review these amendments with some care and make suggestions as to possible improvements in what is proposed in this bill.
Some of the improvements would have made some changes in the electoral law to make it easier for persons to vote than is contemplated in this bill. We are studying those and we will continue to study them. It may be that additional amendments are brought forward in due course.
June 8, 1992

I have no objection to any of the amendments that are proposed to the Canada Elections Act. I understand that the government is going to correct the language in several of those amendments. I have reviewed the proposed changes as well and, as I say, I have no objection to them.
I want to express my unhappiness at the fact this procedure has been adopted on this bill, to rush it through without appropriate study in a legislative committee, particularly when it is on a subject that is so important.
While there may be some urgency, as there always is, in passing any bill in this House, the provisions respecting the Canada Elections Act are no more urgent than many of the other changes we are studying, many of which are encompassed in this bill, and it would have been better to do them as part of an over-all change to the act, which I am optimistic will be forthcoming, in a timely way before the next election campaign whenever that may be.
I want to say that these changes are all worth while. I reiterate that and I thank the committee for the opportunity to make these brief comments with respect to those portions of the bill.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Chairman, if I may answer my hon. colleague.
The Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Finance included that proposal as part of its report in February. I am amending the act now to address the needs of Canadians with disabilities to ensure greater access, and at the same time send a clear signal that persons with disabilities will be full participants in the electoral process.
The proposed amendments to the act have been developed in close collaboration with Elections Canada, which has indicated it would be in a position to implement them for the next election and they can be easily implemented that way.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 24 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 25-Prohibition
Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Chairman, I move:
Government Orders
That clause 25 of Bill C-78 be amended by striking out lines 41 to
43 on page 9 and substituting the following:
"vote in the manner prescribed by this act because the elector is
unable to read or is disabled".


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could get clarification. I have just been notified of this amendment now in Committee of the Whole. Does being unable to read mean a new Canadian or does it mean because of a physical disability or a mental disability, since we now do not have a definition for disability. Could we get clarification? A person who is unable to read, what does that mean?


Vincent Della Noce: That is a good question. It is already in the act, and it is for alphabet-illiterate persons.


Jesse Philip Flis: I know of many new Canadians who have their Ph.D.s and are very literate, but not in English. Would that person be defined by this amendment?


Vincent Della Noce: If I may describe it in a better way, it is for somebody who needs help to read during an election that can get that kind of help.


Jesse Philip Flis: If I could just toss out a positive suggestion then. If the amendment would have read "is not able to read in one of the official languages", then we would know what we are talking about. This way we do not know what we are talking about.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Chairman, it already exists in the act. The people at Elections Canada would like to keep it that way because otherwise other changes would have to be made. The Official Languages Act provides for people who need help in either language and they are already protected in the act. They are very comfortable with that.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Chairman, let us get this clear. What the change as proposed does is remove the words "blindness or visual impairment" and I believe the word "physical" from the act with respect to disability. In other words, it says that any person who is unable to read who suffers from a disability is not to be helped in voting by the Deputy Returning Officer unless that is the problem.
I can understand why the minister has decided to take out the words "blindness and visual impairment" because there is an effort to try to treat this as a bill that deals only with disabilities and those are considered disabilities. There is no definition of disability in the elections act to my knowledge.

June 8, 1992
Government Orders
As I say I agree with this amendment. I am not disagreeing with it, but one of the principal proposals put forward by the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing was to make the elections act more intelligible to people who had to read it. It was a people's act. It is one that thousands of Canadians have to work with in the course of an election campaign and they do not want to have to hire a lawyer every time they read a section.
I suspect the parliamentary secretary could give us his rationale, but the problem with taking them out is that the word disability will have to include this problem of visual impairment, which is fine, but it would be better frankly if there was some definition of it or if there was some explanation of what was intended. The past history of this act is that persons who suffer from visual impairment or blindness have received special arrangements at the voting booths. These arrangements will now have to be covered by the words persons who are disabled. That is fine but there will be a lot of Deputy Returning Officers who do not understand that and that is my fear. We are fiddling with the words of this act in a way that may lead to confusion and trouble at polling stations across Canada and there are thousands of them in every election as you know.
I just want the minister to make sure that this is clear and in taking these words out he notes there is no definition of disability in the Canada Elections Act. There could be some confusion on election day which I think would be unfortunate.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is right. There is no definition in the Canada Elections Act but this was changed to help anyone who really needs help that day, especially because elections only happen once in a while. These people can get help immediately. This was included in the Canada Elections Act. They tried to cover all issues and they are very comfortable with it.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment that the original version is unnecessarily restrictive. In some of its definitions the new version allows all persons with disabilities to benefit from changes in the electoral act.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Chairman, there is not much I can say except that the hon. member is correct.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 25, as amended, carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.

On clause 26 -Assistance by deputy returning officer


Vincent Della Noce: That clause 26 of Bill C-78 be amended:
(a)	by striking out lines 4 to 7 on page 10 and substituting the following:
Assistance by deputy returning officer "135. If an elector is unable to vote in the manner prescribed by this Act because the elector is unable to read or is disabled, the deputy returning officer"
(b)	by striking out lines 12 and 13 on page 10 and substituting the following:
Template
"135.1 If a disabled elector so requests, the deputy returning" [English]


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 26, as amended, carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.
On Clause 29-Votingprocedure where elector unable to mark ballot paper


Vincent Della Noce: That clause 29 of Bill C-78 be amended by striking out lines 26 to 30 on page 11 and substituting the following:
June 8, 1992

Voting procedure where elector unable to mark ballot paper "(2) Where the elector is unable to vote in the manner prescribed by sections 130 to 138 because the elector is unable to read or is disabled and the elector does not wish to"


Steve Eugene Paproski: The amendment is in order.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 30-Disabled electors [Translation]
Vincent Della Noce: That clause 30 of Bill C-78 be amended:
(a)	by striking out lines 2 to 4 on page 12 and substituting the following:
"elector is unable to vote in the manner prescribed in these rules because the elector or dependant elector is disabled,"
(b)	by striking out lines 16 and 17 on page 12 and substituting the following:
"lected by the disabled elector or dependant elector,"
(c)	by striking out lines 21 and 22 on page 12 and substituting the following:
"ence the vote of the disabled elector or dependant"
(d)	by striking out line 28 on page 12 and substituting the following:
"ballot paper of a disabled"
(e)	by striking out lines 31 and 32 on page 12 and substituting the following:
"the presence only of the disabled elector or dependant elector."
(f)	by striking out lines 36 and 37 on page 12 and substituting the following:
"when the ballot of the disabled elector or dependant elec-"


Steve Eugene Paproski: The amendment is in order.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 31 -Disabled electors
Government Orders
Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 31 of Bill C-78 be amended:
(a)	by striking out lines 1 to 4 on page 13 and substituting the following:
Disabled electors
85(1) Where an elector is unable to vote in the manner prescribed in these rules because the elector is disabled,"
(b)	by striking out lines 15 and 16 on page 13 and substituting the following:
"selected by the disabled elector, who is able to read"
(c)	by striking out line 20 on page 13 and substituting the following: "of the disabled"
(d)	by striking out line 26 on page 13 and substituting the following: "ballot paper of disabled"
(e)	by striking out line 28 and 29 on page 13 and substituting the following:
"the presence only the disabled elector"
(f)	by striking out lines 33 and 34 on page 13 and substituting the following:
"whom the ballot of the disabled elector is cast."
. [Translation]


Steve Eugene Paproski: The amendment is in order.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 38 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Benoît Bouchard: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I will only take a few minutes to congratulate the parliamentary secretary and all members who were on the committee putting this bill through.

June 8, 1992
Government Orders
I would just like to leave a little suggestion with all members and a reminder for myself. If we are serious about helping the disabled in this country we have to set an example. One way is to begin with our communications. Most of us send four parliamentary reports or householders, as we call them, to our constituents every year. How do we send them out? Are they in French or English? Some go out in Italian or Portuguese. This is great, but how many of our reports go to blind people? Not many. I would not expect anyone to print or duplicate in another format 40,000 copies of a householder.
On some of my householders-I toss this out as a suggestion-I included a little phrase to the constituents indicating that if they knew of a friend, relative or a neighbour who could not read the report because of a visual disability to send in his or her name and address and we would send a cassette.
You may get one request and you may get no requests, but at least we are making our parliamentary reports accessible and available to all our constituents, including the people who for some reason or another cannot see.
Another suggestion is that we are lucky in Ottawa to have our business cards printed in Braille. How many members sitting right here have their cards printed in Braille? There are quite a few. I am impressed, but that is another way that we can set an example.
As members of the federal government, we should be setting an example and maybe with the beginning of Bill C-78 we can start doing this.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking all our colleagues on both sides of the House for their co-operation.
This is something very nice that has been brought to visible persons. It is not only a start but a continuation of what has been done in the past. This is an excellent bill and we have a lot of support from these people. It deserves to be passed without delay. I must say that with the kind of co-operation that we have here today, it is a beautiful gift that we bring to these people.
My friend was talking about business cards in Braille. Last week I was fortunate to do the opening of one of the biggest schools in Canada which is called Institut Nazareth et Louis-Braille in the city of Longueuil, which is south of Montreal in my hon. colleague's riding of Longueuil.
I was very impressed to see this beautiful family of blind people. These disabled people tried to help each other. When the international president from Paris started to read 15 pages of speech, the way he read it was impressive. He did not look one minute at his speech.
I said to my friend and colleague from Longueuil: "He could be a very good politician because every time he reads a 10-page speech, nobody knows it". He was looking at us in our eyes and it was just great. I am doing this for them, and I appreciate what my hon. colleagues did for us in giving us their co-operation. I thank them very much.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-22, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend the Income Tkx Act in consequence thereof as reported, (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There are 42 notices of motions set down on the Notice Paper for the report stage on Bill C-22, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend the Income Thx Act in consequence thereof.
June 8, 1992

Government Orders

Motions Nos. 1 to 27 inclusive standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs seek to delete all clauses in Part I of the bill. These motions will be grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to the remaining motions in this group.

Motion No. 28 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt was moved, debated and withdrawn in committee. Therefore, under the authority of Standing Order 76(5), I will not select Motion No. 28 for debate.

Motions Nos. 29 and 30, standing in the name of the hon. member for Algoma will be grouped for debate with a vote on Motion No. 29 applying to Motion No. 30.

Motions Nos. 31 and 32 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt will be grouped for debate and voted upon separately.

Motion No. 33, standing in the name of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 34, standing in the name of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and Motions Nos. 35, 36, 37 and 38, standing in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth, will be grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 34 will obviate the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 35, 36, 37 and 38. A negative vote on Motion No. 34 will require a vote on Motion No. 35 which will apply to Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 38.

Motion No. 39 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt will be debated and voted upon separately.

Motion No. 40, standing in the name of the member for Nickel Belt, will be debated and voted upon separately-

Motion No. 41 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt will be debated and voted upon separately.

Motion No. 42, standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt, will be debated and voted upon separately.

I will now call Motions Nos. 1 to 27.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 9.
Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

June 8, 1992
Government Orders
Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 13.
Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 14.
Motion No. 15.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 16.
Motion No. 17.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 17.
Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 18.
Motion No. 19.
That Bill No. 19 be amended by deleting Clause 19.
Motion No. 20.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting clause 20.
Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 21.
Motion No. 22.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 22.
Motion No. 23.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 23.
Motion No. 24.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 24.
Motion No. 25.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 25.
Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 26.
Motion No. 27.
That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 27.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have moved that the first 27 clauses of Bill C-22 be deleted. Briefly, hon. members are aware that these are the clauses that pertain to provisions for the Wage Claim Payment Act.
No one disputes the importance of the principle of wage earner protection. We all agree on the need to enable employees to obtain wages and expenses after a company has gone bankrupt. There has been considerable debate, as my hon. friend from Nickel Belt knows,
about what would be the best method of funding such wage claim payments.

I am not giving up and do not intend to give up the objective of protecting wage earners. This is a priority of mine as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but this bill cannot be held up indefinitely while we look for ways to finance the program to protect workers, not when one Canadian in ten is looking for work. We must therefore act immediately to pass Bill C-22 to encourage companies in difficulty and help them survive.

I will have more to say about how Bill C-22 will help save companies and preserve jobs when it comes up for third reading.
The provisions for commercial reorganization, consumer proposals, consumer bankruptcies, secured creditors and receivers, Crown claims and priorities and the protection of unpaid suppliers will all help. These provisions are not affected by the deletions I have proposed.
The only clauses to be removed are those relating to wage claim payments. I would like to reiterate what I told the House of Commons Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations last month when I notified it of the government's intention to split Bill C-22.

The protection of wage earners will be a priority for discussion when the Bankruptcy Act is reviewed in three years.
I hope that consensus will be reached during that review and that we can start working on it immediately, since unfortunately we do not have consensus now. I therefore encourage all members of this House to continue their efforts so that we on both sides of the Chamber can find a way to improve worker protection in future amendments to the Bankruptcy Act.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, amendments 1 to 27 in particular on this bill are indeed unfortunate amendments for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to have moved.
June 8, 1992

We all know in this House the Bankruptcy Act is an outdated piece of legislation going back to 1949. There have been many attempts previously to try to amend this particular act so that it offered a better balance between the various interests in a bankruptcy situation.
Each attempt in the past has failed and it has failed for a whole number of reasons but particularly because there are so many different interests involved it seemed that any change, no matter how positive, would always affect somebody in a negative way. As a result, each attempt at bankruptcy reform has failed.
This minister in particular has come forward and he had a novel approach to the bill. He brought in a bankruptcy bill, Bill C-22, which sought not just to reform and rebalance the Bankruptcy Act, but the bill recognized there was a particular interest in the assets of a bankrupt company. There was a particular debt owing in the form of unpaid labour.
It is not just called the Bankruptcy Act, it is called the Wage Claim Payment Act. It covers two quite different things. The minister did not seek to rebalance within the Bankruptcy Act, recognizing the legitimate interest of the workers here who many times find themselves the last in the line to get paid when a company goes bankrupt, well behind the banks, the other creditors and the last in line to get paid when a company goes bankrupt and the assets are divvied up.
Instead of rebalancing the Bankruptcy Act and coming forward and saying you are right, the workers have an interest here and we are going to put the workers interests ahead of everybody else's interest here, the minister said that would be too complex, too difficult, maybe the big banks would not like it, maybe the big financial institutions would not like to have their security interests lessened in any respect.
Rather than rebalancing the bill, he had a novel approach to creating the wage claim payment fund. Out of that wage claim payment fund the minister recognized up front right in the title of the bill that the workers have an interest in the assets of the bankruptcy.
Further, he recognized that they should get paid their wages, up to $2,000 in back wages that are owed. He did it by way of a new program, not by saying we will recognize in the Bankruptcy Act, by way of something like super priority, that the workers wages must be paid. He wanted to come in with a new social program, basically. It is called the Wage Claim Payment Act.
Government Orders
We did not think on our side of the House this was the way to go about it. We figured it should have been done right in the bill. We said the minister and the government should stand up to those banks, tell those big banks they would have to lessen their interests just a little bit so the workers who might have been owed $500, $700, or $800 would get paid and get paid up front.
The minister said he was not prepared to stand up to those big financial institutions and what he was going to do was set up a separate fund. That in and of itself may not seem like a bad thing to do but then we get into how this government was going to fund it. If there is any government anywhere in the western that should be afraid of the words new tax, it should be members opposite.
They saw their popularity, which was not that great in the first place, plummet over the last few years because they taxed Canadians out. They taxed medium and small businesses to the nth degree and put many of them into bankruptcy.
The government came in with the GST, a God-awful tax that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business called a nightmare on main street. The government came in, did not learn its lesson and it would not rebalance the bill. It wanted to set up a separate fund and it was going to fund it by a new tax on every payroll in Canada.
The government said at that time do not worry about it because it is only a small tax. It is only a few cents or a few dollars here and there. It does not really make much difference.
There were fundamental flaws in the application of the tax. First of all, it was a tax that should not have been implemented at a time when we were in deep recession. Second, there was no level of confidence in the business community that this government would hold its word not to increase that tax.
The universities, the school boards, the hospital associations, every public corporation in this country which cannot go bankrupt was going to be charged a tax, a tax for a program that none of their employees would ever be able to access as long as they worked for a public corporation. The all-party committee pre-studied this bill.

Government Orders
I want to make sure that everyone knows that this was a unique effort to try to bring some harmony to this place and to try to put some respect back into the way we do our business. We had a pre-study well before second reading. The bill had not even been approved in principle. We sat down collectively and we looked at this thing. Even the Tories, even the Conservative members on the committee said: "You are right. This is the wrong way to do it. We should not have a separate fund in recognition of the legitimate interest of workers who have not been paid wages. What we should have is super priority".
My colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and I, along with some government members opposite, discussed it in a non-partisan way. We looked at it and said that makes a lot of sense. In the interest of fairness, super priority is the way to go. We reported the bill back to the government prior to second reading and said it is almost unique. We have unanimous consent of the committee to tell the government that we think super priority is the way to go because we cannot impose a new tax on those groups that I just mentioned, particularly small and medium sized businesses in Canada.
The government did not listen. It said: "No, you cannot do that. We cannot deal with the big banks. They are too powerful. They scare us too much. We are more concerned with our coffers at the Tory party headquarters than with rebalancing legitimately this bill". That is what it did. We all know that. We sat through those committee hearings.
Then the government put the muscle on its committee members who had agreed to the report and sent them scurrying like scared children because the big muscle came on at that point in time and party discipline was the way to go. Forget about this novel, noble adventure of non-partisan discussion and debate on trying to better a major piece of legislation.
The government came back in October or November and particularly the businesses, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and all these people said: "We know it is small tax, but we do not count. We cannot trust this government not to raise this tax unilaterally without coming back to Parliament". Each and every time, and the record shows it clearly, that somebody said that at committee, one of the minister's mandarins jumped up
in his place and said: "Look at it. Look at the way it is worded in clause 29 of the bill. We cannot unilaterally raise this tax. We have to go back to Parliament for approval".
At the eleventh hour, at the end of November, the government came in in its usually under handed, dark and devious way and proposed an amendment that was going to ostensibly have the Treasury Board, through the Consolidated Revenue Fund, fund the program. There would be no tax, it said, for the first year or two of the operations. We smelled a rat and asked a lot of questions.
My colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell asked the key question: "Are you going to fund this out of general revenues or are you giving a loan?" Then all the truth came forward. We found out that all the government was doing was giving a loan. In addition to that one little clause in the amendment, it was also going to give the Governor in Council the ability, without ever coming back to Parliament, to raise the tax, to raise the premium, which was exactly what every business said. They said they cannot trust this bunch at its word and it will raise the tax.
We fought it at committee. We argued procedural points. The chair of the committee, a Tory, ruled in our favour and said that the amendments were out of order. The government was stuck. We did not sit back and say that is it, I guess the bill is going to die. We came up with other options which my colleague from Glengarry- Prescott-Russell is going to talk about. We came up with a number of options to try to get the government back on track.
We recognized that if the government did not know what to do, we in the opposition had a responsibility to try to put this bill back on track to help those individuals and companies out there that were going belly up because of this government's economic policy.
We put four proposals forward to this minister on how he could have a program that could be funded without a tax. We even talked about using the UI system. We talked about a number of different processes such as a new tax on the assets that were being disbursed in a bankruptcy to the big financial institutions because they do not pay any fee now to the superintendent of bankruptcy. This government said no.
June 8, 1992

We have a situation here in which the government has decided that its much heralded interests in the workers of Canada and its interests in bankruptcy legislation have rung hollow. It has come through with 27 amendments that show that it was not prepared to put its money where its mouth is, and this party will not vote for these amendments that effectively strip the rights of workers out of this bill.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a sad performance by a minister of the Crown, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
There were two major principles in any amendment to the Bankruptcy Act; on the one hand there was the principle that workers who have lost their wages because of a bankruptcy or an insolvency are entitled to be compensated for their wages. They ought to get those wages.
If the workers had been paid on the Friday and the company went bankrupt on the Monday, the major creditors do not come back and say to the company, "go and get those cheques back that you paid the workers".
There is a principle that a worker is entitled to be compensated for the effort and the commitment that he has put into the job, for his labour.
That is one principle. The other principle in the Bankruptcy Act was to allow for reorganizations which may result in saving some companies from going down the tubes because we have a financial institution in this country that acts more like a coyote when it smells blood. It moves in and takes the security.
Those are the two major principles, and we have been operating with a Bankruptcy Act which was passed in 1949. For 43 years we have made no major changes even though the whole marketplace, the society, has changed.
This government recognized those two major principles. It is bad enough that the Liberals were unable to do anything at all when they were in power. They did not have the courage to do anything. At least this gang brought in Bill C-22.
The major stakeholders-the minister keeps talking about the major stakeholders-in the bill are the creditors. The major stakeholders are the suppliers, the farmers, the fishermen. The major stakeholders in the bill are the workers.
Government Orders
In this bill I looked for the balance. Do we provide a balance for the stakeholders in the bill? The bill was balanced when it had a wage protection plan. I did not like the idea that it would put another payroll tax on the economy at this time. I did not like that.
Since this government came to power in 1984 it has taxed Canadians 34 times. Canadians, particularly workers, are well aware of the unemployment insurance premiums, which in January went to 24 per cent. They know while it starts with the price of a cup of coffee it ends up that you are buying the whole urn of coffee. In my view nobody would support the small business community and the public sector as well. School boards, hospitals, universities and municipalities will not countenance another payroll tax.
We said to the government that we recognized that we have to maintain the balance in the bill.
One of the ways to maintain the balance of the bill was to ensure that workers go to the front of the bus, the same as the banks go to the front of the bus.
What is the difference between any of the big financial institutions in this country having a secure credit on some assets of a company that has gone bankrupt and a worker who has given his time and labour? That is just as secure as a bank, any other financial institution or any other creditor.
So we wanted a super priority, so to speak, for the workers. The committee at pre-study stage agreed and recommended that to the government. The government said: "No, we cannot do that. It means we would have to be challenging the powers of the large financial institutions." It backed away from that. The minister is shaking his head. The fact of the matter is that he got eyeball to eyeball with them and he backed away.
When we got into committee study of the bill, we then proposed that we should pay it out of general revenues. We said: "Look, it is $61 million." In a total government budget, Canada's budget of $145 billion, it is $61 million. We said: "Take it out of general revenues."
The Government of Ontario responded to the same problem with having a wage protection plan that is paid out of general revenues. The government said no to that.

Government Orders
We then came back and suggested to the government that it tax the assets the creditors are realizing when they enforce their security in a bankruptcy. After all, we are going to pay all of the major banks employing 500,000 people in the country and would be putting $3 million into the government's wage protection plan. Surely if they wanted to maintain their super priority at the head of the bus, why would they deny workers $61 million? Last year, the total amount of assets in bankruptcy situations was $4.3 billion. The financial institutions got $3 billion of that. We are talking about $61 million for workers. Again the government said no.
The committee turned that proposal down, lead by the Conservative majority on the committee. Now this minister said to workers in his opening remarks: "We have no intention of abandoning workers". Well, it took us 43 years to get to this position.
I want to tell you now that you do not have the element, the other voices in this whole business of bankruptcy are arguing for changes. Workers who have lost their jobs as a result of bankruptcy and are not getting paid, can you see the impression they are going to make on this government to correct that anomaly, to correct that injustice?
In this bill, we have looked after all those other stakeholders, to use the minister's term. Look at what we are doing in the bill. We are allowing the farmers to come and get their carrots, chickens and whatever else. We are allowing the fishermen to come and get their cod, whatever other fish or turtles they have sold. If it is there, they can come and take it. It is called revindication of goods. They have a super priority.
We heard the bankers who came before the committee when it was proposed in the bill. They all said: "Well, you cannot do that. We are going to have a credit crunch." It is done in Quebec and it did not create any credit crunch.
Now suppliers can revindicate their goods. Look at who gets in the line-up and who gets their cut. First we have the secure creditors, banks and financial institutions. They get their cut. Then we have the government getting its cut. Government has to get its cut with all those UI premiums, CPP premiums and income tax owing. The lawyers get theirs. All those who are trustees get their cut off the top. They are super priorized. The
superintendent, whatever charges he has, he takes his off the top, but you cannot put the workers in.
I say to the minister, to this government and to all those who are watching that the minute the workers were separated from the rest of all those who have vested interests in this bill, the minute the workers were taken out, then there was no reason for anybody to change things to put workers back into the picture. That is it. All of the powerful stakeholders have been taken out. They are satisfied. Who is going to be the voice crying out in the wilderness to put workers back on the list?
The minister is telling the workers he will not forget them. As soon as the ink is dry on this bill they are forgotten. This minister will stand condemned by history as having turned his back on one of the major stakeholders in bankruptcy, the workers.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the daily hour of
adjournment for the continuation of report stage of Bill C-22, an Act
to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act
and other acts in consequence thereof.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: A technicality in the Standing Orders requires this kind of motion to be presented as part of an intervention or debate. I therefore ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to ensure that his motion is presented in accordance with the rules.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I listened attentively to what you previously stated. In fact, the hon. member across was to have had the floor during debate. No debate took place, nothing happened.
Subsequent to your ruling you then asked for the vote on that which you had indicated some uncertainty, at the very least, as to whether or not it was in order to start with.
Could the House get a clarification from the Chair as to whether or not the motion is admissible? We could then vote on it at that point. Could the Chair enlighten us in that regard?
June 8, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: To make it quite clear, I gave the floor to the hon. parliamentary secretary because he rose on a point of order, but his point could only arise as part of an intervention or debate. I see that the hon. opposition whip can perhaps enlighten the Chair further.


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the parliamentary secretary because I was under the impression that the three main parties in this House had had talks to reach an agreement for allowing about an hour of debate at report stage. So we would not have seen the clock, so to speak, and I thought that was what the parliamentary secretary was about to propose. However, I see that he has just moved a motion to extend the hours. I do not understand at all. Sometimes we waste a lot of time that way. Therefore, to avoid a needless waste of time, I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell me if he intends to abide by the talks held this afternoon.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of permitting other members to contribute to this debate, I did shorten my contribution to the debate. I could overcome that now by saying what it was that I left out of my speech. There is a good deal I could say about this bill, as my hon. friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell knows. I thought that I would just refrain from saying those things and put the motion.
My hon. friend, the opposition Whip, is quite correct in the sense that there is an understanding from his quarter at least that we would not go much beyond an hour. That is the intention. We are hoping that we will be able to complete report stage this evening, and that was the purpose of the motion. I trust you will find it in order.
If it would help and if I were to contribute to the debate, I would be prepared to do that in order to restore it to an orderly state.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there is anything symbolic that a form of closure or another was in fact invoked twice within 30 seconds in this House of Commons today.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have some difficulty with this motion.
There was a telephone call placed to me by the parliamentary secretary asking whether or not we would agree to sit an extended period of time. The extended period of time in the subsequent conversations that I
Government Orders
have had with members opposite, with my Whip and with the member for Nickel Belt was that we would sit for one hour. If it is my understanding that that is not the intent of the motion, then I would have to say that that is not-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but I have no option than to call the members to decide on the motion.
Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their place.
Fewer than 15 members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 26(2), the motion is adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to the member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell. I would have liked to take care of this before he got started on his remarks.
An agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to an allocation of time for second reading of Bill C-80, an act to amend the Income rIax Act, to enact the Children's Special Allowances Act, to amend certain acts in consequence thereof and to repeal the Family Allowances Act.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allocating a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that said stage.


BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend the Income Tax Act in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations; and the motions of Mr. Blais.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there is anything symbolic that a form of closure or another was in fact invoked twice

June 8, 1992
Government Orders
within 30 seconds in the House of Commons today. I must say that the parliamentary secretary just a few moments extended the sitting of the House for this evening. That in itself is not objectionable. What is objectionable is the fact that an agreement previously arranged to have the House sit an extra hour has in fact been breached or superseded by what was moved earlier today. In any case, I hope that it is a technical breach only, that we will complete our discussions within that hour and that the whole discussion will be academic.
When this bill was debated in committee, it was initially debated or discussed in what is referred to as a pre-study. That was a brand new instrument. I do believe our Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations was the first to use it to deal with Bill C-22, the Bankruptcy Act and the Wage Earner Protection Act. My colleague, the member for Dartmouth and I and other colleagues handled the bill very well.
Initially the government told us that it wanted to apply a payroll tax in order to fund the wage earner protection program. I must say that in the beginning I did not find that particularly objectionable myself, but many Canadians said: "Wait a minute, this is not right. We have already had taxes increased almost three dozen times since the Conservatives have been in power. Notwithstanding the fact that that payroll tax is going to be very small, we do not like it because we cannot trust these people". You know, Mr. Speaker, they were right. Canadians who contributed toward the process had it dead on. No sooner had we turned around than the government started to introduce amendments of its own. In those amendments one of the things that the government was trying to do was to remove the provision whereby Parliament had to decide if there was to be a change in the premiums of this wage earner protection program. In other words the government wanted to amend its own bill in order to give itself the power to increase the premium that it had just levied without asking Parliament.
Canadians who had contributed at the committee had it right. We were faced with the situation that Canadians did not want a new tax. I can appreciate that. I think they were quite right in saying that no new tax should be invoked.
That does not mean that we should not have a wage earner protection program.

My colleague from Dartmouth and I sincerely believe that there is a real need to implement a wage claim
recovery mechanism for workers who lose their jobs. [English]
In my own constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell I will never forget the 1984 election campaign. I was the incumbent provincial member, the MPP for the area. In the middle of the election I got a phone call at my campaign office. This phone call was from a group of women working at an assembly plant in Hawkesbury where garments were put together. The workers were saying: "Mr. Boudria, the owner is trying to remove the sewing machines from the building. He has not paid us our holiday pay. He still owes many of us wages and he is trying to take off with the machines".
I immediately phoned the police and told them what was going on. I instructed people at my office to get in touch with someone at the legal clinic to seek to get an injunction preventing the man from doing this. I went and joined the workers personally in order to stop the people who were trying to take the machines away. That would have been the last that those people would have heard of their money. They would never have it. The guy would have just taken off with his equipment, packed up and started some place else at some point down the road. That makes the point as to why we need wage earner protection programs like this.
My colleague from Dartmouth together with myself proposed a number of alternatives to the levy the government was proposing, the payroll tax. He proposed the wage earner protection fund be funded by a levy on the dividends paid to secured creditors.
There were amendments brought by the government but the amendments were such as to exempt the bank from virtually anything in so far as levies are concerned for the services given to them.
We also proposed as an alternative to financing the wage earner protection fund, the unemployment insurance fund for a period of time. My colleague and I, when the government did not want to understand any of this said, let us make a deal, we are reasonable people in this committee. Let us have the government fund this program for 18 months out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and after 18 months we will devise something better to fund this. This was certainly one way in which it could have been done. The government would not listen to it.
All proposals made by the Liberal opposition were defeated by the government. The government did not want to see a wage order protection fund of any kind seemingly, other than the kind the government could fund directly by one of those premiums, those same
June 8, 1992

premiums that they did not even want to consult Parliament about before establishing the rates.
That is why my colleague and I support the principle of having a wage earner protection fund. We did not support the payroll tax proposed by the government in Bill C-22. We do not support Motions Nos. 1 to 27 because they would remove everything from the bill that gave the workers their protection.
What the government should have done instead is introduce amendments. There would have been Motions Nos. 1 to 27 or something like that, but those motions would have proposed an alternative to the wage earner protection fund instead of simply deleting the clauses and saying they will be back at some point in the future in order to offer protection to workers.
We could discuss a number of other issues as they involve this wage earner protection fund but the point remains the same. The minister should address both of these issues. I do not want this bill delayed because there are many businesses that could be rehabilitated with a new bankruptcy law. In so rehabilitating those businesses, we will not have any new ones shut down or at least not as many of them. We will not have as many people losing their jobs and as many people without a wage earner protection fund. The right way of doing it is to have both a wage earner protection program and a new bankruptcy law in this country.
I am with the minister when he says we need a new law and we need it soon. That is quite true. Where he and I part company is when he removes all the clauses to the wage earner protection program and replaces them with nothing at all, only with blank spaces. Blank spaces do not provide much of a pay cheque for the people who have lost their wages.
We are not asking for charity here. Those people have earned that money, their salary, they have earned their vacation pay and they have earned their pay cheque that has not been paid to them in four or five weeks because the boss comes in and says "Gee folks, can you wait a little while for your pay cheque because we are having a rough time in this enterprise", and the workers buy it. Many times they should. When it is all over though, the money that is owed to the workers should be paid.


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word on these motions, but first I want to point out that once again the Bloc Quebecois was ignored and not consulted regarding the extension of
Government Orders
sitting hours. I point this out, because today I had decided to be a good girl, to co-operate and to give consent regarding Bill C-78.
So when unanimous consent was required, I gave that consent out of the goodness of my heart. Then, afterwards, the other parties are asked about extending sitting hours, but not the Bloc Quebecois. Therefore, they should not bother asking for my consent anymore, because this is it. I will not give that consent anymore. I hope that the government will not need my consent, because I have had enough for the time being.
Regarding the bill itself, I find it regrettable that the government did not have the courage of its convictions. After having promised since June 1991 that workers would have an act on wage claim recovery, this government has unfortunately decided not to go ahead with its project. Rather, it has listened to its conservative members and I mean conservative in the literal sense of the word.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs says that he will keep trying to ensure wage claims protection. Again, this is only wishful thinking. This reminds me of the wishful thinking expressed last week by the member for Jonquiere regarding the Referendum Act. This seems to be essentially a similar situation, since the minister does not have the support of his party to go ahead with this wage claim act.
We know very well that the existing Bankruptcy Act goes back to 1949.1 doubt very much that this legislation will soon be reviewed.
Once again, the Conservative government backed off under pressure. I would like to talk more specifically about clauses 7, 8 and 11, which the minister wants to delete with the motions that he tabled. I will discuss those clauses from a very specific angle, and I mean the quality of the French version as well as its wording. Regarding this issue, I will refer to the report submitted in September 1991 to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations by the committee of the Barreau du Quebec on bankruptcy, insolvency and wage claim recovery.
In its report, the Barreau tells us about all the problems in understanding the French version of the sections of that act. I will simply quote section 7 of the act at page 6 which says: "Les prestations ne peuvent etre cedees, grevees de privileges, saisies, assorties d'un exercice anticipe, ni donnees en garantie, et toute operation en ce sens est nulle."

June 8, 1992
Government Orders
I believe that the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs has a degree in law and perhaps he could explain to me the meaning of "assorties d'un exercice anticipe" as the French version says. Even the Barreau du Quebec does not understand that expression. I really wonder where it comes from, unless it is a very bad translation as we suspect it is.
Section 8 is just as bad. It says:
Lorsqu'un versement est fait a un particulier au titre de la presente
section, Sa Majeste du chef du Canada est subrogee dans les droits de
ce particulier sur le failli, la personne insolvable ou tout
administrateur d'une personne morale et sur tous biens.
Of course they mean "sur les biens du failli", but you have to read the section several times, and this is true, as I said, even for people who have a law degree and who are used to reviewing bills rather frequently. I will end by reading paragraph 2 of section 11, on page 7, line 24:
La demande est a presenter, selon les modalites reglementaires-
Of course, we know that it should be "la demande est presentee".
Once again, and I have done it several times over a period of a few days, I point out that the French language is really not treated properly in this House. It is very easy to see that we only get translated documents and in fact, they are very badly translated most of the time.
I will carry on the same vein regarding the clauses left since there are now 27 fewer than originally in this famous bill. I will keep criticizing the substance as well as the quality of the French version regarding those other provisions.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a few remarks on the record with respect to this legislation. I consider it a black eye for this institution to not have a wage earners' protection fund included in this bill.
At this time when the economy is in trouble and we have witnessed a lot of bankruptcies, a lot of closures of plants and offices of one kind or another, we should take the opportunity to support workers, to show we are really behind them and we are committed to them. Yet we see
that we have failed in that commitment, if we ever had it at all, particularly from the government's perspective.
Workers will have reason to be deeply disappointed with us not coming up with a mechanism to give them more protection.
I want to say that all workers very often, certainly in the employment context, have to offer is their labour. That is their means of livelihood. That is how they make a living. That is what they give to their employers. They give their employers their hands, their minds and in return, their employers pay them a wage, a salary.
Surely at a time of financial difficulty for firms, workers should be given top priority. For workers most often, just about always, that is the only source of income they have. That is the only financial leg on which they stand, the income from their labour. We should do everything possible to protect that, to give them the dignity to be paid their wages.
That is not the case with the banks and other lending institutions. They have many sources of income. Sure, they deserve protection as well. They cannot just lend money in a crazy fashion without any regard for security, any regard for collateral or they too will go broke.
However, if a plant closes, if a plant goes bankrupt, for the worker that is his only source of income. It is not for lending institutions. They lend to many, hundreds or thousands of borrowers. So very often when a plant closes it is not a catastrophe for the lending institution. However, if the worker does not get his wages, be it for two or three weeks or perhaps even more, that is calamitous. That can be a catastrophe.
As parliamentarians, on behalf of the broad society, we should reflect a strong commitment to workers to give them that protection.
The legislation that is being amended goes back a long time, to 1949, as I understand it, and the economy has changed tremendously in more than 40 years. Conditions for employees have changed tremendously in more than 40 years.
The time has come to show a greater priority and a greater commitment to workers so they are not left in an unprotected position and not left in a way whereby they cannot even provide for their families. Surely we have to show more dignity for them. It is lamentable, it is terrible that we do not have this wage protection fund that was proposed.
June 8, 1992

Our party made several proposals, none has been accepted. It is a black eye for this institution. We have let Canadian workers down. We are going to have to change the situation as soon as possible because we cannot leave workers in this tenuous situation. We have let them down.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I will remind all members that a vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to the remaining motions in this group, Motions Nos. 2 to 27 inclusive.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 1 agreed to.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma) moved:: Motion No. 29.
That Bill C-22 be amended in Clause 46 by striking out line 33 at
page 38 and substituting the following therefor:
"persons and, where applicable, may be accompanied by a report in respect of the insolvent person provided by a review panel appointed by the Farm Debt Review Board under the Farm Debt Review Act;".
Motion No. 30.
That Bill C-22 be amended in Clause 46 by adding immediately
after line 33 at page 41 the following:
"(12) For purposes of subsection (5), the trustee shall, where applicable, consult the Farm Debt Review Board in respect of the debtor and where, in the preceding twelve months, a report in respect of the debtor has been made by a review panel appointed by the Board under the Farm Debt Review Act, the trustee shall consider the findings of the Report and where the findings are helpful to assist the debtor in the presentation of a proposal, the trustee shall make the findings known to the creditors at the meeting of the creditors."
He said: Mr. Speaker, these two motions really come from a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. It filed a report in July of 1988 called The $22 Billion Problem. In that report it was recommended that where the Farm Debt Review Board is unable to reach an agreement to maintain a farmer on his farm, that a report be filed for the use of the farmer.
Government Orders
This recommendation is a very good one because often where the Farm Debt Review Board, which really has very little power itself to reach an agreement because it has only consultative powers or mediation powers.
Often when a farmer is going through extreme financial distress or approaching bankruptcy, it is only one of the creditors which is holding up an agreement. Under this bankruptcy legislation, it is provided that where 66 per cent of the value in each class can reach an agreement on a proposition, then the bankruptcy commissioner can order that agreement. It is somewhat like the chapter 11 in the United States.
What my amendment really provides for is where the Farm Debt Review Board fails to reach an agreement for reducing the debts or extending the credit arrangements for a farmer. A report is made by the Farm Debt Review Board that the trustee acting on behalf of the farmer facing financial difficulty would be able to put that report, if it was favourable to the farmer, before the creditors for his benefit.
It not only strengthens the position of the farmer facing bankruptcy or using the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, but it adds tremendous strength to the Farm Debt Review Board. Where a creditor is being unreasonable, he faces the prospect of the Farm Debt Review Board issuing a report after the negotiations which would suggest that some individual creditor in those negotiations is being totally unreasonable and so there is increased pressure there.
In 1988 the Standing Committee on Agriculture of the House of Commons did a report which suggested that there is a $22 billion problem for Canadian farmers. In fact, today the problem is not $22 billion; it is $24 billion. The agriculture committee did a further study in 1990 which said that there was something like $6 billion worth of debt which is not serviceable.
We have to take into account the extremely low prices for grain. Last year we had grain selling for $2 a bushel which cost $4 to produce. The debt problem overhangs the entire grain and oilseed industry, especially in western Canada and especially in Saskatchewan. Yet often the Farm Debt Review Board has very little power to deal with that situation. My amendment this evening would increase the negotiating position of the farm review board. In fact if a farmer is applying under this bankruptcy legislation for a reorganization then it gives him the power to do so.

Government Orders
Back in the 1930s we had two important pieces of legislation to cope with the desperate and terrible situation in the country at that time. One was the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act to assist farmers in reorganizing their debts. For the business community we had the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.
It is a sad piece of information for Canadians that we still have the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. In my own constituency Algoma Steel just used the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to write down hundreds of millions of dollars worth of debt to reorganize or restructure that whole company so that workers could keep their jobs.
However the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act has been discontinued and is not available. We do not have the same tools.
The United States recognizes the serious problem facing the agriculture industry back in 1986 or 1987. It brought in special legislation and reduced the debt of farmers from something like $205 billion to $140 billion. That debt is not overhanging that industry.
This legislation has not made much provision for that kind of restructuring of debt. We do know there is some $6 billion of debt out there overhanging the entire industry. It cannot be serviced with the current level of support and profitability of the agricultural industry.
My amendment does not change the over-all structure of the bankruptcy legislation before us. It makes provision for the recommendation of the Farm Debt Review Board to be taken into account where it would be beneficial by the trustee in his negotiation with the creditors.
I believe it would strengthen both this legislation and and the Farm Debt Review Board legislation. I would hope members of the House, and especially those of the government, would support the amendment before the House tonight.


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to carry on in the same vein and talk about the quality of the French version of this bill.
Once again, I would like to refer to the report of the committee of the Barreau du Quebec, which was submitted to the Standing Committee in September 1991. You will notice, upon reading the bill, that the Standing Committee really did not take into account the recommendations made by the Barreau in its report.
Here, we refer to motions Nos. 29 and 30 regarding section 46, which would be added to section 50 of the present Act. Therefore, there would be a section 50.1, 50.2, et cetera. I am now at clause 50.9, on page 40 of the act, where line 50 of the English version and line 46 of the French version do not correspond. What happens is that in English they say "if satisfied" and in French "soit convaincu". We know very well that this is not the same thing in law; it is not the same terminology and it does not have the same meaning. Therefore, the Barreau made a recommendation which the Standing Committee ignored, and the result is that the same mistake is still in the bill that is before us.
Now, if you go to the following page, that is page 41, it is even worse. Indeed, part of the English text has not been translated into French. I am talking lines 15 and 16, which I will read to you in English:
"or any extension thereof granted under subsection 9". [Translation]
In paragraph 11 of the French text, there is no reference to what I just read; it is simply not translated.
Once again, the committee ignored the recommendations of the Barreau. It is as though there were no French-speaking people on this committee, or nobody that could at least read French, since the wording of the bill is still exactly the same as it was when the Barreau appeared before the committee.
I think it was important for me to emphasize this situation. In fact, I can tell you why the Barreau insists and says that in the English version of section 50.4 (9), which I just referred to, it is said that the court may grant an extension of time for filing a proposal if it is satisfied. Obviously, it is not the same thing.
June 8, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I must remind the hon. member that we are debating Motions Nos. 29 and 30 which, I believe, are not related to the motions referred to by the hon. member.


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, Motions Nos. 29 and 30 relate to clause 46 of the bill which relates to section 50 of the former act. These are additions being made. I would point out that Motion No. 29 specifically relates to section 50.4(2) while Motion No. 30 relates to section 50.4(12).
What I am talking about here, is subsection (9) which is part of the same section. If you tell me that I cannot speak on a given subsection because it is not subsection such and such, I think this raises some questions. Right now, I am referring specifically to the clause being debated.
Are you sure, Mr. Speaker? I believe I am referring to section 50.4. Of course, I am somewhere between subsections (2) and (12), but if you insist that we do not deal with other subsections in that section, I will have to wonder why, because it seems both important and relevant to me that we pick out the flaws in this bill.
There are even parts of the bill that are not translated, where there is no French translation provided. I think it is important to mention this to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs so that he can take note. This is not meant as a criticism against him, but rather as a constructive comment to help him and this House.
If I may, I would like to add one thing and I will end on that. I mentioned that, in section 50.4(9), there was a difference between being "satisfied" and "convaincu", "convinced", on the French side. I wanted to end on that, but I will keep reminding the minister, when the opportunity arises, of the correct usage of French. I will be delighted to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair is going by the wording of the motions put forward by the hon. member for Algoma, which call for amendments to clause 46 both in Motion No. 29 and in Motion No. 30. Perhaps the hon. member has another version of the motion that I am not aware of, but I am going by the very wording of the two motions being debated and both refer to amendments to clause 46.
At any rate, I do not want to get into a fruitless discussion on this. I just wanted to point out that the very
Government Orders
wording of both motions that I have just read deal with clause 46. As a matter of fact, I will have to read them again, and I would invite her to pay attention, because that is indeed the clause we are talking about.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 29. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


John R. Rodriguez: Motion No. 31.
That Bill C-22 be amended in Clause 60 by adding immediately
after line 25 at page 67 the following:
"(4) Subsection (2) does not apply in respect of a claim under paragraph 136(l)(d) and moneys owed to a claimant under that paragraph shall be deemed to be held in trust by the bankrupt from the date when the amount claimed became due."
Motion No. 32.
That Bill C-22 be amended in Clause 63 by adding immediately
after line 8 at page 76 the following:
"69.5 A creditor who has a claim provable in bankruptcy under paragraph 136(l)(d) is not subject to a stay under sections 69 to 69.3 in respect of the amount owed to the creditor.
69.6 Except for paragraphs 69(l)(c) and".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of these two motions is to make sure, even within a bill that has turned its back on the major principle of wage protection for workers who have lost their wages in a bankruptcy, that justice for these workers is put back into the bill.

June 8, 1992
Government Orders
How do these two motions intend to do that? They intend to protect the wages of workers in the same way and in the same manner as Revenue Canada funds from a bankrupt company, unemployment insurance premiums and Canada pension premiums are protected. In other words those contributions are set aside by the trustee. They are deemed trusts. They are not part of the assets of the bankrupt company.
Therefore we are suggesting that the wages of workers up to $2,000 be treated in exactly the same manner. They would be set aside in a deemed trust. They cannot be touched by any financial institution or creditor that seeks to come in and grab it.
It seems to me that this is fair. If the workers had been paid on the Friday and the following Wednesday the company went down the tubes, the creditors could not come to the workers and say: "Give back the cheque". In the same way we have to recognize that every worker is worthy of his hire and his labour must be respected.
That is why these two amendments seek to put that back in. After all, the Crown has protected whatever that company has deducted from the employees in terms of UI premiums, Canada pension premiums and Revenue Canada deductions. Those moneys do not get grabbed by the creditor. They are protected. All it is is extending to a logical conclusion that what is good for the government surely ought to be good enough to protect the workers as well.
It seems rather strange that the government will have collected its taxes from wages that were never paid to the workers because the money deducted goes into the trust. Yet they never get the net wages.
all, he said: "Look, we have to go ahead with the restructuring part because we can save some businesses. If we save some businesses, we have saved some jobs."
If that is the case, then it will cost a lot less than $61 million. We are not even talking about $61 million because if a company can be restructured and jobs saved, then it will not even cost $60 million. It will cost less than $60 million.
Now in all fairness, who of all creditors, who of all the major stakeholders would stand up and say: "The worker is not entitled to get his pay"? Who, I ask? Who is the government listening to? All reasonable people in this country would recognize that the workers ought to be treated in the same manner as the government to whom they pay their taxes is treated, in the same way as the financial institutions whom our major creditors do business with are treated.
This government can underwrite a loan to the Westray mine for $80 million and we cannot find less than $60 million. The Bank of Nova Scotia is going to foreclose and it will collect its $85 million from the guarantors. It will not be out. The government will find the money. It will find the $85 million.


John Harvard: From the workers.


John R. Rodriguez: Oh, yes, from the workers, but it will not put any money into the workers' pockets. It is a shame.
In fact these two amendments are very logical. They are fair. They put back a sense of fairness into the bill. One of the things I have always seen in drafting a bill such as this which affects so many stakeholders is you look for balance. Any government that has its head screwed on properly looks for balance.
I find it passing strange that this government later on This government throws out the principle of balance, in the bill, apart from this particular priority for the How can it just sit there and so blithely ignore the Crown, gives away some $25 million of federal Crown workers? We know it is unbalanced. We know that the priority money. It gives it away. And there is $15 million present act has a limit of $500 which was put into the bill for the provinces, so $40 million altogether is given away in 1949. We know that only 30 per cent of workers in of the Crown's priorities apart from those that I have just bankruptcies who are owed wages ever collect. Seventy mentioned. They are considered in trust and cannot be per cent never get one piug nickel, not one dime. How touched by the creditor.	could any government sit there and bring in a bill when it
said it recognized these two major principles, one was My amendments are very logical. I see the minister fairness to workers and the other was restructuring and here tonight. He looks like a reasonable person. This is a totally ignore the balancing element that should be in reasonable proposal. Why would he object to that? After the bill?

Once this government gets the bill it will forget the workers. I say to this government that the workers will not forget this government. Not only has it brought them a series of taxes, 34 times, it is also making them pay for their unemployment insurance program. The premiums keep going up and up and the government lets the unemployment rate go up and up and up.
I remember Bryce Mackasey. He was the minister responsible for the unemployment insurance fund. He brought in the new act in 1971. He always went on the principle that as long as the government had a financial responsibility to the unemployment insurance program, then the onus was on it to make sure that the unemployment rate stayed down, because every time the rate went up the government also paid.
The government since 1984 has removed itself from any responsibility whatsoever for unemployment in this country. In this bill it has removed itself from any responsibility for making sure that workers, when a company goes down the tube, get some justice.
We did not even touch the thorny question of the walk-aways. We could not even look at the problem of a company that just closes the door and walks away. We just looked at this narrow principle of paying those workers in a bankrupt situation.
We did not even ask for a full coverage of benefits. It was just wages and vacation pay. Over there, government members have cold hearts. They are cruel and cold in their approach to workers in the Bankruptcy Act. They had a responsibility and they ducked their responsibility. The people will not forget them whenever that next election is called.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some consultations, and I think you will find there is unanimous consent in the Chamber for the following motion.
I move:
That when no further members rise tonight for debate at report stage of Bill C-22, then the recorded divisions on Motions Nos. 29, 31, 32, 34, 39 and 42 and on the motion for concurrence at report stage be deferred until tomorrow, June 9, at five o'clock p.m., and all other remaining motions be deemed to have been negatived on division.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be very quick. I want to say to my hon. colleague for Nickel Belt that once again, he shows good sense in putting forward these two amendments. What he said is exactly correct.
I want to underline for those watching that Bill C-22 was originally called an act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof.
It was the original intent of this bill to ensure that workers had their wages protected. It was a major cornerstone, a major centrepiece of this bill.
This government, by negativing all of the clauses that deal with that effectively is saying that it really did not mean what it said when the bill was originally put in place. That was that the workers in Canada must be protected in cases of bankruptcy and that their wages be paid.
The member has also made a great deal of sense when he talks about how governments look after themselves. Governments certainly feather their own nests, both provincially and federally. With dollars owed to them they establish what is known as deemed trusts. When they establish these deemed trusts, they make sure they are the first ones to move in and take the money out when there is a bankruptcy.
These two amendments put forward by my colleague from Nickel Belt would ensure that those workers' wages not get treated any differently from how government treats money that is owed to it, but that it simply gets treated the same. The moneys owed to workers in a bankruptcy situation are deemed to be in a trust situation. They are no different from moneys owed to the Crown; no more, no less.
In these amendments the hon. member has certainly underlined how the government treats workers a lot different from how it treats debts owed to the Crown

June 8, 1992
Government Orders
and, indeed, a great deal different from how it treats debts owed to its friends in big business.
I am pleased to get up and say we will be supporting the motions that have been put forward. They truly do reflect what I thought during pre-study was the absolute unanimous consensus of the consumer and corporate affairs committee when we dealt with the rights of workers.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support the amendments introduced by my colleague, the member for Nickel Belt. In so doing, I want to mention a quote from the father of the emancipation proclamation in the United States that I think applies to this bill. That was almost 130 years ago. The quote is: "Labour is independent of and prior to capital and, therefore, deserves much the higher consideration".
I do not think any piece of legislation cries out for the application of that principle more than does Bill C-22 now before us. Surely a principle that was so clearly stated by, perhaps, the greatest president in the history of the United States having to do with the priority of labour in relationship to capital has never been as clear as it is in the principle of the amendment my colleague from Nickel Belt has placed before the House today.
Since 1949, workers in Canada have been told to get to the back of the bus. There have been about six attempts over the last number of years to try to bring in legislation regarding bankruptcies and the priority that working people ought to have in the situation of bankruptcies into this last decade of the 20th century. How we can continue to see argued what the government appears to be arguing by its neglect of the status of employees in this day and age is beyond me.
I had thought that even Conservatives of any stripe, not to mention Conservatives who have the audacity to call themselves Progressive Conservatives cannot move beyond this stage and take us back 130 years to before Confederation in their values. It just blows by mind.
I am sure it must do much more to those thousands of workers across Canada, especially during this recession or depression, or whatever you want to call it, who have found themselves left at the back of the bus watching government collect its due and watching the financial
institutions collect their due when their employers go bankrupt.
Many of my constituents, particularly in the Selma and Wilmer areas faced exactly that situation in smaller forest products companies during the last few months. How they can look with any degree of charity or understanding at the inaction of this government on this matter is a great tribute to their patience, if they have that patience.
I am not choked up because of the subject matter of the bill, although that would be enough to choke anybody. I am afraid I am coming down with a bit of a cold.
I would hope that members opposite will listen to the very cogent remarks that have been made by my colleague from Nickel Belt in committee over the past number of months. They should search their own hearts and their own consciences.
I do not know what their reason was for pulling back-simply because there was a disagreement as to the type of funding mechanism that was to be used in order to give Canadian employees the rights to which they are entitled? Did they think they were going to embarrass somebody by pulling back simply because we would not agree with their rationale at this time of deep economic recession of imposing another special tax, a head tax, in a sense, on employees across Canada?
Surely they could see the nonsense in the kind of financial proposal they had, but even if they did not the least they can do for the very small sum of up to $2,000 in super priority that my colleague's amendment suggests is to go so far as to record that very modicum, that very minimum protection to those employees whose families are already suffering enough.
If the government went without getting its money out of a bankruptcy or if a bank did not get its money out of a small business bankruptcy, no child would go hungry and no child would not be able to afford decent clothes to go to school. We would find other ways of adapting.
What the government will do if it denies these amendments is to continue to force, for the next 43 years, the same kind of situation that has affected thousands and thousands and thousands of working families, poorer families across Canada, that have seen their companies go under in hard economic times.
June 8, 1992

The action of the government is unjust. I ask it to take a second look and give a modicum of justice to Canadian employees and their families from coast to coast across this country. It is time that there was an emancipation proclamation for the working people of Canada.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to join with the other members in the House who were supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Nickel Belt, Motion No. 31.
We are talking about a relatively small amount of money here. It is my understanding that the Wage Earner's Protection Act was going to provide something like $62 million a year across the whole nation for those employees who lose their wages because of a bankruptcy.
What do we spend on unemployment insurance? Is it $14 billion or $15 billion a year? What do the banks lose with companies like the Reichmanns or Dome Petroleum or the Third World debt? They lose hundreds of millions, maybe $2 billion of $3 billion on Canary wharf and the Reichmanns alone.
Why should the banks or the Government of Canada have super priority over the little wage earner who is maybe owed $4,000 or $5,000 and he or she does not have a priority? I just want to support the motion for the hon. member for Nickel Belt.
Clearly the wage earner's funds should be protected. They should have a super priority or should at least be on the same basis. Those funds are everything that individual is earning. If the banks lose a little bit, the total amount that was provided for before the government did its flip-flop on the Wage Earner's Protection Act was something like $62 million.
Surely this is a reasonable amendment that the government should accept.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Since no more members wish to speak, pursuant to order adopted by the House earlier today, the recorded vote on Motions Nos. 31 and 32 is deferred.
Government Orders
We will now proceed to consideration of Motions Nos. 33 and 34. Since the mover of the motions is not in the House, we will proceed to consideration of Motions Nos. 35, 36, 37 and 38, which have been grouped for debate.


Ronald MacDonald: Motion No. 35.
That Bill C-22 be amended in Clause 65 by striking out line 31 at page 79 and substituting the following therefor:
"inventory, accounts receivable and any amount paid in respect thereof, of or held by the purchaser as of".
Motion No. 36.
That Bill C-22 be amended in Clause 65 by striking out line 34 at page 79 and substituting the following therefor:
''claim, right or charge against that inventory, accounts receivable and any amount paid in respect thereof,".
Motion No. 37.
That Bill C-22 be amended in Clause 65 by striking out line 41 at page 79 and substituting the following therefor:
"way disposes of inventory, accounts receivable and any amount paid in respect thereof, covered by".
Motion No. 38.
That Bill C-22 be amended in the English version in Clause 65 by striking out line 45 at page 79 and substituting the following therefor.
"realized on the disposition of that inventory, those accounts receivable or any amount paid in respect thereof,".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the intent of the motions we have before us grouped together is to offer a greater degree of protection to farmers and fishermen for the value of goods they have sold to a company that subsequently finds itself in a state of bankruptcy.
Under Bill C-22, as we studied it in committee, there was no provision to recognize the special circumstances that farmers and fishermen find themselves in. The bill sought to give some redress to those companies or individuals who have sold goods to a company just prior to that company declaring a bankruptcy.
What had happened over and over again, and we heard this from the Canadian Apparel Manufacturers Association and from all kinds of groups both during our pre-study and study after second reading, was that companies many times when they find they are just about to go belly up go and extend the credit they have from their suppliers. They would stock up on inventory,

June 8, 1992
Government Orders
hoping they will be able to discharge that inventory through fire sale prices or whatever they do.
They hope they will be able to liquidate, get a lot of money in and pay the bank, because it is usually the bank that is just ready to force them into bankruptcy. They can keep the bank happy and hopefully by giving it enough dollars they will be able to forestall the bankruptcy. Normally that is what happens in a lot of cases.
When individuals or companies find themselves that close to the edge sometimes they do things they would not normally do. Normally what happens here is if the company is petitioned into bankruptcy by a creditor, usually a secured creditor, again a bank or financial institution, the bank would swoop in and basically seize the assets for which it had a charge on, and there is usually a floating charge on inventory the banks have.
What the banks would do is to say you need working capital so what we will do here is give you $30,000 worth of working capital. We will take a floating charge on what we believe is the average value of your inventory during a particular period of time.
What Bill C-22 sought to do was to put some rights in there to those suppliers of goods so that they could not find themselves basically at the bottom of the line when maybe only two days before they sold maybe $50,000 or $100,000 worth of goods on tick, on credit, to a company that subsequently went bankrupt.
They could look through the window when the sheriff put the lock on the door and say they own all of those coats or they own those washers or they own those chairs in there, but they could not get those chairs back out once the proceedings on bankruptcy started.
Mostly what would happen was that when the trustee would be appointed he would go in and liquidate the assets. The bank would get the value of the goods of that company or individual. It may be even the same day. They could not get them out of there. It was inherently unfair that the banks would be allowed to do that. There was nothing that could be done.
In many cases when this would happen it would force a subsequent bankruptcy on to the company that provided the goods in the first place.
Bill C-22 came forward which said it would provide for revindication which means take-back rights. It said that if a company had sold goods to a company within the 30 days of the assignment into bankruptcy, it could go and
take the goods or a portion of those goods back if that is all that was left, provided that the goods were identifiable, that there was no value added to them and that they were not altered.
It was not a perfect amendment but it did offer some protection to those companies and individuals who provided goods and found that their interest even in the few hours later was taken over by the banks' interest. It is something that everybody on the committee supported.
There was a particular difficulty with the bill. Farmers and fishermen are in an unique situation. I was told by some of my colleagues, like my colleague from Algoma, if somebody is a beef farmer and has some cattle and sells the cattle to a slaughter house that subsequently goes bankrupt the next day, it is pretty dam hard once livestock is slaughtered to identify the cattle. It is difficult when it is still on the hoof even if it is not slaughtered. Once it is altered in any way, shape or form, it did not meet the qualifications to be revindicated or to be able to be taken back.
Again, it is the same for fishermen. In the case of fishermen, if I am down in Eastern Passage or if I am down in Ship Harbour, Spry Bay or any of those places, and I sell my catch to a fish plant, as soon as I sell it, unless you do something with it, it is going to go awful bad. There will be an awful stink around there. The first thing they do is put it on ice. If that company went bankrupt that day, even if I could identify my fish-I do not think you could because I have seen a lot of fish and it is pretty hard to distinguish one codfish from another unless you are pretty good at identifying codfish-there has been value added.
Under the proposed regulations for revindication in Bill C-22, you would not be able to go in and get your fish back at all.
I spoke to the minister about this and I said this is inherently unfair. There is a special case to be made for farmers and fishermen. Why do we not give them some type of super priority, recognizing, for instance in the case of the cattle rancher, that they may sell 50 per cent or maybe all of their year's product, all of the herd, to one slaughter house at one time? They could lose their entire inventory on the farm by one sale and never get anything back. Fishermen, who do not make a lot of money anyway, could sell some of their day's catch, their lobster, and if the company went bankrupt that they sold it to, they would never be able to get it back out.
June 8, 1992

We looked at it and I talked to the minister and talked to his officials and said: "Why do we not be innovative here? Let us see what we can do as far as super priority, at least for the value of some of the goods". When the bill came back to us we went through committee. The government had proposed an amendment that would allow for a degree of super priority for farmers and fishermen that if their goods were sold within 15 days it would allow them to have super priority on the value of any inventory that remained with the bankrupt company.
I thought that was a good move. However, I do not think that it went far enough. The intention of these amendments that we have before us is to provide a little more. The intention of the amendments before us is also to provide a first charge on accounts receivable as well. Basically it says that is fine. You have gone 50 per cent of the way, government, in providing for the first time-I am certainly not criticizing the government for this- some special protection for farmers and fishermen so that they can revindicate and so that they are not forced to the bottom of the heap when we all know that by the time they get to them there is no money left. To make this a little more palatable, I put these motions forward that basically say that they should have first charge on the value of any inventory or accounts receivable as well.
I would urge those in the House, and the minister in particular, to look at this particular amendment. We have gone about 50 per cent of the way. I think everybody on the committee is proud, including members on my side of the House and the government side of the House, that we were able to come to an accommodation for those farmers and fishermen. We recognize the special circumstances they are in. This motion just goes a little farther to ensure that they get a greater degree of protection than what is currently offered in the bill.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, just briefly I want to rise in support of the motion by my hon. colleague and friend from Dartmouth.
Not only do I support it in solidarity and in principle, but I would argue for super priority for workers' wages. We did not get it. I would support also the super priority for those fishermen and farmers as they are the least able to defend themselves when the banks sit down with
Government Orders
all the other creditors, with their fancy Dan, fast-talking lawyers. Lost in the shuffle are the interests of the smaller stakeholders, the smaller players.
In solidarity I would say not only do we want it for the workers who have lost wages, but we want it for suppliers. They are the workers too. They have worked to bring in that catch or to raise that product. Then they hand it in and watch through the grate as their produce is taken and sold off. Who is the big winner in all of this, Mr. Speaker? The big-shot creditors.
I have no hesitation in supporting my colleague in this amendment. It is a common sense proposal. I would hope that the government would listen to the entreaties of members on this side of the House and acquiesce to this request to put this kind of justice back into the system.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I want to add my words of support to the hon. member for Dartmouth and the motions which he has put forward. There has been unanimous support among the agriculture producers that the government's action, although commendable for what it has done by recognizing that there needs to be a super priority, is simply inadequate. There are many producers in this country, especially beef producers, who may perhaps have a pay day once a year. Their entire production, if it is a cow calf operation, may be sold in one operation. If the stockyard or the company purchasing them goes broke, they lose their entire year's production. I think that we have to look at this amendment.
I look at the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and recognize that he is the Minister of State for Agriculture as well, representing those producers in Quebec. I think back to the time when the free trade deal was going through. Producers right across this country, especially those in the supply management sector, said to him: "No, this is wrong. You are doing the wrong thing in this free trade deal. You are removing tariffs on processed food. You are going to destroy our supply management system". They even presented to him the American benefits from this deal which they knew would eventually come-God help us, I hope they never do-as a beautiful white horse. The benefits to the Canadian producers was a rabbit.

Government Orders
I do not want to see the Minister of State for Agriculture doing something to farmers again which is going to produce that kind of image, with the big banks and the big creditors getting everything, and the farmers ending up with nothing. The various farm groups, the Ontario Pork Producers, the Ontario Wheat Producers, the Federation of Agriculture, have all called for the amendment which the hon. member for Dartmouth has put forward.
In a letter from the Ontario Pork Producers, they specifically say that the proposed changes only allow- these are the ones that the government has so far put forward-livestock producers to be repaid from inventory on hand, which is totally inadequate, as with cattle and hogs that are slaughtered and become meat which will remain in inventory for only a very short time. Hence for this section to provide much needed help to the hog industry, it should be changed to allow claims to be secured from inventory plus accounts receivable and cash resulting from livestock originally purchased.
The member for Dartmouth as our critic for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has drafted the exact amendment which farm groups right across the country are asking for.
I would hope that the minister would have a change of heart, that he would consult with his caucus colleagues and his cabinet colleagues tomorrow before this vote comes forward. Maybe he will change his mind and think about his responsibility as the Minister of State for Agriculture, and stop pandering to the big banks, to the big interests in this country. They lose hundreds of millions of dollars with big companies but are putting the screws right down on small producers of livestock, cattle, and fishermen in the areas of our country where fishing is the prime industry.
I would hope that the minister will look at it very closely. He will be covered tonight because we have already put down a motion, but if he changes his mind overnight, I know it would be very much appreciated by the livestock producers and other farm groups who have said that the amendments which are brought forward so far are totally inadequate and that the amendments put forward by the member for Dartmouth are exactly what is needed.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, for the last couple of hours I was sorely tempted to comment, especially while listening to the last speaker.

The hon. member for Algoma picked on me a little bit on the amendment as I am looking after my two portfolios in this particular sector.
Sure I listened, Mr. Speaker. If you look at the report of the standing committee and you look at what we brought to the House, we brought more. Even those members on the committee brought this to the attention of the government. I thought it was possible for us to do more after looking at the whole thing.
I think if we go for what the hon. member has mentioned, we will give more now to farmers and fishermen than we are giving to the unpaid suppliers. What we have tried to do is bring a balance between their rights.
What we are really doing is-

As we gave certain rights to unpaid suppliers, we realized that fishermen and farm producers, for instance, would be unable to recover the goods they had delivered, because farm produce and fish catches are often processed in a matter of minutes upon arrival at the plant. What we wanted to do is at least give them a chance to recoup their losses from inventory, like the unpaid supplier who tries to recover from inventory what he delivered within a certain period. That is what we wanted to do with this legislation.
I think this is fair and reasonable, as reflected in the proposed amendment. That is as far as we can go. Otherwise, we would have to start consultations all over again and give more to one sector or the other. In this respect, I agree with some of my colleagues who spoke today. I listened carefully to practically everything that was said since this afternoon, and I think we have a bill that contains most of the recommendations that were made and that we could accept. That is the purpose of this amendment. However, the government can go no further than I indicated earlier.
June 8, 1992

In fact, I think I am doing more than what my colleagues suggested in committee. That is the truth, and I think they would be prepared to admit as much. I had meetings with farmers' associations and associations of western growers. I met these people several weeks ago, and my own people at the department also met them on several occasions. I think they will be reasonably satisfied with what we have here.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to make a few comments here tonight, I do so being fully cognizant of the hardships that are inflicted upon farmers across this nation on a good many occasions and hardships that are inflicted upon the fishermen of this country.
When I look at the amendments put forward by my colleague from Dartmouth, I have to concur with this, especially giving some security to those primary suppliers in terms of the accounts receivable. I am very cognizant of the fact that with some of the buyers of these products, particularly with some of the very large chains and horticultural products, it is usually 90 days payment on those products. Consider the fact that the average turnover of the products on the shelves of those large chains is 27 times a year. With horticulture products it is probably twice a week. They have that money for a long, long period of time for their own use and investments and the producers are deprived of that money. If they have to wait 90 days, one of the weaknesses is the fact that they only have 30 days security on products delivered.
While I support the motion I want to point out that perhaps 30 days is not enough in a lot of cases. I would point that out to the minister. I also recognize the fact that the Ontario hog producers as well as the white bean producers and wheat producers have had first hand experience with what happens when a company goes bankrupt. As a producer, I know that as well. The inventory had been taken by the securitor, be it the bank or whoever had the loan secured, and applied it against their own debt owing. As a consequence, the farmers were left holding the bag.
I remember one case in particular where it was over several million dollars. That court case went on for a lot of years. It is with these thoughts in mind that I believe
Government Orders
the primary producer, whether he is a farmer or a fisherman, should have priority rights in cases like this. When their product is delivered to the processor or the end user, regardless of what the case maybe, they should have rights on both the inventory and the accounts receivable for their efforts on the products they produced.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since Motion No. 34 was not put before the House, and in the spirit of the order adopted earlier today, the vote on Motion No. 35, which will eventually be applied to Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 38, is deferred.
We will now proceed to consideration of Motion No. 39.


John R. Rodriguez: Motion No. 39.
That Bill C-22 be amended in Clause 66
(a)	by striking out line 32 at page 81 and substituting the following therefor:
"86. In relation to a bankruptcy or"; and
(b)	by striking out lines 36 to 42 at page 81, lines 1 to 47 at page 82, lines 1 to 45 at page 82, line 1 to 45 at page 83, lines 1 to 47 at page 84 and lines 1 to 6 at page 85 and substituting the following therefor:
"claims."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the original bill the government brought forward, Bill C-22, included two principles. One was wage protection and the other was the restructuring of businesses on the verge of bankruptcy or insolvency.
One of the things the government was prepared to give up was some of its Crown priority. It was going to drop down in terms of being a preferred creditor to an ordinary creditor. You have the Crown as a secured creditor and then you have it as preferred creditor. The government argued that being a preferred creditor often prevented the restructuring of a business to save it from bankruptcy and insolvency because the Crown had to be paid first.
All of that of course was hinged on the fact that we had a wage protection plan and this was the balance, the government was giving up its preferred creditor status. It was giving up a value of $25 million in federal taxpayers' money and $15 million in provincial government taxpayers' money. A total of $40 million was being given up.

Government Orders
The argument was that there was a quid pro quo here that on the one hand there would be this wage protection fund and that businesses would be contributing to it and the government, on the other hand, would give up this $40 million from both levels of government.
The government has abandoned the wage protection plan. The workers are no longer protected. Workers will no longer get their wages. On the other hand, the government is giving up its Crown priority as a preferred creditor status. It is giving that up, giving up $40 million, and what is it getting in return? The government is getting zippo, zilch, nada, niente, zero, nothing. It has given up $40 million just like that. Yet the workers cannot get $61 million.
Since the government has wiped out and thrown the workers out the back door, my motion seeks to put them into the back of the bus again. Then the taxpayers ought to collect their $40 million. Why should we give up the $40 million that is entitled to the Crown? What a mediaeval view of government, that the government can give up moneys owing to it. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? The government is giving up $40 million, not only for themselves but for the provinces as well.
I say that the government should not give up the $40 million. This motion seeks to restore the preferred creditor status to the government so that it can collect the $40 million. Maybe that is a good place to start in the future with respect to developing a wage protection fund.
Why does the government not recognize that even at this late stage there is a chance to restore the Crown priority to a preferred creditor status? Why is it dropping down? The argument is that it facilitates the restructuring of businesses, but in fact if you have to restructure a business, the Crown has a preferred status and it has to be paid before you can restructure anything.
The government has high hopes for the restructuring of businesses in the face of potential bankruptcy or insolvency. The fact of the matter is that in the United States chapter 11 has been in effect. We know from looking at the history and the results of that chapter 11
legislation in the United States that approximately 20 per cent of all potentially bankrupt or insolvent companies ever get saved. All it does is put off the day of reckoning. The fact of the matter is that only 20 per cent that claim protection under chapter 11 in the United States get saved.
I do not want to put cold water on the government's hopes for C-22 in terms of restructuring potential bankruptcies and insolvencies, but the story is that it does not save very many.
What has the government given up? It has given up $40 million. I want the taxpayers to know that. Who are the greatest beneficiaries from having given up that $40 million? It just means that there are more assets for the secured creditors to grab. All it is going to do is make the financial institutions that may be the secured creditor even flusher. These institutions will get even more benefits from this.
We now see a flow from the taxpayers' pockets to the big deep pockets of the financial institutions.
I say to the government: repent now. It is not too late. The moment of truth has come. I say to my Tory friends: repent now. Judgment is at hand. It is not too late to do the right thing by the taxpayers of this country. Replace the Crown priority. Put the Crown back in its preferred status and let us put that $40 million toward a wage protection fund.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to order adopted earlier today by the House, the vote on Motion No. 39, standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt, is deferred.
We will now proceed to consideration of Motion No. 40.


John R. Rodriguez: That Bill C-22 be amended in clause 81 by striking out line 44 at
page 90 and substituting the following therefor:
"the extent of five thousand dollars in each"
June 8, 1992

He said: Mr. Speaker, this particular motion deals with the wage refund ceiling. At the present time workers, if they can get anything at all, get $500. This was the amount set in 1949.
The minister, having totally thrown workers out of any opportunities to get justice in this bill, having given up one of the major stakeholders, having abandoned one of the major principles of the bill, having destroyed the balance which should exist in a bill of this type, tries to make it up to the workers by saying: "We have to adjust the $500 of 1949. What we are going to do is change it in the bill so that it will be up to $2,000".
It only covers wages and vacation pay, nothing else. I want to suggest to the House that if members go back to 1949 and take that $500 and adjust it for inflation over these 43 years, the amount should not be $2,000, it should be $5,000.
That is what this motion is attempting to do. It is to even up the status that the workers will now hold with the minister who has totally ignored the rights of workers in this bankruptcy bill. It at least tries to put in place a fair amount of money if they are going to collect anything that they ought to collect, up to $5,000.
It is not the solution that I would want, but the government has abandoned super priority. It rejected it, even though the committee that did the pre-study on this bill recommended to the government a super priority for worker's wages. It chose to reject that suggestion, that proposal and that recommendation of the committee. Instead, it just wiped them out completely.
This motion is seeking to adjust the 1949 dollars to 1992 dollars. It should be $5,000.1 want to tell the House that I recognize it is just nothing but Canadian Tire money. Try to collect anything as I said before. Only 30 per cent of workers who did not receive their wages as a result of an insolvency or a bankruptcy have collected. I call it Canadian Tire money because their chances of getting it are practically zilcho.
Three out of 10 would be able to collect. Roughly about 29.9 per cent would be able to collect, so I would say that $5,000 at least recognizes the justice of raising the amount from $2,000 to $5,000. That is why I put this motion forward.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to support Motion No. 40 by my friend and colleague from Nickel Belt.
Government Orders
This has been a gruelling process. We started off almost one year ago with the introduction of the bill. The minister had a press conference on June 11. I was not here for the press conference because my wife was delivering her third child that day.
On that day, we had a new child and the House got Bill C-22. My child and the bill will be one year old by the time the bill is passed. It has been a gruelling process. I hope it has been a productive one.
However, one of the things that we did-


Mr. Brightwell:: They've both done a lot of changing.


Ronald MacDonald: One of the things we initially looked at under the original bill was whether or not the old act of 1949 clearly set out the principle that workers wages had some type of ranking in priority, in the disposition of assets from a bankruptcy. Unfortunately what it said was that they were an ordinary creditor. They are not exactly at the bottom but they are close enough to the bottom that by the time they come up and get their chance to try to get a few of the dollars they are owed, in nearly every case there is no money left because the secured creditors and the preferred creditors have gone in and have taken all of the worth out of the assets. That is pretty much what has happened.
We did an interesting thing at the time. We were still dealing at that point in time with the concept of a wage earner protection fund that would give up to $2,000 to workers to which wages had been unpaid with a valid claim.
At that point we argued that even with the wage earner protection fund, the $2,000 was not enough. What we did was a simple calculation. We called up Statistics Canada and asked them what would be the inflation factor between 1949 and 1991. They gave us a mathematical formula to figure it out. What it came out to was that $500 in 1949 would have been worth about $3,300 in 1991. Probably now it would be worth closer to $3,400 or $3,500.
We said to the government when it was still proposing a wage earner protection fund that if $500 was agreed way back in 1949 as a ceiling for wage claims, then certainly in 1991, $2,000 was not enough. Subsequent to that, we have seen and we have debated it here today, we have debated in committee and in public, that the government has reneged on his promise to protect workers wages, to give them the proper priority in the disposition of assets of a bankrupt. The government has reneged on that promise. It has walked away from it.

Government Orders
It has come forward and said that it recognizes that now that it has reneged on it, because it did not listen to the opposition in their wisdom on how this thing could be funded, it abandoned the concept of protecting workers wages in the assets of a bankrupt. It came forward and said: "What we will do with the existing act, they are still ordinary creditors, but instead of being able to access up to $500 we will allow them up to access up to $2,000". That is a bit of smoke and mirrors because if you look at the statistics, there are very few claims by workers that ever get fulfilled because there is very little money left and in most cases there is none.
In actual fact, the average wage claim is about $325 because that is all that is left after the banks pick the bankruptcy assets clean and the other preferred creditors get in there.
My hon. colleague has put a motion which I fully support. It says that if the government is not prepared to change the act, to do the right thing, to give super priority to workers for the wages they are owed, to say yes in the guts and the body of the Bankruptcy Act, that we recognize that a worker's input into the product or service is the labour that he gives to the company that employs him and therefore he should be right at the top and get paid for his labour. The government said no to that, but my hon. colleague has said that is fine. Even though they are still going to be ordinary creditors, most of them will get nothing because it will be picked clean. We should be realistic. As I said, five hundred in 1949 dollars is worth about $3,400 today and is still not enough.
My hon. colleague would say: "Let's put it at $5,000". On the outside chance that a couple of those companies will not be picked clean by the big banks and financial institutions, maybe there would be a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel for those workers who are losing the value of their labour.
The problem we have with all this really irks me. Those usually least able to afford the loss are the workers. People working at a fast food place or at a
convenience store at $4.50 an hour might be owed $400 in wages.
Some $400 less is not going to make one iota of difference to the big bank. It will not make any difference at all. The banks will still make record profits next year just like they did last year in the middle of the recession. However $400 to single parents who work in an awful job for $4.50 an hour means the difference between whether or not they can put food on the table for their children or whether or not they go to the food bank or to the church to get food to feed their children in week three of the month instead of week four of the month.
If it could not find the money, surely to goodness the government could have found some other way to address that real concern. Instead of looking after the interests of the big banks and instead of telling us all the time that they are concerned about the urban poor, the rural poor, the single parents and all such stuff, it had an opportunity to put its money where its mouth is and to look after the ones at the bottom of the scale, the ones at the bottom of the ladder, and it did not do it.
The amendment of my hon. colleague will be a little bit of light but for all too few of them, but I am very proud to stand and say that the Liberal Party supports this motion. We would have liked to have seen super priority. We would have liked to have seen those individuals looked after properly. However, in the absence of that, this is a step in the right direction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: According to the order agreed to earlier by the House, the vote on Motion No. 40 is negatived on division.
Motion No. 40 negatived.


John R. Rodriguez: Motion No. 41
That Bill C-22 be amended in clause 81 by striking out lines 30 to
32 at page 91 and substituting the following therefor:
"(j) claims of the Crown not mentioned in".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is really consequent on Motion No. 39 which dealt with the Crown priority. Simply it was adjusting the wording in clause 81 so that it would be subsequent and consequent to what was done in clause 66.
June 8, 1992

I know colleagues on the other side would like to hear my speech again on the importance of the Crown's priority.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


John R. Rodriguez: I hear a voice crying in the wilderness, or is it a telephone call I am getting from Halifax telling me to vote? I hear a message coming over the telephones. Who is in the lead now?
I know that colleagues would love to hear my remarks on Crown priorities. I say to the government once again that the Crown priority should not be given up for all the reasons that I stated previously. This is a consequent amendment to the previous amendment to clause 66.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to order adopted by the House earlier today, Motion No. 41 is negatived, on division.


John R. Rodriguez: Motion No. 42
That Bill C-22 be amended in clause 81 by adding immediately
after line 35 at page 91 the following:
"(1.1) Where, in the opinion of the trustee, payment of the whole or part of a claim under paragraph (l)(d) cannot be made within fifteen days of receipt of the claim, the trustee may borrow such sum as is necessary for payment of the claim or part of the claim provided that the proceeds to be likely realized from the property of the bankrupt will be, in the opinion of the trustee, sufficient to repay the loan with interests.
(1.2) In respect of a loan made under subsection (1.1), the lender has, for purposes of repayment of the loan with interests, all the rights and entitlement of the claimant under paragraph (l)(d)".
He said: Mr. Speaker, on this one I have to appeal to common sense on the other side. I now recognize that I have wound down my clock on trying to persuade the government that something has to be done with respect to workers in an insolvent situation or in a bankrupt situation where their wages have not been paid.
We know that under the current practice only 30 per cent of those workers ever collect anything. I want to make it crystal clear that I do not consider the workers' wages being paid either through a super priority or a
Government Orders
wage fund as some sort of social program. It is not a social program.
I remember the member for Mississauga South kept repeating in committee that somehow or other by paying workers what they had worked for, earned and were entitled to but were never paid was somehow or other a social program.
If that is a social program then I would suggest it is social welfare to pay the banks what is owed them when a company goes bankrupt.


An hon. member:: There is no difference here.


John R. Rodriguez: As my colleague says, there is no difference, absolutely no difference. It is money that is owed to workers.
Having fought this battle all along in committee and having arrived at this point workers under the present regime, even the 30 per cent who are collecting, ought to be able to collect it with dispatch, with expediency.
This particular amendment would allow for that expediency so that there are no delays for the 30 per cent to go and collect from Mr. Bumble the shekels that are owed to them.
I can just see it. They would have to go to the trustee and apply and the trustee would establish whether they were entitled to get something. They are in the 30 per cent. Lo and behold after long periods of time, months, they would then get whatever they are entitled to.
This amendment proposes to allow for some flexibility in the system. It would allow the trustee to borrow the money that is owed to the workers because he may not have liquidated the assets and within 15 days to pay the workers.
That is not a difficult concept. That could very well bridge the period between when the company was closed and their eligibility for unemployment insurance.
What are workers supposed to do while they are waiting for the trustee to dispense these few shekels Mr. Bumble is offering them? They are supposed to go on welfare, I presume. I presume that the state now has to support them with welfare when they have wages they are entitled to and did not get. Unemployment insurance does not activate the claim under the present rules.

June 8, 1992
Government Orders
On this side of the House we were so forthcoming with positive proposals. It is not as if we just hung on to the super priority and that was the only solution. In fact one of the solutions we put forward to this problem of workers' wages was an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act that would allow workers to activate their claims.
This government wanted solutions. Our committee and individual members-I know my colleague from Dartmouth and I did so-approached the minister with solutions. It is not as if we were just opposing for opposition sake. We were positively critical. We met with the minister. On every one of the proposals we put forward it was nyet, nyet. I almost thought he was playing on a Soviet hockey team. He had learned his lessons well. Nothing, nothing, nothing was acceptable.
We had the best talents this House could assemble on the committee. We had proposed several possible solutions. Every single one was turned down. We started to ask ourselves the question: Was this minister really interested in a solution, or was he simply just marching to the drums of the people in the ivory towers on Bay Street? Was he listening to Main Street or was he listening to Bay Street?
I kind of like the minister. He is a likeable fellow. He has a lot of good qualities that need to be developed, but came to the sad conclusion-


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


John R. Rodriguez: The Ayn Rand of the Tory caucus sat in our committee when we first studied this bill. She went from one success to another. She left us to go on to the Constitution committee, now known as the Dobbie- Beaudoin committee. I heard she was equally successful on that committee as she had been in the initial stages of our committee. After she left we did it all.


An hon. member:: Ayn Rand?


John R. Rodriguez: Ayn Rand of the Tory caucus. It is sad to say that I have to come to the conclusion that the minister was not really interested in a solution for workers. It is a sad commentary that in fact he has taken one aspect of his portfolio much more seriously than the other. He is known as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but I have to say that he has taken the
corporate part of his portfolio much more seriously than he has taken the consumer side of his portfolio.
There should be no joy in the minister's heart. He has totally left out one of the major stakeholders. If we do not do it now, another 43 years will go by and we will never ever correct this injustice for workers who have lost their wages as a result of a bankruptcy.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Nickel Belt has said that he is sad. I am sad too, listening to what he says.
I think my hon. friend is fair. We have worked together a long time to try to bring this bill before the House. We tried to respond to and to address concerns of Canadians on this legislation.
I do not want to be too specific on this particular element. I spoke to my hon. friend privately and I will repeat it. On the 15-day proposal, we all know that trustees have the right to borrow money and they do so often. There is a technical problem, and my hon. friend understands it. It is not that easy to force trustees to do anything when they enter a bankruptcy or a business that is going bankrupt.

Mr. Speaker, to repeat what I just said, it is somewhat unrealistic to allow a period of two weeks and oblige people to stick to that timeframe. It is practically impossible to meet this kind of deadline. Let me explain.
The right to borrow money is there. It was in the act and still is, and I am sure that right will be respected. We have made a number of improvements that will speed up the process, as the hon. member is aware, and the timeframe will probably be tightened.
In most cases, bankruptcies are settled in a matter of days. Some are settled in a matter of months or years, but these are not the majority.
I expect that most cases will take less time to settle, thanks to new procedures and changes in the legislation.
I will not repeat all the amendments that were proposed, but I just want to mention that particular one, like the previous one, on which I did not comment specifically. The hon. member wants the ceiling set at $5,000, while the average claim is now around $1,000. That would be useless, considering the average is $1,000. With a ceiling of $2,000 we would be able to cover most claims.
June 8, 1992

Basically this is a very good bill. It was improved with the help of the hon. member for Dartmouth and the hon. member for Nickel Belt, who worked very hard. I realize they made some nasty remarks about me today, but that is all part of the game. I appreciated their comments throughout this process, a long and sometime arduous one, but as I have said before, I can take criticism, depending on the situation.
When we made some major changes in the bill, I said I accepted their criticism. Hon. members are aware there is a provision in this bill which stipulates that the legislation is to be reviewed within three years, a relatively short period of time for a bill. However, the government is committed, and we will review the bill, and I hope that once the bill comes into force, we will be able to work together to finally find a way to deal with the remaining issue of workers unpaid wages.
Together we will consider how this should be done, and I am sure we will succeed.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the words of the minister. I thought he certainly had a much thicker skin than what he just gave us a glimpse of. He said that his colleagues are being very unkind to him.
I want to tell the hon. minister that if his colleagues on this side of the House are being unkind to him, he would have drowned in this bill a number of months ago. When his bill floundered because of some of the nonsense that was being played back in November by sneaking in amendments at the last minute and holding little press conferences, my hon. colleague from Nickel Belt and I could have left him to flounder on the rocks.
We got into a committee and when we got into that committee there was an amendment put forward and we argued, my colleague from Nickel Belt and my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and I, that the motion was out of order and the motion was deemed out of order by the chair after he consulted with the clerk. At that point in time they were prepared to move a motion to effectively overrule the chair.
The hon. parliamentary secretary over there knows it was the opposition members who said before if you do anything on this, you had better recess the committee
Government Orders
and consult with your people because you may kill the bill. If it were not for the comments made by the members of the opposition, this bill could have come back here and been ruled out of order.
When the minister talks about whether we have been kind or unkind to him today, when he could not find any money through the Minister of Finance to fund the wage earner protection fund, which we are talking about here, so that workers' wages could be paid, it was my colleague and I who went forward and met with him on a number of occasions and tried to help him out of his bind with his colleagues. His colleagues would not listen to him when he tried to get some money.
We sat down and said: "You told us early in the bill that you wanted a wage claim payment act because you felt that the interest of workers were not being looked after in the old bill. You said that you need a mechanism so there was certainty of payment and immediacy of payment". Those were the two criteria: certainty and immediacy of payment. My colleague from Glengarry- Prescott-Russell and I went forward and gave them a number of solutions.
They did not want to listen to super priority so we were innovative. We were very kind to the minister. We did not abandon the minister. We were not partisan. We sat down and tried to get him out of the shemozzle that he got himself in.
One of the things we said was take it out of general revenues so there was certainty and immediacy of payment and a balancing of the bill vis-a-vis the workers rights. We said: "Take it out of it for 18 months, Mr. Minister. Go to your Minister of Finance and say you will pay for it out of general revenues for 18 months and during that period of time put a body or a board in place to come up with a permanent funding mechanism". Maybe at that point in time it would be a tax and maybe the Tory's economic policies would have changed, or the government would have changed I hope, and we would be back into good times. We would not be in a recession any more.
The minister said that would not do. In order to make sure there was immediacy and certainty of payment which this amendment of my colleague seeks to do right now, we said to the minister what he should do.

Government Orders
Last year, 1991, a record year for bankruptcies because of this government's policies, there was $4.3 billion worth of assets from those bankrupt companies and bankrupt individuals.
I went to the Superintendent of Bankruptcies and I asked: "Is there not a fee charged on the assets as they get paid out?" They call them dividends. As the dividends get paid out to the creditors you charge a fee on them. The Superintendent of Bankruptcies said: "Yes, we do". I asked: "How much money do you get in?" The superintendent said $6 million.
I am not very good at math but it would appear there is a problem here because there was a 1 per cent or 2 per cent floating charge depending on how much; if it was $1 million, or under, or over. It did not make any sense to me so I asked if that got charged on all assets? He said: "No, Mr. MacDonald, it does not. The assets or dividends paid to secured creditors", which means the banks, "we do not charge them a fee". The only fee that gets charged is a fee charged on dividends paid to ordinary and preferred creditors. That is the only one.
We said to the minister that in order to get certainty and immediacy of payment, we will support a tax on the dividends that are paid out to financial institutions like the big banks.


An hon. member:: Yes.


Ronald MacDonald: If you would put a 1 per
cent charge on it, you would raise more money than this program would cost the government in five years. We told him that and he said: "That is innovative but I do not think we can do it". He did not have the political will to do it.


An hon. member:: Shame.


Ronald MacDonald: If you want certainty and immediacy of payment for those poor workers at $4.50 an hour, as my colleague said, that are going to be forced out on welfare when they do not get their last two weeks' wages, we said go to the UI fund and all you have to do in the UI fund is look. We thought the act was broad enough that the minister could have given authority to individuals with UI. It could have back dated the claim to the last pay period they actually got paid for. It is not going to take any money.
"No," he said "we cannot do that because it is on the UI system". We both said: "Well if you want us to pass this bill you are telling us it is going to save all of these jobs of these workers and, if that is the case, the UI system has saved a lot of money".
What is so wrong with trying to get some immediacy and certainty of payment for those people, the poorest of the poor, the dispossessed, those workers on the plant floor getting $4.50 per hour who cannot even pay their rent, who live below the poverty line? The minister never listened to any of it. I do not know if he did not have the political clout or what.
I want to tell the minister we did try to help him out. We are not being unkind to him. He listened. His colleagues did not listen to him. That was the problem. I want to support Motion No. 40 and the last motion we are dealing with, Motion No. 42.
The minister could not get his colleagues to agree on all of those good proposals we put forward in the spirit of non-partisanship in private meetings over and over again to get this thing done. All this motion does is basically say for those very few cases under the existing law, those 30 per cent of cases that might get something out of the assets of a bankruptcy, do not let them wait six months. By that point in time they are going to be pretty hungry.
All he said is that the effect of this motion would be to allow the trustee in bankruptcy, when he or she believed there was sufficient assets for fuller partial payment of wages-when they get down to ordinary creditor status- where there was full or partial payment available, to borrow the money and to pay those poor workers. That is all it does. There would be promptness of payment; maybe not the certainty we sought, but promptness.
I would like to support this. The minister may think he is having a bad day. I think he is actually having quite a good day. We have been extremely helpful on this side of the House in allowing this debate to go on a little longer.
We do want to see these positive changes to the bill, but we have to in this final hour once more show the government that there were other ways to proceed with the wage earner protection fund. We hope that over the next 24 hours, it reviews the positions that we put forward.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to order adopted earlier this afternoon, the vote on Motion No. 42 is deferred, and all votes will be taken tomorrow afternoon at 5 p.m.

By unanimous consent, the taking of the deferred
Government Orders
division at the report stage of Bill C-22 stands further deferred until five o'clock p.m. Tuesday, June 9, 1992.

It being 7.55 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 9,1992