1992-05-08

Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will remember that several days ago, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and others rose with regard to the release of a document by the Commissioner of Official Languages which was given under embargo to members of the media, but through an error in his office it was not made available to members of Parliament.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier raised the matter as a question of privilege, but out of courtesy to a very distinguished Canadian and an officer of this place, pointedly refrained from moving the motion. As a consequence, of course, he relieved me from the obligation of having to decide whether there was or was not in fact a prima facie case of privilege.
Other members in the Chamber who spoke made it clear that what had happened was not acceptable, but it was very clear also that an explanation was hoped for which would satisfy the House.
I undertook to return to the House on this matter.
I wish to advise hon. members that the Commissioner of Official Languages telephoned me later on that day and indicated to me that, whatever had happened, he had to take and did take absolute responsibility for it, that it was an error, and that he was deeply concerned and deeply apologetic. I indicated to him that I would transfer that message to the House.
I received a letter dated May 7 and I wish to read it into the record:

Hon. John Fraser Speaker of the House of Commons Parliament Buildings Wellington Street Room 222-N Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 Dear Sir:
On May 5, 1992, a mistake was made for which I take full responsibility. It was certainly due to the usual tension that accompanies the submission of the first annual report by a new Commissioner. However, the members who raised a question of privilege in this respect were right to do so, and I wish to extend my sincere apologies to all members of the House of Commons.
Yours very truly,
Victor C. Goldbloom LE Commissioner of Official Languages [English]
I should also advise the House that the Commissioner was in touch with our Clerk. I will, I am sure, be able to report back to the commissioner that we accept his regrets and that we wish him well in the continued duty, not just to this House but to the country, for which he has a very fine reputation.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale) moved:: That this House has no confidence in the government because of its abject failure to provide job training and retraining initiatives to enable Canadians to cope with the economic dislocations and deprivations resulting from federal government policies; and, in particular,
That this House condemn the Minister of Employment and Immigration for his continual failures to provide the House and the people with accurate and unambiguous factual information in this matter.
He said: Madam Speaker, Canadians might under ordinary circumstances take heart in the fact that today the unemployment figures dropped from 11.1 per cent of the work force to 11 per cent.

May 8, 1992
Supply
When you examine those figures, however, the decline of the numbers of people on unemployment insurance by 14,000 was more than offset by the 71,000 increase in Canadians who have given up looking for a job. They dropped out of the work force because they have been trying for weeks and months to find jobs but just cannot.
We cannot take heart from this so-called decline in unemployment because it shows by people dropping out of the work force how desperate people have become. What does this mean? Not getting unemployment insurance, we are transferring them to the welfare rolls of the provinces and the cities. More and more people today are on the welfare rolls.
This is a sad legacy of a government that has committed itself to economic growth, stimulating the economy, getting it going. Its economic programs have been an abject failure.
Today I want to talk about one of the government's so-called policies or programs that was designed to make Canada's economy strong.
Everybody, be it in the government, the opposition or the experts outside, will say that without training, research development, education, science and technology, Canada's economic future will be even more dismal than it is at present. Training, admittedly by the government, is one of its key strategies for meeting the competitive challenge for Canada.
This government has boasted that there have been monumental increases in training. It cites its Bill C-21, which changed the unemployment insurance program, as the hallmark and the start of its program for training. I would like to quote the Minister of Employment and Immigration who said in this House on April 30 of this year: "What we have obtained amounts to $400 million more that will be spent to train individual Canadians who become unemployed this year".
He made a blanket and categorical statement that this government has increased funding for training by $400 million this year. Let us look at the government's own figures as obtained from the estimates.
The federal initiative for job training comes under two heads, Canadian Jobs Strategy and unemployment insurance. Let us look at the Canadian Jobs Strategy program first of all. The estimates show that rather than increasing this year, the Canadian Jobs Strategy funding for training has fallen by $114 million. If you look at the benchmark here of 1989-90, four years ago, funding for training under the Canadian Jobs Strategy program has actually fallen by $217 million per year, with a cumulative decline of over $300 million from that benchmark year. So much for the government's program for training.
Let us look at the second one, unemployment insurance. Yes, there has been an increase in the unemployment insurance category for training. This year, if you take one figure, it is up $95 million over last year, giving the government the benefit of the doubt. If you take out the $75 million that relates to entrepreneurs, it is only a $20 million increase out of unemployment insurance this year for training. This figure over the four-year base period has gone up from zero, a zero component for training out of unemployment insurance in 1989-90, to $500 million this year.
During that period what has happened? The government privatized unemployment insurance. It is no longer a fund to which the government contributes. It is strictly an insurance fund paid for 60 per cent by employers and 40 per cent by workers. So the government is not contributing to this fund. It backed out of its 25 per cent commitment.
In addition, when it privatized unemployment insurance so that it falls entirely on the backs of employers and workers, the Minister of Finance made a commitment in this House that he would not for three years increase unemployment insurance premiums. What have we seen instead? We have seen two increases in premiums which amount to a 31 per cent increase in the unemployment insurance premiums.
What we have seen over all is a government that has cut its contribution to training under the Canadian Jobs Strategy by $217 million. We have seen an increase in the training component paid for by our workers and employees. What this amounts to is this government is picking the pockets of our employers and employees in order to cope with the desperate economic circum-

stances which are the direct result of this government's economic mismanagement and incompetence.
Now let me look just a little further at some of these figures. The Minister of Employment and Immigration, as I stated earlier, has said categorically that funding for training has gone up this year by $400 million.
When looking at the over-all figures, the unemployment insurance aspect of training has gone up from $1,498 billion to $1.8 billion. If this is the figure he is referring to, this is not a $400 million increase; it is a $302 million increase, so his arithmetic is way off.
If he is trying to hoodwink Canadians into thinking that that full $1.8 billion is going to training, let us look at his own figures. Is job sharing to which $100 million goes a training program? No. Is a job creation program to which $120 million goes a training program? No. Is a program of $75 million for the self-employed a training program? No. Is an income support program during transition of about $1 billion a training program? No. That is simply the payment of unemployment insurance benefits to people who are on a training program. If they were not taking the training program, that money would still have to be paid out as regular unemployment insurance benefits.
So what we found under the government's own estimates is the allocation out of the $1.8 billion that goes to training courses is only $500 million this year; $500 million which, as we have said, comes wholly and completely out of the pockets of employers and employees.
I repeat, the government at the same time has cut back its funding under its own program, the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
But the government is going to ask: "But is it not right that workers and employers should fund all of this training, should fund all of the unemployment insurance out of their own pockets?" That might be an argument if the government were not a major player in creating conditions of employment and unemployment.
When this government privatized unemployment insurance, the unemployment level in Canada was 7.5 per cent. In the four years since then it has gone up to 11 per cent. There are 493,000 more unemployed Canadians.
Supply
That is not because it is their fault, as this government is always saying. It is not because the private sector is not necessarily doing its share of training. It is not because our Canadian workers do not know how to work. It is not because they are not willing to work; it is because they have been saddled with economic policies propagated by this government that have deliberately, by the government's own admission, created a recession in Canada.
The government created a recession in Canada long before the Americans thought of going into a recession. The government was so preoccupied with its high interest, high dollar, high tax policies at the same time it brought in free trade that it made it almost impossible for all but a few Canadian companies to compete, to grow, to expand.
The level of the dollar alone from the time the free trade talks started until free trade came in and last year had gone up 27 per cent. That is a 27 per cent penalty against Canadian manufacturers that were going to be exporting to the United States. Can you tell me one industry that had a 27 per cent U.S. tariff against it, a tariff that was removed by the so-called free trade agreement? No.
Even if free trade was going to help Canadian companies expand into the United States, how could they when this government increased the value of the dollar by 27 per cent over that period?
We have seen how in our manufacturing sector Canada, since free trade, has lost 18 per cent of its manufacturing jobs, the highest paying jobs in our country. Looking at textile and garment workers, 27 per cent of those jobs have been lost from Canada.
Our auto sector is one of the best manufacturing sectors in this country, the largest investor, the largest exporter, employing over 100,000 Canadians. Since free trade we have lost over 28,000 auto jobs; 21 per cent of our auto workers are no longer employed. Do you think these jobs are going to come back after the recession is gone? All the figures show these plants have closed and moved out.
The best estimates are that at least two-thirds of the job losses during this so-called recession, this government created, government made recession, a recession that government brags about as being responsible management of our economy, are permanent.

May 8, 1992
Supply
We see the growing phenomenon of welfare cases. In my own city of Toronto the unemployment figures have just gone up from 10.6 per cent to 11 per cent. Those are the latest figures for Toronto which historically has been regarded as the engine for Ontario in Canada's growth.
There is increasing unemployment. At a time when the recession is supposed to be over, this government promised us more than a year ago that the recession was over, unemployment has increased in Toronto.
This is creating a desperate situation for those who are looking for work. Is there one member of Parliament in this House from any party who has not been faced with the situation where an unemployed person has come into his or her office and said: "Mr. Member of Parliament, I am 45 years of age. I have worked for 20 years. I have risen in the company; it has closed its doors. I have been looking for work now for a year. I have sent out 700 or 800 resumes. I read the paper everyday and I make phone calls. I am getting no responses. Nobody is hiring". A terrible tragedy it is.
Those people become takers, not because they want to, from the unemployment insurance fund and then from welfare. They are not contributing tax dollars to our coffers. The phenomenon one sees is people losing hope after having lost their jobs and having sought employment for so long but cannot find it. They lose their cars, they lose their homes. They lose their self-respect, their sense of worth and dignity, and many lose their families. This is the human tragedy which we see unrolling before us.
The unemployment insurance runs out now more quickly than it did before. They do not get 50 weeks of unemployment insurance; it is down to 40. When that runs out, they go on welfare, an odious term to all Canadians and particularly those who have to exist on it.
In Tbronto the welfare rolls are up 8.2 per cent in the first three months of this year. The welfare rolls are up 29 per cent over a year ago. We have a record 105,491 welfare cases in Toronto alone; 167,444 fellow Torontonians get by only because of welfare. Looking at the situation across Canada, two million Canadians are now depending on food banks and 700,000 of those are children.
We asked the government to come up with some programs to get people back to work so that they can become taxpayers rather than dependent on the programs. It said: "We cannot afford it". How much longer can we afford to support people on unemployment insurance and welfare?
It is a situation in our country that is worsening. It is a situation where this government, in its so-called stated strategies to make us strong in research and development, science and technology, training, is mouthing the right words but is cutting the funding.
This is a government that has cut contributions to the National Research Council, has obliterated completely the Science Council of Canada and has cut back on transfer payments to the provinces designed to fund education.
This is a government that says it has increased spending this year alone by $400 million to help training but it has actually cut the amount of money going into training. It has misled Canadians either because it is sinister and is deliberately trying to mislead Canadians or because it is ignorant and cannot read its own statistics.
This is a sorry day for Canada when looking at training. By forcing employers and employees to bear the full cost of its own economic mismanagement and incompetence this government has broken its social contract with Canadians. It is not accepting its share of the responsibility for these massive levels of unemployment and welfare.
When will this government stop misleading Canadians about what it is doing to get them out of the recession and to increase training? When will it change its economic agenda so that Canadians can get back to work?


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, the member's speech was very wide ranging. I cannot for a minute assume that I can cover all the detail that he did. However there are a couple of things I want to comment on. One of them is Canada's position in relation to the rest of the world.
The hon. member makes it sound as if Canada is the only country in the world that is suffering the recessionary blues. I think he has to explain that. Most of us in the House realize that Canada is only one nation in this world of ours and every nation, all the G-7 nations for
May 8, 1992

example, are going through the same difficulties we are in Canada.
The recession in Canada, although we do not want to downplay it, is bad. It is probably worse than we thought it was going to be but, goodness, I do not think he can get away with claiming the Government of Canada brought this recession on. We are just one nation in this world that is suffering from the same thing. If he is saying that the Government of Canada created the recession here, we have done the same thing in the rest of the world.
Did we create the recessionary blues in Japan, the United States or the western European countries? If we carry forward the logic he is presenting in the House this morning, the conclusion we reach is that Canada has such a tremendous impact in the world it brought the recession on in other comers of the world. That is not the case.
We are a very powerful nation. We have the seventh strongest economy in this world of ours, but based on the information the member presented in this House this morning I think there are some points which should be corrected by him.
The point I want to make this morning is that we are just one of many nations in the world that are suffering the recessionary blues. We are working to get out of it. I think there are some positive signs that we are moving forward and I think the member should recognize those.
He talks about dislocation in the work force. He is throwing figures back at us over here. Let us take examples in other countries of the world, because he is famous for getting on his hind legs and blaming free trade for all of the ills in the Canadian economy. He is talking about job dislocation in Canada. Let us talk about job dislocation in the industrial sector in the United States. The figure being used in the United States is a 4.5 million job loss in its industrial sector. On a comparative basis we are not doing any better or any worse than the United States.
If the hon. member is blaming job losses on us because of the free trade agreement, why is it that there has not been an increase in jobs in the United States? There has been a decrease in jobs in the United States. He should acknowledge that.
Supply


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, I have only two things to say to the hon. member. He has challenged me to explain first of all whether or not this recession was government caused.
His own finance minister admitted that he was pursuing recessionary policies and that they went too far. They put us into recession before any other country in the world. His own finance minister said that.
The hon. member says that Canada is not alone in facing difficult times. He is right. However, let us look at how much worse off we are than our major competitor, the United States, to which he referred. He said that the United States is having great difficulty. Yes, it is having difficulty. Since the free trade deal the United States has lost 10 per cent of its automotive jobs. Canada has lost 22 per cent. We are losing automotive jobs, a key manufacturing sector, at more than twice the rate the Americans are. We are falling behind more than twice as quickly as the Americans.
When we look at over-all unemployment figures, Canada is at 11 per cent, and that does not take into account the thousands upon thousands of Canadians who have dropped out of the workforce. Another 71,000 dropped out last month. They have given up looking for jobs so they are not even in those unemployment figures.
Over-all unemployment in the United States is not over 8 per cent yet. It is under 8 per cent. In Canada it is at 11 per cent, plus all these other people who have dropped out.
If he takes solace from those figures and says Canada is doing great, then he can go back and tell his unemployed workers. He should come to my riding and talk to unemployed workers because they just do not believe him or his government.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker, far be it for me to come to the defence of a member of the opposition, but I think it is necessary to go even further, given the argument in this House against the point my friend is making about this government's involvement in the depression we are having. I would like to point out that beyond the automobile industry's figures, the facts are that during this recession

Supply
the United States has lost 7 per cent of its manufacturing base.
At the height of the great depression in this country in the thirties Canada lost 29 per cent of its manufacturing base. Under the current recession-depression, plus the free trade agreement, while the United States has lost 7 per cent of its manufacturing base Canada has lost 24.5 per cent. It is almost what we lost in the great depression.
It is directly related to this government's GST policy, but more significantly it is a direct impact of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which unfortunately my friend in the Liberal Party will not fight to abrogate. Our party stands clearly and firmly on saying we will abrogate the free trade agreement.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for adding to the statistics by showing that the deindustrialization of Canada is outstripping that of any of our competitors in the world. He might have added that the unemployment rate in Canada is higher than that of any of our competitors in the world.
In terms of the free trade agreement, yes, our party has said that we have specific measures we seek to renegotiate. In an interview with The Financial Post the member's hon. leader said: "Yes, we shall if we form a government", which is extremely hypothetical, "consider renegotiating the free trade deal".


An hon. member:: She has changed her position.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Oh, has she changed her position again? How interesting.
If the hon. member from Vancouver could get his party to agree to the same type of approach and get his leader on side then it would be interesting.


An hon. member:: That is her position.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: She has changed her position. Is the hon. member speaking for the leader? When she speaks to The Financial Post she says: "We shall renegotiate because that is the responsible way. There are some good things in the free trade deal and there are some bad things in the free trade deal because this government gave us not just a free trade deal - "


Mr. Riis:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seems to be some misunderstanding in my hon.
friend's comments. I want to state categorically that the position of the federal New Democratic Party is to abrogate the free trade agreement with the United States.


An hon. member:: And our leader too.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member should know better than to get into debate on a point of order.
There are 45 seconds remaining for the hon. member for Willowdale to conclude.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, I am glad the NDP has finally had time to reconsider. Its members feel they have to stand up and apologize for what their leader said.


Mr. Heap:: The Financial Post should apologize.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The hon. member says that The Financial Post should apologize because the leader was misquoted. Oh, is that true?


Some hon. members:: No.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: We saw the notes. They were prepared to make those notes public.
Maybe the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina would like to say that it is not The Financial Post that should apologize, but that the leader of his party should apologize for having tried to put one over on The Financial Post. Maybe she should apologize to caucus for not having its consent. Or, maybe she should apologize because of the fact that she as a leader does not have the right to speak for that party.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has now expired.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying how disappointed I am in the motion presented in this House by the hon. member for Willowdale, on the subject of job training and retraining initiatives for Canada's labour force.
According to this bizarre motion, the government failed miserably in its task to introduce measures that would give Canadians a chance to cope with the economic problems we are facing today like other industrialized countries. The hon. member for Willowdale blames the Department of Employment and Immigration which,
May 8, 1992

according to him, has failed to provide the House with adequate and factual information on this matter.
Anyone who has even the faintest idea of what is happening on the Hill and across the country must know that is not the case. If we look at what the present government has done since it came to power and at all the measures we have introduced for the benefit of Canada's workers we find that, on the contrary, the government has been very attentive to the needs of the Canadian labour force. The government has implemented a series of measures that we will discuss today, my colleagues and I, and that will demonstrate the government's commitment in no uncertain terms.
As for providing the House with accurate information,
I simply want to say that we are always very specific and factual in our announcements. We are also in the habit of letting the public know, through the various media, about measures and initiatives that are directed to Canada's workers. Throughout this country we are in touch with all Canadians who are temporarily out of work and must depend on unemployment insurance and welfare.
Consider, for instance, the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, the provincial and territorial boards, and some 60 local boards which are all part of a network that provides for effective communications between communities and the government.
As a government we have designed policies to meet certain challenges. The economic strategies we have been applying since 1984 promote sustainable growth and enhanced competitiveness. The globalization of our markets, the recession, inflation and political reforms all create pressures on national economies, forcing them to adjust and to do so with a great deal of flexibility.
Since our labour market problems are temporary and not cyclical, we need a long-term approach, while at the same time keeping day to day developments in perspective. That is what this government is doing. Our government has a good record for job creation.
Since the election in 1984, 1,170,000 jobs have been created. This month there will be 889,000 more women on the labour market than in 1984. We must focus our efforts on having an efficient and skilled labour force and on providing workers with ways to adjust to economic, professional and social change.
Supply
That is the pragmatic approach we have supported in recent years, starting with the passage of Bill C-21, when we decided to make a more dynamic and sensible use of unemployment insurance funds. This was a major breakthrough which has already had a positive impact, and we will continue to see the benefits of this decision in the years to come.
By using the Labour Force Development Strategy as a catalyst, we have concentrated our efforts on three essential aspects of the job world: an effective labour force, partnership and a consistent social policy.
As part of these intense consultations, representatives of business, labour, teachers and social action groups helped our department design and implement programs to upgrade the skills of the unemployed, make our workers better able to hold jobs that are continually changing and make Canadian labour more competitive on international markets.
As a result in only a few years spending on training the jobless has increased 62 per cent, which is a lot. We will come back to that.
I repeat that our goal is to increase the training provided by governments and the private sector. Through the prosperity initiative, we are trying to encourage a real learning culture in Canada. This must be done in partnership with all concerned.
In the new partnerships towards which we are moving, we must consider training and development as an investment rather than an expense. This applies to both the public and the private sector. Investing in human resources is as essential as investing in new technology.
Funds for training will increase by $300 million. This will be achieved by emphasizing active measures instead of passive support, and in co-operation with the provincial and territorial governments and the private sector. In that way, we will be better able to provide more effective training for Canadians.
The measures that our department is taking for the labour force tie in with the government's philosophy which seeks to replace passive support with active training and development initiatives. Above all, keep in mind that the purpose of the Labour Force Development Strategy is to produce highly skilled Canadian workers. It also lets the government follow through the recommendations of its private-sector partners by offering unemployed Canadians training and professional

Supply
development courses that are adapted to their various needs.
Adapting Canada's workers to the challenges of technology, the changes in the culture of work itself and the upheavals due to globalization is an endless ongoing process. It is like a huge wheel that keeps on turning and we are all part of it.
That is why our government, aware of its obligations, has gladly agreed to launch pilot projects in various parts of the country. By updating principles and techniques together in this way, we can open new avenues, find new opportunities, help advance knowledge and above all, Madam Speaker, make the country prosperous.
Madam Speaker, we agree on the need to harmonize our social programs-welfare, unemployment insurance, tax measures and labour market programs-in order to have consistent, productive policies and to encourage greater personal independence. I especially want to stress the financial independence of workers in my speech.
In this regard, we are pleased to launch today in Fredericton three initiatives that will provide incalculable benefits for all Canadians. The first is a pilot project that will be carefully monitored; we hope that the results will be conclusive. It is another step in the search for effective solutions to the problems of modem times. This is a research project of Employment and Immigration in cooperation with the New Brunswick Department of Income Assistance and the British Columbia Department of Social Services.
In this pilot project we will be able to test a way to help welfare recipients who are ready to work get off social assistance, obtain employment, and achieve a level of employment and work income that will make them independent. The basic purpose of the project is to provide a positive incentive to labour market participation, in order to make better use of the productive potential of welfare recipients.
We know very well that some of them have the necessary motivation and abilities to find work, but the starting salary is too low. This might be a valid reason for them not to work and to continue to collect welfare.
What we will do is provide a temporary income supplement which will make up the difference between the starting salary and the salary of an experienced worker.
The payment of this supplement would help overcome the deterring factors, facilitate job access and enable participants to free themselves more quickly from the welfare system.
In addition to the income supplement, participants would get financial and professional advice. They would also have access to other services in order to ensure their successful participation in the project.
The income assistance is dependent upon the number of hours worked by the participant, his or her salary, and the average salary in his or her community. The level of help is calculated so as to encourage the participant to do without welfare benefits. That level is rather high for low-income people in order to help them overcome the obstacles linked to their basic salary; that level then diminishes progressively as the salary increases.
The help provided will represent half of the difference between the actual earnings of the participant and a specific target. For example, in New Brunswick that target will originally be $25,000. Therefore, a participant earning $10,000 will receive $7,500, while a participant earning $20,000 will receive $2,500, for a total of $22,500.
We expect that by the end of the three years of eligibility, the earnings of many participants will have increased to a level where their salary will be better than welfare benefits. As I said earlier, this project is targeted to welfare recipients who have the motivation, the education and the required skills to work at a job, but who have been hesitant to do so, because the basic salary seemed inadequate to meet the needs of their families. Participation is strictly voluntary and we expect that 5,000 welfare recipients, many of them single mothers, will participate.
The project also includes a research component designed to individually assess the situation of participants, following their experience. Fifteen million dollars were allocated to New Brunswick, and 35 million dollars to British Columbia. The two provincial governments that contribute to the financing also participated in the development of this joint initiative. We must emphasize
May 8, 1992

the importance of these partnerships for the development of our country and for our prosperity.
The project is an important research experiment. We will be able to evaluate rather quickly the positive results of the project for the participants and see to what extent the benefits of that program vary from one to another. This will provide useful information on the various means that participants will have used to achieve selfsufficiency. This type of information will be essential in order to determine whether a program of that kind should be implemented on a permanent basis and how it should be designed and targeted.
The second project, New Brunswick at Work, is geared directly to welfare recipients who do not have a high level of education. The help provided by the government of New Brunswick, in co-operation with the federal government, will be tailored and geared to individual needs. Under that project $177 million will be used to improve the level of education of participants.
In its first year the project will enable 1,000 welfare recipients to participate in all kinds of programs dealing with literacy, occupational training and on-the-job training. This project will be financed by the Departments of Income Assistance and Advanced Education and Training of New Brunswick, jointly with Employment and Immigration Canada, as well as Health and Welfare Canada.
The savings in welfare benefits that would otherwise be paid to participants will be deposited in a fund which will be used to pay for training and for program related expenses.
Our third initiative is the renewal of the Canada-New Brunswick Agreement to improve employability of welfare recipients. Under this agreement each level of government will contribute up to $45 million, for a total of $90 million.
This initiative is based on a comprehensive approach aimed at helping people improve their employability, as well as facilitating access to federal and provincial programs and services.
These three projects mark the beginning of a new direction in social policies. Indeed we are more and more aware of the fact that social programs must promote
self-sufficiency and work. It is no longer appropriate to promote dependency and exclusion from the workplace for those who are capable of working and are willing to do so. For too many years, we have encouraged many Canadians to accept dependency at the expense of self-sufficiency. Therefore our priority must be to promote independence and personal freedom.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but I must interrupt the minister who will have a little more than six minutes left to speak after Question Period.
It being eleven o'clock, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
[Stage Direction]
4-H CLUBS
Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Madam Speaker, the United Nations has told us what many of us already knew, that Canada, no matter what our problems, is the very best place in the world to live. We cannot be complacent about that, especially those of us who were elected to help govern this great nation and to chart its course for the future.
We have a duty and an accepted responsibility to coming generations to leave them a country and a world that is in better condition than our generation found it.
Many of our future leaders are active now in Canada's 4-H clubs. I am delighted to have as guests here today a group of outstanding 4-H club members from Durham constituency. They represent Canada's future and they demonstrate that our nation will be in extremely capable hands.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Madam Speaker, the ice is packed solid along the Labrador coast and will be until the end of June. Yet unemployment insurance to fishermen will run out on May 15. The Government of Canada forces fishermen in Labrador to go for six weeks without income.

Declining fish stocks are doing an excellent job of cutting off the income of these people, yet the Government of Canada exploits a tragic situation by denying financial support to men and women who are trapped by nature and by the unemployment insurance system.
There will be no riots or demonstrations along the Labrador coast, but the hurt and the anger is there. It is real and it is justified.
Once more I call on the government to rectify this injustice and extend unemployment insurance on the Labrador coast until the end of June.


NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Madam Speaker, throughout this National Forest Week the House has been reminded of the many benefits Canadians reap from our most valuable natural resource. The Minister of Forestry has been travelling the breadth of Canada from coast to coast joining in celebrations with thousands of Canadians as we pay tribute to our forest heritage.
This past week, special activities were organized and promoted across the nation in hundreds of small towns and cities. As Canadians, as stewards of a forest nation, it is our shared duty to recognize and understand the legacy, the importance and wise management of our forests.
I call on all Canadians to care for and use our priceless forests as the national treasure they truly are.


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, the outbreak of violence in Toronto revealed the existence of a serious unemployment problem among Canada's youth.
Today Statistics Canada reports that youth unemployment has reached 18.7 per cent in urban areas. This deplorable state of affairs creates a sense of hopelessness and aimlessness among our young people, our future leaders. Yet we know from past experience that young people are quite capable of being constructive contributors to Canadian society.
Do you remember, Madam Speaker, the Company of Young Canadians, Katimavik, Environment 2000, Youth Opportunities Program and the Local Initiatives Program? They demonstrated that young people can make a fine contribution if given the opportunity to do so.
Therefore, we urge the government to create youth employment programs and give our young people the opportunity to participate in the building of Canadian society.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada has cut $217 million from the Canadian Jobs Strategy funding. It is ordering the community training groups to take only UI recipients. This cuts out from training many sole support mothers, many immigrants, all people who have either had no chance to qualify for unemployment insurance or have used up their unemployment insurance entitlement.
Further, the government has ripped $1.8 billion from the premiums paid by workers and employers into unemployment insurance, cutting back their benefits so as to use them for training.
By contrast, the government of Ontario has announced funding for both jobs and job training. Job Training Fund, $1.1 billion over three years; Jobs Ontario Capital Fund, $2.3 billion over five years; Jobs Ontario Homes Fund, 20,000 new non-profit housing units. That will make a total of about 90,000 new jobs this year. It can be done even during a recession and I urge the federal government to get off its excuses and start funding jobs and training.


SUPPLY MANAGEMENT
Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture have been fighting an uphill battle to maintain the integrity of our supply management system at the GATT talks. It appears now that our efforts may be paying off as news from Geneva indicates a deal could be in the works to save our marketing boards.
May 8, 1992

Under this new proposal the European Community has eased its position on converting border restrictions to tariffs calling instead for a deal that would include 90 per cent of what the European Economic Community first sought.
The Minister of Agriculture welcomes this change in attitude on the part of the EEC noting that: "If the European Community wants to leave out 10 per cent, as long as they are not export subsidies, I would trade them for leaving out supply management".
This is good news for supply management in this country and is further evidence of this government's continuing support for Canadian farmers.


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CHEQUES
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, recently the Minister of Supply and Services was quoted as saying that he is thinking of imposing a service charge on government cheques. The minister explained this fee would recoup cheque printing and mailing costs and encourage automatic bank deposit.
I am astounded the minister is even contemplating such an aggressive idea. Employers in the private and voluntary sectors do not expect their employees to absorb the costs of printing cheques. It is unfair of the government to expect the recipients of federal cheques or federal employees to carry the burden.
How can the minister expect senior citizens on a fixed income, who received a negligible 37 cents per month increase this year, to pay for the luxury of receiving their cheques?
How can he levy a cheque fee on an unemployment insurance recipient? How does he expect people without bank accounts to take advantage of automatic depositing?
I call on the minister to abandon his plan and to look at other ways to save money.


SENATE REFORM
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Madam Speaker, I rise once again to speak to my constituents in the
Lethbridge federal electoral district concerning Senate reform.
The current Senate has virtually the same powers as this House of Commons yet does not often exercise these powers because by being appointed they lack political legitimacy. However once elected they will have political legitimacy and will exercise their powers fully.
Therefore I believe the Triple-E proposal is not in Alberta's best interest and, indeed, is plain dangerous. The reason is that a Triple-E Senate will transfer to 1 per cent of the population some 31 per cent of Senate seats.
Viewed another way, it will transfer to 9 per cent of the population who generate 10 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product an absolute majority of the Senate seats.
This is a radical shift of power which is not the best interests of Alberta and indeed not in the best interests of Canada as a whole.


FISHERIES
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Madam Speaker, on the east coast the Department of Fisheries is trying to fix something that ain't broke. For generations lobster fishermen at Rustico and North Rustico, Prince Edward Island, have stored their traps on wharfs now owned by DFO. These wharfs are social centres where traps are repaired, where tourists take photographs and talk with the local people.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans claims there is a fire risk. The local fire department says there is no risk. The people in these communities are unanimous in asking DFO to butt out.
On the west coast, Powell River and Tofino are losing their fishery patrol vessels, the Bonilla Rock and the Seal Rock. DFO tells us that one replacement vessel will be located at Tofino. One vessel could patrol either area but not two areas so far apart. Enforcement will be minimal. Illegal fishing will increase. Monitoring of streams and creeks will suffer. Supervision is important. Our west coast salmon fishery is a $1 billion dollar industry.
We must not let it go the way of the east coast cod fishery.


MOTHER'S DAY
Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Trois-Rivieres):: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to draw the attention of the House today to the fact that Sunday, May 10, is Mother's Day. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the mothers who helped improve the quality of life of our country, who worked, taught, educated and cared for their children so they would grow up to be proud and prosperous Canadians.
I would like to extend my very special thanks to the mothers in the riding of Trois-Rivieres, especially those who will be alone this Sunday.
I also urge all children to visit their mothers and celebrate Mother's Day this Sunday.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to wish you a happy Mother's Day, and a happy Mother's Day, and many thanks to all mothers in the riding of Trois-Rivieres and across Canada.


ECONOMIC SITUATION IN GLENGARRY- PRESCOTT- RUS SELL
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, in 1984, the Conservative government's campaign platform was based mainly on the following two themes: national reconciliation and economic renewal. Eight years later Canadians are still waiting for it to happen.
In my own riding, in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, for instance, the promised economic renewal has yet to show its face. In Prescott County 1,511 were unemployed in 1990 which was far too many; 11,912 were unemployed in 1991; and today, 2,197, which is 14 per cent of the labour force in the county. The situation is not any better in Glengarry where 1,300 people are now on unemployment insurance.
I beg and beseech the government to set up economic renewal programs for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and for eastern Ontario as my colleagues and I have been asking for the past two years.


YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, an issue that is often raised by my constituents in Medicine Hat and I am sure in many other ridings relates to young offenders. The number of crimes being committed by young offenders is escalating and our judicial system appears to have increasing problems in addressing the situation.
As parents, most of us realize that part of growing up is testing the limits of the system. Educators in our schools face this on a daily basis. Those in authority must deal with young people on the streets of our towns and cities.
At one time there were standards or moral and ethical limits which while not drafted in law were boundaries which were seldom crossed. Our permissive society has changed and eroded many of those values: respect for authority, property of others and the rights of the individual, to name a few.
This problem crosses federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions. Police at the local level often say that the paper work takes more time than the penalty. Provincial judges are reluctant to render a penalty to suit the crime because incarceration in the adult penal system would release young offenders and even-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, the hon. member's time has expired.


STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA
David Barrett: Madam Speaker, I rise today to inform the House that this year of 1992 marks the 400th anniversary of the discovery of the Strait of Juan de Fuca by the great Spanish explorer and seaman Juan de Fuca.
The Strait of Juan de Fuca is host to a large volume of local and international sea traffic and has proven invaluable to the citizens and businesses on Vancouver Island and on the British Columbia mainland.
The historical impact of Juan de Fuca's discoveries is evident in the fact that not only is my riding of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca partly named after him, but also many organizations, businesses, hospitals and school districts on Vancouver Island.
May 8, 1992

I send my best wishes, and I hope the wishes of this whole House, to all those involved in festivities marking this important milestone. I was not present when he first arrived.


BRIGHTER FUTURES
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, on Monday of this week the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced Brighter Futures, a call to action for all Canadians on behalf of Canada's children.
One important component is a child development initiative which seeks to reduce conditions of risk in which many children, particularly young children, find themselves. This represents a $500 million commitment over the next five years.
I can tell all members of this House that the initiatives which focus on prevention, promotion and protection as well as partnership through community action have been well received in my riding of Sarnia-Lambton. "It is a terrific thing. Any opportunity to increase funding and services for children is more than welcome", said the executive director of the Sarnia-Lambton Centre for Children and Youth. "Any money that is invested in helping children is a positive move. I would think this will be applauded by the Children's Aid Society," said a board member of the local Children's Aid Society.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to make this statement.


POVERTY
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La lievre):: Madam Speaker, according to recent studies more and more people are concerned about the economy and are afraid they will have to live in poverty.
For the first time since the depression people are afraid they will drop below the poverty level, be out of work and have no prospects of finding any work.
Oral Questions
This kind of fear which undermines the confidence of the individual and affects our human dignity is very destructive to society as a whole.
The situation demands drastic solutions, but unfortunately, our governments refuse to take a long hard look at what should be done.
I am in favour of governments, industry and social agencies meeting to exchange ideas and to find a way out of this crisis.


WORLD RED CROSS DAY
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Madam Speaker, today is World Red Cross Day which is commemorated by the International Red Cross and the Red Crescent movement in 149 countries around the world.
In Canada the Canadian Red Cross Society is marking the day with flag raising ceremonies, mayors' proclamations, and special events across the country.
This is the second year of the "Light of Darkness" campaign focusing on victims of war. Ninety per cent of today's victims of war are civilians. They are primarily women, children and the elderly.
The International Red Cross and the Red Crescent delegates work in troubled areas around the world like Cambodia, Somalia and Yugoslavia.
In the past year 38 Canadians worked abroad on many of these projects. I commend the work of these citizens, the Canadian Red Cross Society, the International Red Cross, and the Red Crescent movement on their efforts to "Light the Darkness" for victims of war and others in need around the world.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
A year ago the government told us the recession was over. The deficit is up. Economic growth forecasts have been reduced. There are 180,000 fewer Canadians working today than were working a year ago, 220,000 people

Oral Questions
with no work in Toronto and 206,000 people with no work in Montreal.
How does the government justify failing to take any measures to help our ailing economy? How much longer can even this government tolerate the human misery it is causing?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member stands up and talks negatively time after time after time when there are many good signs showing up in the economy. We are coming out of a very difficult economic period which we all knew was coming and which we have come through.
The unemployment rate dropped, albeit a very small drop today. One of the good signs within that statistic is that there are 34,000 more manufacturing jobs and 24,000 more jobs relating to trade. That is a very important sign. Plus earlier in the week the business confidence level rose some 16 per cent. All these are good signs leading us out of a very difficult time.
If we all talked a little more positively about this great country we live in I think we would change attitudes and moods and help to encourage growth rather than discourage it like the hon. member tends to do all the time.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, the truth is that this month 71,000 Canadians have given up looking for work altogether. Seventy-one thousand in one month.
Unemployment is increasing in Quebec City, in Montreal, in Sherbrooke, in Trois-Rivieres, and in Chicoutimi. Does he not realize his budget forecasts are out of whack? People who line up at soup kitchens do not pay taxes.


John Horton McDermid: First of all, Madam Speaker, budget control is not out of whack. The hon. member should be very careful in what she has to say because the final quarter figures are not in yet. I would ask her to be patient on that particular matter.
We as a government are continuing our work in encouraging employment. There was a major contract just recently awarded to Bell Helicopter in the province of Quebec which will have economic spinoffs in many provinces in this country but especially in the province of Quebec. There has been a major contract in Ontario just let which will not only preserve jobs but create jobs.
The federal government is doing its part. It behoves all of us to talk positively about the position Canada is in with the lowest inflation rate we have seen in three decades and the lowest interest rates in 20 years.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Oh, oh.


John Horton McDermid: As usual the hon. member for Willow-dale is delivering the best speech of his life from the seat of his pants. I might say that if we talked a little more positively about things it certainly would help the mood in this country.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, the minister keeps repeating the same old song. His answers are unjustified and ancient.
The reality is that 71,000 Canadians this month simply gave up looking for work. That is why the numbers have changed. It is not because there are more people working; it is because people have simply given up all hope.
How can the minister continue to give these kinds of answers when he knows that Canadians are crying out for a real solution? Why does he not at least adopt the municipal works program that could put thousands of Canadians back to work today?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, the hon. member wants the three levels of government to spend billions of dollars. We can get it from two areas. We can either raise taxes like Saskatchewan and Ontario did rather dramatically-and they have increased their public works expenditures in Ontario by just a few hundred thousand dollars-or we can also increase our deficit.
The Canadian people have told us loud and clear that they want the deficit down rather dramatically. That is what we are doing.
The hon. member said that I am not using current figures, that I am using some historical figures. Let me give her some current good news figures, if I might. New motor vehicle sales rose 2.6 per cent in April, following a 4.2 per cent increase in the first quarter. Those are today's facts. Housing starts rose 7.6 per cent in April.
May 8, 1992

Those are today's facts. Sales of existing homes increased 9.2 per cent. Those are today's facts.
The hon. member should start talking more positively about the economy.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister of State for Finance. If he wants to have people talk positively then why does he not have a few words with his colleague, the Minister of Finance? Just yesterday the Minister of Finance admitted that the foundations of his budget, the projections in it for economic growth and the deficit were wrong. This will come as no surprise to anyone who is living through today's unemployment figures.
If the foundations of the budget, the projections on economic growth are wrong, does this not mean that the whole budget is wrong, the whole budget is off base? Why will the minister not admit this and get the government to bring in new measures now to get the economy growing strongly and get Canadians back to work?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, it is true that estimates have been somewhat modified from the budget, but I might point out that holds true for every other country in the world. The recovery throughout the world is not happening as fast as we would like, as everyone throughout the world would like. These figures have been lessened somewhat because of that particular thing.
As the hon. member knows, our largest customer takes 70 per cent of our exports, the United States. Its recovery has been slow. That is very important for Canada. It has slowed us down.
The important point is that even though those figures have come down, we are still in the best position of any country in the world to come out of the economic difficulties we have been through. That has been repeated by the OECD, by the IMF, by the World Bank, and by independent think-tanks outside government. They said we are in the best position.
Oral Questions
Even though the growth figures are reduced somewhat, we will still have the best growth in the OECD coming out of this. I think that is a very positive thing for us to be talking about.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Finance.
He talks about important points. An important point is that in confirming the new forecast for lower growth his colleague, the Minister of Finance, said about the economy: "It could be weaker still".
Minister of State for Finance, meet the Minister of Finance. Now that the Minister of Finance has admitted that the economy "could be weaker still", what is the government doing about it? Is it not the government's job to have the economy and Canadians working? The million and a half people in this country without work demand and are entitled to a better answer than he is giving, a better answer right now.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, in the 1981-82 period I sat in the House and watched the hon. member on the treasury benches throw money at problems. It did not solve anything in those days. We saw interest rates rise to 22 per cent. We saw unemployment at a rate of 14 per cent or 15 per cent. We saw inflation take off in this country because of those actions.
We are not doing that. We are not following in the manner the Liberals want us to follow because we learned the lessons of the early 1980s. That was not the way to solve the problems.
The way to solve the problems is to get the basics right. We have them in place now, and we are positioned to come out of the economic difficult times that we are in, in very good shape. That is what we are going to continue to do.
We are pleased that manufacturing employment has risen some 34,000 jobs. Trade related jobs are up some
24,000.	That is still not nearly enough, but it is moving in the right direction and we are encouraged by that.

May 8, 1992
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, last night and early this morning Canadians were shocked to learn that the RCMP had paid an informant in the cabinet of an elected provincial government in an effort to collect political information.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Is the minister aware of the policy of the previous government by which the RCMP used informants to gather political information about a legitimately elected government in Canada?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, the events to which the hon. member refers and which have been the subject of news reports in the last 24 hours refer to events that took place over 20 years ago.
All the activities of the security service of the RCMP were very closely examined by the McDonald commission of inquiry. The government of the day decided as a result of that inquiry to establish a separate security intelligence service under ministerial control with independent external review.
I believe the knowledge of the government of the time was very much a reflection of the McDonald commission and that the government of the time took the appropriate steps in ensuring that such incidents would not happen again.
I can say that the CSIS Act, because it was CSIS that was established to be the security intelligence service, specifically prohibits the service from investigating activities solely constituting lawful advocacy, protest and dissent.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, the minister says that this happened 20 years ago. Of course it happened 20 years ago and as recently as 1981.
I think Canadians are appalled at this revelation last night and this morning. Therefore, in order to remove this pall that now hangs over the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and perhaps even the government, will the minister assure this House and the people of Canada that her government has no policy and certainly no practice that would see the RCMP using paid political informants to gather political information regarding a
legitimate, elected provincial government or any other elected government?


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I would repeat again that as a result of the inquiry into the actions that the hon. member refers to, the Government of Canada created an independent security intelligence service. That security intelligence service is strictly governed by an act which prohibits the kind of investigation he is talking about.
Moreover, there is an independent review mechanism which consists of Privy Councillors of all political stripes of this country and which from time to time also communicates with parliamentary committees.
I believe there is both a policy in place and a mechanism in place to assure Canadians of the proper use of our security intelligence service in the protection of lawful activities of political advocacy or dissent.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the Minister of Justice for her answer, but I would like to expand on the situation we learned about last night just a bit further.
In the past there have been provincial governments that have not been of the mainstream parties. In the case of my own party, the CCF was involved in many progressive, daring new legislative initiatives. In my own case in British Columbia, we too were involved in such initiatives between 1972 and 1975.
I would like to ask the minister to inform this House whether or not to her knowledge, or if she could find out, governments of the day are continuing to do the same thing when legislation is introduced by a provincial government, that they are using informants to gather political information for political purposes.


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I cannot add anything to what I have already said. This was a question that deeply concerned Canadians when the McDonald commission took place and presented its results. The government of the day responded by creating an independent security intelligence service under ministerial control and with an independent review.
May 8, 1992

The independent review mechanism is there. If the hon. member has any specific concerns there are mechanisms and devices to address those concerns. The process is in place. The policy is in place, secured by legislation and a process of review.
I think there is really nothing more to add to that process.


YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the acting minister of employment. The youth unemployment rate stands at 16.8 per cent which means that over 400,000 young Canadians are standing in the unemployment lines of this nation. Many of them feel neglected and alienated by this government.
When will it become a vehicle of opportunity for young Canadians?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, if we compare the youth unemployment rate with what it was when we came to power in 1984, we can say that unemployment among our young people has gone down. We can also tell our young people that the best way for them to have a decent future is to correct the state of our finance. We are working on it, and we will succeed.
We also have a message for Canada's youth: keep acquiring the knowledge and skills you need to do the kind of jobs for which training is necessary in a new world market. I especially want to say: "Never give up looking for work because we can help through our Department of Employment and Immigration, with our work adjustment and job entry programs".


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Madam Speaker, the minister's answers are old and tired just like her government.
Young people in Canada are disillusioned and disappointed by a system that does not provide them with job opportunities. Young people in this country want a new contract.
Oral Questions
When will this government stop wasting our most important human resource? When will it do something to get our young people off the streets and into jobs?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, we have summer employment programs for young people to help them acquire job experience during their school holidays. These programs work very well. The budgets have been increased for this year. It is an opportunity for young people to acquire skills and over the years make a career for themselves in organizations that are working in partnership with the federal government.


MONTREAL'S ECONOMY
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, the recession continues in Montreal, where the unemployment rate is now up to 12.9 per cent. This means that in April, 3,000 more people in Montreal were out of work. In the Montreal area, 100 jobs per day were lost during the month of April which means four more unemployed every hour of every day, for 30 days. Why has the government refused to take part in a municipal infrastructure strategy to create jobs as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition and the mayor of Montreal?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, perhaps I may remind the hon. member that the government has done a great deal in the Montreal area. Not long ago I heard the Quebec industry minister explain his cluster theory. He gave several examples of a constructive approach to development, especially the Montreal region. I was not surprised to hear that the only examples of sectors that worked were those initiated by the federal government. I am thinking of the aviation industry, pharmacies and so forth.
The government is doing a lot, although the fact remains that Montreal still faces some very serious problems which are of great concern to us. We are discussing this on an ongoing basis with the Government of Quebec.

May 8, 1992
Oral Questions


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, the minister just said the government is doing a lot. If that is the case, why did 8,000 people in Montreal give up hope in April alone? Why is Montreal's unemployment rate up to almost 13 per cent? If you are doing a lot, why does the unemployment rate not go down?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, we are doing a lot, but the government does not create jobs. This technique has been tried in Eastern Europe, for instance, where the government had shoe factories and automobile plants, and it was a total disaster. The government can help businesses, which create the jobs, by bringing interest rates down, and that is what we are doing. It means creating conditions that will make us competitive, and that is what we are doing.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration.
Labour force information for April 1992 shows the continuing exodus of workers from the labour market who have simply given up looking for work in response to dismal job prospects.
The participation rate has declined for the sixth straight month. The continuing decline of employment means that 188,000 jobs have been lost since October 1991.
What is the minister prepared to do immediately to put people in this country back to work?


Monique Vézina: First of all, Madam Speaker, with the Labour Force Development Strategy we can give workers who are looking for employment a range of programs suited to their needs.
I again ask workers who are looking for employment not to lose hope and give up their search. With this strategy we were able to spend $3 billion on training and
adjustment last Ayear. There is a social consensus from all quarters that we should have a more active program and work in partnership. I could give many examples from Quebec, since I am much more in Quebec as a result of my responsibility, showing that by working together as partners, we can have hope and maintain this culture of hope. I repeat what my colleague just said about having a positive approach. Let us be a little more positive and try to create hope and together we can succeed.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Madam Speaker, Canadians have not given up hope; they want jobs. They are still looking for work, but there is none. I therefore want to ask a supplementary question.

People become part of the unemployment statistics by qualifying for unemployment insurance. Is it not true that there are thousands of people who want to work but are no longer part of the statistics because they are now on welfare?
This government is distorting the figures by using only those statistics that indicate those people who are on unemployment insurance. It is trying to cloud the issue to make itself look better in the eyes of Canadians by not using the real figures which are closer to 20 per cent unemployment.


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, what we are being told here is quite wrong. Keep in mind that we are just getting out of a world-wide recession. Major restructuring is under way, which of course means that some jobs are lost and new ones are created. That is what we are working on as a government. We do not forget the unemployed. We are setting up programs to be able to provide adequate training. We are convinced that we will succeed and of course we ask workers to apply for these programs. We call on those with projects to create employment. We are there to provide training and we are trying to do that.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board who just answered a question from my
May 8, 1992

colleague from Saint-Leonard about the economic slump in the greater Montreal area.
Why does the government not agree to be a partner? I hear the minister from the Rimouski region who just said that her government is seeking partnership. One way to bring back employment quickly is major public works. We know that in the municipalities, as the mayor of Montreal said clearly himself, it would be possible to create thousands of jobs very quickly in the next few weeks if a whole municipal infrastructure program was launched.
Why does his government, which loves talking about partnership, not act with the municipal and provincial authorities to rebuild municipal infrastructure, not only in Montreal but throughout the country?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, one of the main reasons is that this government, as a result of very bad Liberal management, inherited a debt which leaves it very little room to move. That is a fact. From the beginning the Conservative government has been busy putting the government's finances back in order. We are solving the problem; after 1994-95 we will no longer have to borrow.
But we still have a deficit in fields of exclusive federal jurisdiction. Instead of spending their money on extremely luxurious facilities, some municipalities have invested in infrastructure like water supply systems and so on. Other municipalities have made different choices.
Therefore I think it would be very inappropriate to put everyone on the same footing and say that we would help municipalities that have spent wisely and not put their money in stadiums or that sort of thing.
We think it is a municipal responsibility and municipalities have spent very little on it. If it is really a priority for them, the figures should show that over the years.
In any case, the government is always prepared to look at what it might do with the provincial authorities based on what it can afford. There is no question of borrowing
Oral Questions
billions, which we do not have, to add to the debt and next year lose the ability to help Canadians in need.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, it is really pathetic to hear a government minister go back eight years to justify his incompetence and inaction in creating jobs today in 1992.
If the minister says there was a large deficit in 1983-84, fine, but will he at least have the decency to admit that he is responsible for the government's annual deficit of $31 billion in 1991-92? He cannot blame it on those who were in power ten years ago.
If we have economic problems today, they are due to the Conservatives' incompetence and nothing else. I ask the minister if, given the terribly high unemployment, throughout Canada today and especially in Montreal, he will have the heart to restore the home-building programs that are so necessary for job creation. It is well known that the construction industry drives the economy and when construction is booming, so is the economy.
I ask the minister to restore the home building programs as soon as possible; they will provide the community, co-operative and social housing that the people need.


Gilles Loiselle: Yes, I see. Yesterday, it was roads, then infrastructure, and now housing.
Where will the government get the money? By raising taxes. Unfortunately Canadians think that they are already taxed enough.
The hon. member also says that we have been in power for seven years, which is true, and that we should have solved the problem. But the problem which the Liberals left us is so big that it is very difficult. We have turned the situation around. We were unable to pay even the employees' salaries; we had to borrow $16 billion. We started with minus 16, we cut and went up to minus 12, minus 8, zero. This year, thanks to the government's competence, we have a $12 billion operating surplus. However, the debt eats up these surpluses and forces us to continue to run a deficit.
Only good management will get us out of this fix.

May 8, 1992
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-THnity- Conception):: Madam Speaker, last February 21, as a result of the northern cod reduction the processing plant in Catalina-Port Union in my riding was closed. Seventy communities were affected, 1,100 people lost their jobs overnight and those 80 families had no form of compensation because they were not covered by unemployment insurance.
The same day I asked the minister what form of compensation could be expected and I got a general, non-committal answer. I have asked a couple of questions since and I still have no specifics.
I ask the minister this. The government has had two and a half months to think about this. Can I expect some form of compensation? When will this be announced and what form will it take?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, as Minister of State for Employment, I am always concerned when I hear of situations like these. We could of course look for a way out in conjunction with the private sector. A variety of programs exist within the department, as we have said time and again, to help workers find a new placement and to help companies forced to proceed to massive layoffs carry out studies and assess what the future holds for them. That is what we are working toward.
I will take note of the question which is very specific and falls within the jurisdiction of my colleague and will get back to the member on this as soon as possible.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed in the minister's answer. She is normally very compassionate and caring. This has not been a very good answer to the question. My heart really goes out to those people who have to watch and listen to these kinds of answers.
In March the minister of fisheries announced a task force on adjustment programs for those people involved in the fisheries and in the loss of their jobs. He also announced that there would be a $45 million fund available for pilot studies.
These people to whom I refer, and a lot of them are watching this today, do not need a pilot study or a pilot project to tell them when to get up in the morning. They have no jobs to go to. They have very little opportunity to find work. There is none whatsoever. They have no food on the table and now they are beginning to lose hope.
I ask this minister one more time to put a face on the situation and try to show some compassion for those people who, through no fault of their own, are in trouble and are crying out for help.


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, when you think of the $55 million assistance and all the other programs we have provided. We have come up with special initiatives geared toward fishing and other affected areas. We must of course work for the present. Look at as many pilot projects as you will, the fact remains that it is important to sit down with the employer and the worker and figure out precisely what their needs are for the future. It takes creativity and pilot projects, and that is what studies are for. Let us try and find new ways to meet future needs. For the time being, however, what we are trying to do within the limits we have in this government is to focus on the training and adjustment of the workers, men and women.


TOURISM
Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Madam Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of National Revenue.
This morning he announced the new pre-clearance program for cruise ship passengers in Vancouver and other coastal ports to speed up the access of tourists to our Vancouver shops. I commend him very much for that particular change. Essentially it will be a red-door, green-door type of procedure. This is very important.
May 8, 1992

The more important problem that we have with our tourists coming into Canada is the long line-up of automobiles at the border. I was wondering if the minister, or whoever is answering for him this morning, could tell us whether there are any new creative ideas to get our American tourists into Canada faster so that they can spend their dollars in our shops?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we have been working quite closely with the shipping industry on these specific problems regarding taxation and so on with ships that come into ports and discharge passengers here and then carry on to other ports of call.
We have worked out a taxation agreement suitable to the cruise industries that will in fact encourage them to land in Canada and to use our ports as points of interest for tourists. Anyone who has travelled and seen the success of boat tours around the world will know that this will be a great advantage especially to our ports on the east and west coasts. There is some interest now in cruising the Great Lakes as well.
We are looking forward to increased tourism and increased dollars into Canada.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship for his active intervention and participation in the process that is now going on in Ontario in co-operation with the Ontario government.
My question is for the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs. He will recall that a meeting was convened in Toronto last fall to consult members of the ethnocultural and minority groups which among some, including the chairman, was considered unsatisfactory because it was not an opportunity for a real exchange.
I understand that there is a meeting to be held this afternoon. I would ask the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs whether this is an indication that the government is prepared to discuss with minority
Oral Questions
groups the question of a revision to section 27 that would respond to the plea for a concrete recognition of equality in the Constitution?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, throughout this constitutional process with the active help of members on all sides of the House of Commons, I have been trying to consult as broad a group of Canadians as I can. One of the ways that has been done is by trying to arrange meetings with particular groups which we knew had particular concerns.
I would like to express publicly my appreciation to the Canadian Ethnocultural Council for its help in putting this afternoon's meeting together. The purpose of the meeting is for me to give an update on some of the discussions that are occurring in the multilateral constitutional negotiations.
Naturally, if there is a view put forward, I will be there to listen to it. If there is a consensus around that view it will naturally have more weight. But I cannot make any guarantees either in the House now or in that meeting later this afternoon as to what the multilateral process might decide.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I presume that the government will look at the position now taken by the Government of Ontario that section 27 should be supported in the constitutional process.
I put it to the minister that I am sure he understands. Given the sensitivity of the present environment, it is important in these kinds of discussions that the people participating, particularly from the black community, be as representative as possible, and that they be not coloured by apparently partisan choices.
Before I go on I want to thank the minister for having added one person to that group who was very representative of the community in Toronto. Does the minister not think that it is going to be seen as peculiar that up until now the two Afro-Canadian representatives were both from Nova Scotia, both Conservatives, one a member of the Constitution committee, a senator? Yet no other visible minority members in this place who could have contributed by virtue of their credibility in their own communities were included in the invitation to this meeting.

May 8, 1992
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I think I can best answer that in two ways, first, by making clear to the House that this meeting was requested by my office and the organization of it began before recent events to which the hon. member referred.
Second, I can only say that within minutes after the member approached me earlier today behind the curtains in this House and expressed his concern about participation in the meeting and gave me the name of a person whom he thought should be present, I had my office invite that person to take part in the meeting this afternoon.


CHILDREN
Kenneth Albert James: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister replying for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
On Monday the minister announced the components of the Brighter Futures campaign, the federal government's action plan for children in Canada. One component, the child development initiative, represents a $500 million commitment to help reduce conditions of risk for our children.
The opposition though has been quick to scoff at the $500 million commitment. But I have found that it has been well received in my community, especially from organizations like the Sarnia-Lambton Centre for Children and Youth.
Could the minister tell the House whether the positive grassroots response in my community of Sarnia-Lambton is indicative of what she has been hearing from other Canadians?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, this comment comes as a breath of fresh air in this House. Finally, people are positive and approve of what we are doing. It makes my day.
Indeed, the Brighter Futures initiative was very welcomed in several communities. This initiative flows from this government's desire to help the most vulnerable children and their families.
This initiative calls upon the involvement of various stakeholders in the social environment and has four major parts, namely partnership, promotion, prevention and protection. Over $500 millions are made available to communities, community groups, and good for them if people can avail themselves of our programs and do a bit of prevention.


THE ENVIRONMENT
M. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister for the Environment.
This week Canada has been negotiating the draft climate change convention. We have just been told that this convention will not be internationally binding and will contain no specific goals and timetables for stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions.
Why did the Canadian government give in to American pressure and approve a meaningless agreement that has no teeth?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, discussions with respect to the negotiations in question are continuing. It may well be that both the question and my answer may prove to be eclipsed by subsequent events.
What I can say is that Canada entered into these negotiations with some very specific objectives in mind. We were committed to the establishment of greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. We were anxious to ensure that as many nations of the world as possible be committed to that process. The problem of climatic change is a global one and therefore the solution must also be global in nature.
Furthermore, we were determined that some necessary financial assistance and technology transfer would be available to developing countries.
At this time we have every reason to be encouraged by the results. There is every indication that a very substantial number of countries are going to make a commitment going into and at Rio. We are very pleased by the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada will be a part of that process. We are particularly pleased that there will be a global response to what is a global problem.

May 8, 1992


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Madam Speaker, failure at the UNCED conference in Brazil will have terrible long-term consequences for the ecosystem of the world. However, there is one thing worse and that is failure camouflaged by grand sounding, empty agreements designed not to pull the world back from the brink of environmental disaster but to hide the fact that we are about to plunge over the precipice. That is what any agreement without firm timetables and targets will do. That describes the agreement that was announced in climate change in New York.
The parliamentary secretary says that the agreement has not been signed. Will the parliamentary secretary give us an undertaking today that this government will not go along with the farce, that it will not sign an agreement that gives the green light to business as usual? Will the government give us a firm undertaking that it will not sign an agreement without firm timetables, without firm targets, without teeth?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is being unduly pessimistic. He will recall there was an agreement, the 1985 Vienna Convention, which started international co-operation dealing with stratospheric ozone depletion.
That particular agreement might not have won the support of the hon. member at that particular time had he been a member of the House. In fact it has lead today to some very specific timetables and some very specific targets with respect to the control and elimination of CFCs.
We in the international community as a result of a process that began back in the early 1980s are on the eve of a very important resolution on the production and use of CFCs which has been a real threat to the ozone layer.
I predict that with the co-operation of the international community we will come out of Rio with a similar kind of promising agreement.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, two Canadians, David Spencer and Christine Lamont, are in Brazilian prisons. We have seen the pictures of torture with those people involved.
Amnesty International says torture is endemic in Brazil. It can happen any time, anywhere, in police stations, in police vehicles, in prison, and in secret.
In light of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs saw her way clear to leap to the assistance of a convicted murderer on death row in Texas but refuses to help Christine and David, would the minister please explain the double standard?


An hon. member:: That is shameful.


George Saunders Rideout: It is true.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: The hon. member is not accurate in his statements. In fact, the consular services of the Canadian government in Brazil were offered. I understand the legal remedies in Brazil have not been proceeded with to their limit.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, we have in process and indeed signed at our end a prisoner exchange program and there is simply not the evidence to point out that the trial was anything but fair. By our standards the sentence seems long.
In terms of the individual in Texas we would, wherever a Canadian was sentenced to death, ask for clemency on behalf of that. We are not asking that the individual in Texas be released. We are not claiming he is innocent. We are asking that he not be put to death in keeping with the standards we maintain in this country.


STUDENT EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
One of the good pieces of news with regard to youth in our country is the fact that approximately 91 per cent of community college graduates received employment in their own field despite the fact there is 16.8 per cent unemployment among youth at this time, and there is a

May 8, 1992
Routine Proceedings
waiting list of one, two and three years for people trying to get in community college programs.
Why has the government cut funding in terms of its direct access buying for these programs? Why with high unemployment, with a proven commodity, a proven program that provides jobs, why has the government cut funding in this area?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I can see that within at least the Public Service we have been going through a difficult period and we have been downsizing which has not made things easy.
We have very creative programs we are managing whereby we set aside a certain number of positions-I believe it is 300-where we train people and help them fit in our organization.
I know we may not be in a position with the downsizing within the civil service to do as much as we would like but we are very attentive to that to maintaining access.


POINT OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is directed to my hon. friend.
The government House leader will know today that a Federal Court of Appeal has ruled in British Columbia early this morning. It has overturned a lower court's decision that would have required the federal government to conduct an environmental assessment on the Kemano project. He will appreciate how serious this is for the future of not only British Columbia and for Canada generally. Could he give some indication, perhaps later today or Monday, whether the minister will indicate the government's response to this decision?


Harvie Andre: Let me take care of this before I forget and then I will answer the question. I would like to designate Monday, May 11,1992 as an allotted day.
In response to the question as I indicated just now during Question Period the government was informed that in fact the position we took before the appeal court of British Columbia, that federal regulations and laws in this regard were properly adminisered, has been affirmed by the court so naturally we are pleased to have won that victory.
The Minister of the Environment will want to think about that. As I say, the judgment is literally minutes old. I am sure the hon. member would recognize the Minister of Environment would want to think about it.
Quite probably I will communicate the member's representation that it would be appreciated if early next week the Minister of Environment were able to respond.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, a nomination which has recently been made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(2), it is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


HOUSE MANAGEMENT
[Stage Direction]
34TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 114, I have the honour to present the 34th report of the Standing Committee on House Management. With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this report later today.
May 8, 1992


PRESENTATION OF 35TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 35th report of the Standing Committee on House Management. Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), this report is deemed adopted when laid upon the table.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


INTERNATIONAL TRADE SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour
to move:
That seven Members and two staff of the subcommittee on international trade of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Hade be authorized to travel in Europe from May 16 to May 24,1992, in relation to its study on competitiveness and on Canada's relations with the new Europe.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to present the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: That the Standing Committee on Transport be authorized to travel to the following locations in relation to their study on ports competitiveness: that 8 MPs and 5 staff be allowed to travel to western Canada from June 1 to June 4,1992; that 8 MPs and 5 staff be allowed to travel to eastern Canada from June 7 to June 12,1992 and from June 16 to June 18, 1992; that 5 MPs and 2 staff be
Routine Proceedings
allowed to travel to New York, Washington, D.C. and Baltimore,
Maryland from June 12 to June 16, 1992; and that 4 MPs and 1
staff be allowed to travel to Seattle, Washington on June 4 and 5,
1992.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to present his motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unanimous consent has been denied.


HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, with leave of the House, I move:
That the 34th report of the Standing Committee on House
Management tabled today be concurred in.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House to make this motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am pleased to present a petition duly certified by the clerk of petitions from 30 citizens of the Buckhom and surrounding areas in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton who are concerned about the constitutional process.
These petitioners request the enactment of legislation which would provide for a referendum of the people with respect to constitutional amendments.

May 8, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, among the petitions I wish to table today, there is one from the Club de l'age d'or de Marie-Mediatrice, in my riding of Vanier.
The petitioners are calling on Parliament to press the government to reinstate the Court Challenges Program. As we all know this program must continue to serve as an indispensable tool for the development of constitutional rights and to give equal access for all Canadians to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This program costs less than 10 cents per year and benefits all Canadians.
The petitioners humbly pray that Parliament reconsider the decision to do away with the Court Challenges Program which was giving all Canadians equal access to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today. The first states that many women in Canada are living in poverty after years of homemaking which allowed their husbands to pursue careers without the burden of childbearing and housework.
Many of these women are disentitled by divorce to an equal share of their husbands' federal pension credits accumulated during their marriage.
The petitioners from all over British Columbia call on this Parliament to consider amending all federal superannuation acts in which inequities exist to allow for the retroactive pension credit splitting for all divorced spouses so that they receive one-half of the federal pension credits accumulated by both spouses during their years of marriage.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, my second petition is from citizens in the city of New Westminster British Columbia who state that the post office on Columbia Street in our city provides an excellent and necessary service to all of the residents of New Westminster.
The closing of this post office and its replacement by a commercial service centre for services to business only established two classes of Canadians. This decision which affects the residents of New Westminster was made without any consultation.
These petitioners call on Parliament to halt the plans to close the New Westminster post office on Columbia Street. They do not want it replaced with a commercial service centre.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Madam Speaker, I have a duty to present a petition with regard to the national campaign to support reinstatement of the Court Challenges Program.
As hon. members are aware, this program has been used for the past 15 years. Through this program people had a right to defend their constitutional rights before the courts or at least to have these rights clarified and to obtain recognition through the courts of the language and equality rights in our Constitution.
In the name of these people from Hamilton and the Niagara area, I would respectfully pose this to the House.

The abolition of the Court Challenges Program is a great loss for social justice and equality in our country.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by many residents in Ontario concerning the Court Challenges Program which has allowed many individuals and minority groups to clarify through the court their constitutional, linguistic and equality rights.
The Court Challenges Program continues to be essential in the development of legal procedures involving the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The abolition of the Court Challenges Program is an incalculable loss to equality and social justice in this country.
These petitioners urge the government to consider the advisability of reinstating the Court Challenges Program which helps make the Charter of Rights and Freedoms accessible to all Canadians.
May 8, 1992


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in accordance with Standing Order 36 to present a petition from my constituents of Carleton-Charlotte. It has been certified correct as to form and content by the clerk of petitions.
The constituents call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for: (a) a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government, and, (b) 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. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise today with a petition on behalf of victims and families of those suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. These people are petitioning the government to invest in research to find a solution to this veiy serious illness.
I would add that in addition to the many names on the petition that I have in my hand a very large number, perhaps over 10,000 petitions, were passed directly to the office of the Prime Minister of Canada expressing the concern of many people in Canada about this disease and the need for research into a solution.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, I would also like to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 from a large number of constituents who are expressing great concern about the conduct of refugee claims in Canada.
This has become a particular problem in urban areas. In my own constituency of Ottawa South the waiting period for determination of refugee status is very long. It results in decisions that are seen by many as being rather inhumane when residents of long standing are found not to have refugee status and are sent away from the country.
Routine Proceedings
My petition is to resolve this issue in the earliest possible time frame.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I too have the privilege and honour of presenting a petition on behalf of residents of St. Boniface, Manitoba. This petition relates to the Court Challenges Program and the petitioners are asking Parliament to put pressure on the government to restore the Court Challenges Program in Canada, a program that is very important to language minority groups in the country.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present 21 petitions from every comer of the country.
These petitioners are asking the government to withdraw the 7 per cent GST from hair salons and barber shops because theirs is an important service in terms of personal hygiene and the salary of a hairdresser or barber is directly linked to the number of clients.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 287 and 316.


Mr. Brewin: Since January 1,1989 have any military bases or facilities (a) been transferred to private or public non-govemmental organizations or companies and, if so, has the Department of Public Works done an appraisal of the land and fixtures of these properties and, if so, (i) on what date (ii) by whom (iii) what was the appraised value, (b) been closed but not transferred to the private sector and, if so, (i) what is the appraised value of each property (ii) when was the appraisal done (iii) by whom was the appraisal done?

May 8, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Hon. Elmer Macintosh MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: PART A: Properties transferred to private or public non-governmental organizations.
LOCATION	CLOSED	PURCHASER	PRICE	DATE	VALUE	APPRAISERSummerside, P.E.I.	1992	Slemon Park Corp.	$1.00	30.3.92	None	Property not appraisedMoisie, Que.	1988	Raymond Lefebvre & Fils	$170,000.00	07.3.89	$28,000 Dec. 1987	PWC AppraiserSioux Look-Out, Ont. (Part of the Station)	1987	John Kostiuk	$7,000.00	31.3.89	$6,500 April 1987	PWC AppraiserLowther, Ont. (Quarry Site)	1987	Kaptest Technical Centre Inc.	$6,500.00	24.4.89	$7,000 Dec. 1986	Laine Real Estate Inc.
PART B: Properties closed but not transferred to the private sector.

'ft;, *
LOCATION	CLOSED	VALUE	DATE	APPRAISER	STATUS	Sydney, N.S	1990	$761,000.00	05.90	Turner Drake &	Authority received to transfer the property to	Ass.	County of Cape Breton for $1 for conveyance to	$4,128,000.00	07.90	Hardy Appraisals	New Dawn Enterprises Ltd, a non-profit	community development organization.	St. Margaret's,	1998 &	$864,000.00	08.90	Fredericton	A proposal call is being prepared for the purchase	N.B.	1990	Appraisal	and redevelopment of the entire property with the	Associates	exception of the operational buildings which are	$2,000,000.00	08.90	Francis T.	being tendered for removal by DND.	Leblanc	Barrington, N.S.	1990	$26,000.00	11.91	Turner Drake	A submission to Treasury Board willbe prepared to	(Former Junior	& Ass.	botain authority to transfer this 1.4 hectare parcel	Ranks Club)	of land to the fire department at nominal value.	Barrington, N.S.	1990	$396,000.0	05.90	Turner Drake	Was sold to the municipality of Barrington for the	(Sherose Island	& Ass.	sume of $418,000.00 on 2 August 1991.	Married Quarters	$532,000.00	06.90	Kempton	Site)	Appraisals	Mount Lolo, B.C..	1990	$1.00	08.87	PWC Appraiser	Transferred to Indian Affairs on 4 March 1991.	Holdberg, B.C.	1990	None	Land to be returned to the province and to the former private sector owner as the original acquisitions were subject to a reversionary clause.	Portage La Prairie,	1992	$526,000.00	08.91	PWC Appraiser	Approvals obtained to sell to Southport Aeorspace	Man.	Centre Inc. for $1.00 in 1992.	Moisie, Que.	1988	None	Disposal process put on hold by the Department	(Recreational Site)	of Indian Affairs.	Mont Apica, Que.	1990	None	Land to be retroceded vacant to the province of Quebec. The buildings were sold for removal by public tender call.	Lowther, Ont. (Well Site)	1987	None	Retroceded to the province in 1989.


Mr. Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia): For the period of March 24, 1992 to May 1, 1992 what has been the (a) total cost (b) cost per question (c) cost for this question to the government for answering Order Paper Questions?


Harvie Andre: (a) & (b)
Questions answered during the period of March 24,1992 to May 1, 1992:
Question- No.	Approximate Cost	Question No.	Approxin Cost96	$145	245	$85111	9,685	246	621146	62	250	228151	4,775	253	164206	90	254	184215	275	256	75216	120	257	69219	79	259	55220	80	260	99223	155	261	40230	125	264	90233	392	265	134234	145	270	45238	275	271	142239	70	273	30(c)	$30.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of motion of Mr. Peterson (p. 10407).
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When we interrupted the debate to proceed to Members' Statements and Oral Questions, the hon. Minister of State for Employment and Immigration had six minutes left to her speaking time.


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, I was simply saying before Question Period that the curriculum change we have announced totally disproves the motion before this House today. So, I am understandably disappointed such a motion was put forward.
The way we work is through the political will to serve the work force by suggesting effective and practical solutions to their problems. This change is designed to make Canadian social policies much more responsive to the true needs and aspirations of people who want work, not a handout and tons of compassion.
By enhancing the skills and income earning potential of our most precious resource, namely the worker, we as a government make sure that all Canadians have the opportunity to help our shared dream of a united, prosperous and internationally competitive country come true.
I just wanted, following Question Period, to illustrate this partnership and the common purpose between employer and employees by way of a few examples I am familiar with such as the petrochemical industry in Quebec. A request for project funding was submitted in order to set up a committee to establish such an industry there. Jobs in that area have been in short supply for years. High qualification standards, the growing manpower demand and especially the lack of skilled labour in the labour market were the main reasons it was so hard to hire people.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

May 8, 1992
Government Orders
So, members of this industry, unions, along with other partners, formed a manpower adjustment committee, better known as a MAC within my department. Major training requirements were identified and it was suggested to set up, in conjunction with a college in the east of Montreal, a training centre in petrochemistry, chemistry and related fields.
Believe it or not, 40 people are working together around the same table. We work with the private sector, with the unions, the workers, the employers and with Quebec's own institutions. Responsibilities are shared and subsidies are provided by the Quebec Department of Education, the Manpower Department and the Department of Employment and Immigration, plus industry's contribution. This illustrates our government's ability to get things done and find effective ways to co-operate.
Another aluminum plant is now under construction and is expected to open this spring creating 450 to 500 jobs. Mechanics and electricians will be needed which means skills training. A training agreement has been signed by both departments and the college with the private sector, and 45 mechanics and 25 other workers will be trained, thanks to a financial contribution of $1.2 million from our department.
A cement plant employs 150 workers, but there is a shortage of manpower with skills in new technology so that skills training is needed. That is another example to illustrates our ability to respond to these needs through our training programs.
A school board needs training for workers in the pulp and paper industry. We are right there with the provincial government. A manpower adjustment committee for the aerospace industry has been set up and a parity committee for the plate glass industry. I could give many more examples, of this type of partnership in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Of course I am more familiar with what is being done in Quebec because I am responsible for that particular sector, while my colleague works for the other provinces. However, I know for a fact that across Canada, employers and workers, and federal, provincial and municipal governments, want to work together to find the right solutions.
Because our government is aware of these problems it has taken a number of initiatives to encourage young people to stay in school, to help Canadians who need training and to prepare the Canadian labour force for the challenges of the twenty-first century.
We talk increasingly about upgrading knowledge and a continuum of training. Personally, I talk about a culture of hope. Indeed the Economic Council of Canada has just published a very interesting summary of this question. The report is entitled A Lot to Learn.
Our department and our government work with that in mind. Let us cultivate hope and knowledge. Far from being indifferent to the training and development of Canadian workers, our government keeps abreast of what is going on in the world of work. It establishes partnerships that advance the cause of workers. It maintains relations with all concerned and all interested groups. It provides programs that are both effective and up to date. It even conducts studies in order to find the solutions of the future. That is what it is doing, what it has done in the past and what it will continue to do. As Minister of State for Employment, I have faith in the ability of workers, employers and governments to work together for a better quality of life and to create jobs for the future in a world of globalizing markets.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, the motion before us which was moved by the member for Willowdale, asks that this House pass a motion condemning the government and the Minister of Employment and Immigration for quote: "his continual failures to provide the House and the people with accurate and unambiguous factual information on this matter".
We learned this morning about a decline of some 14,000 unemployment insurance recipients or claimants. Those people have given up looking for jobs; they have decided that the system does not work for them. The unemployment rate dropped from 11.1 per cent to 11 per cent.
We should not take heart but rather worry because the minister, in her comments, said that the government was delighted that Bill C-21, which privatized the unemployment insurance program, was passed. We know now that unemployment insurance is an insurance program that is financed 60 per cent by the employer and at 40 per cent
May 8, 1992

Government Orders
by the employees. The government no longer contributes to that program.
There is a program about which the government can rightly say that it is involved: the job creation strategy. However, Madam Speaker, if you look at the Estimates for this year and last year you will note that federal contributions have fallen by $114 million. The federal government reduces its contribution to manpower training. It no longer participates in the unemployment insurance program and now the minister is asking us to trust employers and employees. I understand. The burden is on their shoulders. What will the government do to help Canadians find a job that will ensure their future in this country? The government must act soon because 1.5 million Canadians are out of work.
I ask the minister: What will the government do to give hope to those people instead of present information that is not always totally accurate and is sometimes very ambiguous?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, 300,000 jobs have not been filled because workers did not have the required skills.
We work on training, developing skills and acquiring experience to ensure that workers regardless of age can apply for the jobs that are offered. If our workers had the necessary skills to fill those 300 000 jobs, the unemployment rate would be even lower.
I simply want to remind the House that we, the federal government, continue to manage the unemployment insurance program. We have not delegated all the responsibilities related to the program. Let us not suggest to this House and to Canadians that we as a government have withdrawn from the program, that we have thrown in the towel. We co-operate with employers and with employees, and this manpower strategy that we have implemented enables us to precisely redirect the training of workers to provide them with the required upgrading and, as many companies recommended to us, to implement an active program to replace a passive one that did not provide for training.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, the once flourishing shipbuilding industry in British Columbia has come to a standstill, largely because of the broken promises of the federal government, along with its so-called rationalization policy. The minister will recall the Polar 8 ice-breaker, twice promised by senior ministers, was cancelled. There has not been a fair allocation of other federal shipbuilding contracts to compensate the west coast and keep our industry going.
The Versatile Pacific shipyards were closed about two years ago and over 300 senior workers, highly skilled shipbuilders, were laid off, with no severance pay and no hope of retraining. These older workers have had to live on their savings and many of them today are on welfare. Yet the federal government which promised to assist with worker adjustment programs has done nothing. Recently the west coast Manley shipyard construction division closed with other additional workers laid off. Our shipyard industry, which once was thriving, is dying.
I would like to ask the minister why the government will not take the initiative because I know she cares about older workers. Will she not take some initiative on behalf of these workers who have given over 25 years of their lives to Canada in many cases as skilled shipbuilders. Will she look into this matter and will she ask the government to undertake initiatives on behalf of these workers so that they will have some form of adjustment compensation?
Will she also inform the Vancouver members of Parliament what action has been taken so that we in turn can inform our constituents?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, when we hear about a major restructuring of the global economy, we unfortunately hear about job losses at the same time. We must also talk about new jobs being created. We are aware that the industry you are talking about has been going through tough times at the financial, economic and social level.
The issue of older workers is one of particular concern to me. I have pointed out several times already that we would be interested in satisfying this need for recognition of the older worker through our adjustment pro-

May 8, 1992
Government Orders
grams. It seems to me that we will have to come up with appropriate action.
The time has come to change our social policies. The capacity of the older worker to produce and to allow us to benefit from his or her experience regardless of his or her age must be recognized. As part of our job strategy we have adjustment programs. We have all kinds of schemes, strings of programs to find the appropriate solutions. Each request the department receives is considered extremely important. I can understand the hon. member's concern for the issue he is committed to. We must work together in co-operation with the Minister of Employment and Immigration to find the appropriate solutions. Just knowing that we can work together in co-operation gives hope of finding these solutions.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, my question to the minister is about the free trade deal with the United States. During the election campaign the government promised training programs so that all displaced workers would be able to enter other industries or sectors. The minister and I are both from the province of Quebec. She will recall, as I do, the massive support given to the free trade deal by Quebecers during the election, because they were told, by both the federal and provincial governments, that there would be training programs to provide for this adjustment. They were guaranteed that there would be programs.
Three and a half years later we are still waiting for that program. I recall very well that after the election when we got back to the House questions were asked about that. The government replied that the programs that were in place were sufficient and were meeting the needs. How can they still say that those programs are meeting the needs when we learned this morning that unemployment is close to 13 per cent in the Montreal region alone and 12.5 per cent for the whole of Quebec. According to the official UI figures there are almost half a million unemployed Quebecers, not counting those who are on welfare or gave up looking for a job. Can the minister tell us when we will have that program? Will it be part of another election promise, or will we have it now?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, when I took part in the election campaign in 1988 and we talked about free trade, I equated free trade with an invitation to learn and to compete. When we want to compete globally and internationally, we must have the necessary talents and skills.
That is why our government had a policy aiming at increasing training opportunities. And I remember very well the long fight we had in this House to get Bill C-21 passed.
The opposition objected to the passing of Bill C-21 which changed our system to an active one. We lost one year. The government is aware of the continuing need for labour force training and adjustment in order to facilitate the reintegration of the unemployed into the labour force and to meet the global challenge.
I just want to remind you that training activities will be increased by $300 million in 1992-1993, which will bring the total expenditures to $3.4 billion. This is what we are working on, starting with the examples I mentioned among which are those I know well in Quebec and others at the national level. We are trying to make sure that our labour force is competitive at the provincial, national and international level.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Madam Speaker, it is not with a great deal of pleasure that I rise today to speak on this motion. It is not a pleasure to speak about the problems we face in this country, the problems unemployed workers are facing on a daily basis. However I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments.
Let me begin by saying that in my opinion we do not have a minister of employment, we have a minister of unemployment. This minister talks more about unemployment, about people out of work, than he does about putting people back to work.
He relies on making statements about people being underqualified. We had a work force in this country that was surviving quite well prior to the recession, prior to the failure of the economic policies of this government. These were skilled people. They were functioning on a daily basis, sustaining themselves, supporting their families, paying their taxes and surviving quite well. Now they are out of work. They are out of work as a result of the
May 8, 1992

recession caused in part by this government and its policies.
Now they are being told that they do not have the skills to find a job. I challenge any member of this government to come to my riding of Timmins-Chapleau, stand in front of the hundreds of qualified miners, hundreds of qualified foresters and tell them they are not qualified to work in their trade. They are qualified to the extent that they are able to teach other people how to work in those trades.
Why are they not working? Why is there not more emphasis on getting them back to work? What are we going to train these people to do? We cannot make brain surgeons out of everyone in the country. There is a job market for the skills we have in this country. We do have a skilled labour force.
The minister earlier spoke about some 300,000 jobs that are available but we do not have the ability to fill those jobs because our workforce is not trained properly.
When a person goes to the unemployment office as result of a job loss and applies for unemployment he would apply for training under section 26 of the act.
If that person has certain skills above the ability to earn minimum wage, in other words, if a person is an accountant and is out of work and asks for assistance under section 26, he does not qualify for retraining because he is already qualified. Therefore that person cannot apply.
We have some serious problems with section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Less than 3 per cent of the people who receive unemployment insurance receive training under section 26 of the act. It is less than 3 per cent.
I have numerous letters from various constituents and which I will be referring to, I would like to refer to one at this point. I will not name people because I do not want to embarrass anyone. There are some very proud people in my constituency, as I am sure there are in everyone's constituency. I do not want to embarrass anyone. However I will give the letters to Hansard if it is necessary.
This man applied for UIC in January 1991 and at that time asked if there were any programs available for upgrading. He was told that in his case there were not
Government Orders
because all the seats that were available under section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act were taken.
He asked: "What if I take a course myself? Would I be all right? Would I be within the law?" He was told: "No. If you take any courses on your own during the day, during the time that you are supposed to be looking for a job, you will be disqualified". He decided to take upgrading night courses by correspondence and proceeded to do so.
That was not the big problem. The big problem was toward the end of his benefit period when he got a notice saying: "Please come to the unemployment office, the CEC office. We may be able to help you in getting some education, some upgrading and some help to assist you in finding a job".
He went to the unemployment office at that point and said: "If it is available now, why was it not available then?" By the time he went through the whole process of assessment and finding out what it was he wanted to pursue, his benefits terminated. He no longer qualified and he fell on to welfare. That is one case where the system failed an unemployed worker.
We hear statistics about the number of people who are unemployed in Canada. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1.5 million is the figure that is being thrown around these days. It is thrown around very loosely and sometimes very callously.
The reality is that the 11 per cent, the 1.5 million people we hear about, are only people who are receiving benefits. We do not hear about the other million or so who are on welfare, who no longer qualify for UI benefits, who no longer qualify for retraining. They fall between the cracks of the system.
The government clouds the issue by not including those numbers when it says that the statistics are x per cent of people unemployed. The government and all of us in this House as part of the Government of Canada- which we all are part of-have a responsibility to make people aware of what the real figure is and what the realities are out there.
As an aside to this discussion we also have a further responsibility to make these statistics known to our youth, to our young people. I have had too many young people come in my office in the last few weeks who have said: "I am no longer in school. I quit. I could not get along with the teacher. As a result of that, I am no

Government Orders
longer living at home. I have to go elsewhere because my parents said that if I did not go to school I would have to leave".
You start looking into what was the cause of all of these problems, why it all started, and why this kid is leaving school. It is both boys and girls. It is not just one. The reality in a lot of cases is that the parents cannot find a job. The mother cannot go out to work, the father cannot go out to work because there are no jobs. There are all kinds of problems in the house. They do not know where their next meal is coming from. They argue among each other. Kids are under a lot of peer pressure. They want to be like everybody else but they cannot because their parents do not have jobs. Their parents do not have jobs because they are being told that they are not smart enough and they need more training. The kids are suffering.
We have to do whatever we can. The government has a responsibility to do whatever it can to ensure that people get back to work.
When we talk about training, I think we have to put more emphasis on the fact that we need a parallel job creation program to go along with those training programs if the reality is that our work force needs retraining. I say there are jobs in Canada. There are opportunities for Canadians to go back to work. They did have skills before all these problems existed. They were working and they were functioning.
I do not think the government can sit back and say: "It is a global problem. We have to face the reality that it is not just a Canadian problem. It is a global problem". I agree with that. Maybe it is a global problem but does that mean we have to sit back with our arms folded and say: "I am going to wait until somebody else takes care of me; I am going to wait until somebody else comes up with a solution to my problems"?
I do not think we have that luxury. I think we have a responsibility to act for Canadians in this country. I do not think we have to sit on our duff and wait for Japan or the United States to come up with a solution. We have the ability right here to do that and that is what we should be doing.
We cannot shift the burden of responsibility on to someone else. The number of people served in my
community of Timmins-Chapleau, and in Timmins in particular, by the South Porcupine Food Bank is astronomical. That food bank serviced 6,000 families last year in a small community of 47,000 people.
These are people who could be working. We have a movement that was bom in Timmins called "Save Our North-Save Our Jobs", an excellent program with excellent ideas. They are not asking for millions of dollars in investment. They are asking for a caring government to listen, to realize that the basis of our wealth is our resources. Those resources are mining, forestry and fishing. They want the government to recognize that we have to continue supporting our resource sector because that is where our wealth is.
Why is it that this government will not act? Only a fool does not change his or her mind. There are no fools in this House; there are none sitting on either side. The government really believes that what it is doing is right. It really believes the road it is on is the road to the salvation of Canada, that it will cure the problems. That sure scares the heck out of me because the government really does believe it. It is not willing to listen to anyone else. Its policies are the only policies and it is not prepared to change anything. That is wrong.
There are numerous ideas out there. There are numerous people who have some wonderful ideas to help get us out of this recession and create some jobs, people like those involved in the "Save Our North-Save Our Jobs" program. Will this government listen? Will it do anything? No. It would rather sit back and say: "This is not the way to do it. This is what we are going to do. It does not matter what anybody else says. We are going to continue on this road".
I refer for a moment to a letter sent to me by the Timmins Chamber of Commerce. I will read it into the record because it is important and indicative of what other chambers of commerce and other people in the region are trying to do. It reads:
The Timmins Chamber of Commerce in association with the Timmins Economic Development Corporation will be applying to obtain the "Community Futures" designation in Timmins. Our high unemployment rate and present economic condition have made it critical for our community to obtain additional funds and programs to retrain our unemployed and encourage economic renewal for providing business incentives.
May 8, 1992

During these difficult economic times we would like to count on
broad support from various sectors in our community. We would like
to ask for your endorsement at this time in the form of a letter
addressed to the Timmins Chamber of Commerce by May 11, 1992.
I certainly do intend to send a letter of support for this initiative. I would certainly hope the government would also endorse it. These are the kinds of things we have to start looking at and we have to start realizing that we just cannot sit back and do nothing. We have to help.
I would like to turn just for a moment to something that came up during the debate by the Minister of State for Employment when she talked about an increase of funding for students for summer employment.
I would like to make reference to Toronto. The $100 million in cuts from Canadian Jobs Strategy will mean a reduction of programs in that area which provide job skills for women, young people, immigrants and the disabled. They will be reduced from 30 programs to 12 programs. That is only part of the story.
In Timmins it is very devastating when we consider we had applications for some 287 summer jobs for students. As a result of the cuts to the SEED program, we were able to accommodate 57 jobs. That is disastrous. Last year we received $238,000 of SEED money for the section in Timmins served by the Timmins CEC. This year we got 123,000 measly dollars.
How can any government member stand in the House and say that they are trying to help?
Students who would normally work during the summer to help pay for their education come the fall will be deprived of that opportunity because this government does not want to help.
Government members are probably going to get up and ask questions about where we would get the money or what we would do. We have to start looking at the reality. We have to start creating some jobs. Let us put the parents of those children to work and then the children would not be so dependent on SEED money. The solution to the problem is getting people to work. That is what we want. That is what Canadians want. They do not want handouts. They want to go back to work.
Government Orders
I have another letter from the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army has put in an application to Canada Employment National Management Services for funding support of a national employability co-ordination roll to promote the Canadian Jobs Strategy with business, labour and client groups, and to assist with the development of training projects in Salvation Army settings across Canada. There is another organization worthy of mention here because it is trying to do something. It is asking for assistance and is not getting it.
We need to place a lot of emphasis on the fact that people are out of work. We do not want to institutionalize food banks. We do not want to encourage people to go on welfare. We want to encourage people to work.
We have skills in this country. We need some development in the areas of those skills. We cannot teach fishermen to be miners. We cannot teach miners to be foresters. We cannot teach foresters to be fishermen. There are no jobs in those areas.
That is what this country is made of. Our industrial jobs have gone. They have gone south of the border and they are still going south of the border. If NAFTA goes through it is going to be even worse. We have to rely on the resources we have now. We have to rely on the skills we have now. Canadians are looking for jobs. They had jobs before this recession. Given the opportunity, they are very well skilled to go back to work.
I urge this government to take another look at the direction it is going. Yes, we need some training programs, but we need more job initiatives. We need more job programs, and I think that is the solution to the majority of our problems in this country.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, I want to question the member on a statement he made last week, as reported by The Hamilton Spectator, in relation to the topic-and it is interesting we would be on that topic today-of welfare, unemployment insurance costs and the difficulties created by both. It reads:
In Hamilton to discuss problems in training programs, welfare and
unemployment insurance, Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau) said
the government should look into just printing the money they need
to spend their way out of the recession.
Then it quotes directly as follows:

May 8, 1992
Government Orders
"Instead of borrowing the money, we create it. We do not have to Let US discuss it. Let US not shout at each Other pay it back , he said during a meeting with aldermen Dominic because we are not going to solve anything, but that is his Agostino, Dave Wilson and Hob Charters.	way of doing business
He is suggesting that we just print the money, that we do not have to pay it back.
In relation to what the hon. member mentioned today in the House, he said that there are numerous new ideas and that we cannot shift the burden of responsibility on to someone else. He is suggesting new ideas, but the only new idea that I hear from the member to print more money.
Would he please explain who pays back the money that we print and what that does to the Canadian economy? I think all of us know, but can he actually hide behind that sort of NDP philosophy?


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, anybody who knows me knows that I do not hide. The member should have read the preamble to that newspaper article in Hamilton. Yes, I was there and yes, I did say that.
In the preamble to that statement I said to the reporters that were there: "I am on very thin ice here. I do this without qualification. I say this off the top of my head, striving to reach a solution". What I said was: "When we borrow money what are we doing? We are going around in a circle. We are borrowing money today and we have to pay it back as we go, and so on. We are just creating a larger and larger problem. What might be a good idea is maybe we could just print the money". Who do we owe the majority of our debt to? We owe it to ourselves. Yes, some of our debt is offshore, but 67 per cent is owed to ourselves.


Gregory Francis Thompson: How much would you print?


Cyril (Cid) Samson: How much would we print? If you will shut your mouth and put your ears in gear, you will know what I am going to say. I said in Hamilton to the reporters that were there, I said: "There is no amount. I do not have an amount. It is something that may be worthy of discussion". But that was not reported.
The point is that at some juncture in time we have to step back and take a look at where we are going. Are we going in the right direction. Is it something that is worthy of discussion? I think it is. The member obviously thinks it is because he raised it.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to ask the member a particular question that has somewhat eluded present governments in power and is the reason they have entered into a process of setting up labour force development boards in conjunction with the provincial labour adjustment board that we are all familiar with. One of the areas that I would like to ask the member to give his party's views on its perception of the future role of labour adjustment boards. How will labour adjustment boards deal with retraining for the future, the kinds of jobs that we in northern Ontario are very familiar with? That, for example, would be the mining industry where layoffs are occurring because of new technology, the effects of the prices of gold, and mining being cheaper and more profitable in other countries.
The other issue is the forestry sector where because of technology and changes and gluts in the pulp and paper industry there are massive layoffs.
I would be very interested in knowing what the NDP's position is on these national training systems that are being put in place and whether in fact he sees them as a catch-all and a way of training our employees for the foreseeable future.
When I get my opportunity to speak in a more in-depth manner, I will be talking about my views on that particular subject. I would be interested in knowing what the NDP thinks of it. The government has made a big to-do about new programs and new training regimes they are putting in place which will take up to 1993 to put in place. Of course we know the government has been in power since 1984.1 would like to know from the member what his party's views are on these new training regimes that are being put in place, particularly in Ontario.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
There is a need for training advisory boards to identify the needs in particular regions. Their function is to find out what the long-term needs are. As we look to the future at technological change and at processing in the mines and lumber industry, the labour training boards have a responsibility to explore ways of taking our
May 8, 1992

resources to the next step of completion. Rather than sending them offshore, they should be looking at ways of extending that process here in Canada, in northern Ontario. By doing that they should also be looking at ways of upgrading the skills of those people who have worked in those trades so that they can keep up with that technological change.
When we take someone in from the mining sector who has done nothing but mining for 25 years and put that person in another environment, it is a drastic change.
I think that part of the mandate of the board should be to look at ways of upgrading the skills of that particular worker within the field that he or she is most comfortable in. I think that can apply in all sectors of our resource industry.
There is a job that has to be done. I do not think that training boards can be outside the regions they are serving. I think they have to be from within the regions they are serving. Therefore we should keep local autonomy. We should keep local people involved because they are the ones that know best what is needed in those areas.
I think in fairness to the local training boards there is a function for them. I only hope that as time goes on this is the way they are going to develop and these are the directions they are going to be going.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Are we resuming debate? I understand the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell will share his time with his colleague. He has 10 minutes.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate today. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Willowdale for proposing this motion in the House, a non-confidence motion against the government because of its failure to provide training and retraining initiatives for Canadian workers.
Government Orders
I look forward to the vote which will probably take place next Monday, a vote that will express the lack of confidence that members of Parliament, as well as the population in general have in this minister and indeed in the government as a whole.

In the throne speech of November 5,1984 the government said and I quote: "My government recognizes that measures to improve and expand skills training and retraining are essential elements of a sound approach to provide job opportunities".
The reality is that between 1985 and 1988 the Conservative government has cut total funding for job training by 30 per cent. The Canadian Jobs Strategy, for instance, had $1,096 billion in 1984 and 1985 and $1,122 billion in 1990. But in 1984-85 training expenditures represented .24 per cent of GDP. By 1989-90 this had fallen to .17 per cent. We are going backward in terms of the investment provided to retrain workers so that every time there is a slump in the economy they would not be stuck in the type of situation they are now in.
The minister of employment said on April 30, 1992, and I quote this from page 9921 of Hansard:
What we have obtained amounts to $400 million more money that
will be spent to train individual Canadians who become unemployed
in this year.
Mr. Speaker, you being the independent, objective and non-partisan person that you are in the chair, I am sure you will understand that information is, and I will put it kindly, grossly inaccurate. Figures show that under Bill C-21 the number is $302 million, not $400 million as the minister of employment indicated in the House on April 30, 1992. The increase for job training under Bill C-21 this year is $95 million not $400 million, and that $95 million that I have described is paid 60 per cent by employers and 40 per cent by employees from their contributions. In other words, the amount that the government itself has invested is simply not there.

I would now like to describe the situation in my riding of Glengarrry-Prescott-Russell. Some 1,511 people were out of work in the riding in 1990. One year later, in May 1991, the number of unemployed was up to 1,912. It is at 2,197 as of May 1992. These figures are much higher than those during the recession of 1982. I say to the government on the other side that in my riding the

May 8, 1992
Government Orders
present recession is much worse, contrary to what the government may be saying.
The number of unemployed in my riding represents 11 per cent of the labour force. I have just described the unemployment situation that is soaring. Now I shall give you some statistics on the amounts invested there in training. In 1991 the Glengarry and Prescott Employment Centre granted some $661,000 for integration and employment development as well as under the Unemployment Insurance Fund. That was last year. In 1992 while unemployment is rising, the amount dropped from $661,000 to $600,614. My riding got $60,000 less this year. Where is the minister coming from when he tells us that the government has increased its share of training costs?
Recently in my riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell the United Counties of Prescott and Russell wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada. Here are a few quotes from that letter: "Prime Minister, at its meeting of last March 24, the Council of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell supported the recommendation put forward by its committee on industry, tourism, agriculture and trade in favour of the implementation of a financial program for the economic recovery of Eastern Ontario, similar to FEDNOR, a program designed for northern Ontario".
This is what I have been promoting in this House for the last two years. My colleagues, the members for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and for Stormont- Dundas, and I have raised that question time and time again in the House of Commons, asking for help from the government on the other side. I refer again to that letter signed by Jean-Pierre Pitre, director general and secretary treasurer for the United Counties of Prescott and Russell. He says to the prime minister than in preparing that recommendation, we have taken into account the following facts. First, the number of jobs lost and of industries closing in eastern Ontario; and, second, in certain communities in eastern Ontario, the unemployment rate is twice as high as the national average. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is not the only one to have this opinion. The counties, the municipalities in my riding, say the same.
Third, some federal programs which served to help the creation of new industries in eastern Ontario, such as the Industrial and Regional Development Program, the IRDP and the federal-provincial agreement for eastern Ontario, have been abolished or simply not renewed. Fourth, the federal government has recently closed its regional development office for eastern Ontario.
We are in a recession and the federal government now chooses to close its regional developement office for eastern Ontario, which is located here in Ottawa. They do not seem to think, on the other side, that we have economic problems in Canada. Unemployment is at 14 per cent in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, but they do not care. They will not do anything to help my constituents.
Fifth, the federal government is responsible for helping the social and economic developement of disadvantaged areas. Alleluia. The mayors, prefects and municipal councillors of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell are so right. It is - indeed the federal government's responsibility to provide measures for the social and economic development of our region which is far from advantaged.
The message to the other side is clear. They must act as soon as possible to increase the manpower training programs everywhere in Canada, especially in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, which I have the honour and the privilege of representing in this House. We need an economic renewal program. I have said so time and time again and I will likely have to say it again in order to convince hon. members opposite that our economy needs a boost. This mess we are in will not go away by itself. Other regions in Canada have programs, well good for them. It is well and good to have a FEDNOR program in northern Ontario, a Canadian Western Diversification Program, and a program for the Atlantic region, but, our region is at an unfair disadvantage. Therefore we too must have tools.
I would not want the President of the Treasury Board and others to think that because my riding is close to the Peace Tower, not far considering the size of our country of course, all is well in our area. Things are certainly not that great in the national capital either, but 50 miles away in my riding where there are problems in the textile, clothing, steel and other industries we need help, and we need it now.
May 8, 1992

Government Orders


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, today I have the pleasure to speak on a motion whose purpose is to draw the government's attention to a most important ingredient for job creation and economic prosperity.
The motion before the House today is sponsored by my colleague from Willowdale and stresses the importance of job training and retraining initiatives and the government's abject failure to provide these key elements in order to put Canadians back to work.
This motion is asking members to condemn the government's total failure to provide good quality job training that is accessible to those in need and especially to those at the bottom of the social ladder.
I would like to demonstrate in the 10 minutes I have how this government has repeatedly promised concrete job training programs but has failed to deliver. I would also like to show members that whatever training exists is not necessarily accessible to all those in need.
First, the government must realize that it is responsible for the high unemployment rate that is crippling the country today. With the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, an over-valued dollar, an endless amount of tax increases, and a whole range of inept economic policies over an eight-year period, no wonder Canada finds itself in what is probably the worst recession in its history.
Over 1.5 million Canadians are without work. These figures fail to take into account those who have given up searching for a job. We heard this morning that statistics show 71,000 Canadians have left the work force because they have no more hope in the system.
In my home province the unemployment rate is 12.5 per cent which represents more than 475,000 people officially looking for work. The situation in the Montreal region is just as distressing where the unemployment rate is 12.9 per cent and where more than 206,000 Montrealers cannot find jobs. In fact, the Montreal region has been severely hit by this made-in-Canada recession.

The Montreal area represents nearly half the labour market in Quebec. This area is undoubtedly the motor of Quebec's economy. Unfortunately in this area live half of all the jobless in the province. Over 615,000 people, that is 21.5 per cent of the whole population of the metropolitan area of Montreal, live in poor households.
The question we have to ask ourselves is: How we will get rid of this blatant poverty and put people back to work? All in all there are many ways to do it.
This government should start introducing sound economic policies. With balanced economic policies, the government would create a climate of confidence and encourage businesses to create jobs. This would effectively encourage consumer spending which in turn would help boost the economy and create jobs.
In order that Canadians can avail themselves of these jobs the government must provide those people, the victims of modernization and economic crisis, with effective training programs. Many times the Tories have promised training and retraining programs to help Canadians cope with economic disruptions.
One of those occasions where Tories promised such programs was at the time of the trade talks with the United States.
In fact that promise helped the government gain support for the free trade agreement. I remember how firmly my province supported the free trade treaty because this government had promised to create appropriate retraining programs for the work force so that any worker displaced because of free trade could be retrained and hired in some other area.
Even as we speak now we are waiting for such programs. In the meantime the government is negotiating another free trade agreement, this time a trilateral accord including Mexico. As for us, we are still waiting for a program to provide training for our workers, for all Quebec and Canadian workers affected by free trade so that they can work in other areas.

May 8, 1992
Government Orders
In 1988 the government did not keep its promise. This morning we found out how many people are out of work, and no longer in the labour force. We are talking about 1.5 million people, not to mention those who are not included in the statistics since they no longer receive UI benefits and are on welfare. You have no idea how many property owners in my riding have come to me. They were able to buy a home after years of savings and sacrifice. But now they have lost their jobs, their UI benefits have expired, and they do not qualify for welfare assistance because they own a house. They are left with nothing. They live in poverty because they have a house. What does the system do for them? It penalizes them for having worked and saved their money all these years.
Let us turn to Bill C-21. Every time we ask questions about labour training the government blames us for delaying the adoption of this legislation. But why did the debate take so long? It was because it had to. I want to remind the government it has been two years now since we passed that bill. Where are the programs the government promised when it tabled this bill? Where are the programs that would give people a chance to receive training and find new jobs? Where are those programs? Where are the new jobs? In Montreal, the unemployment rate is around 13 per cent. It is easy for the government to blame the Liberals because we delayed the passage of Bill C-21. The bill was adopted more than two years ago and we are still waiting, just as we are still waiting for training programs to deal with the jobs lost as a result of the free trade agreement with the United States. We are still waiting for this program ever since Bill C-21 was passed two years ago.
I would like to add that because of this government, Canada is the only country, aside from the United States, that has stopped contributing to its unemployment insurance fund, and that is a serious matter, especially today. I would like to emphasize the importance of training programs. They are intended not only for unemployment insurance recipients but for everyone, anyone who wants to work, including young people who have finished university. They come to my riding office and they tell me they are looking for a job and that people keep telling them they need experience. Where will they get the experience if they never manage to get
that first job? That is the sad thing about our young people. They make sacrifices to finish their studies and once they graduate, they send out hundreds of thousands of applications, to be told they do not have any experience. And when they do have experience, there are no jobs. We must get out of this vicious circle and give young Canadians something to look forward to.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, in his speech the member did challenge the government's commitment to spending on training and on training adjustment. I want to review some of the numbers with him and I hope he will have a chance to comment on them to lay to rest some of the allegations he has made here this afternoon.
One of them of course is the fact that the minister himself has acknowledged that $100 million was cut from the Canadian Jobs Strategy program. I think it is important to put on the record, and the minister has mentioned this on many occasions, that there is still $1.6 billion of taxpayers' money in that program. That is worth acknowledging and I hope the member will acknowledge that.
For developmental uses within the minister's department the budget is up itself this year by $400 million. That is not an insignificant number and I hope he acknowledges that as well. An important statistic to remember is the net increase for training and adjustment is up by $300 million this year.
I hope the member responds to those numbers. We can play with the numbers all we like but at the end of the day the fact is that we are spending more money, not less money on training and adjustment.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I will try to use the hon. member's phrase "we can play with figures", but what is the reality? The reality is today we have an unemployment rate close to 12 per cent across the country. We have in one month 71,000 people who have left the work force. That is the reality. Plus we have 1.5 million unemployed Canadians looking for work. That is without counting the millions who have expired from the list and are on social welfare or have given up and I do not know where they are.
May 8, 1992

I want to remind the hon. member that when Bill C-21 became law the government withdrew from contributing to the unemployment insurance fund which until then was being financed by employee, employer and government contributions. In that period the contribution of the government was about $3 billion. We were still benefiting from economic growth. Let us not forget that the economy was good in 1985, 1986 and 1987. The government withdrew from that contribution.
Perhaps I should ask the hon. member what happened to the $3 billion that the government took away from the unemployment insurance fund. Not only did the government save that $3 billion, but because of its withdrawal it asked employees and employers to raise their contributions over 30 per cent from July 1991 to January 1992.
The government says it is putting money into training. Yes, it is putting in some money, but $3 billion was in the system. The government did not need the money because we had good economic growth. If the government had left the money in the fund it could have put it into training to prepare us for the free trade fiasco and for whatever modernization that we need in the labour force.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be taking part in debate on this very important motion today. With due respect, however, to the hon. member's motion, I think it indicates he has not looked very carefully at the government's programs to help Canadians during these tough economic times.
I want to assure hon. members that this government is deeply committed to assisting Canadians and to getting our economy rolling again. In doing so I think we might respond to some of the questions just posed by the hon. member for Saint-Leonard. I know my colleague from New Brunswick was anxious to do that so perhaps in my remarks I will be able to respond to some of the questions just raised by the hon. member for Saint-Leonard.
The Department of Employment and Immigration is still well aware that it is essential to give Canadian workers every opportunity to help this great nation compete in an expanding global economy. We are the catalyst for the private sector to play an increasing role in promoting, training and lifelong learning. These are vital elements to meet the challenge of ensuring that we
Government Orders
have a productive work force during the remainder of this decade and into the 21st century.
To that end, opposition members should be aware the federal spending for worker adjustment has grown significantly. For the 1992-1993 fiscal year, for example, we have allocated $3.4 billion. This is almost 60 per cent more than the $2.1 billion spent in 1985-1986.
During our eight years in office this government has done more to instil a sense of pride in being a productive citizen than any previous government.
Let us take a look at the creation of the Canadian Jobs Strategy in 1985. This EIC initiative has emphasized job oriented skills development and, as never before, paid special attention to women, aboriginals, visible minorities and persons with disabilities. We know the strength of Canada comes from drawing upon the skills of all of our citizens.
During the past two years EIC has gradually brought in a new employment programs and services framework. It is comprised of four new programs: information and special initiatives, employability improvement, labour market adjustment and community development. Together they consolidate all the elements of the Canadian Jobs Strategy which has a budget for 1992-1993 of approximately $1.6 billion.
In 1989 EIC responded to a rapidly growing need for a highly skilled labour force by introducing a labour force development strategy. We followed it up in 1990 by amending the Unemployment Insurance Act so more UI funds could be used to train unemployed workers.
The UI safety net is still there for people who truly need it but now the system has been transformed from strictly passive income support to an active re-employment strategy. We have increased expenditures for training and other active measures from $500 million in 1990 to $1.8 billion this year. That is a 260 per cent increase in active support for workers in our country.
As well, our work sharing program enables UI funds to be used to avoid layoffs. It means that during work slowdowns employers are able to retain their workers. For example, take a company that manufactures engines in Winnipeg that anticipated having to increase layoffs until it heard about work sharing. Instead, employees work two to four days per week, share available work and collect UI benefits for their days off. They could also use their days off for training. It makes a lot of sense. Work

May 8, 1992
Government Orders
sharing is a $100 million government program that works and it keeps Canadians working.
Another important element of the government's approach is the claimant re-employment strategy. This is a program designed to give even more help to UI beneficiaries through increased counselling and job search assistance with a view to getting workers back to work.
By moving to more client oriented programming Canadian Employment Centres and EIC's labour market partners have additional flexibility to adjust EIC programs to local requirements.
The hon. member's motion offers the preposterous notion that we have failed to provide job training and retraining. Tiy telling that to the 639,000 potential workers who received assistance last year in Canada and the 650,000 who will receive employment and training assistance this year. We also have an arrangement with provincial governments whereby we purchase classroom training in various trades from provincial institutions. In addition, EIC gives four-year grants to help provincial institutions set up co-op education programs.
I know that all hon. members are well aware of our stay in school initiative which is a program for young people at risk of dropping out of school. Young Canadians at risk of not fulfilling their educational potential would short change themselves and short change the Canadian work force.
It is no secret that this government believes in partnership. There is the partnership I just spoke of with provincial governments and there is the partnership with the private sector groups. The people at the grassroots are in the best position to know what training is relevant to the needs of their communities.
Since 1985 we have been providing more EIC funds to private sector organizations which, in turn, purchase courses. The result is that taxpayers get more for their dollar because private sector groups are often able to negotiate better prices. As well, training institutions are
more responsive to market forces because they are competing for federal dollars.
Employment and Immigration Canada's industrial adjustment service is second to none when it comes to lending a helping hand. This service is a co-ordinating tool or a facilitator. It promotes efforts in business and labour to find workable solutions to industrial problems.
I am sure that all hon. members appreciate that rapid changes in technology create uncertainty and insecurity among workers who have to adjust fairly quickly. Under an IES agreement, the implications for training in a new technology are managed successfully.
In 1989 the government asked the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre to co-ordinate an extensive series of consultations on the future of our human resource development and labour market programs. Those consultations with the people of Canada gave us a broad range of recommendations on how to reform our labour market policies. We learned that the government must give the private sector a more direct say in the use of our federal resources to address labour market problems.
We also learned that the private sector must put more time, effort and resources into developing a skilled, competitive work force.
Simply put, we realize the necessity of forming partnerships committed to effective labour market development. With that knowledge we established the Canadian Labour Force Development Board which was announced in January 1991.
Hon. members will recall that the board is comprised of 22 leaders from business, labour, education, training institutions and social action groups. This independent body determines its own priorities and hires its own staff. The board's first major undertaking in fulfilling its mandate was to recommend the 1992 UI development uses expenditure plan. This is an extremely important step. It means that the partnership is working. It sets out the tone for a productive relationship between the public and the private sector in speeding up the training and adjustment activities of unemployed workers.
The plan's success marks the beginning of a new era of co-operation in which Canadians are consulted about decisions that affect them. In the past the private sector has not had a clear role in labour market development.
May 8, 1992

This government is now drawing upon private sector expertise in a way that will enable business, labour and individual communities to play an integral part not just at the national level. We are now negotiating agreements with provinces and territories that will result in the establishment of provincial and then local boards to further enhance the government's labour force development strategy.
These new boards will not duplicate the existing services of Canada Employment Centres and sectoral groups. Where appropriate, they will complement these bodies by drawing upon their knowledge of individual communities while focusing on training for unemployed workers and encouraging increased training for employed workers.
The government is justifiably proud and excited about these initiatives. We are extending private sector input, not by imposing policy on the labour market, but by allowing the process that establishes local boards to be driven by the labour market itself. The national board, provincial and territorial groups and the federal government provide guidance and support.
The government's prosperity initiative will further broaden the foundation already established by these EIC programs. The focus of our prosperity initiative is competitiveness and learning. Particularly significant is our comprehensive investigation of components associated with learning and skills development. I am referring to things such as basic and higher education, apprenticeship, school to work transition, vocational training, co-operative education, skills training in the workplace and national occupational standards.
Our goal is to establish a blueprint for the development of a learning culture in Canada. This is a blueprint to which all stakeholders can subscribe. It is a framework for a lifelong process supported by all Canadians.
To that end, consultations were undertaken by a private sector steering group. The group's members reflect a broad cross-section of Canadians. In September it will produce a plan of action for governments, business, labour, academics, scientists and ordinary Canadians.
Government Orders
Several hundred town hall meetings have been held in communities across Canada. The steering group is consulting with national associations and seeking individual expertise. Cabinet ministers are meeting with representatives of their client groups. I can assure hon. members that the input for this prosperity initiative is not just with the government, it is widespread and being driven totally by the private sector.
This is an historic concept in federal policy. For the first time in Canada the key is genuine partnership. We are working together to develop programs that will directly affect our lives and ensure that Canada has a solid, competitive labour force to take us into the 21st century.
The reason for this undertaking is simply that the government fully understands that the future economic health of this great nation depends largely on our ability to compete internationally. That ability will be determined by the levels of our skills and education.
We are about to undertake an experiment to determine if an earning supplementation system would be a good idea for some people on social assistance. The idea is based on the premise that some people remain on social assistance, not because they do not want to work, but because what they are capable of earning is too low to meet the needs of their families.
The experiment will be a five-year pilot project assessing feasibility and cost effectiveness. Those eligible will be employable social assistance recipients who are sole earners with at least two dependents. Participants will receive counselling and job search assistance as well as earning supplementation for up to three years.
At EIC we have great hopes for the outcome of this project. If successful, it will guide us in developing a more comprehensive and coherent social security system.
These are just some of the many successful ventures taking place because this government has had the foresight to realize that Canadians want to work. They do not want to sit around and do nothing. They want the opportunity to develop skills necessary to function in the work place of the 1990s. They want assistance that will enable them to be fully participating members of their communities and Canada as a whole. That is what the policies and programs of this government are achieving.

May 8, 1992
Government Orders
They are calling for action. The mission of employment and immigration is to help people. Whether it is to find a job, train for a new position, collect UI benefits between jobs, our entire raison d'etre is to help Canadians participate fully in the economic, social and cultural life of our nation and we are doing that. No previous government has ever made the efforts this government has made to develop a strong and proud work force among the people of Canada.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the member said in his remarks that the Canadian Jobs Strategy is paying special attention to women and visible minorities.
I would like the member to explain what his government is going to do then about the following government created barriers which actually actively discriminate against immigrant women. I would like to list a number of them.
First, the cuts of $100 million to the budget for CJS in this year's budget will, it is estimated, decrease training opportunities for immigrant women by 35 per cent.
Second, the lack of accreditation for women who come from other countries means that they either stay at home or they are forced to take jobs with very low wages. This means that Canada is losing the potential skills of many very well-educated professional women.
Third, I would like to ask the member to pay attention to the fact that money was allocated by the minister of employment, which I think comes to about $160 million, for language training programs for instruction to newcomers to Canada. This offers basic language training and the money is used to buy spaces. This sounds good, but the problem is that immigrant women cannot use this program because there are no training allowances that go along with it.
This means they do not have money to support their families or to even cover the cost of going to classes. Therefore it makes that program inaccessible to immigrant women. Immigrant groups right across the country are very concerned about this.
The fourth point is that the Employment Equity Act shows that visible minority women earn less than other women, so there is discrimination there. Also, there are two areas in particular that offer traditional job opportunities for immigrant women, that is the textile industry and the domestic workers industry in Canada.
We find now that vast numbers of immigrant women in the textile industries are losing their jobs because of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. At the same time the minister of immigration has brought in new very restrictive policies that have raised the educational requirements for domestics who would come from other countries. This, in effect, excludes many women from Third World countries.
All these policies, which are government policies, deliberately discriminate against immigrant women. I wonder if he would explain this. I also wonder what he as a government member of Parliament would undertake to do to help remove these barriers.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern. These are concerns that she has raised before and I welcome them. I have had similar questions raised by constituents in my own riding. What we need to look at and understand here is that we are in a changing society. We have a lot of new immigrants coming into the country.
I appreciate and I think the government understands the concerns, particularly with some of the areas that the hon. member has mentioned, such as immigrant women coming into the work force.
We have been dealing with members who are currently in the work force, members who have not been able to maintain a skill level to allow them to continue to work in the work force, the veiy reasons for some of the retraining programs that we have introduced and are continuing to support. It is the very reason for some of the programs I have just discussed with regard to partnerships with the provinces and within the community to assist in the retraining of these people.
The same obviously applies to new immigrants who come to Canada, particularly refugees without skills. I think a particular concern of the hon. member and one I share is the recognition of skills that in fact immigrants do bring to our country. We have to recognize these skills. It is a program that we are continuing to work on and hope that we can recognize these skills to adapt them to the Canadian marketplace so that those skills and trades can be recognized and used.
May 8, 1992

The member mentioned the Employment Equity Act. There are still concerns and we will have to continue to work in that direction. We have come a long way, as the hon. member I hope will see and appreciate, in the past seven years with regard to employment equity.
I wanted to comment too, because it is one that has come to my attention in my own constituency, on her concern with regard to the use of domestics, particularly immigrants as domestics and some of the new regulations. Yes, we understand. I think we have to be very careful in this area though that we do not encourage the exploitation of domestics in our country, that is the bringing in of immigrants and underpaying them because of their immigrant status.
Our notion and the intent of government policy is to make all Canadians equal. Once they become Canadians they are all equal despite their background or from whence they came. It is not our intention to encourage the exploitation of women as domestics in Canada. I think that the minister has taken an appropriate direction to prevent that type of exploitation.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, further to the point I raised earlier, will the member undertake to talk to the minister about providing training for immigrant women who want to get into language instruction for newcomers program.
Will he ask the minister if they can please consider providing training allowances so it will be possible for women to use this program? Otherwise, it is sheer discrimination.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I accept the premise of the hon. member's question.
I am aware that the new policy opens language training to a wider spectrum of clients, including those who are not immediately destined to the labour market. The wider eligibility recognizes that all immigrants need Canadian language skills to successfully integrate into our society.
The government will continue to make language training available to those clients who are in need the most and who are more likely to experience barriers to integration such as the hon. member has suggested. We are talking about women, disabled immigrants, visible minorities immigrants, persons with illiteracy disadvantages and refugees who may have traumatic experiences.
Government Orders
I am a member from Calgary and I am very aware of the influx in refugees and that Canada has opened its heart and arms to welcome these people who have no place to go. We have taken our share in Canada. It is incumbent upon us to allow these people to enter the work force. We need to improve our language training. The minister should be applauded for the new policy on language training programs.
I appreciate the hon. member bringing it to the attention of the House and to Canadians. It is a great policy of the minister and it will allow these people to become productive members of society. Language training is clearly one. We have to continue and as the hon. member suggests-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You are not allowing them, they cannot get in.


Lee Richardson: Yes, it applies across the board. We are encouraging women immigrants as well.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, needless to say, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on this particular opposition motion. I do not think any of us on this side take pleasure in criticizing the government. Contrary to popular opinion, we like to work with the government. In fact we are probably the most positive party in the sense of trying to work with government to see that it comes forward with good, proper legislation, with good programs, programs that are going to accomplish something.
Regretfully we find ourselves today having to rise and speak on this particular issue of training and retraining and unemployment because the government's record is abysmal. It has not accomplished anything in this particular area. As you look at the motion, it is the second part of the motion that is the critical part. It is because the minister has been involved in continuing to provide this House with incorrect, inaccurate and ambiguous information. It leads people astray and into thinking that things are well and functioning properly.
We all know from the people who call our constituency offices and the people that we meet from day to day that that is not the case. We only have to look at the fact that 18 per cent of Canada's manufacturing jobs were lost between January 1989 and March 1992. This government said during the free trade debate that we should not worry about that. It was going to put forward programs, retraining programs and a safety net in order to rescue

May 8, 1992
Government Orders
those people who suffer the adverse consequences of the free trade agreement.
Then it comes up with another dummy commission that says: it is not necessary. Talk to that 18 per cent who are out walking the streets in Toronto, in Moncton, New Brunswick, and in Victoria, B.C. You will see what they think about the government and its safety nets.
We hear the government and the minister say they have put more money in retraining and all sorts of things are going to be happening as far as retraining is concerned. Then you look at the facts. You find out that 1989-90 to 1992-93, the government cut its expenditures on training by $217 million.


John Harvard: How much?


George Saunders Rideout: Two hundred and seventeen million dollars. It is a shocking number, considering that we are going through a recession and that the ranks of the unemployed have swelled to such a level. The government says: "We are interested in retraining. We are involved. We are going to see something is going to happen".
What it does, and I can see by the look on your face, Mr. Speaker, that you are upset about it, is cast the responsibility on the employer and the employee. The government did not maintain its full responsibility. Imagine, there is $500 million being spent by the employers and the employees. If the Government of Canada had maintained even its commitment of $217 million, what a job could be done now here in Canada to help people retrain and get ready for the new economy and the competitiveness that the government talks about.
Instead, it backs out. It casts the responsibility on another group. While I realize this is not totally related to the debate, Canadians are having the biggest problem with this government in a similar area. In my riding we had three Ministers of National Defence come and promise us that they were going to build a new $100 million supply depot and that those 400 people in Moncton would keep their jobs. They did not need to have any concerns at all because here was a government that was here to help them. What happened? It cancelled the project. It said: "Tough luck to you folks. You are out of work". That is what it did. Then it tells the Canadian people: "Trust us. We are with you. I am from the government and I am here to help you".
What we have done in Moncton is not tell anybody what other government jobs we have for fear they will all be taken away from us.
We see it also in the area of student employment. In my riding and in the whole southeast part of New Brunswick, the program Challenge 92 has been cut by 12 per cent. Over 100 student jobs have been lost in my area because of underfunding.


An hon. member:: They do not care abut jobs.


George Saunders Rideout: They do not care about our youth and our students: GST on books, increased tuition costs, increased residence costs for students. Do you know what the minister said publicly? He said: "The member from Moncton is playing politics. In fact, we have increased the program by $3 million and the Moncton area is doing very well".
Lo and behold, thanks to an investigative journalist who asked his officials what was going on, the officials confirmed that 12 per cent had been cut from the budget of southeast New Brunswick for student employment so that they could go back and train or retrain and pursue secondary and post-secondary education.
That is the commitment this government has made for training and retraining. Then it wonders why people in Canada are a little cynical about this government's commitment to training. There is no commitment to training. There is a commitment to get other people to try to train but there is no commitment by this government to train.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: It is true and it is a shame.


George Saunders Rideout: It is. It is a crying shame. The member for Willowdale is upset and I can understand why. He does not bring forth these motions and chastise the government for no reason. There is justification for this type of motion. It is why we in this House have to debate these issues. I am sure that members opposite will rise and speak in support of this motion as time goes on, although we have not seen it thus far.
I know the minister and the premier of New Brunswick are announcing a new initiative in New Brunswick today, talking about training and retraining and the things that are going to happen. I hope those things work because we on this side are as committed as the government's
May 8, 1992

words are committed to training, retraining, re-education, and restructuring our economy and our work force.
Premier McKenna said it best, and I quote: "The foundation of this new agenda must be the three Es, education, economy and the environment. The three go in lock step. We cannot be competitive and economically successful if we are not properly trained for the world we live in". That is the nub of the issue and that is what this government opposite talks about but never does. It is the commitment we have to make to Canadians and not just words but actions and deeds. Not words like: "Do not worry about the free trade agreement. We will put in protections for you". Not words like: "We are committed to training" and then cutting the budget. Not words like: "We are going to provide projects to your community" and then announcing that those projects are cancelled. Not words like: "We are going to increase the budget for student employment programs" and then behind eveiy-one's back cut them. We want to see those positive commitments made to our education system, positive commitments to training, and those types of programs.
We are saying to this government: Shame on you. It is unusual for us to be so critical but it is absolutely necessary in this particular case that we rise in our place and say enough is enough. It is about time they did something for Canadians rather than looking at a warped sense of government and its role.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Good speech.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to speak to the opposition day motion presented by my colleague from Willowdale. This motion is important because it allows us to talk about the adjustment programs and the training that is necessary to be competitive in the global market.
As you well know, the debate in 1988 dealt specifically with one particular subject, the free trade agreement. In the debate during the election it was made obvious to us and all Canadians that the government of the day was prepared to enter into an agreement knowing full well that there would be some difficulties with it. In order for those difficulties to be made less severe for employees in particular sectors of the economy there would have to be some adjustment programs.
Government Orders
Let us take a look at where we have been and, most importantly as we talk in this debate, where we will go. In 1991 the UI account paid out a record $17.7 billion in benefits. It is important for us to reflect on just how much money that really is. It is 11 per cent of our work force, 11 per cent of those who are physically looking for a job. That does not include the large percentage of those out there who are not looking for a job because they have given up hope. There is a large percentage of people who are not contributing to the economy of Canada and who are not contributing to the future of our country.
Not too long after the election people on this side of the House, and in particular our party, said to the government: "All right, you have your free trade agreement. We know the effects. We know dam well that it is going to hurt a lot of employers and a lot of employees. What are we going to do about it? How are we going to help ourselves to be more competitive, to put in programs, put in training regimes that will in effect look after the future under this new, perceived global economy that everybody talks about?"
It is now 1992 and we are being told by the government that it is entering into a new process, a new regime if you will, that will put in place those adjustment programs for which we have been asking the last almost four years. I talk of course about the Canadian Labour Force Development Board and the strategies that it is undertaking.
I want to talk a little bit about the Labour Force Adjustment Board and the long-term job strategy of the government.
As we all know, there are certain sectors of our economy that are very important to make the engine of this country run. These sectors, and I will just name a few, are not all inclusive: forestry, the automotive sector, the fishing sector, the tourism sector, the mining sector and the high-tech sector that we are trying as a country to get off the ground.
The Labour Force Development Board's strategy and the paper that was put forward by the minister in this place suggested that with this new board we would have 22 individuals who would go throughout the regions and create local labour adjustment boards. Those particular boards would have the ability and the wherewithal to put

May 8, 1992
Government Orders
together strategies and positions on how we are to be globally competitive.
At the same time the government suggests that we are going to change our education system somehow, even though it comes under provincial jurisdiction, through co-operation with the provinces in order for us as Canadians to deal with the 30 per cent illiteracy problem we have, to deal with the people who are unskilled in certain sectors of the economy and so on and so forth.
That is all very well and good and I commend the government to a certain extent for putting forward some sort of initiative because I think it is important to give the people some hope. That hope is that governments which are in place, no matter what their political ideology, know what they are doing, know what they are talking about, and know the direction they want us to go. However, I have a bit of a problem with that. It has to deal with the Canadian Labour Force Development Board and the particular ideology of the government and just where we are headed.
According to the government and the people who are running this particular new board, the local training boards are to accomplish two main objectives and I want to read just one for you: "The main objective is having Canadians decide their own needs at a local level and getting business, labour and other groups to co-operate in the programs".
That is very nice, but the fact remains that that is not the issue at all. The forestiy sector, which is a national industry, has a tremendous amount of potential but also at the same time a large competitive advantage in certain markets and competitive disadvantages in others. This particular sector of the economy needs an industrial strategy not local training needs. Once the paper mill in Kenora where I live and grew up shuts down, it is all well and good to suggest that we will put a labour adjustment committee together, that we will have the local committee retrain all these employees.
That is not what we want. We do not want to have to deal with the problems after the industry is shut down. We want to deal with them while the industry is the strongest in the world and we want to make sure that the industry stays the strongest industry in the world. If we
are going to be in a global market, what is the sense of having labour adjustment programs to deal with shutdowns after the fact?
I would like to see, and I hope the minister is listening very closely to this, a long-term job strategy for the key sectors of our economy that make us the world leaders in those particular sectors. We need to deal with forestry in a comprehensive way and at the same time take the labour adjustment committee at the national level, break it down sector by sector, put together a strategy for that sector so that we do not have to go through the same thing we go through every 10 years. We have a boom and then we have a bust. Now we are in the period of a bust in the forestry sector where we have a 20 per cent over-capacity in the pulp and paper industry.
To me, this is just poor planning. We cannot continue to allow our sectors, our industries, to put themselves in positions where on the one hand they are creating a whole lot of jobs and on the other hand, because of free market forces, without any plan with the help of the government, dealing with the massive lay-offs we are dealing with now.
I have another example. I have a mine in my riding owned by Placer Dome, a very well-to-do company, I thought. The mine that I refer to is Campbell Lake, probably one of the world leaders in the production of gold. In the last four years that mine made a profit of $202 million. A week and a half ago the management of this mine decided without telling anybody in the town of Red Lake and Golden that they were going to cut 99 employees, wham, just like that, without even having the courtesy of telling the councils in those particular regions they were going to terminate 99 employees. It just happened. That is what I am talking about, planning.
If someone is going to make those kinds of business decisions, which they have a perfect right to do under certain circumstances, they have a moral obligation to the community to let us know what they plan on doing in the long term, in the future. That is what we are talking about here, the future.
If they think this Mickey Mouse Canadian Labour Adjustment Board is going to hand out dollars to individual communities and is going to look after the problem then they really are missing the boat.
May 8, 1992

The boat I want to be on is the one that has a strategy to deal with competition in Germany, the United States and Japan and to make sure that Canadians are at the leading edge of those industries.
If we can do that then we have done a job as a government. We need the right climate. We need the proper legislation in place so that we do not make it difficult for these companies to compete. At the same time those companies have to help us as parliamentarians and as governments. We are here to help the people and the corporations be the best corporate citizens they possibly can.
I hope the government realizes that this band-aid solution is a long way from the realistic solution that I am looking for.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, it is an interesting debate today and I am pleased to take part in it.
We have covered quite a bit of philosophical territory in this debate and there are differing opinions obviously as there always is in this House. I think there is some commonality among us as well. I do not think there is any question in the minds of all of us in the House about the fact that Canada is caught up in a very changing world and to remain as we are is not going to be the way to approach the 1990s and the turn of the century. We cannot remain static. I think all of us agree on that.
I will begin on a positive note. I am going to refer to the United Nations study that was released a week or so ago. I think most of us in the House are very pleased with that study. It is certainly a pleasure as a Canadian to get to my feet and talk about it. Canada was identified by the United Nations as the best country in the world in which to live.
As we all know the report measured the quality of life for a citizen of this country and the citizens of 162 other countries in compiling the data. At the end of the day Canada came out on top, number one. As most of us know a year ago we were number two, exceeded only by the Japanese. I think most of us are very pleased with that finding.
What we have to remind the Canadian people is that despite the fact that we are number one in the world we still have difficulties as a country; we are not perfect and
Government Orders
we have to strive to make it a better country. That is the importance of this debate today. We have to strive to improve ourselves. There is some indication that we are making some progress. We probably will not make it as fast as we would like to see but despite the fact that we have difficulties we are making progress and that progress is evident in the report released by the United Nations, that indeed it is a pretty good country.
Let us focus on some of the things that are happening right before our very eyes and see what we can do to improve as a country. We are famous for throwing statistics around here fast and furious, and trying to sort them out sometimes is a problem. Some of those statistics which face us in this country are startling. They have been brought out in the competitive study, the Agenda for Prosperity Initiative, of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. That particular study and some of the cross-country community talks that they are holding brought some of these statistics forward.
I think it is worth mentioning some of these. One of these statistics is that one million students, which is 30 per cent, will drop out of high school this decade unless they are encouraged to finish school. We all know that education is a provincial responsibility constitutionally. We also realize for probably the first time in a long time and possibly the first time ever that governments have to work more closely to improve on that number.
Now is the time to talk about that more than ever as we go through our constitutional rounds. That is a very scary number. It is alarming because we have also heard that nearly two-thirds of the new jobs in this decade will require more than 12 years of education and training and 40 per cent of them will require 16 years or more of training.
Yet it is pointed out that 60 per cent of our current work force has no more than a high school education. It also points out that a 1990 survey concluded that 40 per cent of Canadian adults could not read or do math well enough to perform common, everyday tasks. Most startling of all, of course, is only one in three Canadian firms provide formal staff training.
Again, when viewing the global picture our statistics are better than some and worse than others. But there is much more that we have to do, not only the provincial governments but also the federal government, to improve those numbers and to face those realities. What

May 8, 1992
Government Orders
we do know is that other countries are doing that this very day.
The model that we often point to, of course, is the Japanese because they have realized for a long time that productivity is improved through education. They do not leave education, training or retraining solely up to governments. Industry does a great deal of it and somehow we have not done that in this country.
We cannot blame the corporations for that. But I guess it is a fact in this country that we have always assumed that governments will do it. Now for the first time we are realizing maybe there is a relationship that has never been established in this country between governments and business. Maybe it is time that they be given the incentive necessary to bring about some of this training to improve their own lot in the marketplace.
This becomes very clear when you look at Canada's competitive position. There is a very clear link between training, our ability to train, our competitiveness as a nation, and what we earn as Canadians from training with those very countries that we compete with.
Twenty-five per cent of our economy depends on trade with others. Although Japan out-trains us and out-per-forms us in the educational sphere, it is only 14 per cent of Japan's economy that depends on trade. In the United States it is only 10 per cent. Here we are two and a half times the United States in regard to trade and how much our economy depends on trade. Yet, our training falls very short of the mark. In fact, we are told that American industry spends twice as much as the Japanese on training. The Japanese spend five times, Germany eight times that we do on training in Canada.
We have to do more. But as the Minister of Employment and Immigration often points out in this House, we have to build a different relationship, a partnership with others to make it happen because governments cannot do it alone.
We have addressed the training problem as we have never done so in the past. One of the statistics of which the minister and all of us are quite proud is that that figure this year will exceed $3 billion to provide training and adjustment assistance for approximately 465,000 Canadians. If we include job training or job sharing in
this, over 600,000 Canadians were helped. The figure as I said will be over $3 billion, something in the order of $3.4 billion.
The question, of course, that the opposition raises is: Is it enough? I suppose in all honesty it is not enough and perhaps we should find more money. But that is the root of the problem itself. We know the burden of debt under which all the governments are operating today, federally, provincially and municipally. It is a question of allocating financial resources to do the job. Of course, we are limited in coming up with the dollars to do what we want to see done. I think a commitment by this government of $3.4 billion, given the finances of the Government of Canada, is not an insignificant figure.
The members who have spoken today, especially members opposite, have mentioned the changing dynamics of the Canadian economy. It is worth mentioning some of those changing dynamics here because not that we want it to happen, but some of these changes are happening before our very eyes often without our realizing it. But again it goes back to that need for further training in this country.
I read an article in Canadian Business magazine a few months back. I believe it was the February or March edition although I do not have the exact date. One of the things that was pointed out by a consulting firm is the fact that the Canadian economy is changing so quickly that some of us do not even realize the magnitude of some of the changes. I want to mention some of them.
One fact is that our electronics industry is now larger than our pulp and paper industry. This was before a downturn in the pulp and paper industry, I might mention. But how many of us actually knew that the electronics industry had surpassed the pulp and paper industry? Our communications and telecommunications industry is larger than our mining and petroleum industries combined.
More Quebecers work in the health and medical care industry than in the construction, textile, clothing, furniture, automotive, forestry and mining industries combined. More Albertans work in the financial services industry than in the oil and gas industry. More British
May 8, 1992

Columbians work in the communications and telecommunications industry than in the entire forestry industry.
Now those are startling revelations. We are moving beyond this notion of Canadians being the hewers of wood and drawers of water. And if we are going to continue to move in the direction we are, we have to sit down and determine whether we are doing the right things in regard to education and training.
Now let us talk about the dislocation in the Canadian work force which leads us into the free trade agreement, whether we did the right thing or the wrong thing. But let us talk about some of that dislocation within Canada in the manufacturing industry in this country and let us talk about some of those numbers and why they are happening.
It is happening. There has been a tremendous dislocation in the work force in Canada. Again in all fairness, we recognize that. But what we have to do to put this thing into context or frame it properly is to compare our Canadian position to that of our friends to the south of us, that trading partner of ours to the south, the United States of America.
What is happening in that country? It is true there has been a dislocation of workers in this country, but it is also true that they have a figure 10 times higher than ours in regard to dislocation of workers in the manufacturing sector in their country.
The first conclusion drawn is that, well, that is absolutely right. They have an economy that is basically 10 times the size of ours and they have a population that is basically 10 times the size of ours. We all agree with that. But I think the point we have to make here is that the dislocation in Canada has been no greater than that in the United States.
If that line of logic is followed, what has happened in the European countries is basically the same. The numbers of people dislocated within the industrial sector is simply because of these huge changes that are taking place within our economy, whether we want them to happen or not. If we are talking about 4.5 million people dislocated within the manufacturing sector in the United States that is fine. If we want to use a figure of 350,000 or 400,000 Canadians dislocated within the last number of years that is fine. I will accept those figures.
Government Orders
What we have to do is focus on why this has happened. It has nothing to do with our trading relationship with that country to the south of us. It has had a corresponding reduction in jobs in as well. Those job losses in Canada did not show up in the United States. So if we lost 400,000 jobs one would think the United States would have gained 400,000 jobs. William F. Buckley Jr. brought that out in a debate with Mel Hurtig.
There has been no increase in jobs in the United States. In fact, in some of its industrial sectors they are hurting worse than we are. Let us remove the politics from that argument because it is a false argument.
I can hardly wait for the member for Ottawa South to get up on his feet. We shared a number of months on the finance committee. It is not that we disagree on everything, but I am sure he will have something to state during the question and comment period and I will be more than glad to answer.
The truth is the dynamics of the Canadian economy is changing so quickly, so rapidly, that we have to move with it and move in ways that we can accommodate those Canadians coming on line and coming of age in regard to work, seeking a job for the first time whether they are leaving high school or university.
Our economy is changing very quickly and we have to be able to respond to it. I think we are doing that but if you want to examine whether we are doing enough, I would probably say we are not. Given the financial times we are experiencing in this country, we have nothing to be ashamed of.
Let us work together constructively to see if we can sort some of these problems and see if at the end of the day we will have a little bit again of commonality in our approach to this. We all want the same thing. We want a nation we can be proud of, we want a nation where our young people after leaving school can say that there is some opportunity there and all they have to do is go out and make it happen.
An article that appeared in The Globe and Mail yesterday speaks well of this subject in regard to attitudi-nal change in Canadians. In fact, young people and Canadians in general are saying that we do have to be competitive and we cannot as a trading nation remove ourselves from that equation even though we want to. I

May 8, 1992
Government Orders
mentioned the wealth that is generated in this country because of trade with other nations.
It is interesting to note as pointed out in The Globe and Mail article yesterday by Harvey Unchin that:
Three-quarters of Canadians believe competition leads to excellence and fully 90 per cent believe they cannot get ahead without taking risks. According to a study of Canadian attitudes more Canadians than Americans feel that the profit motive teaches the value of hard work and that few would strive to do their best if private enterprise were abolished.
That is interesting because it is a huge attitudinal change on the part of Canadians. As we have always realized, we have to go out and do it with our own two hands. We have to do it up here. We cannot rely on government to do it for us.
What we can do as government is put the structural changes, the foundation, in place that will ensure future generations will indeed inherit a good Canada.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, having been invited by the hon. member to make comments I really could not resist the opportunity. As usual with my friend for Carleton-Charlotte I agree very much with what he said.
There was only one clear heresy that I heard in the course of his speech and that was the notion if Canada had lost jobs due to the FTA they should have shown up in increased jobs in the U.S. This of course is fairly ridiculous when you consider the concern we had expressed over the FTA was the economies of scale would favour the United States. Indeed without increasing the number of workers at all the ability of large U.S. plants to supply the Canadian market without any increased labour component would occur. That, in fact, is what we feared. That could well be the explanation for the fact that while plants have closed in Canada, particularly branch plants, that there has been no concomitant increase in work in the U.S. It was not necessary in order to supply the relatively small Canadian market from some of the huge U.S. plants.
That is something of a heretical aside. Many of the points he has made are valid concerning the need for Canada and the U.S. and all of the industrialized countries to recognize the fact that we are in a period of very significant change. I do find it surprising that he
needed to look to the prosperity initiative for some of the statistics he referred to since very similar numbers have been produced over the last number of years. This includes the very recent figures from the Economic Council of Canada which has, in the last few weeks, produced an excellent study on education, the dropout rate, the illiteracy rate and the numerical skills of Canadian high school graduates.
Unlike the prosperity initiative, the Economic Council was actually proposing some solutions. It was an agenda for change that governments both present and future could pursue in order to address some of the problems. Regrettably, of course, the government saw fit to shut the doors of the Economic Council of Canada so we will not be able to benefit from that foresight and those long-term perspectives in the future.
One suspects that sometimes the heat in the kitchen between the government and the Economic Council was just a little too great for the government so it was best to get rid of the Economic Council of Canada. This is a great loss.
On the specific issues that he raised with respect to training, I think it is important for all Canadians to understand that we do have to wrestle perpetually with this difficulty of mixed jurisdiction. The member raised that and perhaps I will conclude with this.
It strikes me that very often one of the frustrations that Canadians feel with politicians in general, and with Parliament, is their failure in dealing with the issues that critically concern them. I think of all of the issues that are lurking out there now which are quite apart from the ones that are immediate like the problem of unemployment and so on. It is this fear on the part of a broad range of Canadians that our educational institutions are failing us, that our children are not getting the training they need and that our workers who are being displaced by things that are outside of their control are unable to get retrained in ways that are meaningful so that they would be able to find jobs.
Instead of being able to deal with those very big and very broad problems, very often we, as members of Parliament, are caught in this bind of trying to figure out whether it falls within the federal or the provincial responsibility. How do we get the Council of Education Ministers together to work out a strategy? Is apprentice-
May 8, 1992

ship federal or is it provincial? How do we fund the universities and community colleges?
All of these issues must be seen by Canadians as missing the point. That point is whether we are able, as a country, to respond quickly to those challenges out there to enable our people to meet the challenges and to resume the tradition of prosperity that we have had the good fortune in this country to enjoy for 125 years.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, I thought the member was on debate because he was so lengthy. There is a great deal to talk about in this debate.
I do sense that there is a common theme between us in regard to this. We will disagree on some of the specifics on occasion.
He did mention the FTA and whether it is good or bad.
I have studied economics as much as some in this House but less than others obviously. My belief has always been that a smaller nation or a smaller market has more to gain by selling into a larger market than vice versa. I think that is the beauty of the arrangement that we have with our neighbours to the south. The only thing that we have to do is be the best at what we do no matter what it is. That is what we have to learn as Canadians.
If we are talking about a strategy for the future, I guess it is the recognition, and more of us are beginning to recognize it, that we have to be absolutely the best in the world at what we do. I think there is a great deal of evidence out there that we are beginning to be the best in the world at what we do. Statistics bear that out.
It is also borne out by foreign investment coming into Canada. It is interesting to note that foreign investment in Canada right now is coming in at an all-time high. Foreign investors are now recognizing Canada as a good place to invest and recognizing that Canada has a trading relationship with the biggest single market in the world. We are a country that has come to grips with some of those fundamentals but we haven't completed it in its entirety. Statistics bear that out. For example, in 1991, 235 new businesses were established in Canada by first-time foreign investors. That is interesting. They tell me also that the projected capital expenditures by 1991 investors, over the first two years of their business, amounted to $2.1 billion. I think the proof is in the numbers.
Government Orders
We have difficulties in our trading relationships with all countries in the world because that is just human nature. I think what foreign investors and businesses are recognizing in Canada, however, is that we have a great deal of potential in this country of ours. We have the best work force in the world in terms of work ethic. We have a highly skilled work force, although we have more to do. We recognize that if we are going to compete with the rest of the world that we are going to have to do it ourselves. If we want to continue to have the highest standard of living in the world we have to do it ourselves. We cannot depend on someone else to do it for us.


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, this is what I want to ask the hon. member. If we are going to be the best in the world, and if that includes training, where does he suggest that the Atlantic provinces will get the funds to do that training in view of the fact that funds from the federal government have been cut back and in view of the fact that they do not have the kind of tax base they need to make up the difference themselves? Assume that training is key for competitiveness and we are in a recession. Also the Economic Council of Canada has pointed out in its summary on page 17 that the "employer based training effort is weak". The fact is that employers are not putting a great deal of money into training.
On the other hand, assume that the amount of training from the Government of Canada has been cut back except for those who are actually drawing unemployment insurance.
If competitiveness is important and if training is an important element in that, and if the Atlantic provinces are getting less and less money all the time to help firms do that training in a recession, how does he think training is going to take place? Where are the funds for it going to come from?


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, was it Mark Twain who said: "Lies, damn lies and statistics"? I think what the hon. member has to realize is that in Atlantic Canada, and in all of Canada, transfers to the provinces have increased not decreased.
I want to remind the member from Newfoundland that of the expenditures of revenues in his province by the provincial government, 50 per cent of that is transferred from the Government of Canada to the Government of Newfoundland. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We

May 8, 1992
Government Orders
have increased and not decreased payments to the provinces.
I want to put that correction on the record because I think it is very important that the people of Newfoundland recognize that.
In regard to training, the Government of Canada transfers to the provinces $6 billion for universities in this country. That is just one part of the equation. There are other moneys and other training areas that we transfer as well. I know we have nothing to be ashamed of with regard to transfers to the provinces. His province of Newfoundland benefits more from Confederation than any other province in this dominion.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise and participate on the Official Opposition's motion today on training.
This government has issued many written statements about equality for women and within these statements the correct assumption is made that training is an absolute necessity for women to reintegrate into the paid work force after raising children, for young women to launch themselves in an occupation with a future, for disabled women, for women on social assistance and for immigrant and aboriginal women.
The government states this in its own document Dimensions of Equality which is its work plan on women. It states it again very recently in the Estimates this year for Status of Women Canada.
In the meantime, though, it has cut $100 million from training programs that affect these very women the most. This is the second year in a row that it has cut $100 million.
In British Columbia, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, women's groups were told by Employment and Immigration officials that women were specifically targeted for cuts. They were told: "Women have had their day", "Women were done" and "Women have had their share over the last 20 years".
Women are still not fully integrated into a range of occupations in the paid labour force and that is because
of hundreds of years of job segregation, sexism and of lack of access to education and training.
Employment and Immigration seems to believe that 20 years is enough to reverse hundreds and hundreds of years of segregation even though in those 20 years men have always made up a majority of government-funded training programs.
Women's training programs across the country have been cut or told to completely change their client base to people collecting unemployment insurance. That cuts out the majority of clients for these services. The majority includes single mothers on welfare who are trying to find a job to support their family. They are not on unemployment insurance. I should add that the government says they do not deserve training or child care either.
The majority includes older women trying to re-enter or enter the paid work force for the first time after they have raised their children. The government is saying that these women are not worth bothering about according to this new policy.
The majority includes young women who are trying to break into the paid work force during the recession with no skills or job experience.
Who cares about them, Madam Speaker? This government does not say so. They do not care.
Farm women who need to find jobs outside the farm to make ends meet so that the family farm is not lost cannot get training because they are not on unemployment insurance.
The shift to training only, or primarily UI recipients, also hurts immigrants and refugees. They will not have access to training programs to integrate themselves into the Canadian job market.
Disabled women experience severe inequality in the job market and many have never been allowed to use their skills in paid employment.
These women are excluded from training programs.
Communities that are suffering the most such as aboriginal communities and black communities are ravaged by economic underdevelopment. The majority of

people in these communities is excluded from training programs.
You must have had a Ul-insurable job in the recent past in order to be able to collect unemployment insurance. This excludes contract and casual workers or people living in communities where there are no jobs.
From the time the Conservatives came to power in 1984 to the present government funding for training declined by 37 per cent in real terms. At the same time this government talks about training as a key factor in revitalizing the economy.
Over and over again in the speeches from the government side of the House we hear these buzzwords about competitiveness but where is the action on training?
It is no wonder we are in a recession, as are countries such as Britain and the U.S. Both of these are Conservative led countries.
It seems that Conservative governments cause recessions. Conservative governments spend so much time filling the pockets of their big business friends that they ignore the real people who make up the economy, those who work in businesses and those who buy the goods.
I want to talk about the death toll as a result of Conservative cuts. The following is a list of services which will be eliminated or radically altered to not serve those who need the services most. The list includes: the Women's Employment Counselling Unit in Vancouver; Career Action for Youth in Vancouver; the Counselling Resource Centre in Vancouver; Experience Unlimited, a program for older workers in British Columbia; the Surrey Job Centre for youth in British Columbia; Mosaic, a service for immigrants in Vancouver; Evolution, the only re-entry program for francophone women in Manitoba; New Options for Women in Moncton, New Brunswick; the Women's Enterprise Centres in Newfoundland; Seneca College's, Women into Trades and Technology program in Ontario; Working Skills for Women in Toronto; Focus for Change for low income women, in Toronto; Humber College's Career Planning for Women; Job Readiness Training and Career Planning for Immigrant Women will also be affected; Ontario's Dixon Hall STEP program for sole support mothers; First Step to Employment and the Bridging Program of the Working Skills Centre in Toronto have been cut by 100 per cent; African Bridging Program in Ontario
Government Orders
completely cut; Women Growing, a bridging program for women in conflict with the law cut 100 per cent; New Experience for Refugee Women; Wood Green Metro Youth Job Corps in Toronto; the Kingston Women's Self-employment Centre cut 100 per cent.
Young people, women, the poor, social assistance recipients, immigrants, refugees and racial minorities are the people this government has targeted for cuts. They are the people who need employment programs the most. In Toronto, Canada Employment Centres are turning away people looking for jobs who are not receiving unemployment insurance. This is not right.
This government is making poverty permanent. It is entrenching inequality in the job market so deeply that it will be almost impossible to come out of it. It dares to claim that it is doing anything at all to promote economic equality for women and minorities.
A leaked employment and immigration memo dated March 16, 1992 confirms what equity groups already knew. The Canadian Jobs Strategy is not fulfilling its obligations under the Employment Equity Act.
Participation rates for aboriginal, disabled and women workers have consistently decreased in these programs from 1987 to the present. The participation rate for aboriginal people was 8.8 per cent in 1987 and is 6.4 per cent this year. The participation rate for women fell from 42.5 per cent in 1987 to 39 per cent this year, although women make up 51 per cent of the population and almost 60 per cent of the poor. They are the vast majority of those in need of training programs.
The participation rate of the disabled decreased from 2.3 per cent in 1987 to 1.6 this year. The disabled make up 5.4 per cent of the paid labour force.
Female participation rates were never higher than 10 per cent in the government's job shortages program that focused on training people for skills that are in high demand. Related to the issue of cuts to disadvantaged groups in job training is the issue of gutting of job-related language training.
The new immigrant language training policy was introduced in January without input from immigrant and racial minority communities. The policy will take effect on June 1 of this year which is not enough time for meaningful consultation and a reworking of the policy.

May 8, 1992
Government Orders
This new policy means that immigrants who have been in Canada for more than one year will be disqualified from participating in the new language training programs. Canadian citizens will be excluded even if they are in desperate need of official language skills. Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada or LINC, as it is commonly known, is necessary but certainly not at the expense of other language training. The criteria would focus on time spent in Canada, not on language needs. Another concern is the enormous waiting lists for language training. It is possible that many immigrants will never have the language training they require. By the time a space becomes available they will no longer be eligible.
The training allowance available to participants in English or French as a second language program will be discontinued making it infinitely more difficult for immigrants, especially immigrant women, to enrol in language training.
The short length of language training will render instruction almost meaningless. The new policy will limit the maximum length of language training to 24 weeks but only for those trainees at level 1, the lowest level of language competency. The level 1 means totally illiterate even in language from one's country of origin.
Since the majority of immigrants are beyond level 1, most immigrants will receive far less than 24 weeks training. That is not enough to become fluent enough in a language to effectively perform one's previous or new occupation or to further one's job training and education. It takes most people two years to learn a language. The government is proposing a few hours a week for as little as six weeks for many immigrants.
What is also worth noting is that immigrants will be tested at the beginning of a language course in order to place them at the appropriate level but there will be no follow-up at the end to make sure that they have acquired basic official language skills. This means the government is shielding itself from quantitative data about how its language training program is too short to teach people the basic skills they need.
Canada's immigration policy skims the cream of other countries in terms of those with education and lucrative skills such as doctors and scientists. Then it refuses to allow these people enough language training in order to
perform the jobs that they were chosen to come to Canada to do. The Conservative government is condemning immigrants with advanced skills and education to menial jobs. It condemns those without advanced skills in education to remain without skills and education. The people involved and their families lose, and Canada loses too.
The new policy will substantially lower the proportion of funds allocated to labour market language training. Only 20 per cent of funds will go to helping immigrants learn job related language and the specialized language they may need to find work in certain occupations. This represents a $76 million reduction in spending on job related language training in only two years. This Conservative policy keeps immigrants in ghetto jobs.
It is clear this government would rather have immigrants cleaning their homes and serving their food rather than working alongside them. The little funding there is for labour market language training will now be restricted to skills which are in demand. If someone was a doctor in their country of origin, but this is not in demand, they may have to become a hairdresser instead or whatever is in demand even though their skills and background are in something completely different. This is the logic this government uses.
The government should keep in mind that Conservative politicians themselves are not much in demand these days.
Language competency levels, tests and assessment tools have been developed without the input of those most affected, the immigrant women and men and the organizations which serve them. How can these tools be effective or credible without the input of those who know most about the situation, those who live in the circumstances?
Immigrant women who are not fluent in either official language cannot find good jobs with which to feed their families. They cannot make new friends and participate in the larger community and in political life in this country. They have difficulty interacting with the medical profession about their own health and the health of their children. They often cannot help their children with homework or communicate easily with their children's teachers. They have limited options in terms of finding out about their rights and have to rely on husbands or others in their community who in fact may
May 8, 1992

believe that their actions and knowledge should be restricted.
Battered and sexually assaulted immigrant women may not be able to find out about or use services for battered and sexually assaulted women. Language training may be the number one equality issue for immigrant women. Shutting immigrant women out of Canadian life does not help Canada and it does not save Canada money.
Canada is missing the skills, the intelligence and the talent of these new citizens. It is creating social problems, hurting women and their children, and creating increased costs for health care and other social services. Because of a lack of access to them at the preventive stage it leads to increased reliance on them at the crisis stage of a problem.
It encourages ghettoization of those who speak neither fluent French or English, not just in the job market but in Canadian society. Of course immigrants who speak neither English nor French will congregate together. Of course there will be serious problems if they are marginalized by Canadian society at large. Of course there will be misunderstandings, fear, and increased racism when people are unable to communicate. They are isolated from the mainstream of Canadian life.
Keeping immigrants and racial minorities poor and marginalized feeds into society's racism and is a direct cause of violence and instability.
The Conservative government, like its American friend and counterpart, will go down in history as a force that divided this nation and deepened the divisions along racial and socioeconomic lines. The Tory government cannot continue to ignore the expertise of immigrant and racial minority women when developing programs for these groups. The government cannot continue to punish and crush these communities without facing consequences.
Cuts in employment and language training programs, the delay of the Race Relations Foundation, the elimination of the Court Challenges Program render guarantees of equality in this country absolutely meaningless. Every day immigrants and racial minorities are faced with debasing racism in housing, in schools, in the job market and on the streets in our communities.
Government Orders
Words on a piece of paper will not help. Real and effective actions to promote equality is the only way to effect any real change. Programs designed by mainly white male bureaucrats in Ottawa, whose lives are totally cut off from the groups in question, do not lead to good policy. There must be real and meaningful consultation with the immigrant and visible minority communities.
During and after that consultation those views must be taken into consideration when policy is formed. Policies which deepen divisions destroy the social fabric of our country.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on a very eloquent speech on behalf of Canadian women and their need for job opportunities.
Earlier today I asked a government member what he and the government would do to eliminate the job barriers that immigrant women face, including an estimated 35 per cent cut in Canadian Jobs Strategy funds for immigrant women, lack of accreditation, the need for training allowances so that immigrant women can take advantage of available language instruction, the loss of jobs for immigrant women in the textile industry and restrictions now on women wanting to come to Canada as domestics.
The Conservative member gave no specific remedies he gave a lot of generalities. I would like to ask the member what she would do if she were in government.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for Vancouver East for her comments and would add that this colleague is particularly well known throughout the Vancouver region, and indeed in all of Canada, for her effective advocacy work on behalf of immigrant people and visible minority people in Canada. I congratulate her on all the work that she has done over the years. She has asked about changing job barriers or eliminating job barriers to immigrant women in Canada. There are a number of steps that could be taken very quickly and very easily in order to get rid of some of those barriers.
One of the main things that needs to be done, and I think I referred to it in the comments I made earlier, is that we need to develop a comprehensive and universal program of language training for all immigrants and refugees in this country. If people do not have access to education and training in our official languages, it is impossible for them to integrate themselves and to take part in our communities and our society at large. That

May 8, 1992
Government Orders
program must have adequate training allowances for both men and women. A child care provision is absolutely necessary for immigrant women and refugee women to be able to participate in these programs. We know that this government has announced recently that it has been pleased to be, and the language used was "the killer of a national child care program". Any kind of universal program on language, must have a child care component in it, not only for women but for some men as well who are care givers to their children.
We would also need to find a way to reach out to immigrant women who are in job ghettos right now where they are being sometimes exploited because of their lack of language skills.
Another key component, I believe, would be an accreditation program for people who come to this country with foreign credentials so that we no longer see a situation where a woman may come from another area of the world who has been a medical doctor or in some other kind of profession and her credentials are not recognized by Canadians. We need a program accreditation of foreign credentials so that these professionals do not end up being the people who have to clean the floors in the hospital in order to tiy to put food on the table for their families.
Another area that needs to be addressed by this Parliament and is under review right now is the whole issue of employment equity. We need an employment equity program in this country that has targets, timetables and an effective mechanism for implementation.
Finally, I would add that the domestic workers program should be changed to eliminate any racist policies that are currently in effect in this country in our domestic workers program.


Kenneth Albert James: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of my hon. colleagues who have spoken from our side this afternoon, against today's motion. I think my colleagues have ably presented the facts and defended the record of the government in helping to retrain Canadian workers.
Consequently, I will then hopefully address a broader issue; the efforts that we have undertaken to establish a positive economic climate so that Canadians, including those who seek work, can expect secure and meaningful jobs in the future.
Canadians now know what is required to reduce unemployment. They want to return to an economic growth situation. This is exactly the goal that the government is pursuing.
Our policy framework is positioning Canada for renewed recovery this year in spite of the economic slowdown that has taken place around the world, especially in the United States of America, our largest export market.
Last week the International Monetary Fund predicted that Canada will have the strongest economic growth of any of the G-7 countries this year and in 1993. The OECD has made similar predictions as has the Asian Development Bank. I know the opposition is reluctant to hear and accept all this good news and try to help our country become more positive but it is true. Last week the International Monetary Fund made that prediction and it should be known by everybody.
I also want to remind the House of a comment made by IMF's research director at a news conference last month. According to a story in The Financial Post he said of Canada and our government policies: "More work needs to be done on the fiscal imbalance, but I think one would say there is a greater confidence concerning both past accomplishments and future actions than there is in several other industrialized countries and that should aid confidence and recovery in Canada".
There is an important point I want to make here. While pointing out the positive outlook for renewed economic growth I do not mean to downplay the real problems that face us in this country. Too many Canadians are out of work. There is anxiety about the threat of job loss by those who are working. Economic competence is low and, that is helped along by the doom and gloom spread around by some people.

The solution to these problems does not lie in the vague promises and partisan complaints that the opposition tends to offer as it has today. In particular, the solutions will not be found in the tragic formula of higher spending, higher taxes and higher deficits that is the clear record of both parties from across the floor, federally and provincially.
Instead, the solution lies in sticking to the policies that are setting the foundations for that renewed growth, as was confirmed by the IMF, and our prospects for that growth will be made even stronger as Canadians recognize the positive factors we worked so hard to put into place.
Let me remind the House of some of the economic developments that demonstrate why there is a good reason for renewed confidence in Canada. The commercial bank prime rate has dropped 7 percentage points since May 1990. Just today the Bank of Montreal has announced a further one quarter point cut in the prime rate to 7.5 per cent.
Mortgage rates have also fallen substantively. Just a few months ago the members opposite were carping and crying for lower interest rates and that was what we needed. Now we have lower interest rates but you never hear about them.


An hon. member:: Those are the guys that got us 22 per cent.


Kenneth Albert James: Oh, yes, they were there when it was 22 per cent and inflation at 15 per cent. I well know. I experienced it as a small businessman.
Mortgage rates have fallen substantially. They are in the 9 per cent range for one year conventional mortgages compared to 14.25 per cent in 1990. For a $75,000 mortgage amortized over 25 years that is a saving of $273 a month or about one third of a family's mortgage costs.
We are talking all the time about getting more money back into the hands of consumers and raising consumer confidence. What could be better than that for many young and middle aged couples who have been carrying mortgages to have that kind of savings in mortgage costs?
Government Orders
Underlying this progress is a substantial drop in inflation. Inflation, the silent creeping killer of business and of confidence, has had a substantial drop.
The year after year increase in the Consumer Price Index this March was 1.6 per cent, one of the lowest levels since the early 1970s. Each of these factors represents the important progress in putting in place a strong foundation for renewed confidence, competitiveness and sustained growth. There we have it: lower interest rates, thus lower mortgage rates. We have a drop in inflation. All of these combined efforts are what have been asked for and what we have today in this country.
Lower mortgage rates and an easing of inflation and new house prices have improved housing affordability to one of the best levels in 10 years. We have taken additional action to further strengthen the prospects for the housing and construction sector. We have moved to reduce the down payment required for a CMHC insured mortgage to 5 per cent from the previous 10 per cent level. The real estate people in my riding certainly are lauding that move and are finding definite action in the real estate market due to that change in down payment.
In the February budget this government made it possible for homeowners to use funds in their RRSPs for home purchase. This one-year program, combined with the lower mortgage rates and lower requirements for CMHC mortgages, guarantees an already sputtering economy to really start moving along and spurring this economy on. Sales of existing homes have increased nearly 25 per cent in the first quarter compared to the last quarter of 1991. The housing market is so very important and that kind of increase is important to our economy. The housing market is responding to lower rates and we expect consumer spending to also respond in turn with a result that economic growth will begin to pick up as we carry on through this year.
Lower rates will also help the business sector improve balance to balance sheets. Cash flow will improve, boosting the ability of business to invest and to create many job opportunities. The opportunity for the retailer who has one store to add and to diversify and add another retail store to carry on taking advantage of the

May 8, 1992
Government Orders
consumer confidence is the kind of thing that happens and the kind of business that we need to see start up so that we hire more and more people.
Not only are we taking action, but we are taking the right action we believe to set the economy on track and bring down unemployment. It is action based on a basic fact of economic life. For a trade dependent nation like Canada jobs are maintained and new jobs are created only through a private sector that can successfully compete in the global marketplace.
Lower interest rates over the long term are the key to sustainable economic recovery on sustained economic recovery and a sustained job creation situation. Not only do they encourage consumer spending but they are essential for business to invest in new equipment and techniques needed to increase productivity and to pursue new opportunities and needs.
To get those interest rates down and, more important, to keep them down it is essential to curb inflation and inflation expectations. It is no accident that during the 1980s nations that maintained low inflation, Germany and Japan, also enjoyed the lowest interest rates. That is why we have taken real action against inflation. We have taken action by establishing firm and realistic inflation targets, by taking the lead in restraining government wages and salaries, and that is why we have passed legislation curbing parliamentary and Public Service wages.
We have taken the lead and look at what has followed across the country, how the provinces have taken the lead and the private sector now is taking the lead. The federal government took the very important lead that certainly contributed so much to keeping inflation in line.
We have also taken action by maintaining our commitment through concrete actions to set federal government finances on track and setting it toward a balanced budget by the mid-1990s despite the pressures of a weak economy. We have done that on the operational side.
Our commitment to inflation reduction and good fiscal management establishes the conditions needed to make our businesses and our workers better able to compete and succeed in the world marketplace. Our efforts are laying firm foundations for job creation and the sustained prosperity that flows from increased employment.
I should also like to remind the House that our competence is not just based on our success against inflation and lower interest rates. Canada will also reap the benefits of the structural reforms our government has put in place over the last eight years. These are reforms designed to reduce government interference in the marketplace, to boost businesses' ability to compete and respond to new opportunities. We deregulated the energy and transportation sectors. We have acted to reduce the size and increase the efficiency of government operations.
These structural reforms also include tax reform. For example, the GST eliminated the old manufacturers' sales tax that put our domestic businesses at a definite disadvantage. Our government has played a leadership role through the Canada-U.S.-


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Cross-border shopping is increasing.


Kenneth Albert James: I know they do not want to hear all this good news across the way. I am sure they do not want to hear all the good news from the government side so they want to try and stop us from speaking, -through the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement and the ongoing GATT talks to reduce the barriers to international trade on which our economy is dependent.
These reforms are very important though they have not been painless and we have had to think of what we have delivered.
Our reforms are delivering and I think there are bottom-line results. As The Globe and Mail said in an editorial recently, third party reference for my friends across the way: "Canada is in the early stages of an export led productivity driven economic boom with manufacturing in a feature role. Exports to the United States are already climbing. Last year's $91 billion U.S. total was a gain at almost 30 per cent in four years". It is good news stuff, good news that undoubtedly the opposition and certainly the author of this motion does not want to hear.
Economists at Wood Gundy forecast manufacturing productivity, after rising .4 per cent last year, will leap 8 per cent this year and 12 per cent the next with comparable gains and output. There we go, good positive stuff.
We proposed additional action in last February's budget to further encourage a return to economic growth and to enhance Canadian businesses' ability to compete internationally.
May 8, 1992

We announced that the personal income surtax will be cut by 1 per cent. We also introduced a series of measures to help Canada's manufacturing and processing sector to meet the challenge of fierce global competition.
This is very important to my area where the high capital intensive petrochemical industry is situated. The industry has asked and we have responded in the budget by reducing by two points to 21 per cent over the next two years the marginal tax rate for such companies.
The capital cost allowance is very important. Maybe the members opposite want to make light of this but it is certainly very important to many sectors: the petrochemical sector, the pulp and paper sector, sectors where there is substantive capital intensive building going on which provide jobs in Canada. We have taken and adjusted the capital cost allowance for manufacturing and processing equipment.
That is what they have asked for and certainly that is what we have delivered.
The province of Ontario has taken the lead and has adjusted it slightly to make it more attractive for capital investment in Canada.
We have made some very important moves. We have to do some more but we have made some important moves in that direction to attract foreign investment or investment like an ethylene plant which would cost close to $1 billion to build in Sarnia-Lambton.
We are also establishing the small business financing program. It is important to keep that engine of growth going.
They are all important steps to assist Canadian firms to compete successfully and to create new jobs. To pay for the net reduction in Canadians' tax burdens there will be substantial reduction in government spending. We will be reducing taxes by reducing spending and streamlining government. Canadians want government operations streamlined and we will reduce the demands on government revenues by about $7.3 billion over the next five years.
Let me reiterate that the measures we have taken, combined with an upturn in the U.S. economy, our major export market, are positioning Canada for renewed growth and for job creation as the year progresses. There
Government Orders
are already a number of very positive indications as we all know, those who sit in the House and read the newspapers and hear the news and hear what is said every day.
Canada's economic output, our gross domestic product, has moved up in both January and February, the first growth since last July. Retail trade grew for the fourth consecutive month. Manufacturing shipments rose 1.1 per cent in February, the first increase in six months.
Real exports averaged 2.3 per cent above the fourth quarter level in January and February.
The Conference Board index of business confidence rebounded 16.1 per cent in the first quarter after declines in the previous two quarters. It is at the highest level in over two years. These indications are in keeping with the outlook presented in the February budget by the Minister of Finance.
The growth would come slowly at first, accelerate in the second half of the year, and rise to 4.5 per cent for 1993.1 suppose the opposition shudders to hear we are going to have this great economic growth. It is coming along and the right things are being said and the right signals are being heard.
In conclusion, as a government we do not believe this is the time to change course. This is the time to appreciate the positive foundations for renewal that have been put in place and to ensure they are maintained.
We have put in place a series of measures that today offer the prospect of world leading growth, encouraged by dramatically lower inflation and very low interest rates. This is the environment we are creating for Canadians. For those with jobs, this translates into greater security and opportunity. For those who are seeking work, it means a chance to put their skills, especially the skills built up through the programs mentioned by my hon. colleagues earlier to work at long-term, stable, meaningful jobs through the kind of training and opportunity that should come forward with this economic renewal.
I want to thank the House for the opportunity to speak to this motion and of course I do not to accept in any way the motion that has been put forward. It is certainly not opportune and not in keeping with what is happening in

May 8, 1992
Government Orders
Canada today. I want to laud our government for the initiatives it has taken.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I would like to put together a few questions for the member if I can. However, I will put it in the proper context first.
The question I want to ask is based on the fact the member feels very strongly his government has put together a very good package of policy changes for the people of Canada. One particular policy he refers to of excellent vintage is the policy he called free trade.
In my hand I have a transcript of an interview that was done in the Business News by a potential presidential candidate in the United States. As you may well know, this individual does not come from the same party as I or the NDP. This man has so much money he could probably buy half of Canada.
I want to read into the record some of his thoughts because he talks about free trade. There is a debate, as you know, in the United States about the free trade agreement with Mexico. I am sure you will recall these words being spoken by other members in the House when we were debating free trade in 1987-1988. The question is this:
Can we negotiate a fair North American free trade agreement?
The answer by our very rich friend is this:
I am for fair free trade but you realize we have a very fragile situation as far as being able to pay our bills as a country.
Now what does Mexico pay its people? A dollar an hour? What do we pay our factory workers here? Oh say, $17.50 an hour. Any health care in Mexico? Little or none. Any retirement? Little or none.
I called the who's who of American manufacturing and I said when would you build your next factory in the U.S. if this went through? They laughed. They said we would not. Then I decided the guys who put this agreement together must know something I do not know. So I called some of them and they said it would be disruptive but they say eventually it will stabilize itself, it is somewhere between 15 and 20 years.
The next question:
Is any kind of a free trade agreement with them even possible then?
The answer:
You would have to again bring the best people in the industry together, develop a plan to phase it in, work with Mexico, work with Canada, to phase it in. Even then you had better run pilot programs to make sure you do not have unanticipated adverse side effects that will really adversely impact on our economy. You say, well, my gosh,
Perot, how can you sell that to Mexico and to Canada? Pretty
simple, I can sell it to anybody. Do you know why? We are the
biggest customer in the world.
It sounds very familiar to what our friends on the government side have been saying about the free trade agreement. Those are the exact same words they used. A multi-billionaire in the United States who is running for president is saying the exact same thing that the Liberal Party said in 1988. We did not have the proper process in place and we were not prepared for the inevitability and the downside of free trade. The downside of free trade has been a loss so far of roughly 400,000 jobs, that is 22 per cent of our manufacturing base.
These members on the opposite side continue to give us the nonsense that it is a great policy and really working. We are in desperate shape in this country. A multi-billionaire in the United States is not exactly an individual who is slow. He is a neo-conservative, rightwing, and he still is smart enough to realize that a free trade agreement with a country like Mexico is going to kick the pants off him and is no different than the free trade agreement we signed with the United States.
I would like to ask the member this very simple question. If even a neo-Conservative can tell the difference between a bad agreement and a good agreement, how is it that the Conservatives across the floor who are not as far right wing cannot tell when we have been taken to the cleaners?


Kenneth Albert James: Madam Speaker, I thank my friend who appears to be dead set against the free trade agreement. I am a little surprised because it seems that his party is now kind of coming around where it is positive about maintaining the agreement. I think also he probably should know that in that same article Mr. Perot also said, when he talks negatively about the deal, that Canada ended up getting the better deal out of it with the United States. I think he forgot to mention that.
On this business of wages I would like to say that it is one that proves a point. If we talk about wages in Mexico, yes there is a wage difference but wages are only part of the total cost of producing goods and services. If wages were the only factor in the United States, all the businesses would have moved from Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Connecticut down to Alabama and Tennessee. It has not happened. It did not happen and it will not happen. There are a number of other very
May 8, 1992

important factors that go into the production of goods and services.
We all know that the free trade agreement is the right way to go. Even the United Steel Workers said in a recent document put out last October-and maybe we ought to bring you guys from the Liberal Party over to undoubtedly where this individual comes from-who said that their union rejected protectionism because Canada needs to export, stating withdrawal from the international economy is not a realistic alternative for Canada. The hon. member used to be involved in union work. I appreciate his comment because he is a friend and an interested member of Parliament. However, I do not want him to get offside on this free trade business with this rhetoric. Certainly free trade is important.
I will tell the hon. member about my own riding where refining and petrochemicals is tremendously important. Sixty-five per cent of what we produce in Sarnia-Lamb-ton is exported to the United States. It is very important that we are competitive. We had a five-year countdown on the FTA and we have asked to have it lowered even faster than that. It has meant a tremendous amount in the productivity cost situation of producing petrochemicals that we want to export to the United States so the free trade agreement is very important.
The free trade agreement has helped the province of Ontario and of course all Canada. As I stated earlier, our exports are up. Since the FTA came into effect, Canada's trade surplus with the United States went from approximately $13 billion to $18 billion in 1990. That is an increase of almost 40 per cent. The facts are there. Certainly there is some shake-out and there are some changes that are going to take place.
It is the dawning of a new era, I say to my hon. friend across the way, one of globalized international competitive trade.
As a country we have to be part of it or we are going to be set aside forever. We have made the decision that we have to be in there and be competitive. We can, as a country, be competitive for the most productive, highest standard of living in the country in all the industrialized world.
Government Orders
We have a basis of education, entrepreneurship and a productive mind-set. We are going to compete and it is going to be better for everybody.


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I suppose after listening to the speech given by my hon. friend from Sarnia-Lambton it would behove me to bring this Chamber back to earth. First, I would ask the indulgence of members of the House and viewers watching to exercise their imaginations along with me for a few moments.
Imagine, if you will, a government that comes to Ottawa. It is a right wing laissez-faire government committed to a totally free market economy. This commitment is carried to a fault.
Imagine, if you will, this government having close connections with big money and transnational and multinational corporations. So close are these connections that the government does not move without first consulting its big money friends who provide many elected members of the government with most of their campaign funds.
Imagine, if you will, that the government at the behest of its corporate friends pursues a policy of continental-ism so its friends can roam freely over the continent cannibalizing plants, closing plants and moving plants across the border.
Imagine, if you will, that this government, out of its commitment to a free market economy, pushes a policy of deregulation, privatization and ending orderly marketing through the destruction of marketing boards.
Imagine, if you will, that the government holds to a philosophy of survival of the fittest, leaving the provinces and municipalities to fend more and more for themselves.
In accordance with this philosophy, there is less help to the needy, less help to the jobless and less help to those seeking opportunity through retraining, the very subject now before this House.

May 8, 1992
Government Orders
Let us return to reality and here I ask the question: Does this government remind us of the government which has been governing Canada for almost the last eight years? I think it does.
We know that the current government is right wing, pursuing a corporate agenda. This government certainly has close ties to international big business and it has implemented a so-called free trade agreement to move forward its continentalist policies. Its deregulation and privatization are well known, as are its policies which threaten our supply management system and, by extension, our dairy, poultry and egg industries.
We all know about this government's cuts in transfer payments to the provinces which make it almost impossible for the provinces to provide their customary support of medicare and education. Medicare, as we all know, is at risk and in my province of Manitoba the University of Manitoba tuition fees have been raised 16 per cent.
How about job training, the focus of today's debate? The government says it is committed to job training, R and D, education and the like. I wish it were true but it is not and here are some of the facts.
If we start with the benchmark year of 1989-90-that is when Bill C-21 was brought in-we see two things that have happened.
First, a training fund under unemployment insurance was started, and in the current year, $500 million will be spent. That sounds like a lot of money. It sounds good, but not a nickel will come from this government, not one red cent. Sixty per cent will be contributed by employers and 40 per cent by employees.
Does that mean that the government spends no money at all on training? No, of course not. This is part number two. About $1,345 billion is spent under the Canadian Jobs Strategy program. That figure represents a cut, a reduction of $217 million since the year 1989-90. I believe that is a terrible indictment of this government. But it is hardly surprising because this government is so busy pursuing its corporate agenda that it has forgotten people who are looking for opportunity and certainly job training represents opportunity.
I was shocked by an answer given by the Prime Minister to my leader in the House on Wednesday of this week. My leader was pointing out the critical problems facing our big cities-unemployment, food banks, violent crime, drugs, the homeless-and he described this week's Toronto riots as an SOS for the government. Well, what did the right hon. Prime Minister say? First he tried to play down the problems facing our cities. And then the Prime Minister said this, and I quote from Hansard:
The Conference Board reported this morning, for example, that business confidence is up to its highest level in two years. The economic turnaround continues. So there will be both economic and social improvements.
What has that got to do with the civil unrest we saw in Toronto? What has it got to do with the crises of our cities? Absolutely nothing.
It shows how out of touch this Prime Minister is. It reveals that he is so wrapped up in his government's corporate agenda, so preoccupied with helping its friends, that he has totally forgotten about disadvantaged Canadians.
A million and a half Canadians are unemployed. That is 11 per cent of the work force. These Canadians want more educational opportunities, more training and retraining. These Canadians, especially the young, the unemployed, look to this government not for handouts but for leadership to put the economy on a sound footing and for opportunities to enter the economy and enjoy rewarding careers. They are not getting it from this government.
And the only thing they hear is a Bay Street message from the Prime Minister. That is appalling. But sad to say, it is consistent with what George Bush has been telling the people of the inner cities of America. After the Los Angeles riots Mr. Bush more or less said: "Don't expect any help from your federal government; you are on your own".
Not only does the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada boat together, they read and take their cues from the very same Conservative handbook.
May 8, 1992

I fully support the motion before us today. Canadians have lost confidence in this government and, to quote a part of the motion, "because of its abject failure to provide job training and retraining initiatives".
This government has broken a long-standing social contract in Canada. It has refused to accept its responsibilities. That is why I believe that Canadians will turf this government out at the very first opportunity, namely the next election.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, would the forceful and eloquent member for Winnipeg-St. James be good enough to explain to this House how, on the one hand, the Minister of Employment and Immigration could tell this House on April 30, 1992 that this government has increased funding for training this year by $400 million when it has actually cut funding for training by $114 million?


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. I have some difficulty answering it because I do not know why the minister would mislead this House and mislead this country, why the minister would say something when reality and the facts simply tell something else.
It reminds me of what this government has been doing and telling this country ever since it was first elected in 1984. Do you remember, Madam Speaker? Do you remember the slogan from the Prime Minister? Jobs, jobs, jobs?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: To the U.S.


John Harvard: Yes, to the U.S. Has that been the foremost thrust of this government since 1984, jobs, jobs, jobs? I do not think the facts would suggest that.
Remember the Prime Minister or the would-be Prime Minister back in 1984 talking about no violation of the social contracts suggesting that there would be no tampering with pensions and no tampering with medicare. Do you remember that so well?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Sacred trust.


John Harvard: Sacred trust. That is the term I was trying to remember. A sacred trust, implying that pensions and medicare would not be touched. How long had he been in office when he tried to deindex old age pensions? Two or three months? If it was not for a woman who confronted him on the lawn of the Parlia-
Govemment Orders
ment Buildings he might have gotten away with it. So much for sacred trust.
What about medicare? As a result of the diminution in transfer payments to the provinces medicare is at risk. The provinces are going to be out of medicare dollars in
about the next decade.
Going back to my friend's question, I do not know why the government misleads. I do not know why it does these things to us but perhaps it explains why that party is so low in the polls.
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): I am just curious, Madam Speaker. I would like to ask a question of my hon. friend having to do with transfer payments.
He has suggested that there had been a reduction in transfer payments. Is he not aware that with the exception of three provinces there has been an increase averaging 6 per cent per annum to the provinces in transfer payments? Does he realize that for those three more prosperous provinces the increase has been capped at 5 per cent? Would he not acknowledge those facts and perhaps correct the record for the benefit of the House?


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I would be absolutely delighted because I have heard this line from the government for months and months, I suppose for the last one or two years.
I would answer it this way, and I do not think that this government has denied it. I know that the provincial governments have not said otherwise, that they are going to be out of medicare dollars very, very shortly.
My province of Manitoba is not going to be having any cash from the federal government for medicare just after the turn of the century.
In fact, the Yukon territory is going to be the last. The information that I have is that in the year 2009 Yukon will get its last federal dollars for medicare and that will be the last province or territory to get any money at all for medicare.
By the way, I should congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest on his most recent appointment. I wish him well. It is probably the only time that I will question his judgment. I am concerned for him because he is entering into this close relationship with that House leader over there and that is of concern to me.

May 8, 1992
Government Orders
But I tell my hon. friend from Edmonton, I have heard the line before about this increase in dollars, but when it comes to medicare it is running out and it is running very fast.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, there are two minutes left in debate-


Lee Richardson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The clock is quickly dwindling now. We only have a few moments left. I do not think that the member would want to leave the impression that there was any suggestion that medicare was in any jeopardy. It is not the case.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We are getting into debate.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps we would be happy to accommodate the government members. We would certainly grant unanimous consent to extend this debate until, say, six o'clock so that we can fully hear these issues.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have heard a no somewhere.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has a minute left.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How many?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: One.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Does anybody else want to intervene here and stop me from talking in this place?


An hon. member:: I will.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You will, I can see.


An hon. member:: Give it all you have. You have 30 seconds.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, it is quite obvious to me that if Canadians look to the future and want to improve the prosperity of this country, the leadership must come first and foremost from that government. That government, as far as I am concerned, has abdicated in terms of its training programs, in terms of giving Canadians from all walks of life access to good training and development programs.
They will live it down. Possibly they will move themselves somewhere when they lose the election come next fall or spring.
They are responsible for their own demise and God only will tell us in the future how Canadians will remember them for being the government who abandoned the unemployed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 3.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply, pursuant to Standing Order 81, paragraph 14.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Prud'homme:: You almost got caught. You know how they say it in good English.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Thank you. I do appreciate that the hon. member for Saint-Denis would allow me to speak.

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), a recorded vote is deferred until 6 p.m. on Monday, May 11, 1992.

Would there be unanimous consent in the House to call it four o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
May 8, 1992



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: that Bill C-332, an act to amend the Divorce Act (granting of access to, or custody of, a child to a grandparent), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of carrying on with this bill which I feel is very important to a great number of Canadians. It was originated by Mrs. Nancy Woolridge of the Canadian Grandparents Rights League in my riding, who is very concerned along with many other grandparents across the country about the fact that they could lose access to their grandchildren, primarily through divorce but also at other times.
My mind goes back a couple of years ago when I was in the small town of Chemainus on Vancouver Island walking along the street and I looked into a store and there was T-shirt in the window that said something to the effect: "If I had known having grandchildren was so much fun I would have had them first". I think many grandparents have experienced that the joys of being grandparents can be very great. I think it is part of the richest and deepest relationship human beings can have with one another, between grandparents and the grandchild.
Unfortunately in our modem world we do have some things that we have to look at. The fact is that we do have the nuclear family. We no longer have mom and dad, grandma and grandpa, uncles, aunts in the neighbourhood but they are often scattered all over the country.
Also, we have many broken families where there may be a single parent with children. There may be families which are blended families that we have to deal with.
As a result there are many disrupted lives that need healing. They need something that can hold them together in this very complicated and stressful world in which we live. It is particularly the children who suffer
Private Members' Business
when a marriage breaks up. They are the innocent parties. They usually have nothing to do with a marriage and yet they are the ones who are the least able to cope with the problems that the divorce effects.
With these defenseless children there are some tremendous resources that are available. These are primarily the grandparents that are involved. The grandparents can be very useful for many reasons.
The problem we have today and the reason for introducing this bill is that the present legislation says that the grandparents have no legal access to the grandchildren. In other words, if I as a grandparent wanted to see a grandson who was living with a a former daughter-in-law I may have to go to court unless there is an agreement made. I would have to go to court to gain access to that child who would be very important to me. You say: "Let them go to court and solve the problem". This could be tremendously expensive. It can be time consuming. I have had cases where grandparents have spent over $10,000 in court to gain access to these children in the adversarial system that we have in our court system. It is not conducive to harmonious relationships. For all of us at times like this our prime concern is with the children and their best welfare.
What we intend to do in the new legislation in Bill C-332 is to state very simply "a person other than a spouse or grandparent". In other words, we are saying that a grandparent would be the equivalent of a spouse in having access to a child and may not make application under subclause 1 or 2 without leave of the court.
Under clause 1(5), "unless a court orders otherwise, the spouse or grandparent who is granted access to a child of the marriage has a right to make inquiries and be given information as to the health, education and welfare of the child". The explanatory note in this bill is quite clear. This bill would provide "that a person wishing to make an application under the Divorce Act to be granted custody of any of his or her grandchildren shall not be required to obtain leave of the court to make such an application". The bill would also provide that "a person who is granted access to any of his or her grandchildren shall have the right to make inquiries and to be given information as to the health, education and welfare of the child". In other words that grandparent

May 8, 1992
Private Members' Business
could have full access to any information that was available to the child and this is very, very important.
Why should the grandparents be involved? We have parents who are responsible. There are some very important things that grandparents can contribute to the security of the child. First of all, grandparents can give a real sense of security and continuity of life to the young people. Their parents have broken up, perhaps they are living with different people, their homes may be changed and very often the fact that grandparents are a constant, that they have not gone away and left them, they have not changed, it gives a real sense of continuity. It also provides the child with a sense that life goes on. We were grandchildren, we were parents, we have grandparents. It produces that continuity of life, that we are not just isolated in the world in which we live.
The author of the book Roots showed a real example of the need to go back and to see where we came from, that we are a continuity, a part of a continuity. Grandparents are in a splendid position to produce the feeling of being wanted. I think very often that grandparents can give the child a sense that there is no alienation, that they can in other words work around the alienation that may be present between the parents. The grandparents may not necessarily be involved in that. They can produce in that child a real sense of being needed and wanted.
Grandparents can produce more of an unconditional love. They are not responsible for the marriage breakup. They are not directly responsible in many cases for the actual welfare of the children. They can come in as somebody who can love them no matter what kind of mischief they have been into, how they are acting as a result of the break-up of the marriage.
There is another very practical thing that grandparents can provide. Statistics have shown us that the age group between 55 and 65 has more disposable income than any other group in our society. This is also important to children, that they can perhaps provide them with the material things, clothing, perhaps vacations, this type of thing, that a single parent could not provide for them.
In that area they often have more tact. The other children are out of the home and they can provide the time that is necessary. They can provide understanding, patience, and hopefully we grandparents are more relaxed about our role. We recognize that a lot of these little things that concern parents were perhaps not that
important. We have been through it once already with our own children and realize that the things we thought were important with our kids are not necessarily as important when we are looking at our grandchildren. I think it is important that we look at these things.
It is very significant that grandparents seem to have a real natural regard and concern for grandchildren. This whole subject was debated in the Alberta legislature. I would like to read from its Hansard regarding it. Mrs. Hughes was speaking. She quoted a study by Jim Gladstone at the University of Guelph. He conducted a study in 1986 that reinforced the importance of grandparents to grandchildren.
That report concluded that when marriages break down grandmothers have more contact with their grandchildren than before the breakdown. Gladstone believes that this means that grandparents have an innate tendency to respond to the needs and emotional upheaval of their children. Previous research on children of divorce has suggested that young children have very little opportunity to talk about the break-up.
Gladstone believes that through the child's unique relationship with the grandparents they can obtain the kind of counselling, comfort, reassurance that they need, providing they have access and continuous access. Therefore, there is a necessity for creative legislation that protects access for both grandparents and the non-custodial spouse. I think that is very significant.
The other thing that grandparents can provide is the idea of modelling and teaching. I know that with my own grandchildren I can teach them a lot of things about nature and life that perhaps my son and daughter could not have.
Traditionally we look at various cultures around the world. We see the importance of grandparents in raising children. With the B.C. Indians, for example, traditionally the grandparents raised the young people. Also in the Chinese culture and many other cultures around the world it is very important.
In the debate in the Alberta legislature, Mr. Shrake as reported at page 562 of the April Hansard, said: "I guess throughout the history of mankind the societies throughout Asia, Europe, and North America, all of them had concern for the children. Throughout all of these societies, whether it is a modem society, or the aboriginal
May 8, 1992

people, there was always a place in the old days where the elders were respected, the elders helped train the children, they passed on tradition, culture, heritage, and these little things. It went on way beyond that. It went to the point of giving the feeling of security, the feeling of love and warmth". There is more but we will not take the time to read it.
We can see that grandparents have a great deal to contribute to the life of these children of broken marriages.
We need also to look at precedents in legislation. For example, all 50 states in the United States have similar types of legislation. In Canada, Quebec in article 659 has dealt with this item and Ontario in article 59(4).
I would just like to quote the Quebec article. It says: "In no case may the father or mother without serious cause place obstacles to personal relationship between the child and his grandparents". I think that is very significant. This is in Quebec civil law. It is the only province thus far that has enshrined it into law.
We could give many practical examples of how grandparents have been obstructed through the court system from contacting children when they could have been a very positive force. The Grandparents' Rights Association has many documented cases. Again because of time we are not going to go into them today. I think in many cases it is a personal tragedy for the grandparents but more important for the grandchildren who are being deprived of this important asset.
Therefore I think it is important that we have legal protection for our grandchildren. We recognize that all grandparents are not beneficial to grandchildren. There are times when they should not have direct access. This can still be established by the court. We have not changed anything about that.
This would be a very positive step toward protection and development of the child. It is something that lawmakers in Canada could contribute to. I am asking the government in any consideration of future legislation to consider including the rights of grandparents in a fair and legitimate manner.
Private Members' Business


George Saunders Rideout: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill as well. Although the appearance of grey hair may indicate that I am a grandfather, that is not the case unless my kids have a surprise for me when I get home.
I still feel I should rise and speak on this particular bill.
I must confess that the bill is well aimed. Its direction is important. Given our changing society and the number of marriage breakdowns which are occurring, there is no question that grandparents can fulfil a very important role in giving a child stability and ensuring a well developed and well rounded individual.
We have seen in some of the information that has been distributed some very tragic stories of what has occurred to children. My children have had the benefit of grandparents on both sides of the family, although now three out of the four are deceased. There is a closer relationship with the one remaining grandparent. They go to her on many occasions to discuss issues. Two of my children are away from home and they cany on a writing relationship with their remaining grandmother to keep that link. It is important to have that base and that continuity. As the member has already said there is an important element and an important role to be played.
My problem with this particular legislation is that I am also a lawyer. When I start analysing the bill, I have some hesitation with the way that the member opposite has gone about trying to include grandparents' rights in the divorce legislation. It strikes me that there may be a better way to do it than to give grandparents their rights in this fashion.
There is potential for abuse. There is potential for problems. For that reason I would like to see it structured slightly differently. The Quebec legal code suggestion and wording in the Divorce Act similar to the Quebec legislation might serve the purpose rather than add spouses and grandparents to the legislation as far as rights to apply for custody or to deal with information involving children.
We have to face one certain reality, that is the primary interest is with the child. Here goes the grandfather and grandmother vote, but they are not as important, quite frankly. It is the child who is important.

May 8, 1992
Private Members' Business
We should be trying to instruct the courts and all who legislation and at the same time go further in order to are involved in this process to ensure that grandparents widen that safety net so that the extended family could are involved. I do not think they need the right as much be available to children in a divorce situation. In the long as they need recognition that they have a role to play, run we could establish a stable environment so that the The court, in its examination of a situation, should take children, if they cannot turn to their parents for whatev-into consideration the role that grandparents could play. er reason, have someone else to turn to.
As a lawyer I have been involved in a number of divorce cases. I have seen parents use their children in battles over who gets this, that or the other thing. I would hate to see it end up with grandparents involved in that same process.
Having now sufficiently destroyed any possibility of a vote from any grandparent in the country, I would like to say that in the United States of America almost all states give grandparents access rights. We should take a look at that and see how best we can achieve that.
I found a quote in a recent article to be somewhat helpful as to the way we should look at this issue. Barbara Landau, in an article entitled "Visiting Rights of Grandparents: How to balance the best interests of the child with the interests of parents and grandparents", wrote:
The new direction in legislation is encouraging for both children and grandparents who wish to continue their relationship. The law in several provinces now recognizes the importance of children maintaining stable relationships with significant family members following a marriage breakdown. The focus on the child's best interest should act as a buffer to prevent children from becoming used as pawns in their parents' conflict. The continuation of extended family ties could minimize the harmful emotional consequences of separation, divorce, possible adoption, for both children and grandparents.
Perhaps we should charter that type of view without crystallizing it. I suppose in a lot of cases one could ask: "What is the difference in some respects between a grandparent and an aunt or an uncle? How far do we go?" We need a basic statement of principle in divorce actions in dealing with the best interests of children that the extended family should be involved in that process. That would include aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters, and all of that aspect as well as grandparents.
I would hope that we could come up with a slightly different wording to encompass the intentions of this


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I would just like to rise very briefly to endorse the bill before the House, certainly the intent of the bill. I cannot speak for all of my party. This is Private Members' Hour. However, the bill certainly has my support. I suspect it has a great deal of sympathy and support throughout the House of Commons.
The member is to be congratulated for bringing this issue forward. It is one in this era of family breakup that is becoming increasingly important and one which needs to be the focus of public attention. Grandparents themselves generally form very close bonds with their grandchildren, and those bonds should not be among the victims of a family break-up.
It seems to me veiy important that the relationship between grandchildren and their grandparents be encouraged, developed and supported. As the member has indicated often in a period of family break-up the relationship with the grandparents is a very significant and important one in retaining the necessary support systems for the children in a parental breakup. For the grandparents to be able to continue to have a place in the lives of their grandchildren is very critical for the children.
I can think of a relationship that is close to me. It concerns a single mother. The grandmother of her children had developed that bond and that relationship even though there had been no marriage and the pair really did not live together for very long after the birth of the children.
Yet so strong was the bond developed between the grandmother and granddaughter and grandson that when eventually the mother married someone else, the grandmother was an honoured guest at the wedding. She also played a very important part in helping the children adjust to the new situation, to accept it and to learn to grow within it. It was very touching and very important. I think there are many similar situations which need to

have the support of Parliament and the support of the public.
The relationship for grandparents is very important so that they have the opportunity to continue to develop and build the relationship. It is very much part of our life and one which, in this industrial and urban society, is too often reduced and cut short with or without problems among the children.
It is a bill that has my support. I would urge the House to adopt it. I know under the rules that it is probably not likely but I hope the hon. member will continue his battle on this. He can count on my support and I am sure that of many other members of the House.


Lee Richardson: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate this afternoon. I congratulate the hon. member for Delta for raising this important matter and encouraging debate on it. The hon. member for Delta has established the reputation here in the House of caring and compassion for which he is well known and well respected in the Delta-Tsawwassen area of British Columbia.
This bill reflects that caring for individuals and concern for people. It is well reflected in Bill C-332 which proposes some amendments to the Divorce Act to improve grandparent access.
As you are aware, Madam Speaker, the Divorce Act is legislation that governs divorce but also deals with the issues considered corollary to divorce, namely child support and custody and spousal support.
I would like to remind members that in June 1986 amendments to the Divorce Act were implemented that introduced revisions and terminology and substance to almost every section of the former legislation. The reforms had three objectives. First, it makes divorce less adversarial while increasing chances for reconciliation. Second, it recognizes provincial responsibilities and provides for a process of divorce which would operate with as few complications and duplications as possible. Third, it provides a more humane and fairer resolution of the consequences of divorce in today's society specifically with respect to custody and economic outcomes. It is this
Private Members' Business
third objective that I would like to focus on because I think it relates directly to Bill C-332.
Unfortunately I am all too aware that in some cases grandparents are being denied contact with their grandchildren after a divorce. I appreciate that this is a very painful experience for both the children and their grandparents. While I hope this kind of situation is limited to unusual cases where divorce has been especially bitter, I know that it occurs frequently enough to warrant the formation of support groups as was mentioned by the hon. member for Delta.
There are organizations such as the Canadian Grandparents' Rights Association and Grandparents Requesting Access and Dignity which help grandparents cope in these situations and do an admirable job. Some of these groups have undertaken to lobby for legislative change. I am aware that Bill C-332 attempts to respond to some of the concerns that these groups have raised.
I think it is important to first review the provisions of the current Divorce Act. As a result of the 1986 amendments the Divorce Act confers a broad discretionary jurisdiction on the court to make a custody or access order. Application may be brought by either or both spouses or former spouses or by any other person with leave of the court. This means that although the issue of grandparent access is not specifically addressed in the current Divorce Act, third parties including grandparents may now seek leave to make custody and/or access application.
In addition the Divorce Act now provides that the sole criteria for the making of an order of custody and access is: "The best interests of the child of the marriage as determined by reference to the conditions, means, needs, and other circumstances of the child".
In other words grandparents can apply for leave to make a custody or access application. I believe since the sole criteria is the best interests of the child, grandparents who have a real and close relationship with their grandchildren can already request and presumably get a court order granting them access consistent with the best interests of the child.
I would like to note that through the efforts of a number of groups we have just mentioned, through the hon. member for Delta, interested and concerned grandparents and supporters of this type of legislation across the country, the Minister of Justice has announced a major review of judicial family law for the purpose of improving its fairness and effectiveness. I understand this review is currently going on and that one part of this project is the review of the present legal regime governing child custody and access.

May 8, 1992
Private Members' Business
Many issues have been identified and the Department of Justice will be consulting soon with interested groups. It is expected these consultations will solicit views that will help determine which issues should be addressed and provide guidance as to the nature of alternatives that should be pursued.
For example, some non-legislative options such as research, judicial education, parenting education, and improved counselling and mediation services have been identified that could address some of the issues and problems associated with access.
There are also different legislative approaches to consider. Family law is an overlapping jurisdiction and provincial statutes provide for the granting of custody and support during the subsistence of a spousal relationship and situations where there has been cohabitation without marriage.
I understand there have been some suggestions to consider provisions similar to article 659 of the Quebec Civil Code which statutorily recognizes that in no case may the father or the mother without serious cause place obstacles to personal relationships between the child and its grandparents. This is existing legislation in Quebec.
Several American states have concluded that new terminology and new approaches are required to deal
with custody and access issues. I am told that the Department of Justice is currently examining some of these alternatives and developing new proposals of its own.
To me it seems sensible to look at this issue of grandparent access within the context of a more general reform approach and I will encourage the Minister of Justice in her efforts to do so.
I again want to congratulate the member for Delta for his concern, his response to the concerns of his constituents, and many of our constituents across Canada in raising this important issue.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There being no further members rising for debate, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being 4.18 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.18 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 11,1992