1993-02-24

Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today with some emotion. I really wonder what snowstorms can do to our prime Ministers.

When there is a snowstorm, something happens to the Prime Minister of our country. This is the second time I have seen that.
I have known the Prime Minister for a long time. We have known each other since the early 1980s. Now that he has announced he is quitting it is not without emotion that I want to salute him.
Of course he has done great things for his party. The fact that he has won two majorities in a row deserves a lot of credit because it is extremely hard to achieve. It is something that I hope to achieve some day.
The tenure of the Prime Minister has been remarkable in many ways. He has brought to this country a lot of changes. History is always the best judge of these developments. We did not always agree with them. I have to say that the Prime Minister was truthful to his political doctrine and he tried to implement these approaches as much as possible in this moderate country of ours.
I have had some experience with coming to the House of Commons, quitting and then coming back, so I have to be a bit prudent today. However, when I quit I remember
that the Prime Minister in 1986 said he had a lot of scars to prove he was a fighter. I have a lot of scars also to prove that he is quite a fighter.
The nature of politics leads to disagree very often but now we have agreed. We agreed especially about Canada in the 1980 referendum, the patriation of the Constitution in 1982 and we agreed last fall on the Charlottetown accord. Now that he is leaving we have to pay respect to him for the hard work and the dedication that he has shown because it is not easy to be a Prime Minister these days. It is not easy for the person involved as well as for the family.
I see Mrs. Mulroney and the children in the gallery today. It is a difficult situation today where they face not only us but the hard scrutiny of others. I want to say to the Prime Minister and his family that they have acted with great grace and class.
I would like on behalf of my party to wish the Prime Minister and his family a very good life together. It is a great family. They share great family values and they will be happy to see the Prime Minister have more time with them and peace of mind too.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would particularly like to say to the people in the region of Baie-Comeau, his home town, who supported him that I want to congratulate them on placing their confidence in a son of their town who became the leader of his party and managed to achieve something which is very difficult in Canada: to win two elections with two consecutive majorities.
We did not always agree, as I just said, but what is important and what we find on days like today is that despite our political differences, everyone who sits in this House wants only one thing: to try to improve the lives of their fellow citizens. When someone who has led his party for 10 years and has been Prime Minister for eight and a half decides to bow out, we must thank him for

February 24, 1993
Tributes
what he has done for his party, his constituency and his country.
So on behalf of the Liberals, I would like to offer the Prime Minister and his family our best wishes. May you have very good years together.
I also hope that following the election which will be held in the coming months, Mrs. Mulroney will tell the Prime Minister not to do what I did and come back. Although the Prime Minister and I have dreamed for years of the big battle, it will always remain a matter of speculation. We will not have an opportunity to fight it, but in spite of that I would like to offer him our tribute and our best wishes for good health so he and his family can have very many years of happiness together.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure today that we put aside our political differences. I have an opportunity on behalf of myself and my party to wish the Prime Minister well in his future endeavours.


Some hon. members:: hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Although we only rarely agreed, I wish to point out the years he devoted to public life. These years were not easy and the challenges were numerous, I am sure, but he often met them with courage and humour.
The House of Commons will no longer be the same. The contribution that the Prime Minister can still make in other fields will be appreciated.

I think all of us in public life realize that there is a great sacrifice. It is not to serve the public, which I know the Prime Minister has done with great pride and with great dignity, but certainly one's personal life must surely be affected by this.
I would like to wish Mrs. Mulroney and the family all the very best for the future, as well as the Prime Minister. I know that for the Prime Minister politics has been very much a family affair and it has brought great dignity to the Canadian people as well.
In thinking about my remarks today I thought that Prime Ministers are often remembered for grand gestures. Often the small kindnesses are not noted. I would like to mention something specifically about the kindness of this Prime Minister during the illness of our colleague Pauline Jewett when Mr. Mulroney took the time out to call her.
I know how much that meant to her. I know that it is not just for our colleague Ms. Jewett that the Prime Minister has done this. Those small kindnesses were taken by the Prime Minister. Sometimes it is not recognized by the public that politicians are even human beings.
On a very personal note, there is no one in this House who would not say to the Prime Minister that even when we did not agree, he did work from his political perspective in the interests of his country.
I want to conclude by offering my best wishes to the Prime Minister. My only disappointment is that the Prime Minister did not call an election today. I have to express that disappointment, Prime Minister. We do wish on this side of the House the very best to you and your family and thanks for the public service you have given to Canadians over the past 10 years.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I too on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House rise to pay tribute to an outstanding individual, an incredible person, a visionary and a dynamic leader who is the Prime Minister of Canada.
We express our deep gratitude for the decade of tireless effort on behalf of our party, Mr. Prime Minister, and for your leadership in piloting the nation in challenging and tumultuous times.
We always look at the personal side of these challenges and the way in which you have conducted yourself in meeting these challenges. As a person, those of us who know him know the Prime Minister to be a man of warmth, charm, compassion and wit.
He is always good natured and has never lost his sense of humour, not even in times of facing difficult challenges or the gruelling task of leading and governing.
For those of us who know him, he was always there to support us in times of need or crisis with a kind word or a generous act which provided that comfort and encouragement to friend or political foe. We appreciate the comments of the leader of the New Democratic Party
February 24, 1993

because that is very much the style of the Prime Minister.
To his friends, colleagues and staff he generated an atmosphere of intense trust and loyalty because he touches people in a deep and lasting way. He does so because he values the worth of individuals. He respects their beliefs and their philosophies and he truly maintains a deep and abiding interest in their affairs.
His family has been and always will be his priority, his children his pride and joy, and Mila, his partner, confidante and most loyal supporter. We all know that they have stood with him in times of triumph and setback. His love for family also reflects his deep belief in family values and the family as the cornerstone of our society.
As a leader, and particularly as leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, he has been an unqualified success and a master at bringing men and women together. His ability to lead a caucus representing all regions of the country is unprecedented. His ability to use the talents of caucus members in the decision-making process was both unique and progressive. His ability to lead and to unite is a result of his profound respect for every individual in our caucus.
For his care and concern about their welfare, their families, their regions and their communities, we are very grateful for that caucus relationship which was really a family arrangement.
Not since Sir John A. Macdonald has there been a more successful leader of our party. Our Prime Minister travelled the country extensively to get first-hand knowledge of all the towns and cities along with the wonderful people who make up this great country of ours, Canada.
He often said that Canada was a country made up of small towns and big dreams. As others have indicated, his main concern and passion was always Canada.
Under his extraordinary leadership abilities, our party experienced its most productive period. The party's base of support was broadened to all comers of the country and all walks of life, east to west and north to south. He has truly made our party national in scope. He has presided over an organization that was always well tuned, well financed and well organized.
Tributes
He is a bold leader who has the record to prove it and history will judge it; so I am convinced.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Today, as the fifth longest serving Prime Minister in Canadian history, he has presided over the affairs of our nation in challenging and changing times. He prompted key changes during a time of world transition in a country trying to find its niche in a new world order.
The changes that he has promoted have been as logical as they were difficult to achieve. The Prime Minister has always acted decisively in all areas of national life.
On the issue of national unity, he has gone where only angels have previously trod and his fostering of Canadian unity has been second to none.
He has also acted to build a sound economy through progressive tax changes and the opening of trade markets so vital to Canadian interests. He has tackled the federal deficit through controlling government spending, and interest rates through controlling inflation.
He has promoted a compassionate society through the development of new initiatives to protect children and to target assistance to those in society most in need of it.
By working to ensure equal access and the economic integration of the disabled and by providing greater justice for aboriginal peoples he has moved Canadian society as a whole to new heights. His efforts in developing a national AIDS strategy, a national drug strategy, the family violence initiative, the breast cancer initiative and a national strategy on tobacco use illustrate his unending compassion for Canadians and the health and safety of their families.
He has, in the words of others, created "a model for the world" by taking action on the environment through the development of Canada's green plan and achieving the acid rain treaty with the United States.
On the world stage he has provided consistent leadership by promoting peace through Canada's involvement in some 16 UN peacekeeping operations. He has fought aggression by ensuring that Canada's military stood shoulder to shoulder with its allies to expel Iraq from Kuwait. He has always played a leading role in G-7,

February 24, 1993
Tributes
Commonwealth and Francophonie summits, at which he ensured the sovereignty and security of Canada.
He has overseen Canada's election to the UN Security Council, an entry to the OAS and our active role in Haiti. By all measures he is a leader among leaders, viewed by his world colleagues with respect and called upon for advice and counsel.
If politics is a debate about the future then leadership is the courage to make choices, defend them, and champion them.
Mr. Prime Minister, you have done all of these things. For that we are grateful, and for that we thank you and we thank Mila and your family. You have served us extraordinarily well and we extend to you our warmest, kindest and best wishes.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, "As a member of Parliament and a colleague he was witty and compassionate. He was partisan and caring. He loves Quebec and believes very deeply in Canada and has a unique and thoughtful way of expressing that". Can you believe that I said that about Jean Chretien?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He must have been leaving.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In fact I did say that about him, but he promised me he would be leaving. That was on February 27, 1986 and so I noticed both the eloquence of his remarks today, for which I thank him, and the important caveat that he has made about return.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I would particularly like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his thoughtful and generous comments regarding my wife and children. The fact is, we are friends and our families have been friends for some time. However, he did regret the fact that he and I would not be facing each other on the front lines in the next election.

The Leader of the Opposition expressed regret that he and I would not meet in the great battle.
I just want to point out to him that I expect a convention of my party to select my successor as party leader to take place in the summer of 1993.1 point out to him that one of his colleagues, Mackenzie King, in 1948 stepped down, resigned as Leader of the Liberal Party and then decided that he might not turn over the Prime Ministership and hung in there for months. So who knows?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to dampen any enthusiasm that might be existing over there.
I also want to thank my friend, the leader of the NDP, for her gracious remarks and her kindness in recalling a number of incidents, including one about someone we both cared for a great deal, Pauline Jewett, and the moments that surrounded Pauline's elevation to the Privy Council, about how proud she was of it, what a marvellous woman she was and what a tremendous fighter she had been.
The leader of the NDP not only did all of her job, but she was also looking after Pauline at the same time. This too is part of her quite wonderful human qualities.
I do not think I would be offending anybody by mentioning in regard to my friend, the leader of the NDP, one of the observations I have made after a decade here in Ottawa. The fact of the matter is that this is a tough business, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out. We do not get much gratitude. Of course in my case the press has been marvellous, but I know the rest of you have had a tough time.
I think there is en passant an observation that is probably appropriate. I watched the leader of the NDP come from a by-election into the House and to the leadership of her own party. If this business is tough on all of us, as it is, I think it is particularly tough and demanding on women. I have always thought that in Canada, in Ottawa and in politics women have to be twice as good to get half the credit that men do. I just want to congratulate my hon. friend on her tremendous accomplishments.
February 24, 1993

The leader of the NDP mentioned again that she regretted that I had not called an election. Audrey, I forgot to tell you, I have just come from seeing the Governor General.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I also want to thank the members of this House, including my party colleagues and others I have had the privilege of meeting here, some of whom are friends from way back who unfortunately opted for the wrong side. Yes, Marcel, I forgive you. I see my neighbour and friend, Paul Martin. But if I say any more, they will fire me as leader of the Conservative Party. The fact is that as members we have a unique opportunity to create and strengthen ties of friendship.
What brings us together in most cases is our country, Canada. And that applies to our various political parties, the official parties in this House. Canada has always been my concern and my passion, and I would say that applies to many members here.
For 10 years I have concentrated all my efforts on maintaining and strengthening Canada's unity because I am convinced that without unity there can be no greatness for this country, no prosperity for its provinces and no happiness for its citizens.

All of us have been privileged to have inherited the most extraordinary country on the face of this earth and all of us, the best we can, contribute to making it a little bit better.
This is the finest forum for making this happen. This is where democracy, the collision of ideas, the collision of personalities and policies, comes into play. Its result is democracy in its purest form. I do not always like the result after I leave Question Period. Some of my people cry a lot, but I try to get them going again.
The fact of the matter is that vigorous exchanges like what occurs here are part and parcel of the best dimensions of democracy. However, most of all what keeps us here and what has motivated all of us to come here is our belief in and our love of Canada and all this
Oral Questions
magnificent country has done for every member of this House and will continue to do, God willing, for decades and decades to come.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the disposition of the House to proceed with Question Period for the usual 45 minutes?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance if it is correct that on Friday after the House adjourns for one week the government will announce the closing of 45 regional immigration offices in every part of Canada. This means that applications for work permits, visitor visas, student visas, family class and sponsored refugees will have to be made by mail and decided upon at some distant centre without any face-to-face interview.
I want to ask the minister why the government is proceeding with this plan when the pilot projects were a failure and when they showed that this system would be extremely inefficient and open the door to criminality? Why is the government going ahead with this crazy plan?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that members of the union of employment and immigration employees are circulating a list detailing the official list of Canada immigration centres which could be closed or would be closed following the reconfiguration exercise. Following my announcement earlier in the year about plans for Immigration Canada to attempt to better serve Canadians in a more efficient way and at a more effective cost, yes indeed, there will be a reconfiguration. But what is important for members and Canadians to know is that the only motive behind this is to try to better serve Canadians and do it in a more efficient way.

February 24, 1993
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the pilot project showed that it would be more inefficient and would open the door to criminality.

This policy, this proposal to replace face-to-face immigration interviews in local communities with a review of documents in Vegreville, Alberta is an insult to common sense and common decency. It will make things harder for legitimate immigrants and easier for immigrants who are criminals.
Would the minister agree to postpone these closings and refer these proposals to the standing committee for consideration and recommendations?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, first of all the Liberal Party of Canada is hardly in a position to criticize measures that would improve the Immigration Act and thus prevent terrorists and criminals from immigrating to Canada. The hon. member and his party have objected to every single measure we have proposed to achieve this objective.
As far as the reconfiguration exercise is concerned, its only purpose is to provide a better service to Canadians at the lowest possible cost. The demands of the employment and immigration union have absolutely no basis in fact, and besides, the recommendation to proceed with a centre for considering these applications came from the employees themselves.


William Warren Allmand: The
Canadian people will decide what is efficient and what opens the door to criminality.
Canada is a large country with great distances between our towns and cities. It is not easy to travel from Kamloops to Vancouver on an immigration matter, nor from Sydney to Halifax, and certainly not to Vegreville, Alberta.
I want to ask the minister why he is punishing Canadians in this way by closing all these offices simply to save the skin of the Minister of Finance.


Bernard Valcourt: Is the hon. member now suggesting to Canadians that people have to drive from Banff, Alberta
to Bathurst, New Brunswick to get their social insurance number? It is done in a region of the country, northern New Brunswick.


An hon. member:: It's called computers.


Bernard Valcourt: If the hon. member wants Canadians to believe that we are going to force people to travel to Vegreville, Alberta, let me tell him that is a total falsehood; it is not the case at all. It has been made clear that in those cases where it is important for an interview to take place between an applicant and Immigration Canada, it will be done in the towns and the cities of Canada, in the regions of Canada, not in Vegreville, Alberta.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, we have documents which show that the government is planning to close a large number of immigration offices across Canada. Sudbury is one of the centres targeted.
Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that Sudbury is the only office to service immigration clients across northern Ontario and services the huge immigrant population which has developed northern Ontario.
How does the minister expect to serve such a broad area if there is absolutely no immigration presence in northern Ontario?


Ms. Copps:: Immigration by phone. 1-800-flip-flop.


Bernard Valcourt: Colleagues should not be surprised that the member is totally wrong. There is no question of cutting services to the people of northern Ontario. The people of northern Ontario, the people of Atlantic Canada, the people of the prairies, of British Columbia will continue to receive the services they require from Immigration Canada. If the hon. member keeps repeating those claims by a union which we all know is against this because it has not proven in the past that it was in favour of saving the taxpayers of Canada money, that is what we will be doing.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, the documents I have here are from Employment and Immigration Canada.
These closures really have nothing to do with efficiency. Why is the minister closing the Sudbury office with no concern for the vast population this office serves while
February 24, 1993

expanding and enhancing immigration offices in the riding of the Minister of Finance?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member is quoting from a document. As I indicated, the reconfiguration of Immigration Canada offices across the country relate to the amendments we brought to the Immigration Act. This reconfiguration will not deprive any regions of Canada of the services they should expect from Immigration Canada. Therefore, there is no point in the hon. member continuing that tempest. It is not true.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of trade. This government has always said that the NAFTA, the Canada-U.S.-Mex-ico trade deal would not have a negative effect on the environment and would be good for workers. In fact, over the past year when I questioned the minister on what he intends to do in terms of taking concerns about the environment forward in the trade deal talks and concerns for workers, the minister replied that this is a commercial deal and has nothing to do with these other issues. Yet the government has now acknowledged that it would be prepared to participate in parallel or further agreements at the suggestion of President Clinton.
I would like to ask the minister of trade why NAFTA was good enough for workers and the environment last December, but now just two months later the government says it will negotiate new agreements. Is it admitting that NAFTA is a failure and has huge problems?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, I know I am never going to be able to convince my friend because on this particular issue she has blinkers on. The point is tremendous opportunities are opened up under the NAFTA in giving access to the Mexican markets, one of the fastest growing economies in the Americas, a market with a middle-income market of 25 million or 30 million people, a market where
Oral Questions
companies are already taking advantage of the opportunities with new contracts there.
My hon. friend is right. I have said it is a good deal and I continue to say it is a good deal. But we have also tried to inject some provisions through these side agreements on labour and the environment as we started last February, a full year ago. We will continue to do that. We will be participating with the other two countries in order to achieve that. Those negotiations will probably be starting in two or three weeks.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. While the government clearly is about to bring legislation before this House to implement the North American trade deal, on March 15 as the minister has just said, Canada, Mexico and the U.S. are scheduled to begin negotiating these so-called side agreements or parallel agreements on the environment and workers that the minister formerly said were not necessary.
My question to the minister is this: Given that there will be parallel agreements negotiated and discussed, why is the minister persisting in bringing forward legislation which is clearly not complete without these agreements and why does the minister not simply withdraw this legislation until that process is complete?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the legislation is complete because it reflects the agreement that was signed by all three countries last December. It is important for us to allay any uncertainty to the private sector. We have to deal with the agreement, to get the agreement legislated and get it behind us. That does not say we cannot engage in the discussions on the side agreements on labour and the environment, if we can have some other elements where we can work in a co-operative way to improve labour arrangements or environmental conditions in the three countries.
I would say to my hon. friend that the United States is already into its legislative process; Canada will be starting on its legislative process imminently and Mexico will be starting as soon as it comes back from its winter break which will be April 1.

Oral Questions


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, clearly the minister is saying there are questions about the NAFTA agreement that are going to be addressed through other agreements.

We have seen the consequences of the free trade agreement, the loss of jobs, the results of deregulation and privatization and the impact of the agreement on economy, but we still have no information on the NAFTA impact studies. My question to the minister is this: Will this government withdraw the bill and let Canadians debate these issues during an election campaign? After all, that is the proper forum for this kind of debate.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Many studies have already been made and most have concluded that NAFTA is the best option for all three countries. As far as the FTA is concerned, last year we saw our exports to the United States increase by more than 13 per cent. These exports created jobs here in Canada.


POVERTY
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of health and welfare.
During the reviled reign of this government the number of two parent families with children who must resort to food banks has doubled. Most of these families report going without food at least once a month. Yet according to the chair of the kangaroo committee on poverty, children would have to be naked, homeless or on the brink of starvation before being considered poor.
I ask the minister if poor Canadians will remain fiscal outcasts until this government is cast out.
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I am trying to deal with the substance of the question. I believe that when the member talks about children we have to be very sensitive. She knows very well that child poverty is not
acceptable but it is a reality and we are trying to deal with that.
In 1992 just for families and children we spent more than $3 billion and particularly at the child tax benefit level we have improved the situation for the low income workers. We have done the best we can in terms of the many problems facing families today.
Obviously we can always do more but it has to be done with regard to the capacity we have to do it. I believe just in terms of the money itself, $3 billion for one year is probably the most that any government has done in this country.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, the government cannot hide the plight of the poor with a sleight of the hand.
The substance of my question is that nearly two million Canadians, 600,000 of them children, will need the help of food banks to survive this last year of Tory caucus curse. Members of that caucus want to write off poverty stricken Canadians as bourgeois free-loaders who are not poor at all.
I ask the minister to explain why the basic instinct of this government is to leave poor Canadians with nothing but fried green tomatoes.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is increasingly difficult to find the substance but I am going to try again. I have said what this government has done in terms of addressing child poverty.
I remember when her party was in power in 1975, 1980 or 1982. There were poor children in Canada and proportionally it was not necessarily better than it is today.
The problem with the hon. member's party is that it is good on the opposition side of the House but when it is on this side, it is bad on social policies and worse, it is also bad on economic policies.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
This whole idea of changing the definition of poverty rather than taking the necessary actions to reduce poverty is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard.
February 24, 1993

When the levels of poverty are at record highs in Canada, why is this government wasting time on new definitions rather than taking immediate measures to eliminate poverty in this country?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, we have not changed the definition of poverty. We have coped with the problem of children and poverty in this country.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister.
Currently there are over 70,000 people in Winnipeg living on either unemployment insurance or social assistance. By any definition those people are poor.
Why is the government spending time on questions of definition of poverty when the real task of the government is to find jobs, to find training and to finally put together a development plan for Winnipeg?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I just answered that question to the other hon. member, who incidentally is also from Winnipeg.
I will repeat what I said. We have not changed the definition of poverty. As I said before, putting $3 billion for children last year in the Minister of Finance's budget is evidence that we are doing what we can for unemployment and poor children. That should be done first and foremost. The government is trying to give jobs and give opportunities to people to feed their children.
The hon. member knows very well that this will not come like the rain in the morning. It will come with efforts we do and will continue to do.
Once again that party's record was worse when it was in government. The hon. member was not there, but he should listen to his friends who were.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade and it deals with the North American free trade agreement legislation which I understand he intends to introduce today.
Oral Questions
The plant in Ingersoll which manufactures truck trailers has announced that it is shutting down permanently with a loss of 240 jobs. This is the fourth shut-down in this industry since free trade came into effect losing 1,300 jobs as all of its production has been shifted to the United States.
I want to ask how this government can push ahead with extending free trade to include Mexico when the present deal has wiped out entire industries like this one involving the Ingersoll plant.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, maybe my hon. friend could explain to me why it is that under the free trade agreement with the United States, in a period when the nominal growth in the American economy was around 5 per cent, there was a 13.5 per cent increase in exports to the United States market.
Who is exporting those products? Successful companies in the riding of the hon. member and in ridings right across Canada. Yes there are companies that will have some difficulty in a free trade environment, in an environment of globalization, in a recessionary environment. That is a fact of life.
My hon. friend must start to look at the broader picture. If he looks at the broader picture he will see that the market share of Canadian exports into the United States markets has increased significantly. Our exports have increased at double the rate of those exports from Japan to the United States market, of the United Kingdom to the United States, or of Germany to the United States. The sole reason for that is the free trade agreement with the United States.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board of Canada, which this government likes to quote, says that since the free trade deal we have lost manufacturing jobs at a rate three times faster than the United States. That is because of the free trade deal.
There is no question that in this case this entire industry has been hit because of the free trade deal since tariff rates have fallen from 15 per cent to 1.5 per cent.

February 24, 1993
Oral Questions
Why has the government changed what was supposed to be a 10-year phase-out period for this manufacturing of truck trailers and instead accelerated the phase-out of these tariffs so that they have resulted in the wiping out of an entire industry and 1,300 jobs here in Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend surely knows because he is the trade critic. I might add The Financial Post says that the leader of the NDP's trade minister would cut a lonely figure sitting at tables all by himself. If I were the hon. member I would want to change my responsibilities very quickly.
The point of the matter is that any time there is tariff acceleration in the free trade between the United States and Canada it has to be with the agreement of industries in both countries. On that basis, we have gone ahead.
I point out there have been two major accelerated reductions in tariffs amounting to some $8 billion of trade which my hon. friend forgets accrues to the benefit of consumers in the countries involved. The consumers are the great beneficiaries of free trade. They get lower prices as a result of elimination of tariffs and they get a greater variety of products to buy.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade will shortly introduce the North American free trade legislation.
He says that in the United States the government has also begun the legislative process. He knows, however, that the President of the United States and the United States chief trade negotiator have both said that the President will not present the NAFTA legislation to Congress until such time as the United States gets its three supplementary or parallel accords, one on the environment, one on labour and one on import surges.
Can the minister tell the House and the Canadian people why he is proceeding when he knows that those three parallel agreements will substantially modify the terms and operation of the proposed North American free trade agreement?
Why do the minister and the government not wait until such time as we are aware of the nature of those parallel accords so we can be certain of what it is this government is asking the Canadian people to adopt?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I can say absolutely that the side agreements will not substantially modify the agreement signed in December by all three countries.
President Salinas, President Clinton and our Prime Minister have all agreed there will be no change to the agreement signed in December 1992. It will not be reopened. It will be implemented on January 1, 1994.
The side agreements are supplemental agreements. They are to add certain aspects in the areas of environment, labour and possibly import surges and will be ancillary to the free trade agreement itself. They will not change the substance of the agreement in any way.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, that answer contradicts what the minister said yesterday.
He said that a year ago he put forward on behalf of Canada positions on the environment and on labour standards which would have substantially changed the treaty itself. Those positions were rejected by the United States and Mexico.
Yesterday the minister said he is going to bring forward those positions again. Today, however, he says they will not change the agreement.
Let me ask the minister one specific question. The minister well knows that any agreement on import surges will change the nature of NAFTA itself. It will affect the nature of dispute settlement. It will change the nature of the clauses in the treaty on import surges.
Will the minister explain to the Canadian people what our position is? Have we any position in Canada on those three areas? What are they?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking questions which he should have put in the committee hearings when I appeared before it. I will be appearing again. I am sure we will have an opportunity to discuss them.
Let me be quite clear that on labour and on the environment the things we were proposing last February and since then is the establishment of two trilateral commissions. That has been accepted now with the environment. It looks like it could be accepted for labour matters and in that way develop a dialogue among the
February 24, 1993

three countries on how we can improve our policies in those two areas. That is not in any way changing the nature of the agreement signed in December last year.
As it relates to import surges, let us see what the Americans have in mind. I do not know what the Americans have in mind. I do not think my hon. friend knows what the Americans have in mind. We do know they have confirmed many times that they are not going to reopen the agreement of December last year.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Currently there are 18 Americans working in a cement plant in Woodstock, Ontario. These Americans were given permits by Canadian officials to do mechanical jobs in an industry where there is a 50 per cent unemployment rate in Canada. In issuing these permits Canadian officials did not weigh the consequences to Canadian workers.
How can this government sit back and allow this to happen while badly needed Canadian jobs have been handed to Americans with this government's seal of approval?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the hon. member can stand up in this House and say this was done with the government's seal of approval.
Last December he brought this to the attention of the department. The officials at the office in question explained in detail in a letter to the hon. member how a mistake had been made. It was mentioned that only two weeks or days remained and it was explained to the hon. member that this had happened because of a mistake. He was assured by the officials in writing that steps had been taken to prevent this from happening in the future. That was last December.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I do not want an assurance from a Canadian consulate member. I want an assurance from this minister and this government that they will not allow this to happen.
Oral Questions
The Canadian consulate in Minneapolis, Minnesota admitted to a mistake in approving these applications, but this is unacceptable and it cost Canadian jobs.
I want to ask the minister responsible for international trade what he intends to do to prevent either the FTA or some ambiguous little clause in immigration policy from being used to provide foreigners with desperately needed Canadian jobs.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that this has nothing to do with the free trade agreement. An error was made due to misinterpretation by an officer of the department. I know that in a perfect world mistakes would not happen.
The hon. member wants to interpret the mistake as government policy when he knows it was not government policy, quite the contrary. We have a policy of hiring Canadians first and that is the way we operate throughout Canada. The mistake was explained to him.
Please do not try to mess up the free trade agreement with that. It has nothing to do with it.


ABORIGINAL FISHING STRATEGY
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
When the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans last June announced his aboriginal fishing strategy for B.C., he said he was following the Sparrow decision of the Supreme Court. The fisheries committee asked the Minister of Justice to give a ruling on the Sparrow decision, about which many questions had been asked and arguments made in B.C. as to what extent it dealt with the commercialization of the aboriginal fishery.
Is the minister of fisheries aware of the importance of dealing with this question promptly?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. gentleman's question, I believe he knows full well that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans takes the advice of the Minister of Justice's department with

February 24, 1993
Oral Questions
respect to the interpretation and meaning of the Sparrow decision.
As a matter of fact I met in Vancouver yesterday with representatives of aboriginal groups, the fishing industry, the recreational sector and a representative of the Government of British Columbia to deal with these very issues.
I would very much appreciate the hon. gentleman telling me what his party's policy is with reference to the question of the Sparrow decision and the experimental sale of food fish that we now have under way. Does his party support it or not? Is it supporting the aboriginal groups in their attempts to be included in the fishery or is it opposing them? What is its position?


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Is the minister able to tell us wether he has a single watershed agreement for any of the main salmon rivers in B.C.? Is he able to tell us with confidence that he will have regulations in force regardless of race, creed or colour that will make sure the B.C. salmon industry does not go the way of the northern Atlantic cod industry?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I know we all get infected by the rhetoric we hear in this House and the hon. gentleman has probably caught the disease as well.
We are working with the aboriginal groups toward reaching watershed agreements on the Fraser River and the Skeena River hopefully by the middle of March. That is our target date. We expect to have agreements with well over 100 aboriginal bands dealing with habitat and fisheries management by the time the fishing season opens in the middle of May.
There will likely be at least three agreements, as there were last year, covering experimental sales of food fish in a regulated, understandable and enforceable way. Whether that will be expanded or not, I do not know.
All this work is under way and we hope to have everything in place before the fishing season opens.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of Indian affairs.
It has come to my attention that the Ontario government may ignore the Williams treaty, ignore the current law, ignore court decisions and ignore the wording of section 35(1) of the Canadian Constitution with regard to existing treaty rights. The intention is to give licences in the form of interim agreements to the seven Williams treaty bands.
Has the federal government been approached by the Government of Ontario? If it was, would the federal government change regulations to give Indians covered by the Williams treaty the legal right to fish and hunt during closed seasons? Would it apply to migratory birds?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington shares with many residents of east central Ontario a concern about different regulations in regard to hunting and fishing as they pertain to the aboriginal people of the United Indian Councils.
Those who signed the Williams treaty in 1923 surrendered their right to special hunting and fishing privileges. The Ontario government seeks to reinstate those special privileges, but must do so only with the authority of the minister of fisheries under the Fisheries Act who ultimately must approve regulations.
However it is the delegated responsibility of the province of Ontario to consult widely with all interest groups and to ensure that there will be no negative reaction or no misunderstanding before such regulatory proposals are brought forward.


RAILWAY CROSSINGS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It is as a result of a fatal accident at a railway crossing in Ste-wiacke, Nova Scotia.
February 24, 1993

The RCMP wrote a report which said the Railway Safety Act is a federal statute enforced solely by the CN and CP police. In response to a petition to the Minister of Transport, the answer was that the RCMP does have the authority to enforce the provisions of all federal statutes, including the Railway Safety Act.
Which one is right?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has brought this matter to my attention. It would appear there is a conflict between what is said on the one hand in the report and on the other hand, in the answer to the petition.
It is a valid point to make. I will draw this to the attention of my officials and try to come back with a definitive answer.


AIRLINES
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
On Monday the Minister of Transport said that overcapacity in the skies was up to the airlines to resolve. On Thesday he said that he might legislate a resolution to overcapacity.
I want to ask the Minister of Transport, after dithering around for months while our national airlines have practically been driven out of business, what is his solution to the crisis in our airline industry?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in my statement in the House at the end of November I made reference to the fact that one of the major problems in the airline industry in Canada, as in the world, is overcapacity.
I indicated at the time that if the airline companies did not have the self-discipline necessary to bring down capacity we would legislate on it to recalibrate the situation. It is still our position.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, the position is not solving the problem in the industry, is it? There is nothing being done for the industry.
While the national airlines continue to schedule these money losing, half empty flights the minister stands in
Oral Questions
his place and says: "Maybe I will do this and maybe the industry should have this intervention".
What is the policy of the minister and the government? When will the minister stop blaming everyone but himself and demonstrate some level of competence to resolve this destructive competition in the skies?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport did not invent anything. The CEOs of both major airlines, appearing at a recent hearing said they fully realized that their major problem was overcapacity. However, instead of doing it themselves they are waiting for the government to do it.
I said yesterday that we are working on legislation to put order in this industry if the owners and operators are not prepared and do not have the discipline to do it themselves.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. As though it were not enough to scare communities in St. Clement and elsewhere, Canada Post is getting ready to close the post office in La Redemption.
My question to the minister is this: When will his government stop this policy of abandoning rural Canada? When?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, of course we are not abandoning rural Canada. We are opening retail postal outlets as opposed to corporate-run outlets. They stay open longer and are more accessible to the public. When we asked the public how they liked them, 90 per cent thought it was a good idea.
The hon. member was complaining about a couple of post offices left open in the Prime Minister's riding, inferring political privilege.


Don Boudria: Five.


Harvie Andre: Five. I just want to inform the hon. member that six were left open in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

February 24, 1993
Oral Questions


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, that is kind of nice, I think, except there were 45 of them in my constituency and it is still closing them down as we speak today.
I want to ask the following question of the minister. This government is converting, rationalizing, reconfiguring and plain old closing down post offices, immigration offices and everything else right across the regions of Canada. When will this government end the polity of abandoning rural Canada?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated we are opening new post offices. We went from some 12,000 a few years ago and in the process, I might add, we went from a $400 million a year loss to a profit position and increased the on-time delivery from about 85 per cent to 99 per cent. In that process Canada Post has become the most efficient post office in the world.
When polled, of those affected 90 per cent plus have said they are happy with the new service. I think that is a pretty good record.


STUDENT EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, young students in this country are a productive work force for Canada. Students want to work during their school holidays to gain experience and increase their income.
In the past, the government has encouraged young people with its summer employment strategy for students. My question is directed to the Minister of State for Youth. Does the minister intend to extend the Challenge '92 program this year to help young people who are looking for summer jobs?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to extend the program, which will be called Challenge'93 this summer. In fact, I would like to inform members, students and
employers that the budget for the Summer Employment Experience Development program has been increased from $83 million last summer to $88 million this summer.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Furthermore, the deadline for filing applications will be extended for one week, until March 19, 1993.


NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT BRIDGE
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: My question is for the Minister of the Environment.
As the minister knows, the environmental assessment of the generic fixed link between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island recommended that the project not proceed.
Will the government honour its 1988 promise and do an environmental assessment of the specific project?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know there has been an environmental assessment done on the project and the panel came forward with some recommendations. At the time the government took into account the recommendations made by the panel and when it asked for project submissions, it asked that the proponents take into account what the panel had come forward with.
I understand that is what has happened. Since then a court action has been initiated and is now being pursued, I understand, before the Federal Court. Given those circumstances, I think it would be wise to limit our comments to just that.


SALMON FISHERY
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Last week in response to a question about gill-netting of salmon, the minister stated that the preference was to negotiate the reduction of gill-netting by agreements as opposed to court action. I agree with that direction providing we can actually conclude such agreements.
February 24, 1993

I would like to ask the minister if he can provide details of the number of agreements reached, for example with the 15 bands in New Brunswick in 1992. How are such agreements proceeding with respect to negotiations for the 1993 season?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not have all this detailed information available today to give to the hon. member since I just got back from the west coast. I have not yet had the chance to gather information on the east coast.
I do know that we had a number of agreements in New Brunswick this past year on the aboriginal fishery strategy. There were more than 64 person-years of native employment created in New Brunswick as a result of those projects. They all had to do with setting up native fishery guardian programs, fisheries monitoring, stock management, fisheries enhancement and assessment.
I will try to get the number of agreements that had to do with the kind of gear that should be used in fishing and conservation practices and what is planned for this year. I will pass it along to him privately.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, my office earlier today, at about noon, provided notice to the Minister of Finance. I hope he has had notice of my intention to rise on this point. He has not? I know that his office has. In any event, I will proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I appreciate what the hon. member said about giving notice to the minister. I am in the hands of both the minister and the hon. member. However, if it would make it easier to discuss the matter after the minister has seen the material, then that might be a useful course to follow. I will hear the hon. member on that.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, my office did make reasonable efforts to ensure that the minister had notice of this today. I think it is in the best interests of the issue that I proceed and dispose of it. The Speaker will then have an opportunity to rule.
I rise on a question of privilege in relation to the failure of the Minister of Finance to lay before Parlia-
Privilege
ment an order made pursuant to subsection 59(2) of the Customs Tariff. It is my submission that this omission constitutes a contempt of Parliament.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on February 3 of last year, I rose on a similar question of privilege in relation to the order respecting the suspension of privileges granted under the free trade agreement, registered then as SOR-8954.
On December 29, 1992, the Governor in Council adopted Order in Council 1992-2715. It so happens that the purpose of this Order in Council is to revoke the order which gave rise to my earlier question of privilege.
Just as the original order was required to be tabled in this House, so is the revoking Order in Council adopted last December and registered as SOR-9314. The revoking order was made pursuant to subsection 59(2) of the Customs Tariff. Subsection 59(5) of the same tariff provides that the Minister of Finance shall cause a copy of any order made pursuant to subsection 59(2) to be laid before Parliament on any of the first 15 days after the making thereof that either House of Parliament is sitting.
The revoking order made on December 29 was legally required to be laid before this House by February 15, 1993, that day being the 15th day after its making that either House sat.
It is not my intention to repeat at length the arguments I made last February. They are applicable here and I would ask you to take them into consideration before you rule on my question of privilege. I do wish to point out, however, that I do not rise today in any capacity other than that of a member of Parliament seeking to uphold the collective right of this House to have a copy of any order made pursuant to subsection 59(2) of the Customs Tariff laid before it.
As on the previous occasion, I have no hesitation in stating my belief that the Minister of Finance has not intentionally disobeyed the statutory tabling requirement here. That being said, I must also reiterate that that intention is not relevant at this stage of the proceeding.
As I indicated last February, I can find no authority for the proposition that an act or omission only constitutes contempt of the House if it was intentional. The correct view seems to be that any act or omission that tends to diminish the authority of this House can be punished as a contempt, although it is likely that in deciding on a punishment, the intent of the party charged with the

Routine Proceedings
contempt would be taken into consideration by the House.
As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, your role at this stage is simply to decide whether the facts before you are sufficient to conclude that the conduct or omission complained of might reasonably be found by the House itself to constitute contempt rather than whether the conduct or omission amounts to contempt.
The substantive question here of whether or not the failure to table this Order in Council was a contempt of the House is a decision for the House to make.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that there can be little doubt that the minister's failure to table a document required to be tabled by this House, whether intentional or accidental, tends to diminish the authority of the House of Commons and is something that might reasonably be held to constitute contempt by this House.
In this regard I have referred the House to the remarks made by you, Mr. Speaker, on February 5, 1992 in relation to my earlier question. At that time, Mr. Speaker, you warned those responsible for meeting any deadlines for the tabling of documents to reflect carefully on the possible consequences of ignoring tabling requirements. Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that your advice seems to have fallen on deaf ears at the Department of Finance.
While I mention the minister's officials the fact remains that under our doctrine of ministerial responsibility the minister is accountable to this House for the acts and omissions of his officials. However tempting it may be to lift the veil of ministerial responsibility we cannot do so and the minister must accept, as I am sure he will, his responsibility for the failings of his officials.
Considering what took place in February last year it appears that decisive action by this House will be required if our collective right to be informed of the making of orders pursuant to subsection 59(2) of the Customs Tariff, within the time prescribed by Parliament, in this case 15 sittings days, is to be respected.
In closing, having mentioned that we went through this a year ago and that you, Mr. Speaker, gave a warning that the Department of Finance was put on notice then I want to indicate that in the event you accept my
submission I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I did listen with interest and I can only assure the hon. member that I will look into it and report back to the House as soon as I possibly can. I appreciate his raising it at this time, but not having had an opportunity to study it I am not in a position to respond in a definitive way. I certainly will look into it immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: I just want to be sure that both the hon. member and the minister understand the position of the Chair in this.
I have heard the argument. I believe the minister has indicated that he wants to look more carefully at the matter and will come back. I will listen to the minister when that takes place and subsequent to that I will make a ruling.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 264 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report on the inaugural meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum held in Tokyo, Japan on January 14 and 15, 1993.
February 24, 1993

This report is more than a report this time. In fact the report embodies several resolutions and structural comments that could be helpful to the House of Commons and the Speaker.
It has been determined that there has been a lack of emphasis on the interparliamentary activity in the Pacific Rim. In fact we have only one bilateral organization, which is between Canada and Japan. That is the only official organization despite the fact that the whole geopolitical shift is toward the Pacific and it is imperative that Canada should participate more strongly in that interparliamentary relationship.
Therefore we have suggested in our report that the new organization, which is an umbrella of Parliaments of the Pacific, should in fact become the umbrella, which along with the Canada-Japan Parliamentary Association will encourage the development of more friendship associations, such as Canada-China, Canada-Taiwan and Canada-Korea.
We suggest that we would spawn many friendship organizations under the one umbrella and that umbrella in turn would then help direct delegations to develop those relationships, which are lagging far behind our traditional European experience.
This report correlates very well with that of the member for Saint-Denis who will make similar suggestions in his bigger report to Parliament through the parliamentary committee structure.
We want to support that and emphasize this. We hope this report will not simply be received but that it will be a matter of study by the Speaker and by committee.
I would like this report referred beyond the House of Commons back through the structure. I would ask that that is done as our recommendations are considered.


Hon. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. This is the only way I can add a few comments. I must say that for members who would like to see changes in the Standing Orders that would give them a little more power, this is a prime example where it is not your fault or mine, but the fault of the Standing Orders. I certainly hope we can soon change the Standing Orders so when a document is
Routine Proceedings
tabled with which I am familiar and on which I worked at the request of the Chair-I know exactly what the hon. member wants to tell us-I wish that occasionally, not as notice to parliamentarians but as an indication of what Canada should do, we could take a good look at what these papers say. Unfortunately we cannot under our Standing Orders.
I think members who want more power for parliamentarians should support a request we will be making very shortly. It would make it possible for a number of parliamentarians who are directly involved in drafting such reports to add a few comments and not just sit there listening to what is said by the member tabling the report. In fact, we could say that the media, which are often critical about what we do, should at least read the document. We cannot do this under the Standing Orders but I hope changes will be made to allow that.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Nor do the Standing Orders allow the Chair to listen to long speeches after tabling of reports by interparliamentary delegations, important and interesting though they may be. We will now proceed to presenting reports from committees. The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest.



HOUSE MANAGEMENT

[Stage Direction]
66TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton Southwest):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 66th Report of the Standing Committee on House Management on certain parliamentary associations.
I would also like to thank the hon. member for Saint-Denis for his excellent work in connection with this report.



BILL C-99 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small

February 24, 1993
Routine Proceedings
Businesses Loans Act and another act in consequence thereof, with an amendment.
This is a most important piece of legislation. All parties support it. The size of the loans is going to be increased for small businesses from $100,000 to $250,000. Companies with revenues now of up to $5 million will qualify and we really hope that the banks of this country support and use this important piece of legislation to help small businesses which create over 80 per cent of the jobs in Canada.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

[Stage Direction]
11TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
The report also mentions the committee's trip to London with the Auditor General of Canada, from November 1 to November 5, 1992. The committee sought information on British public service reform, information to Parliament, program evaluation and financial control of assistance to developing countries.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CRIMINAL CODE


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-409, an act to amend the Criminal Code (threats and intimidation).


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


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce my private member's bill entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code (threats and intimidation).
This bill will pull together all the current provisions of our Criminal Code which could apply to stalking, puts them in the context of violence against women, and strengthens them.
I have examined the anti-stalking laws in the U.S. veiy carefully. I have introduced some of these principles and tailored my amendments to Canadian law and the Canadian reality.
In 1991,120 Canadian women died at the hand of their male partner or ex-partner. Most often these murders were preceded by threats, intimidation and stalking. This must be stopped.
My bill is a step in that direction and I ask for the support, in fact I expect the support of all members of this House.


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



JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL


Charles A. Langlois: That eight members and two staff persons of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General be authorized to travel to Tbronto from March 10 to March 12, 1993 to participate in the symposium on crime prevention.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]


Routine Proceedings ALCOHOL

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, I would like to table a petition from people in Belcourt, Senneterre, Barraute and Sullivan in Abitibi who say that violent movies on television are dangerous and therefore unacceptable, because they incite more violence.
They also say that all toys that incite violent games are unacceptable and should not be made. These people point out that information on violent acts which is repeated too often on all television stations and on radio can incite others to commit the same acts of violence.
Therefore the petitioners humbly ask Parliament to legislate on the above-mentioned points to eliminate violence in our society, protect our children more and give all our fellow citizens a better quality of life.


Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions on two matters today. The first is from a number of constituents who are concerned that the laws of Canada do not deal with materials portraying torture, rape and murder as fun, including something called the serial killer board game.


Michael James Breaugh: Madam Speaker, the second petition comes from constituents who are equally concerned about the North American free trade agreement and want the government to disband it.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present a petition requesting that Parliament consider amending the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent and degrading material such as serial killer board games be kept from being distributed in Canada.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by almost
4,000	people in British Columbia.
They say that alcohol is a drug and many people are unaware of the health risks posed by alcohol because it is so widely accepted in our society. This is especially true of pregnant women, many of whom do not know that drinking may lead to birth defects.
Alcohol consumption has also been linked to impairment of a person's ability to operate machinery or an automobile, hypertension, liver disease, cancer and addiction. Warning labels on alcohol have already been put into place in some jurisdictions.
Therefore these petitioners request that Parliament consider requiring labels on all alcoholic beverages to warn consumers, including pregnant women, of the health risks that are involved in the consumption of alcohol.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, these petitioners ask Parliament to monitor very closely the language used on radio and television. They also ask Parliament to eliminate violent acts as much as possible. They point out that their efforts are often undermined by what happens in the media. They also emphasize that it is not necessary to use vulgar language or violence to inform or entertain people.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, the petitioners ask that the government review its policies with respect to education, in particular the 3 per cent tax on student loans as well as the goods and services tax on books and reading materials.
They point out that we have never had such a tax and reading is the cornerstone of democracy and competitiveness. They ask the government to act forthwith.

February 24, 1993
Routine Proceedings


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, Question No. 435 will be answered today.


Mr. Gardiner: For each fiscal year since 1985, did the government retain the services of private law firms in Prince George, British Columbia and if so, in each case what was the name of the firm and the amount received?


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: In
answer to the hon. member's question:
Name of Firm	Amount Paid in
	Fiscal Year
For Fiscal Year 1985-86:	
Coleman & Co.	$ 164.44
Heather, Sadler, Hughes & Jenkins	$ 48,972.17
Hope, Heinrich & Hansen	$ 65,358.83
Meiklem, Harrison & Fletcher	$ 3,219.46
Wright, Garth	$ 143.29
Wilson, Kling & Co.	$ 99.80
Nose, Mieski, Traxler, Haines & Wingham	$ 567.87
For Fiscal Year 1986-87:	
Blackey, R.D.	$ 121.69
Heather, Sadler, Hughes & Jenkins	$ 98,028.31
Hope Heinrich	$ 21,291.61
Meiklem, Harrison & Fletcher	$ 8,729.24
Nose, Mieske, Traxler, Haines & Co.	$ 2,096.64
Haines, Roger	$ 934.26
For Fiscal Year 1987-88:	
Haines, Roger	$ 198.00
Heather, Sadler Jenkins	$ 117,234.24
Meiklem, Harrison & Fletcher	$ 6,498.65
Nose, Mieske & Co.	$ 10,011.95
Hope Heinrich	$ 574.90
For Fiscal Year 1988-89:
Heather, Sadler Jenkins	$ 44,440.47
Meiklem, Harrison & Co.	$ 5,490.88
Nose, Mieske & Co.	$ 4,824.36
Ramsay Nose	$ 1,693.11
Repskock, Ken	$ 300.00
Hope Heinrich	$ 4,171.81
For Fiscal Year 1989-90:	
Heather, Sadler Jenkins	$ 123,830.55
Meiklem, Harrison & Fletcher	$ 3,810.88
Ramsay Nose	$ 795.84
For Fiscal Year 1990-91:	
Heather, Sadler Jenkins	$ 153,077.57
Meiklem, Harrison & Fletcher	$ 12,051.90
Ramsay Nose	$ 4,560.98
For Fiscal Year 1991-92:	
Fletcher Repstock	$ 17,268.51
Heather, Sadler Jenkins	$ 208,241.57
Ramsay Nose	$ 717.96
Fbr Fiscal Year 1992-93 (at second quarter):	
Fletcher Repstock	$ 7,614.36
Heather, Sadler Jenkins	$ 65,119.33
Hope Heinrich	$ 498.88
Ramsay Nose	$ 219.06


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary has been answered.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I ask that all other questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
February 24, 1993

Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I move:
That in relation to Bill C-113, an act to provide for government expenditure restraint, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of second reading stage of the bill; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the second reading stage consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: 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:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from February 18, 1993, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-113, an Act to provide for government expenditure restraint, be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope, and on the amendment of Mr. Bevilacqua (p. 16117).
Jean-Marc Robitaille: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-113. First of all, I would like to say that my colleagues did an excellent job of putting the facts before the members of this House.
I would like to consider the vision and logic behind the proposed amendments. Like survival, good government means adjusting successfully to new situations. The proposed amendments provide for reasonable adjustments in a program that Canadians support. Canadian workers depend on unemployment insurance to help them if they lose their jobs.
It is up to our government to ensure that the unemployment insurance program remains in place to help Canadians. The program must be sound, affordable and fairly administered. This bill is based on the equity principle. It also deals with responsible choices and the desire of millions of Canadians to achieve a reasonable standard of living by working in a positive and productive environment.
These proposals reflect an approach that is aimed at guaranteeing the solvency of the unemployment insurance account. The proposals reflect the fact that the unemployment insurance fund depends on contributions made by honest citizens and businesses across the country.
Just as we protect ourselves against certain eventualities by taking out life insurance, car insurance or fire insurance, Canadians contribute to the unemployment insurance fund to protect themselves against unforeseen periods of unemployment. If people become unemployed due to circumstances beyond their control, they have a safety net. That is what unemployment insurance is for. No reasonable person-


Mr. Plamondon:: You are going to be on UI yourself.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: The hon. member for Richelieu says we are going to be on unemployment insurance pretty soon, but I think it is he, quite frankly, who will certainly get his benefits.
As I was saying, no reasonable person would expect an insurance company to pay if he set his own house on fire. Unemployment insurance is not meant to be a source of income as such. It is a safety net for Canadian workers. The government is now tiying to ensure it will remain available to those who really need it.
February 24, 1993

The unemployment insurance program works very well. Interestingly, 70 per cent of all Canadians who receive unemployment insurance benefits return to the labour market before exhausting those benefits. Most Canadians who become unemployed use their benefits to find new jobs. The challenge is to ensure we can continue to provide this assistance to Canadian workers. To do that, we intend to deny benefits to those who quit their jobs without just cause. Those who choose not to work will no longer be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
Furthermore, starting on April 4,1993, the benefit rate will be 57 per cent. Benefits for new claimants will be frozen for the next two years, as is the case for all federal Public Service employees, members of this House, senators, ministers, the Prime Minister and the Governor General. This is a one-time measure that will last two years and is intended as a response to a one-time situation.
Now for a look at the other side of the coin: job creation and training. Premiums paid by small business will be frozen. Furthermore, small businesses which in 1993 pay more unemployment insurance premiums than in 1992 will be eligible for a refundable tax credit for the surplus premiums paid. This measure will encourage them to hire people and create jobs.
We will also spend more on retraining. In 1993, the government will spend $2.21 billion to help nearly a million workers receiving benefits return to the labour market. The budget for this is $260 million more than in 1992 and five times more than was spent in 1990 to train the unemployed. What workers really want is not UI benefits; they want to increase their employability and especially they want work and better access to the labour market. These measures meet their expectations.
As industry restructures, employers and workers agree on who will stay, who will go and what special arrangements will be offered to those who quit. Workers who leave make it possible for other workers to stay and help industries be competitive. Someone who leaves his or her job in these circumstances and looks for other employment will not be considered as having quit voluntarily. Another important point about the amendments
Government Orders
presented in this bill directly concerns cases of sexual or other harassment. Arbitration boards will have the power to protect the privacy of victims of harassment. In cases of sexual or other harassment and at the beneficiary's request, the arbitration board can hear the testimony of both parties separately so the beneficiary does not have to be in the same room as the person who harassed him or her.
At the beneficiary's request, the board can conduct the first-level appeal proceedings behind closed doors or in private and exclude the public and media. Last week, the member for Hamilton East asked whether these were minor or major changes. She knows very well that in many cases, victims of sexual harassment hesitate to speak out because it is often embarrassing for them to do so and it is not always easy to talk about it. If the member for Hamilton East and others are really serious when they talk about sexual harassment and how trying an experience it is for the victims, I am sure they will appreciate these amendments for what they are and will support these measures contained in Bill C-113.
Two years ago, the unemployment insurance account had a $2.2 billion surplus. In 1992, this surplus became a $4.5 billion deficit. In fact, if we do not modify the unemployment insurance program, the forecast deficit will rise to over $8 billion in 1993. By making the proposed changes, the government can reduce this deficit to $7.5 billion. We had a choice to take these measures or increase premiums, which would have led to lay-offs, or borrow yet again and increase the deficit. We know very well that when we borrow to finance deficits it is your children and mine and future generations who will have to pay these deficits in the end. We had the choice to make the right decision, namely control costs by giving benefits to those who really need them. What the opposition proposes, I repeat, is to pass the bill on to those who will come after us and finance people who quit their jobs for no valid reason and abuse the system.
As the Prime Minister said last Tuesday, Canada's generosity to the unemployed is unmatched in the OECD countries, but I do not think we have to pay benefits, with money taken from one's fellow citizens, to someone who quits a job without reason, provocation or cause. I think the Government of Canada has made a good decision.

February 24, 1993
Government Orders
As I said earlier, these changes are based on the principle of fairness. I am the first to recognize that this principle takes precedence over budgetary restraints. The Canadian people should not be led to believe that UI benefits will no longer be available if they lose their jobs through no fault of their own. It is absolutely not true and it is very unfortunate that there is so much disinformation on this subject. We are told over and over that with Bill C-113 after April 4, Canadian workers will no longer be entitled to unemployment insurance. That is not true. Nothing will have changed. Canadian workers will continue to be entitled to unemployment insurance, with the exception of those who leave their jobs without just cause.
The choice facing us is clear. We must raise either premiums or taxes. The figures from the department are very clear. A 20-cent increase in premiums means 30,000 more people will be out of work. The alternative is to ensure that ultimately the system will be fairer to the people it was intended for.
Of course we could bury our heads in the sand and pretend that the deficit does not exist, act like the Liberals did and totally ignore this reality. We might even print more money, as suggested by the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau. Frankly, where does the opposition think that money comes from? The days when we could say that an extra million is no big deal are long gone. But it would seem that the opposition is not aware of that yet.
It is pretty straightforward. Those who quit without just cause, without a good reason, cannot expect to live off the Canadian workers. On the other hand, the unemployment insurance account deficit should not be increased simply because those who voluntarily leave their jobs want to benefit from the safety net put in place for people who lose their jobs for reasons beyond their control.
Last year approximately 225,000 Canadians decided not to work, including 40,000 who were dismissed for misconduct. They have cost the unemployment insurance program nearly $1 billion.
Now let us take a closer look at who does not fall in that category: workers who quit their jobs because of sexual or other harassment, because of dangerous working conditions, because of the obligation to move to another city where their spouse has found work, because
of the obligation to care for a member of their immediate family, because of another employment, because of discrimination, significant salary reductions, excessive overtime or refusal to pay for overtime work, significant changes in work duties, antagonistic relations with a supervisor for which they are not primarily responsible, because of illegal or unethical practices on the part of their employer, because of discrimination for belonging to a workers' organization, because of undue pressure to take an early retirement to protect the jobs of co-workers when employers decide to make staff reductions or because of such other reasonable circumstances as are prescribed.
All people who leave their jobs for those reasons are eligible for unemployment insurance. Should a worker have to leave his or her job for any of these reasons, he or she would not be affected by the changes to the legislation because it would be just cause and he or she would collect UI benefits.
The proposed changes would not affect employees who leave their jobs with the consent of their employers to save the jobs of their colleagues when staff reductions must be made.
In the end, what are we left with? There is what we call voluntary departures when an employee quits his or her job without justification, when he or she chooses not to work. That person is no longer entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.
Workers dismissed for misconduct will not receive benefits either. Assault and theft are both examples of misconduct. Those are the two groups for which the opposition is prepared to pay benefits. Madam Speaker, think about it: 225,000 applications, $1 billion, debt for those who will follow us, debt to pay people who abuse the system. Does the opposition have so little respect for my children, their children and those who come after us that they want to indebt them and make them bear the burden of a debt that will have to be paid later so that those who abuse the system can profit from it?
How do we know that unemployment insurance officers will make the right decision? That question is also asked. We know they will because they are guided by over 40 years of precedents with unemployment insurance and over 50 years of experience in administering the unemployment insurance program. I think it should also
February 24, 1993

be mentioned that 75 per cent of the officers who deal with beneficiaries and make decisions on applications are women. If a beneficiary does not agree with the officer's decision that he or she quit voluntarily or lost his or her job for misconduct, that person can appeal to an independent board of referees.


Mr. Samson:: They can wait two years.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Madam Speaker, the member for Timmins-Chapleau says they can wait two years. I think he is somewhat mistaken about the process. The member for Timmins-Chapleau does not seem to know the process. Usually, and it is recognized, the average wait for someone appealing to the unemployment insurance tribunal is two to three months. I suggest that the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau check his figures before saying anything and spreading misinformation.
If the beneficiary does not agree with the decision of the board of referees, an appeal can be made with the umpire. If that is not satisfactory, the beneficiary can go to court, even to the Supreme Court. Think about it. In November 1990, sexual harassment was first introduced in the act. It was not introduced when our Liberal friends were in power. This Conservative government put it in the act. There has not been a single complaint on how employment and immigration handled such applications since then. No appeal has been made to the board of referees.
Unemployment insurance provides temporary help to workers who lost their jobs and are looking for other ones. Unemployment insurance is not an income support system for those who choose to be unemployed. Canadians have long been an adaptable people who keep up with the times. These changes are meant to harmonize the needs of Canadians who work hard for their living and those who want to work.
To slow the skyrocketing increase of the UI afccbunt deficit which threatens the system's very viability, we are imposing a freeze for the next two years, not a reduction as the opposition claims. We will be able to show that after April 4. We are freezing the amount of benefits just as we froze our own salaries and public servants' salaries, exactly as many Canadian companies have frozen their
Government Orders
employees' salaries. We are all in the same boat. Benefits will not be reduced for those now receiving unemployment insurance. Despite the freeze, Canadians will still have a more generous and fair unemployment insurance plan than what Italy, Great Britain, the United States and many other countries offer their workers.
Finally, we are tackling the unemployment insurance account deficit and, as part of this process, we want to put an end to abuse of this system. In that way we are different from the Liberals who let things go. We are also different from the New Democrats who want to spend money to protect those who abuse the system, while trying to make us believe they want to limit expenditures.
This distinguishes us from the Bloc Quebecois as well. It is taking a stand motivated only by political opportunism. Its members are no longer free to make up their minds independently because they are in the pockets of the likes of Gerald Larose, Fernand Daoust and Lorraine Page. It is fine to object, but what alternatives do these people have to offer? None.
We are enabling a greater number of Canadians to retrain and we are sparing no effort to allow them to re-enter the labour force. We are making more funds available to ensure that Canadians who want to work find employment as quickly as possible.
Training and upgrading are one aspect, but the other is job creation. Small businesses are major contributors to both job creation and economic growth. This government recognized that fact in its recent economic statement. New employment incentives were added in the form of a refundable tax credit for small businesses where UI employer premium payments are above the 1992 level.
More than 900,000 Canadian businesses are eligible for this incentive program. These measures will allow small business to create real jobs, increase the number of hours worked by part-time workers or raise their employees' wages. How many workers will benefit from these measures?

February 24, 1993
Government Orders
Madam Speaker, you are signalling that my speaking time is up, but just allow me to add this: Bill C-113 is of necessity based on fairness, job creation and incentive for our small and medium-sized businesses.


Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Madam Speaker, it must be pointed out to the hon. member that many people oppose this bill, not only labour organizations, but also the Quebec Bar Association and the Conseil du patronat, and that goes for both versions of the legislation.
I would like to tell the member what the Quebec bar said: "The total disqualification of a claimant's right to benefit in all cases of unjustified voluntary departure as defined in the legislation, or of dismissal for misconduct would be unrealistic, given the conflicts which occur in labour relations". This opinion is from people who cannot really be suspected of being steadfast allies of the labour unions. I am referring to the Quebec bar and the Conseil du patronat.
I should also tell the hon. member that there have been suggestions. For example, if the government had said that from now on, to be eligible for UI benefits, any claimant would have to take a vocational training course, I think that all of us in this House would have applauded and supported such a reform of the unemployment insurance system. Not only is it not the case, but to be eligible for occupational training one must receive either unemployment insurance or welfare. Those who will be excluded under this reform will get neither.
There are people who will receive no vocational training and this is the main problem with employment, because Canada ranks about 22nd among the 24 members of the OECD in terms of occupational training.
I want to mention two specific cases to the hon. member and then I would like him to comment. Let us consider the case of cheaters. There are cheaters and one of the most frequent forms of cheating is in small business. Small businesses, in collusion with their employees, increase the employees' salaries and then lay them off for lack of work. We are not talking about voluntary departure or misconduct. Then, these people continue to work for the same employer while receiving UI benefits.
The bill does not in any way deal with this type of fraud which is one of the most frequent. A second example-
Madam Deputy Speaker I would like to remind the hon. member that he was not recognized for debate but for questions and comments, and he has already used up three minutes. I would appreciate it if he finished what he has to say.
After four years the hon. member also ought to know that he should take his seat when the Speaker rises. Thank you.
I strongly suggest that the hon. member finish his comment, give the hon. member who had the floor a chance to respond and let the Chair recognize someone else as well during this 10 minute period.


Gilles Duceppe: I will finish my second question. Thke the example of an employee who has been with CIP for 25 years, becomes unemployed and happens to find a job in a small business. After three days, he feels the terms are unacceptable, leaves his job and goes to the unemployment insurance office and is told he is no longer eligible for benefits. Does the hon. member think this person will take a chance finding a job or does he think that person will say that he is not taking any chances, and will take his benefits? These are people who will no longer make the effort.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Madam Speaker, I will not thank the hon. member for his comments, because it is really incredible when you hear all the misinformation the hon. member has just given here in the House. He just said that the Conseil du patronat and the Quebec Bar Association were opposed to the bill. That is false. The Conseil du patronat expressed reservations when we tabled Bill C-105. I suggest the hon. member have another talk with Mr. Dufour. He would realize that Mr. Dufour, who is the president of the Conseil du patronat, has now expressed his support for Bill C-113, thus acknowledging that we made the necessary amendments in response to his concerns.
As for occupational training, it is targeted to those who are on unemployment insurance. Often, if you want to help these people get back into the labour market quickly, training requirements may be different so they may need extra training. There are thousands of people and as I said in my speech earlier today, over one million
February 24, 1993

Canadians will have access to training courses because we have taken steps to provide the necessary funds to help these workers instead of simply giving them an unemployment insurance cheque.
I would like to answer all his questions, since he had several. The hon. member refers to possible collusion between employers and employees on completing termination forms. I would suggest the hon. member re-read Bill C-21, which provides severe penalties for employers in case of collusion. We have investigators who are constantly on the job. Last year, more than $280 million was recovered by investigators in cases of collusion and fraud.
As for the CIP worker who had worked for 25 years, I must say these points have already been raised. In this particular case I would suggest the hon. member take another look at Bill C-113 because it contains certain adjustments that deal with the type of case the hon. member just mentioned.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, what really surprises me in the speech made by the hon. member for Terrebonne is his insensitivity and lack of understanding of the issue. The hon. member essentially tries to interpret everything regarding the unemployment problem. We know that the unemployment insurance officer makes the final decision. This officer interprets the law and is both judge and jury. This, in my opinion, is a major flaw.
I want to ask the member for Terrebonne how he can guarantee fairness, understanding and sensitivity to the workers when the form which must be filled out to indicate why a person is leaving his or her job is completed and signed by the employer. The employee has no say in the process. He cannot see the form which is then sent to the unemployment insurance officer who, as I said, becomes both judge and jury. The employee who surely quit his job for a good reason is a victim in this process.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, which is much more interesting than the one from his colleague in the Bloc Quebecois.
Government Orders
I would point out to my colleague from the Liberal Party that it is totally wrong to claim that the officer who will deal with the case will simply base his decision on the employer's version as given in the termination of employment form. If my colleague bothers to check his documents and Bill C-113, he will see that from now on the unemployment insurance officer will have to take into account the written versions of both the employer and the employee. If the officer really cannot decide on the basis of these two versions, the employee will get the benefit of the doubt and that is clearly stated. I conclude by saying that it is insensitive to let the deficit of the unemployment insurance fund grow and put in debt those who will follow us.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa-West):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak against Bill C-113.1 will begin with this question: What is the situation in Canada during this long, cold winter of 1993? What is the reality which Canadian workers face? The reality is that 1.6 million people are without a job. More than two million people must rely on social assistance to survive and feed their families. There are some five million Canadians who suffer from high unemployment and the lack of jobs in our country, one of the richest in the world.

In light of the desperate situation for over five million Canadians what does this government want to do? It wants to make life harder for those living through this hard and miserable winter without a job. It wants to say to them that if they lose their jobs through no fault of their own it will be cutting the already miserable income they have to live on to pay their municipal taxes, pay their mortgage, pay their rent and buy food and clothing for their children. It is doing more than that. It is telling them that if they quit their jobs it must be their fault.
I would like to ask people on the other side of the House who have very generous salaries, as I do, if they really think that someone earning $18,000, $20,000, $25,000 a year is going to voluntarily quit a job to earn half that amount of money on UI. Do they honestly think someone earning that kind of a salary is going to quit a job and wait between two and three months to have any income whatsoever? Do they think Canadians believe that?

February 24, 1993
Government Orders
We all know that any system is going to have a few people who are going to take advantage of it. The members opposite who are bringing in this bill know how very small that number is. However, to change a whole system to punish those who are simply trying to survive this recession in Canada is unjust.
Obviously the government has forgotten the purpose of the unemployment insurance plan. Yes, it is to help workers through difficult times, but that is only part of it. Part of the reason for helping workers through difficult times is so when times get better-hopefully they are getting better now or are starting to get better-those people are still in their communities to work on the jobs that come back when the recession is over.
That is why this plan relies on the contributions of both employers and employees because it benefits both. It also helps communities. One of the big reasons for bringing in unemployment insurance after the Second World War was to avoid the tremendous disruption that happened not only to families and individuals but to communities across this countiy. Small towns and villages and rural communities across Canada were emptied out as people hit the rails looking for any kind of work anywhere they could find it. Businesses were robbed of their customer bases and closed down. Families broke up. Communities fell apart never to come back again.
We have an unemployment insurance scheme to help workers through tough times, help employers retain their employment bases for when the jobs come back and prevent the destruction of communities and families.
I had the privilege during the debate on Bill C-21, which was the previous round of amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, to travel across Canada to listen to seasonal workers, women workers, transitory workers, people in the construction industry and people from all parts of this country. They talked about what the unemployment insurance scheme has meant to them and their families over the years. The unemployment situation was not nearly as bad then as it is now, but it was a matter of survival.
We have a country where it is cold and dark for a good part of the year. That means there are a lot of jobs that simply disappear for the winter. There are other jobs
that simply disappear for the summer. For many people in many fields of endeavour, 12 months of work is simply not possible in this country.
There was an interview this morning about the construction industry and whether people who are out of work for the winter in this industry really should not be transferring to some other kind of work. I do not think the construction companies that want those employees there when the jobs come back really think that is a terrific idea, but they also know one cannot pour concrete in the middle of winter and one cannot lay asphalt.
The reality of Canada is that we are always going to have those periods when there are no jobs.
I want to talk briefly about harassment because I doubt very much that the people on the other side who are supporting this bill really understand what a woman experiences. They do not know how difficult it is for her to deal with in the work place, decide that she will sacrifice the economic well-being of her family to protect her dignity by quitting her job and then have to prove she was harassed before she can collect unemployment insurance.
The minister talked about training for employees who have to deal with claims of harassment in the work place, but did not talk about training for the referees who will make the final decisions.
As I look through the close to 200 appointments that have been made by the Prime Minister and cabinet in the last couple of months and I look at the appointments to the boards of referees under the unemployment insurance scheme, I see very few women's names among them.
We heard talk about how the unemployment insurance fund is in such a mess because of training. The unemployment insurance fund is not in a mess because of training. It is because this government chose to give up its responsibilities to train people and retrain them. Instead, it has forced employees, the unemployed and employers to pay for training.
It wants Canadians to forget that it cut $750 million for training at a time when we needed to be more competitive and productive. It increased unemployment insurance fees by over 30 per cent. It increased the burden on
February 24, 1993

small businesses that are barely hanging on by then-teeth.
Now it is saying to those same people who have seen their contributions to the unemployment insurance scheme increased dramatically along with decreased access and decreased benefits: "We are going to cut you off even further". It is a cruel and inhumane way to deal with Canadians in this harsh winter of 1993.
I want to go to the other part of the bill that deals with the freeze on Public Service wages. I want to remind the House that by the time this bill has run its course, for three out of four years, the quarter of a million people who work for the people of Canada will have had no salary increase.
That is on top of a decade of declining real income for the Public Service of Canada. This is a pattern where federal Public Service employees have consistently taken less than the rate of inflation, less than the private sector and less than the rest of the public sector in wage increases. They therefore have seen their real income decline dramatically.
What is the reward for trying to be part of the solution in this country? It is another two years of no salary increase. It is fine for the member for Terrebonne to get up and talk about how members of Parliament are not getting an increase and how judges are not getting an increase. We do not need all of our salary to pay for the essentials of life.
Let me tell you about some of the people who work for the Public Service of Canada because that is where this government made its big mistake. It forced its largest union in the Public Service into a strike two years ago.
That let Canadians see that we have a lot of people working for them and earning very little money. We have people working for the Government of Canada and the people of Canada risking their lives as rescue workers as part of crews on ships for less than $20,000 a year.
We have over one-quarter of the Public Service of Canada earning less than $30,000 a year at a time when the National Council on Welfare says the poverty line for a family of four is more than $30,000.
I suspect that if this legislation were challenged before the Human Rights Commission it would be struck down as contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Government Orders
because close to 70 per cent of the people earning less than $30,000 while working for the Government of Canada are women.
A bill that freezes wages and gives nothing to those at the lowest level who are already spending every cent of their salaries on the necessities of life puts people further into poverty. It hits those in the lowest income brackets the hardest.
The history of this government has been to hit hardest those who have the least. When we impose increases in the unemployment insurance scheme they only apply to salaries under a certain limit. When we impose increases in Canada Pension Plan contributions they only apply to salaries under a certain limit. Those earning more than that and who are already better off do not have to pay that extra penalty.
After three years of zero increase at a time when the federal government is also downsizing we are forcing people into permanent retirement for which they have worked and saved that is going to be more difficult than it needs to be. With retirement incomes based on the last six years of employment and earnings we are saying to people that for four out of those six years they are going to have an average of less than a 1.5 per cent increase. Their pensions for the rest of their retirement will be reduced by that amount.
Is that fair when the government says we are getting rid of tens of thousands of Public Service employees and forcing them onto pensions, unemployment insurance or the welfare rolls? We are forcing them onto pensions before they are ready to retire and we are also going to penalize them a second time by making sure their pension is calculated on wages that have been frozen for three years.
This government was criticized by the Public Service Staff Relations Board for bad faith bargaining when it did this two years ago. It was condemned by conciliation board reports at that time for bargaining in bad faith. Barely two months ago the International Labour Organization, a member body of the United Nations composed of employers, employees and government representatives chastised the Government of Canada for its failure to bargain with its employees.

February 24, 1993
Government Orders
I want to conclude with a statement from the Conference Board of Canada which clearly describes the economic measures in this bill and in the December mini budget statement by the Minister of Finance. It says: "The over-all impact of the measures will be slightly contradictory, lowering real GDP growth by roughly 1.1 per cent in 1992 and .2 per cent in 1993".
In other words, the recovery we are hoping for this year will be diminished by 10 per cent. Why do I tie that directly to this bill? I do so because the Conference Board of Canada said that consumer spending will be hardest hit as the most important cost-saving measures were cuts in unemployment insurance benefits and a freeze on Public Service wages. Those are exactly the two issues we are dealing with in this bill that is before the House today.
Contradictory and counterproductive is how the Conference of Board of Canada described these measures. It also went on to say: "Further, given the pressure on provincial government finances, partly caused by this government's cuts in transfer payments to the provinces, ceilings on transfer payments and increased dumping of people who are out of a job onto the welfare system, not the UI system"-and we see it happening again today-"if wage freezes are also imposed at the provincial level, and particularly if they extend into the schools and hospitals, this would again further substantially reduce purchasing power in 1993 generating lower growth than is currently forecast".
At a time when the people of Canada are trying to come out of a recession and are tiying to reduce the more than five million Canadian men, women and children who are suffering the effects of unemployment, this government is introducing budget measures to dampen that recovery. We will be voting against this bill and I encourage others to do so as well.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Ottawa West.
Clause 17 in part IV of Bill C-113 says "an amount equal to 57 per cent of the claimant's average weekly insurable earnings". We know that if someone earns
$500 gross per week, 60 per cent of that is $300. As of April 4, the same person earning $500, with a 57 per cent rate will, according to the chart that I have, receive $285.
Can the hon. member tell me if it is acceptable that a man who has a wife and four children will now lose $60 per month of his purchasing power? Does the member agree with this bill and the rate going from 60 to 57 per cent, especially in the case of a family?


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I believe I clearly indicated I do not agree with this legislation.


Eugène Bellemare: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Ottawa West, who is the Liberal critic for the Public Service. I have the honour of being her assistant on this issue. She always shows sensitivity toward civil servants, something I have seldom seen from the present federal government.
The member for Ottawa West referred to the insufficient salary increases and the detrimental effect this could have on the economy in general and on families in particular. A chart shows that over a four-year period, salaries in the private sector have increased by an average of 3 per cent while the salaries of public servants have gone up by an average of 0.75 per cent per year. On average, salaries in the private sector have increased 400 per cent more than in the Public Service.
I would like to give my colleague from Ottawa West an opportunity to comment on the fact that there seems to be a double standard. On the one hand, the government appears to want to help major companies and on the other hand, it takes advantage of its employees and uses them to supposedly control the national debt.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, in the time I have been in the House the national deficit has been used by this government as an excuse for literally every measure it has undertaken. It is punitive and it hits those with the least income who are least able to pay the freight.
I have now sat through four budgets and what do I see? I see a debt that keeps increasing. I see the amount we are paying in interest that keeps growing.
In my view what the economy needs is more jobs. Quite simply, that is why we have an unemployment
February 24, 1993

insurance scheme that is overspent. It is why we have a social insurance system that is costing us more and more. It is because people do not have jobs.
The government seems to have a hard time comprehending that if people have jobs they do not need unemployment insurance and they do not need social welfare. In fact they pay income taxes. They go out and buy goods and services that create profits for small, medium and large businesses. That creates jobs for other Canadians who can then stop claiming unemployment insurance or drawing welfare and start paying income taxes and buying goods and services that create jobs for other Canadians. It seems to me that is the kind of upward spiral that would bring some sense of hope back to this country and to families and individuals in this country.
I did mention there has been a pattern of wage settlements in the Public Service of Canada that have been consistently less than what the private sector is getting, less than other areas of the public sector are getting, municipalities, provinces, hospitals, schools and so on, less than the rate of inflation.
Public Service employees have done their share of trying to contain government spending when it comes to sitting down at the bargaining table. All they ask for is the right to sit down at the bargaining table. They have done their share, have shown they are prepared to do it and they are prepared to do it again.
What do they get instead? What do they get for their willingness to be part of the solution? They get another two years of wage freeze. That is not fair. That is not the kind of thing that encourages Public Service employees to regard themselves as partners with government in running this country, that encourages them to be productive and contribute to the country.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Ottawa West for her speech. I think she did a very good job and she raised quite a few excellent points.
There is one thing I would like to ask the member. Over the last three weeks or so we have been asking the minister of employment over and over again to give us some statistics to prove that all these people he claims
Government Orders
have quit their jobs are loafing around and taking advantage of the system are actual people. We have asked him time and time again to give us the proof, the numbers and the statistics. He has continuously said: "Ask for it on the Order Paper". He has done all kinds of neat little things in the House to avoid the question.
I would like to ask the member a question. We are speaking on the hoist motion of six months that her party has put forward on this particular piece of legislation. Given that in 1989 the Auditor General clearly identified severe inconsistencies across the country on the application of UI penalties and the application of UI legislation, is it far beyond the time for the Auditor General to now do a thorough investigation, paying particular attention to the quits and fireds, as it pertains to this new legislation?


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I think we have to look at two things. For people to do their job well there have to be the human resources. One area of government that has been hardest hit is the employment offices of Canada Employment and Immigration. People in those offices are frustrated because they are working long hours of overtime, often under very difficult conditions. They are dealing with people who do not have jobs, who are desperate, terrified, crying and who wonder how they are going to support their families. They are working under a great deal of strain. The number of people employed has dropped. They are no longer able to help unemployed people find jobs. They can only be processors of applications and advise people to take a look at the job board.
It is no wonder people who are unemployed are having greater difficulty accessing training and services they used to get in terms of finding new employment. The number, as I said, of cheaters in the system is so small that to administer the system to catch every one of them would cost many times more than the amount of money saved.
I do not know whether the Auditor General knows, but if the government knows there are cheaters in the system it should be doing something about them. It should be providing the resources in the department to do something about them rather than punishing those who it says are choosing to quit their jobs.

February 24, 1993
Government Orders
It is the most ridiculous statement I ever heard.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I have listened very carefully and I have to say that all of us have heard a lot of nonsense spoken in this House and, indeed, outside this House recently concerning these proposed amendments to the UI act.
We have been told that workers are going to be at the mercy of their employers, that employers can use certain clauses to punish the employees, even to curtail legitimate union activities, that under the changes fired workers will have to prove they were not fired for misconduct.
Members of the opposition have conjured up the spectre of people who say they have left a job to escape sexual harassment being subjected to some sort of humiliating public inquiry. We have heard that the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission staff is going to try to deny benefits to claimants who left their jobs with just cause.
We have been told the government is attacking the unemployed and proposing to cut people off UI.
The members of the opposition are frightening Canadians with inflammatory rhetoric in an effort to score cheap political points. That is not what this bill is doing and that is not what we are doing.
Let us look behind the facts, behind all smoke-screen and see how Bill C-113 works. It works to provide a fairer, more equitable unemployment insurance system for all Canadians. The government proposes to eliminate UI benefits to voluntary quitters. That means people who choose not to work will not be eligible for UI benefits. It is as simple as that. I ask the members of the opposition to explain in plain English, in plain French, in plain language just why people who quit work for no good reason or who are unemployed because of their own misconduct should be supported by the working Canadians and the employers. I ask them.
Let us not pretend that some people do not take advantage of the UI system working only as long as it takes to accumulate the minimum number of weeks to file and then quitting. It is happening and everybody knows it is happening. All we have to do is look at the numbers.
Last year the UI system spent almost $1 billion to support 225,000 people who decided either not to work
or were fired for misconduct. Even though they do make up a small percentage of the total claims, they are making a big dent in that UI account. That $1 billion could be used to reduce the deficit in the UI account.
Perhaps members in the opposition will explain to Canadians why the entire UI system should be jeopardized so voluntary quitters can have a comfortable holiday.
Before members start telling me that in these times no one quits their job because they want to, let me clarify. Two hundred and twenty-five thousand people quit their jobs without just cause. There was no sexual harassment, no discrimination and no responsibility to look after a sick child, no reference to any of the 40 reasons to quit a job with cause. That is 225,000 people who just plain quit, despite the economy.
No one who has an interruption of earnings through no fault of his or her own has anything to worry about with regard to these changes. The term just cause was defined in the UI act to protect the workers who have legitimate reasons to leave their employment. The act already lists five reasons that constitute just cause.
Bill C-113 proposes eight additional reasons to be incorporated into the legislation. If you quit your job because you have been sexually harassed, are facing discrimination or hazardous working conditions, followed your spouse to another city or these needed to take care of a child or any other invalid, these are just causes and you will have access to UI. It is that simple. You have quit with just cause.
Members opposite should have known this before December 2. If they did not, they are going to know it now.
What about the people who thought they had just cause even before the system said they did not? Before Bill C-113, if a Canada Employment Centre agent determined that you quit without just cause or you were dismissed for misconduct and you disagreed, you could appeal to an independent board of referees. That still remains.
After Bill C-113 you will still have the right to appeal the decision. In fact, the bill before us will strengthen the protection provided to Canadians who appeal an insurance agent's decision. The bill gives the chairperson of the board of referees the authority to take the steps necessary to protect the privacy of harassment victims.
February 24, 1993

Let us look at some of the common misconceptions about the impact of the proposed changes. We have heard it said that employers will have greater power over the workers. First of all, the Canada Employment Centre staff members do not make decisions based solely on information provided by the employer. They try to obtain all the necessary facts from all the appropriate sources, including the claimant. They collect all the pertinent information available and make the decision based on the credibility of the statements and the testimony. If employee versions are dramatically different and no evidence is found to tip the balance one way or the other, they give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant.
The Canada Employment Centre staff's responsibility is to find out why someone quit and to determine whether it was a reasonable thing to do under the circumstances, in other words, whether the claimant had just cause.
Where sexual harassment is alleged, neither the claimant nor the employer will be subjected to intensive, possibly even distasteful questioning. Here again the benefit of the doubt will go to the claimant.
Some people have argued that there are legitimate reasons for leaving a job, other than those set down in the UI act. That is so. Other reasons are and will continue to be considered on the basis of their merit. They have also argued that Canadians should not be penalized from receiving benefits if they leave a job in order to preserve the job of other co-workers. We agree on that one. That is why workers who leave jobs to preserve the jobs of their co-workers as part of the work force reduction plan program will be eligible for UI benefits.
Since the Minister of Finance made his economic statement, some critics have alleged that the changes deny some workers their right to UI benefits. Let us remember that unemployment insurance benefits are not a right. They are insurance. They are insurance against, in most cases, the involuntary loss of a job. Unemployment insurance is designed to provide temporary help for workers who have lost their jobs. UI provides the income support they need while they look for new jobs. It should not be an income support system
Government Orders
for people who choose unemployment. After all, no one expects to be able to deliberately bum down his or her house and then collect the insurance. Why should anyone expect to deliberately quit his or her job and collect unemployment insurance?
Would the members opposite suggest that a farmer who bums his fields and then asks for crop insurance should get it? I do not think so. As for the charge that the Canadian Employment Centre staff would actually try to deny benefits to claimants with just cause is an insult to those dedicated professionals who staff these positions right across our country.
Their job is to collect the pertinent information from all sources and make the decision. They are trained to understand the difficulties faced by the unemployed workers and to respond to the claimant as a human being rather than as a claim being processed.
Before the proposed changes go into effect the Canada Employment Centre will conduct staff orientation sessions to increase the awareness among the staff, particularly in the area of sexual harassment. These orientation sessions will be prepared with the participation of the status of women. We look forward to its input.
Specific training will now include how to process claims under the new legislation, how to focus on the relevant facts of each particular situation, how to apply the principles and practices of adjudication and how to evaluate information when making the decision.
Why is the government proposing these changes? I think it is obvious. UI was set up to provide people who lose their jobs through no fault of their own with a temporary income while they look for work.
Employees and employers fund the UI program by paying premiums. However, the premiums being collected no longer cover all the claims for UI benefits. From a $2.2 billion surplus in 1990, the UI account has gone to a $4.5 billion deficit. Even with these proposed changes, it is estimated that the UI account will be $7.5 billion in the red by the end of this year. Without the changes, it is projected that the account would be $8.5 billion in the red.
It is obvious to most Canadians, if not to the opposition, that something has to be done to staunch this flood of red ink. There are only two ways to tackle this issue,

February 24, 1993
Government Orders
raise the premiums or cap the expenditures. That is our choice.
Premiums have already gone up by one-third in the last 18 months. Raising them again would put an unduly heavy burden on the employees and employers. That leaves capping the expenditures the government chooses to do by freezing benefits for new claimants and eliminating benefits for voluntary quitters and those who are fired for misconduct. These changes will reduce the UI deficit without raising the premiums.
Of course amid all the partisan criticism and hysteria there has been no mention of the government's training and job creation initiatives aimed at getting those people who are unemployed back into the work force as quickly as possible. In fact, the government's first priority is to get people back into the work force while helping those who are seeking jobs.
We are spending $3.8 billion on retraining so workers can learn the skills they need in today's work place. Using a period of unemployment to upgrade workers' skills is absolutely necessary. It is going to provide that worker with better skills suited to help him or her find a job in the market and help him or her get a stable, long-term job.
UI training programs offer more than an income between jobs; they offer a future. In total, more than one million Canadians are going to benefit from the skills training and retraining. This is the best way to help-and I have heard them speak of it-the unemployed people get back into the work force. That is $3.8 billion for training and retraining. Getting people back into the work force is an effective way of cutting the UI deficit.
In 1993, $2.2 billion will be spent in developmental uses funds under the UI Act to help UI recipients get back into the work force. An estimated 530,000 UI claimants are eligible for these programs. Spending on these programs is up nearly $260 million from 1992. That is almost five times higher than it was for training programs for the unemployed in 1990.
These programs will give displaced workers quick access to training and other re-employment opportunities.
The government has also increased the self-employment assistance budget from $25 million to $100 million. It has set aside $300 million to assist displaced, experienced workers who suddenly find themselves out of a job after working for many years. To help avoid lay-offs, the government has dedicated $130 million to the worksharing program. This is done by shortening the work week by one to three days and paying reduced wages. For the days not worked, the workers draw a normal UI benefit.
Through the job creation program, the government helps unemployed workers get back into the work force by maintaining and enhancing their skills while receiving UI benefits when other employment is not available. We have seen a great use for this job creation program. I have been in the UI employment centre office at Centre 70 in Calgary. I must say that while one would always like more funding to be put into the system, what is there is being used extremely successfully.
I have to say that far from attacking the unemployed, this government is attacking unemployment at the root. We all know that Canada is going through a difficult transition and we are adjusting to changes in the global economy. It is not just here in Canada but south of the border in the U.S., in England, in France, in Germany, in Spain, in Sweden and even in Japan. Nobody wishes this on anyone.
We need every Canadian worker to continue working.
We need every Canadian worker to contribute to the economy unless he or she has a valid reason for leaving the job. We know we have to equip our work force with the skills needed to meet the demands of the new technology, and technology is changing.
This is only the first of the changes we really must undergo. I hope the Leader of the Opposition can forgive me for borrowing one of President Clinton's lines, but it is time we became a nation of producers rather than a nation of consumers.
February 24, 1993

It is time we recognized once again the value of work and the personal and economic freedom that a job brings. It is time we recognized the contribution each job makes to the national economy and the well-being of our nation. When we have people working we have a nation that is flourishing. It is time we stopped paying people who choose to be unemployed.
Canada does stand at the crossroads. If we do not sharpen our competitive edge we may lose the comfortable standard of living Canadians now take for granted. The government is not going to sit on the sidelines and it is not going to mislead Canadians. We are getting Canada ready to compete in the new global economy of the 21st century.
The hon. members opposite cannot lead, so what way are we going to go? Will they get in the way or will they follow Canadians to build a common prosperous future together? When we are all working we can maintain our standard of living and the social safety net and social services for those people who really need them.
We should not pay people who voluntarily quit, but we will help people who quit for just cause.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the rhetoric of the member for Calgary Southwest.
I am absolutely stunned by some of the things this member is trying to make Canadians believe. It is absolutely incredible that this member would stand in this House and try to tell us that 225,000 people in this country voluntarily quit with absolutely no just cause simply because they wanted to sit at home and become couch potatoes.
She cannot give us the evidence. She cannot show us in detail the number of people who quit with just cause, who cite sexual harassment, who want to move with their spouse, or who want to attend a sick child. She does not have those figures. She cannot tell us how many of those people appealed the decision to end their benefits, won, and then had those decisions reversed and overturned. She cannot give us any of those figures, yet she has the nerve to stand in this House and try to tell us that these people have to pay their share to get the deficit reduced. This is absolutely incredible.
Government Orders
The member misses the point that there are severe flaws in the system as it exists today. This legislation does absolutely nothing to rectify any of those flaws. It does nothing to rectify the inconsistencies in the decisions being made across this country. It does absolutely nothing to put people back to work.
I would like to ask the minister to give me the figures to prove that 225,000 people are quitting without just cause. It is absolutely absurd and she does not have those figures. I would like to ask her to prove her statement.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my address, there are 225,000 people in Canada who quit their jobs voluntarily. There was no just cause. It cost the employees and the employers $1 billion from the UI fund. These people did not have just cause, of which there are 40 areas listed. Why did they quit? They quit for no reason at all.


An hon. member:: Not true.
Mrs. Sparrow. They had worked their entrance time. That is 225,000 people.
I spent quite a bit of time in the UI centre in my riding. I went in there to deliberately speak to the Canada Employment Centre staff. I have to say the staff members at Centre 70 in Calgary are superb. They go out of their way to assist people. They hear the claims from both the worker and the employee. Indeed, if there is any benefit of doubt I can assure you the ruling is in favour of the claimant.
One thing we have to realize is that anybody who quits because of sexual harassment, which the member mentioned, anybody who quits because they have a sick child to take care of, anybody who quits because their spouse has been moved, anybody who quits due to racial discrimination will be able to collect UI. They will be able to prove it. Now, do not fool Canadians.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker my question is for the member for Calgary Southwest.
I had the pleasure this morning of meeting the building and construction trades representative, Guy Dumoulin, who informed me the government did not approach the building trades of construction to ask their

February 24, 1993
Government Orders
opinion or for any suggestions or recommendations on this bill. He deplores the fact that the government has no sensitivity toward construction workers.
I would like to ask the member for Calgary Southwest to comment on the following statement: Construction workers often leave employment near the end of a job and go through their union hiring hall to get better work prospects with another contractor. The worker leaves a job on Friday to work elsewhere on Monday. On Monday the truck does not show up, the builder goes bankrupt or the new employer found someone else. This happens all the time. The new job does not appear. How does the worker prove the case before winning the benefits? The first employer says the worker quit and the would-be employer perhaps cannot even be found or denies the story. We would hope the hiring hall would be believed but in some cases a hiring hall would not be involved. Finally, Bill C-113 may stop construction workers from taking the chance of a few extra weeks of work with another employer. Bill C-113 will hurt the construction worker's mobility and advancement.
The director of the building and constructions trade, Guy Dumoulin, has brought to my attention the question of mobility and advancement. I would ask the member for Calgary Southwest to respond to that.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, indeed every job is very important. Construction workers are very important right across this country. None of us would deny that.
UI was designed to help people who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. It helps them temporarily while they look or now train, and there are training programs, for other work.
This particular bill says if you quit your job voluntarily without just cause, the employees of Canada are not going to subsidize you or pay you to sit at home.


An hon. member:: Right on, Bobbie.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: We cannot afford it. Furthermore, the UI program was not set up for that. As a matter of fact I think if you wanted to take time to check with a couple of UI offices, all you would have to do is make a few phone calls. You can make one to Halifax, one in Quebec, one in Ontario and one in B.C. You can find out the abuse that is in the system.
The UI account exists to assist people who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. We have a choice. We
either increase the premiums, which puts pressure on the employers and the employees, or we start going after people who abuse the system.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Mission-Coquitlam today.
I am rising to speak on Bill C-113, which has three basic elements. The first element will freeze salary increases for cabinet, government officials, members and so on. The second will make some changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The third element, which I will be speaking on as well, will make some changes to the Western Grain Transportation Act, which is an effort by this government to back off from the commitment into perpetuity to the Crow benefit.
I would like to start by discussing the unemployment insurance changes. Essentially the government is proposing to take away the current safety net of a waiting period from 7 to 12 weeks that now exists for those people whose leaving of an employer is in some question. If an employee leaves for what he or she thinks is just cause or for the prospect of another job that does not materialize then the waiting period is from 7 to 12 weeks. If employees leave because they feel they are being sexually harassed they only have to wait from 7 to 12 weeks for unemployment insurance to cut in if they have been unable to find a replacement job.
We have just heard the member from Calgary talk about how this system is being abused. I wanted to spend a few minutes discussing a couple of cases I have had brought to my attention over the past year in which the employees quit for what they thought was just cause, and what I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, would think was just cause, but was not considered by the current rules to be just cause. While they only had to wait 12 weeks before the unemployment insurance would come into effect, in each of these cases they did get a job before that happened. However, with the 7 to 12 week safety net being removed with this proposal they would not be eligible for unemployment insurance.
The kinds of situations raised under the rubric of just cause include the following situation. A young man who had been cross-country trucking for 10 years from coast to coast all across North America recently shifted jobs to a smaller company. While he could survive in the summertime with the equipment, he found that as the roads got worse the equipment was less able to handle

the icy, rough conditions of winter. He began to have brake failures. The heater did not work in his cab. He complained to his employer who said: "In the 1950s we never drove with heaters. Just put on some more clothes". So he did but the brakes did not get better. He began to find that the brakes were not adequate.
The rule of the road is that a driver of a truck that does not pass the road test, a spot test by the traffic board, is responsible for having that truck fixed before he moves it even if he is driving for someone else. He also must wait without pay until that truck is fixed. His employer expects him to have the load arrive at the destination so the driver is responsible for making that truck go. He is also responsible when he takes the vehicle out of the yard in the first place to make sure it is safe to be put on the road. When it was not he refused to drive it and the employer said: "You have quit and you are fired".
The employer gets to fill in the papers explaining the separation and he said: "This man quit". That man is now no longer eligible for unemployment insurance. The system does not permit the employee to file a reason for leaving the employment, only the employer's side is heard.
Under the new rules this person would be without any unemployment insurance even though he had been driving for 10 years and had been contributing all of that time to the fund.
A second separation involved a two-man crew with one man as the boss, the other man as the worker. The person who was in charge of the crew, of the drilling rig and the seismic operation got very drunk and was having problems with drugs. They arrive late because the foreman did not get up on time. They found that the truck, which had been left running overnight at the drill site had run out of fuel.
To indicate his level of competence on this particular day, he began ripping off fuel lines, allegedly to drain the air out of the system. Instead of pulling off fuel lines, he pulled out transmission and brake lines. This is how adept he was at his job on that particular day.
Government Orders
The other worker, who was going to have to handle dynamite with this man in a few minutes when they got the rig going, decide that he was not going to work with him on that day. The report shows that this man quit and he was denied unemployment insurance. There was no way that he could prove just cause because it was his word against the foreman's. Again there was no opportunity for the employee to provide his side of the story.
The rules are unbalanced now. The 7 to 12 weeks are a safety net for people to be kept off the welfare rolls. The changes in this bill will hasten the number of people going on welfare because they will be denied the unemployment benefits they have been paying into for all these years. The system does not permit a fair adjudication of the reasons for leaving their employment.
The government's regulations and instructions to the offices increase its image of hypocrisy among the users of unemployment insurance because of some strange things that go on with the literacy program.
The government says it is improving literacy and trying to train people to be able to read and write and go on to further training. Yet I have numerous examples in my riding of people in their early twenties who decide they probably should complete high school so they can go for further training. They are unable to get approval from the unemployment insurance system to take these upgrading courses.
They have access to a high school in their community. In order to go to a community college or a night course, they will have to drive 150 miles one way. So they enrol at the local high school to complete their grade 12 and are immediately cut off unemployment insurance. They no longer have any money to pay their rent or buy groceries so they have to quit school and go back to seeking employment.
It is a dead-end proposition. It is certainly no way to fight illiteracy if there are rules that do not encourage people to go back and get the kind of training they need.
For the balance of my time I want to turn to the proposed cut of 10 per cent to the Western Grain Transportation Act. This means $72 million less to the railways which will come out of farmers' pockets next year. The year after it will be $104 million. In my district, this means $2.80 a tonne more that farmers will pay

February 24, 1993
Government Orders
because the government is backing off from its longstanding commitment which goes back to 1897 that this assistance would be there in perpetuity.
It shows the government's commitment is not that long-standing. It shows a breach of faith and it shows that this government does not really care about farm incomes. Farm incomes in Saskatchewan are the lowest they have been since 1938 in real terms. This government has decided in the face of those facts to cause them to pay an increased bill for freight in the coming year. It will mean a net loss of 8 to 10 cents a bushel, depending on the kind of grain grown.
This is unacceptable and I ask the government to reconsider because it is not consistent with its rhetoric when the Liberals were changing the Crow rate. It is not consistent with its alleged concern about farmers and farm income and it is not consistent with trying to keep rural communities viable. This is a proposal that will take more than $40 million out of the net income of Saskatchewan farmers in the coming crop year and it is simply not an acceptable action on the part of the government.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am really very sorry that the hon. member who spoke from the government bench prior to my colleague has left the Chamber because I think it would have been important for her to hear. I was anxious to ask her a question or at least put forward a question to the government. Possibly there are other members of the government who will take this question back to the minister responsible.
I am referring to the parts of Bill C-113 which refer to discharge. These are the unemployment insurance amendments that are in the bill. I had hoped the government member could have explained to us the meaning of the terms "discharged", "terminated", "dispensed with", and "severed". They are quite different. The interpretations under jurisprudence and industrial relations are quite different. Yet the act refers to discharge.
I was hoping the member could also talk about or explain the difference between culpable discharge and non-culpable discharge, in termination. It is important that this be raised because it is my understanding
culpable discharge is when the employer has reasonable grounds to discharge an employee for his or her behaviour which he or she has control of. There are many examples in jurisprudence and arbitration of culpable discharge.
On the other hand, non-culpable discharge or termination primarily deals with the conduct of an employee over which he or she has no control, such as sickness which results in absenteeism from work, disability of too long a duration which may include alcohol or drug-related illnesses. The issue of non-culpable behaviour is subject to a form of punitive measure and usually is resolved in favour of the employer if the individual is unable to prove he or she can live up to his or her employer's expectations and continue to work on a regular basis.
The tests that are used in jurisprudence and in the whole industrial relations process in this country are not going to be in place under the UI act. In fact workers will not have the jurisprudence that is provided under industrial relations for proving his or her case under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
These amendments wipe out any existing jurisprudence that might have been used in the past to determine just cause, to provide a worker with some kind of jurisprudence to rely on, to build his or her argument. In fact these three amendments are worse than they were under the bill which is being superseded and was withdrawn from the House.
There was reference by the hon. member to the 40 reasons for quitting that were put forward by the Prime Minister. Those 40 reasons to quit without jurisprudence are no longer as straightforward as they first appeared to be. In fact I would suggest that if the backbenchers from Quebec who were taking umbrage with this bill are mollified by these amendments then they are being taken for a ride. Quite frankly these amendments are worse than what the government put forward in the first place.
My colleague, the New Democrat critic on unemployment insurance raised the question with the government about statistics. He said that we needed some kind of proof. Could the government not provide us with some
February 24, 1993

kind of proof or evidence about the statistics that are being so carelessly thrown around here?
No, there has been no proof provided. The hon. member has been told to put a question on the Order Paper. With 45 days to answer, this bill will be locked in a dusty vault somewhere having been passed by the other place by the time anyone tries to answer the hon. member's question.
I would suggest that there are half a million people affected. There are 250,000 who will be penalized for quitting, approximately 38,000 who will be fired and penalized; and 100,000 to 200,000-nobody is sure-who have been or will be quit and not penalized. No one knows why or how many, who has or has not qualified, who will or will not qualify. I ask everyone to think about that.
If the Department of Supply and Services had a $2 billion expenditure for which it could not provide vouchers, I would suggest that the Auditor General would be called in immediately to undertake an investigation of the spending of $2 billion without verification. However, we have 500,000 people who draw unemployment insurance with an average benefit of maybe $250 a week times 26 weeks. That is $6,500 per person times 500,000 people. That is $3.2 billion in benefits and we do not know the reasons those people have been qualified or disqualified.
For example, suppose we placed an order for Bell helicopters that cost $4 billion. That is causing no end of controversy right now in this very House. If we did not provide vouchers for that but just spent the $4 billion, the Auditor General might have something to say about it.
The Prime Minister says there are 40 reasons to be disqualified. The government cannot produce one figure to explain that much less give us justification, having verified it with figures, why we need this policy shift.
Instead of bringing in these amendments the government should be going to the Auditor General and demanding an internal investigation if nobody can provide figures for $3.2 billion worth of expenditures.
Government Orders
My colleagues have said very adequately what needs to be said with regard to unemployment insurance. I wanted to add that part.
In the time remaining to me I want to zero in on another part of Bill C-113 and that is the amendments to the Public Sector Compensation Act.
This part of the bill freezes the wages of federal public sector workers for two years. It also extends existing collective agreements for a period of two years. The effect is to push public sector workers even further behind their counterparts in the private sector. Most important, it relieves the government of any responsibility to negotiate with its employees for another two years.
The bill once again demonstrates total contempt for the collective bargaining process in this country. It flies in the face of a decision of the International Labour Organization only last November. It is one of 90 decisions that have been found against Canadian governments for failure to protect the collective bargaining process for its workers.
The committee of the ILO urged the government to revert "to the normal system of free collective bargaining established by the Public Service Staff Relations Act and in particular, to a truly independent arbitration system". However, following that decision this government is introducing yet another piece of legislation that freezes wages with no consideration for the free collective bargaining process. It is absolutely critical that this government begin to bargain and not to abandon bargaining once again for public sector workers.
In addition, how about the record of the government on pay equity? It is still fighting pay equity in the courts and in front of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal after failing to pay up when found to be in contravention of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
I think it is deplorable. I think my colleagues will join me in saying that at the same time as this government is wiping out free collective bargaining for public sector workers, managers in the public sector are busy figuring out how to get a pay increase by reclassifying themselves.

Government Orders
It is time this government talked about, acted and proved itself to be fair not only to the people who work for the federal government but also the people who work for Canada in all occupations across this country who are victims of double-digit unemployment.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I know time is passing quickly and I am the fourth speaker this evening. But with the motion presented today, I would not have the right to speak on behalf of the people of Abitibi.
My comment and my question are further to the tabling of Bill C-113. In the news release of February 17, 1993, Mr. Dufour of the Conseil du patronat du Quebec said that although he is not fully satisfied with Bill C-113, three points should be considered. The legislation should be reviewed if some of the problems anticipated by business and labour occur. Everything should be done so the details needed to handle cases submitted by workers are reduced to the minimum. The whole administration of the unemployment insurance program should concentrate on finding cheaters and not those who are victims of ups and downs in the labour market.
We know that in Quebec now there are 1,853 cases before the umpires. As of February 8, 2,300 cases had been submitted to boards of referees. We know the umpires go to Abitibi every 18 or 24 months. In the hon. member's riding, how many years does it take for workers to obtain justice in cases heard by the board of referees or umpires?


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague behind me said a heck of a long time. My riding of Mission-Coquitlam is the shake and shingle capital of Canada. It is a softwood lumber community. It is a community that has been totally decimated in terms of that industry as a result of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. It has taken over two years for some people to be able to appear before the board of referees and get results.
I am delighted with the question because it illustrates how hard hit and how badly hurt workers in Canada are going to be as a result of this bill. How will they feed
their families? How will they survive when there is a downturn in the forest industry, where we are facing the softwood tariff in my community and there is huge double-digit unemployment?
The other important point emanating from the hon. member's question concerns the employers' organization in Quebec. I want to ask him where is the comment from the workers' organizations in Quebec? What about the QFL and the CNTU? What are they saying? How long are people suffering? How long are they having to wait? Then if they have to appeal, how long is it going to take to get through that appeal process? It already takes two years and now we are going to have another 250,000 to
500,000	workers appealing in the process. Where will they go? We will have backlogs longer than any refugee backlog in this country. In the meantime, those people will not be able to feed their families.
This government needs to come in with a full employment policy, not an unemployment policy that penalizes people who have worked to make this country work.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Just a short question, Mr. Speaker. I am interested in the point the hon. member made at the beginning of her address. I want her to verify whether or not the interpretation I am taking from this is correct.
She mentioned that the government members were citing 40, 50 or hundreds of legitimate just causes for thousands of cases. If I understand the member correctly, what she has said is that since just cause has been defined under the legislation of the Unemployment Insurance Act, all of the jurisprudence the government members were quoting from and the number of cases goes completely out the window since just cause was defined under the act. That is because prior to that the interpretations were given by the court and the board as to what a reasonable person would have done under similar circumstances. There were numerous cases.
Now all of that goes out the window. As the hon. member is also suggesting, the definition is now so restrictive that perhaps it will be even more difficult to prove just cause than it was in the past. Certainly the government and the Prime Minister have made a terrible error in citing the numbers of cases.
February 24, 1993


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question because he is absolutely right in putting his question about the jurisprudence being gone.
The jurisprudence was based on former interpretations and definitions. Now we have new definitions and new interpretations. Not only do the UI bureaucrats and workers have to deal with new jurisprudence, but the poor person who is trying to put forward his or her case has nothing to rely on. It is brand new ground and it is all going to leave workers the victims because they do not have the means.
Unionized workers may be better off, but so many workers who are not unionized are going to be totally on their own in this.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Hung out to dry.


Joy Langan: They will be hung out to dry, as my colleague says, by this government. It is shocking and deplorable. Quite frankly, I hope that some of the government members have to join the UI line in the near future and test out their Bill C-113.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, the matter before the House this evening is Bill C-113. What is this bill about exactly? It deals with three things. One part deals with the Public Sector Compensation Act, another with the transportation subsidies and a third with the Unemployment Insurance Act.
As far as the first two are concerned, I have no qualms as a member of Parliament to vote for such budgetary measures. As to the Unemployment Insurance Act, however, I have major problems that I would like to explain if I may.
In the past few weeks I have been lobbying both my party and the government to try to change Bill C-105, which was the bill to be voted on at the time.
What was in that bill that was a problem for me? In to take back certain amounts of money, this government was proposing that the benefits paid under the Unemployment Insurance Act for the next two years would amount to 57 per cent of the earnings instead of 60 per cent.
Government Orders
This government was proposing that employees who leave their jobs without just cause would not be entitled to UI benefits. In these two respects I have tried to change the way we would set about achieving these objectives.
I want to make myself clear. I have no problem with government wanting to limit abuse within the system. Not only do I not have a problem with that, I am actually all for it. But I do have major problems with the means to achieve this end.
Here is what we have suggested to several government members in an attempt to make this legislation more acceptable and more humane. We suggested, among other things, that people whose earnings were above average for the purpose of UI get only 57 per cent of their earnings in benefits, but those whose earnings were below average be allowed to receive the full 60 per cent in UI benefits because they are the ones who are affected the most. It will be argued that this is not a lot of money, but every little bit helps when you do not earn much.
As I told the Minister of Employment and Immigration, let us not forget that 500,000 people voluntarily left their jobs last year. Of that number, 275,000 qualified under the legislation because they met the five basic criteria. But 225,000 others did not meet those criteria and were penalized. The penalty was the loss of 7 to 12 weeks of UI benefits on top of the two-week waiting period. I think we should all realize that people do not quit their jobs without just cause, just for fun, when they are facing a penalty of 7 to 12 weeks without pay. This is a major decision. It is an important event and that kind of decision is not made lightly. Our government proposes to limit abuse by denying benefits to people who quit their jobs without just cause.
The basic premise of the Minister of Employment and Immigration is that these people are abusers. If I were convinced of this, I would have no hesitation in voting for this bill. To make sure my perception, interpretation and judgment were not mistaken, I checked in my community I called people who work in the field, our officers in the employment centres and their supervisors, in Dolbeau, Roberval, Alma, Chicoutimi and Jonquiere.

Government Orders
I called these people in our employment centres and I asked the officers: Did the people who were given a penalty of between 7 and 12 weeks last year, and I am referring to people who did not meet their criteria abuse the system? Did they just want to put their feet up on the stove and let the government support them? Did they do it just because they felt like going hunting or fishing? Did they say: "It is no big deal, I quit my job and I only have a penalty of 7 to 12 weeks, which is not as bad as all that". Or were they people who had other reasons, what we refer to as extenuating circumstances?
They all answered: "No, Mr. Blackburn, they are not abusers. Only a tiny minority are abusers. These are people who quit their jobs and did not meet the five basic criteria, but there were extenuating circumstances, which is why we applied penalties of between 7 and 12 weeks". They also said that they very seldom imposed a penalty of 12 weeks, which is done only in really questionable cases.
Mr. Speaker, you will understand that under the circumstances I am caught between the party line and my constituents in Jonquiere with my own knowledge of this legislation, especially since I travelled across Canada when we introduced unemployment insurance reform with Bill C-21.
Our colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, has tried to improve things. There are a number of improvements in the bill, including provisions on sexual harassment, such as the fact that these cases will be dealt with in camera. The provision dealing with massive lay-offs which ensure these people can receive unemployment insurance is also a very good measure.
I asked the minister whether we could include "other reasonable circumstances" in the bill, to cover people who do not meet the criteria. The minister responded by adding eight more items that were already covered under UI case law. So I went to my officers in the employment centres and I asked whether adding eight items meant that these people would not be considered as having quit voluntarily, and there would be no penalty. They told me: "Mr. Blackburn, that was already the case. When making a decision, we would consider the five criteria and case law as well. The minister is merely clarifying the legislation". That is fine. I am all for clarification. Unfortunately, it still means that last year's 225,000 still
do not meet the criteria according to what I was told by officers in the employment centres in the region.
This evening there will be a vote on this bill and I want to say to the Prime Minister, who announced today that he was stepping down, that I have the greatest respect for him. I have the greatest respect for my government but I cannot vote for this bill this evening.
In truth, I cannot ignore what I know. However, I did say to the hon. minister: "If you really want to catch the cheaters, you could always increase the penalties. I am ready to approve an increase from 9 to 12 weeks. If someone is caught a second time, you will know you are dealing with a cheater and then you can cut off his UI benefits".
I put forward a series of measures to improve the act. I did what I could, but I respect my colleagues who do not share my views. I have no problem with that. However, in turn, I would ask my colleagues to accept the fact that I disagree with them because of what I know.
Mr. Speaker, if I may just add that on Monday I told my Whip: "If my government is in a spot because of my vote, I am ready to make the ultimate sacrifice". I did so to show how honest and professional I could be toward my government. However, tonight I have no reason to believe the government is threatened in any way so I will vote according to my beliefs and those of my constituents from Jonquiere.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for his excellent address to the Chamber and assure him that he is absolutely correct in his interpretation of the law as far as the Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned. I will also point out to him that while investigating the ramifications of this legislation, I came across some cases from his riding of people who were refused unemployment insurance benefits within the past year. They were judged not to have just cause.
I just want to point out to the hon. member in congratulating him for his decision that most of the judges who have listened to some of the cases of his constituents agree with his assessment. In the most recent one that I have from his riding, the judge said in closing: "While I have the utmost sympathy for the claimant and respect for the undoubted sincerity of her
February 24, 1993

Government Orders
religious convictions, I am nonetheless obliged to dismiss her appeal".
This involved a lady who had worked in the hon. member's riding and who had encountered difficulty with her employment because she did not want to work on her religious holiday. She did not want to continually work on Sunday. She quit. The judge said: "I agree. However, you have seven weeks of disqualification".
As the hon. member just pointed out, under the criteria this is not just cause. The hon. member knows that under this legislation all of those people will, of course, get no unemployment insurance at all because their reason for quitting although as the judge pointed out is justified, does not meet the restricted criteria under the legislation.
I want to congratulate the hon. member and ask him if he has anything further to add.


INCOME TAX ACT
Hon. Mary Collins (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Environment) and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I would just like to advise the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or (2) with respect to second reading of Bill C-92, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Income Thx Conventions Interpretation Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and other certain related acts.
Under the provision of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of our intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at second reading stage.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES RESTRAINT ACT, 1993 NO. 2 MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-113, an Act to provide for government expenditure restraint, be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope; and the amendement of Mr. Bevilacqua (p. 16117).
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague's comments, I would tell him that in practical terms when someone does not meet the criteria set out in the Act, it is evident that he or she cannot receive UI benefits.
There is also the issue of interpretation by the officers and the people who will go to arbitration. That is why I was looking for a middle of the road solution, a way to avoid penalizing people by giving no benefits at all, because it could happen that some people are above the welfare level. What will they do then? What will they live on?
I think after this legislation has been voted on it will be up to members from both sides of this House, to look at how it is administered and when we find a problem, be open and generous enough to make the necessary corrections if indeed it turns out to be a little too harsh.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking tonight on behalf of the men and women of Abitibi who I have represented in this House since 1984.
I had the opportunity to discuss Bill C-105 with my constituents during the Christmas holiday. I had the opportunity to talk with employers, nurses and other workers. I toured my riding of Abitibi in January and visited its largest towns as well as its rural areas. I learned that Bill C-105 would be very hard for workers, especially those quitting voluntarily in remote areas.
The reduction of benefits from 60 to 57 per cent is also very hard on workers. One has to realize that a worker in the North who has a gross of $500 a week will get only 57 per cent of his pay after April 4. This is a $15 cut. We

February 24, 1993
Government Orders
were told today that reducing the benefits from 60 to 57 per cent is only a 3 per cent cut, but this is not true. If the calculations are made it will be found that a cut of $15 dollars on $285 is a cut of 5 per cent. For a bread winner with a wife and four children, a loss of $60 a month is not negligible.
Today I am fighting. I am not in revolt against my government; I am fighting for the workers of Abitibi, the men and women of my riding. Three cheers for the 40 just causes that were added in bill C-113. However, everyone knows these causes have been accepted for the last 8 to 10 years in the employment centres of Abitibi; these are not new.
I am happy that the Minister for Employment and Immigration added those to the eight others. I agree entirely, but I talked to people about this Bill C-113. I went back home to Abitibi and consulted them on Friday, Saturday and Sunday before coming back to Ottawa. I wish to say to those people at home today listening to me, to the miners and workers, to the people at James Bay, that when I vote against that bill this evening. I will not be voting against the government, but rather for the people back home, for the working men and women.
When you read paragraph 18(n), "such other reasonable circumstances as are prescribed", you know the door is opened for any amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act, any day, any time. I am not rebelling against my government.
Do you know that if tonight I were to decide to quit after the vote as of April 4, I would not be entitled to unemployment insurance? And do you know why? Insubordination to the Department of Employment and Immigration. I would not be entitled to benefits.
We are in this House to defend our people. We are here to find solutions with the other parties as well as with my Conservative colleagues. I am a supporter of the Prime Minister. But today I am not rebelling. I am only trying to find a solution as I indicated on January 22 in a letter to the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration. I said: "I urge you to amend Bill C-105, now C-113, to make changes by simply abolishing clauses regarding eligibility". I was asking him to forgo the proposed
reduction from 60 to 57 per cent of the unemployment insurance rates.
People have to be consulted, workers have to be consulted.
Do not forget that this bill will attack low-income earners, those who earn less than $6.75 an hour and those who work in the big areas.
I am sorry but I cannot vote for a bill such as this. I have many friends in the government, in the party in office-


An hon. member:: You will have less.


Guy St-Julien: Maybe I will have less, as my colleague is saying here tonight. Maybe I will have less tonight. But when I go back to my riding, my hon. friend, I will be less stupid than some members in this House. I will go back home with pride because I am defending the workers of Canada. I am not ashamed to be a Conservative member of Parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.
February 24, 1993

Government Orders
The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division
(.Division No. 423)

Milliken Nystrom Parker Phinney Plamondon Prud'homme Riis
Rocheleau
Skelly (North Island -Powell River)
Speller
Stupich
Vanclief
Walker
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-89
Members
Althouse Baker Bellemare Bevilacqua Blackburn (Brant)
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean) Brewin Catterall Clancy de Jong Duceppe Edmonston Finestone Foster Gaffney Gardiner Gerin Guarnieri Harvard Heap Hunter Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Langdon (Essex-Windsor) Lee
MacDonald (Dartmouth) MacLellan Manley Marleau McGuire Mifflin Nault Ouellet Peterson Pickard Proud Rideout Robinson Samson
Skelly (Comox-Alberai) Stewart Tobin Waddell
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)
Allraand
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Belair
Benjamin
Black
Blaikie
Boudria
But land
Chretien
Copps
Dingwall
Duhamel
Ferguson
Flis
Funk
Gagliano
Gauthier
Gray (Windsor West)
Harb
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdebo
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont - Dundas)
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
MacAulay
MacLaren
Mac William
Marchi
McCurdy
McLaughlin
Danis
de Cotret
Desjardins
Domm
Duplessis
Epp
Ferland
Fretz
Gibeau
Greene
Guilbault
Halliday
Hawkes
Hogue
Horner
Hudon
Jacques
Jelinek
Joncas
Kempling
Landry
Larrivee
Lewis
Loiselle
MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacKay
Marin
Masse
Mazankowski
McDermid
McLean
Monteith
Mulroney
Oberle
Paproski
Pronovost
Reid
Ricard
Robitaille
Schneider
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Siddon
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tbrner (Halton-Peel)
Van De Walle Vezina Vincent Wenman
DeBlois
Della Noce
Dick
Dorin
Edwards
Feltham
Fontaine
Friesen
Gray (Bonaventure-fles-de-la-Madeleine) Grey (Beaver River)
Gustafson Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hockin
Holtmann
Horning
Hughes
James
Johnson
Jourdenais
Koury
Langlois
Layton
Littlechild
Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming-French River) Malone
Martin (Lincoln)
Mayer
McCreath
McKnight
Merrithew
Moore
Nicholson
O'Kurley
Porter
Redway
Reimer
Richardson
Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Sobeski
Sparrow
Tardif
Thacker
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vien
Weiner
White
Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current -Maple Creek-Assiniboia) Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard
Worthy-145


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
++NAYS
Members
Anderson
Atkinson
Beatty
Bernier
Bird
Blais
Bosley
Boyer
Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre) Casey
Champagne (Champlain) Clark (Yellowhead)
Clifford
Collins
Corbeil
Cote
Crosbie (St. John's West)
Andre
Attewell
Belsher
Bertrand
Bjornson
Blenkarn
Bouchard (Roberval)
Brightwell
Cadieux
Cardiff
Chadwick
Charest
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cole
Cooper
Corbett
Couture
Crosby (Halifax West)
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The next question is on the main motion. 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.

February 24, 1993
Government Orders


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:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly this bill stands referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.


Mr. Fee:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would just like to indicate to you and to the House that I was present for the votes on the amendment and on the bill. I chose to abstain because I have been given the honour of chairing the legislative committee.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 30(6) the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean) moved: that Bill C-277, an act to amend the Income tax Act (air conditioners) be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the House is addressing Bill C-277 which is an act to amend the Income Tax Act (air conditioners). This bill, which I first introduced in 1990, would allow an income tax deduction for the cost of an air conditioner when it is needed for health reasons and health reasons only.
Before I get into discussing the actual mechanics of this bill and talking about the thousands of Canadians suffering from debilitating diseases who would benefit from this legislation, I want to take some time to talk about justice versus arbitrariness.
It is traditional that government activities must be guided by justice, but what is justice? In his book entitled Theory of Equitable Taxation Johann K. Brunner wrote:
The first and minimal requisite of justice is that nobody is treated
arbitrarily, at the momentary discretion of the authority, but in
Private Members' Business
accordance with the pre-existing rule. Concerning equitable taxation, this means that the tax payment of every individual must be derived from a general tax scheme, based on identifiable attributes.
The establishment of an equitable tax rule can be seen as a special case of a very general task, namely how to make a social decision out of a given set of alternatives, where this decision should be based on the preferences of the concerned individuals.
Most Canadians would no doubt agree that the present Conservative government has been anything but fair, equitable and just in its tax scheme over the last four years.
The inaugural issue of Canadian Business Economics states that "middle income families, particularly those with children, have borne the brunt of the tax increase since 1984". The report goes on to state that "these results suggest that some deterioration in the equity of the tax system under the Conservatives".
The legislation we are discussing this evening is attempting to bring some justice to a segment of the Canadian population, mainly those with multiple sclerosis. Some 50,000 Canadians are affected by multiple sclerosis. MS is a chronic disabling disease of the central nervous system and affects people in numerous ways, both in terms of its severity and in the course of the disease.
One of the few things that all persons with MS have in common is that exposure to high summer temperatures with its accompanying humidity greatly exacerbates the symptoms of the disease and causes deep fatigue.
Persons who are normally only mildly affected by MS are reduced to walking short distances with difficulty. Those who normally walk with a cane are reduced to using a wheelchair and those who normally use a wheelchair are confined to a bed or sofa.
At this time I would like to read from a letter written to all members of Parliament by the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. I would like to quote this letter almost verbatim:
"Upon the advice of their physicians, many people with multiple sclerosis have purchased air conditioning units which allow them to cool their homes and function much more independently. Those who cannot afford an air conditioner are at risk of being forced to go into an air conditioned institution at great expense to the tax-paying public. It seems logical to people with multiple

February 24, 1993
Private Members' Business
sclerosis and to the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada that the expense of purchasing and installing an air conditioner should be allowed as a medical expense for income tax purposes. Being in an air conditioned environment allows people who have MS to carry on their daily activities and, indeed, can be said to 'assist a crippled person in walking' as stated in regulation 5700(i) of the Income Tax Act.
The MS Society of Canada has asked the Minister of Finance to consider changing the Income Tkx Act to allow air conditioning for people with MS as a medical expense. He has responded saying that for a device to qualify as a medical expense, the device must be designed primarily for the medical condition and be used exclusively by a person who has that condition".
"This seems to us rather arbitrary". Remember when I say us, I am still reading from the letter of the MS Society. "Why should the origin of a device have any bearing on its use by a person with a disability? If a simple, readily available device, such as an air conditioner, can help persons with MS retain their mobility, then it seems logical that the device should qualify as a medical expense for income tax purposes if prescribed by a physician".
The MS Society of Canada goes on to say: "The concern that the device be used exclusively by the person with MS is met by the provisions in Ms. Gaffney's bill which reduces by half the amount available as a medical expense if there are others in the household who do not have MS".
It goes on to say: "The goal of people who are disabled from whatever cause is to live as independently and as productively as possible. At relatively little cost and in an administratively efficient manner, the lives of people could be greatly enhanced if this bill is approved. On behalf of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada we would ask that you review Ms. Gaffney's proposed bill and give it your support".
We, as legislators in this House, each have a moral responsibility to take steps to ensure that discrimination of any kind is not allowed to exist in our laws. By arbitrarily determining for example that an air conditioner which can help people with MS retain their mobility
should not qualify as a medical expense, then I believe we in this House and this government are being most unfair.
Justice should be allowed for all. In this regard those with MS should be allowed to claim an air conditioner as a medical expense. I believe this is the only equitable, fair and just way of proceeding on this matter.
In closing off my comments, the unfortunate part of Bill C-277, is that it was not deemed by the committee to be a votable item. Anyone who wishes to speak to this bill may speak to it, but unfortunately it is not a votable item.
I beg and pray upon this government to recognize this bill as a very important aspect in the life of a person who suffers from MS. I would ask all members of Parliament to please consider the importance of this bill.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to debate Bill C-277. This bill seeks to amend the Income Thx Act to allow expenses for air conditioners to be eligible for the medical expense tax credit.
The philosophy that has led the hon. member opposite to put forward this bill is a laudable one: to help Canadians with disabilities. While this philosophy of caring is one that we all share, indeed many people consider it a defining aspect of our national identity, the measures we take to give this philosophy effect must be carefully thought out and must pass an important test.
The test is as follows: Is the measure proposed the best way to achieve the goal in mind or do other measures, and in particular other existing measures do a better job? Unfortunately, Bill C-277 fails the test.
There are already two measures in the Income Tax Act that provide support to Canadians with disabilities. One is the medical expenses tax credit. The other is the disability tax credit. The proposed measure before us today would not improve on both of these measures.
Let me first turn to the medical expense tax credit. This tax credit is intended to recognize the effect of above average medical expenses on the ability of an individual to pay tax. Thx relief is provided through a tax credit for extraordinary medical expenses in excess of a certain percentage of net income. For 1992, this tax
February 24, 1993

credit is available for qualified expenses in excess of $1,614 or 3 per cent of net income, whichever is less.
Preliminary taxation statistics for 1991 indicate that the medical expense tax credit provided tax benefits to more than 910,000 tax filers. The cost to the federal government for providing this tax relief came to about $200 million in that year.
Let me briefly deal with the criteria that determine which expenses are eligible for consideration under the medical expense tax credit. To qualify as an eligible expense for the medical expense tax credit a service or device must provide health benefits and be for the exclusive use of a person with a disability.
For example, expenses for devices or equipment that are designed exclusively for use by individuals suffering from a severe chronic respiratory ailment are eligible expenses for the medical expense tax credit. However, items that provide benefits to people with disabilities but also provide benefits to people who are not disabled are not eligible for the medical expense tax credit. Allowing such an item to qualify would effectively extend tax benefits to those who are not disabled. For this reason, items such as air conditioners, humidifiers, dehumidifiers, heat pumps or heat or air exchangers do not qualify as medical expenses.
Let me also point out that air conditioners are primarily consumer comfort items and are not normally considered medical devices. This is obvious to anyone who has spent a summer in a muggy climate, whether here in Ottawa or back in Cambridge in central Canada. The general consumer benefits of air conditioners are reflected in their widespread use. Air conditioners can be found in some 2.6 million homes, or 25 per cent of Canadian households.
Even when an air conditioner must be purchased primarily to improve the health of a disabled person it nevertheless provides benefits to other household members who are not disabled. In this regard one should keep in mind that almost half of all households with air conditioners consist of three or four persons.
There are some other practical difficulties with the measures proposed in Bill C-277. Air conditioners,
Private Members' Business
especially central air conditioners, increase the resale value of a home. Consequently, the purchase price of an air conditioner will overstate the cost of its services to the purchaser. This situation is in contrast to other home modifications, such as alterations to make a home wheelchair accessible because these items provide benefits only to persons with disabilities.
Moreover, air conditioners have general resale value and as a result can be resold to individuals without disabilities, effectively passing on the tax benefit.
We should think twice before amending the income tax system in a way that might be seen to encourage the abuse of measures that seek to target benefits to those with real needs, real medical hardships or disabilities. Allowing air conditioners to qualify as a medical expense might also increase pressure on physicians to certify that the purchase of an air conditioner is necessary for medical reasons in situations that are less than clear-cut. This would make it very difficult to control costs and ensure that the measure is applied fairly.
These observations on the operation of the medical expense tax credit and the problems of extending this credit to cover air conditioners lead to only one conclusion. We cannot support this bill as it currently stands before us.
The Income Thx Act also provides a second form of support for people with severe disabilities, a disability tax credit. For severely disabled individuals the disability tax credit recognizes the cost of items that are not eligible for the medical expense tax credit. In 1992 this tax credit will reduce federal tax by $720 and the combined federal and provincial tax by $1,120. The disability tax credit originated in the special deduction for blind persons that was introduced in 1944. Five years later the deduction was extended to people who were confined to a bed or wheelchair.
In 1986 this government increased the deduction by $250 and broadened it to include all those with a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment. In 1988, as a result of tax reform the disability deduction was replaced by the disability tax credit and further enriched. In 1991, the credit was again increased, this time by an additional $125. Preliminary tax statistics for 1991 indicate that the disability tax credit provided tax benefits to

Private Members' Business
more than 450,000 tax filers at a cost of more than $195 million to the federal government.
In conclusion, at the start of my remarks I set out a test that a proposed measure must pass in order to gain support in this House. In considering Bill C-277, I have tried to apply that test with the special consideration of the existing measures in the Income Tax Act that aim to assist Canadians with disabilities or serious permanent illness.
Unfortunately, Bill C-277 fails that test. Consequently I find it difficult to support this proposal and I would urge other members of this House to vote against this bill.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to speak to this bill which the New Democratic Party and I support.
We have a growing concern in this country about escalating health care costs. This bill is designed to make it possible for people to remain within their own homes. We have a tendency to take too legalistic an interpretation of things within the tax legislation when it deals with ordinary Canadians. We find legalistic loopholes to allow big multinational corporations to write off all sorts of things within the tax system.
The reason the government does not want to allow air conditioning devices to be considered a tax expense is it says the definition that is now used indicates the device must be exclusively defined for a medical purpose. If it has any other kind of purpose, it is not acceptable. That is far too narrow a definition to meet the needs of ordinary Canadians who have multiple sclerosis.
British Columbia has just taken a major look at health care reform. The total thrust of its total health care reform package is called "Closer to Home". It allows people with health care conditions to receive service within their own home.
This bill, by allowing people to have a tax break for air conditioners, could in fact make it possible for a person to reside in his or her own home at a fraction of the health care cost of going into an intermediate care or long-term care institution.
The Multiple Sclerosis Society sets it out very clearly in its letter. It says: "Being in an air conditioned environment allows people who have MS to carry on with their daily activities". Indeed, it can be said to assist crippled persons in walking.
What we have is a very simple, very logical and very humane proposal that says when a person has a chronic illness and there is a device that will improve his or her medical functioning, he or she should get a tax break for it. I think that is eminently fair, particularly when we start looking at the concept of tax fairness that we have developed in our system.
The government is saying it will not allow the person with MS to have a tax break for an air conditioner but it allowed firms like Montreal Trust to earn $62 million last year and pay no tax. There were all sorts of tax write-offs for it on earnings of $62 million. In addition, it was given a tax credit of $1.4 million.
The person with MS cannot get a tax break for an air conditioner.
Coca-Cola earned $24.5 million, paid zero income tax and got a $1 million tax credit. Mountain Pipeline, that great pipeline company in British Columbia earned $16 million. It paid no tax and got a $100,000 tax credit.
That is this government's idea of tax fairness. We will not give the person with multiple sclerosis a tax break to install an air conditioner that will improve his or her life and possibly keep him or her out of an institution. We will give our tax breaks to our friends, Coca-Cola, Trustco and other big companies.
I feel this is a very fair piece of legislation that is designed to help the ordinary Canadian that is in a difficult spot. I urge the House to support it.


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, I welcome this opportunity to speak on Bill C-277.
As has been pointed out, this bill seeks to amend the Income Ikx Act to allow expenses for air conditioners to be eligible expenses for the medical expense tax credit.
February 24, 1993

In recent years this government has introduced and enriched a number of tax measures for people with disabilities. Since our time is short, I will just speak of a couple of items.
Since 1984, more than 20 items have been added to the list of eligible medical expenses. Over that time the number of tax filers has increased. The medical expense tax credit improves the fairness of the tax system by recognizing the effects of extraordinary medical expenses and the ability of an individual to pay tax.
For 1992, the medical expense tax credit reduces the federal tax of a claimant by 70 per cent of qualifying reimbursed medical expenses.
Any devices or pieces of equipment that are designed exclusively for use by individuals suffering from a severe chronic respiratory ailment already qualify for a medical expense tax credit. However, items such as air conditioners, humidifiers, dehumidifiers, heat pumps and many others may provide non-health benefits and are not intended for the exclusive use of an individual with a disability and are not eligible for the medical expense tax credit.
This is why we have Bill C-277 before us. Since an air conditioner has a general resale value, it can be resold to individuals without disabilities. As a result, allowing air conditioners to qualify may effectively extend tax benefits to those who are not disabled.
Consultation and co-ordination are links in the chain that lead to comprehensive government action. I believe that our government must continue to examine all of the issues surrounding the income, security and personal support for persons with disabilities. We must continue to help alleviate the disadvantages experienced by people with disabilities. We must continue to enhance the independence and employment opportunities of disabled persons, but we must do all of these things in a comprehensive way. [DOT]


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I am really very honoured to rise to speak to this bill that reflects compassion and human kindness in an area of health care that would decrease the cost of health care to our system.
Private Members' Business
Bill C-277, an act to amend the Income Thx Act for air conditioners for people suffering from multiple sclerosis, is a model as I understand it.
It is of interest to note that the speaker who just preceded me, the hon. member for Wild Rose, was at a committee meeting yesterday accompanied by the chairman of that committee on human rights and the rights of the disabled, who is also sitting in the House at the moment. In the course of the discussion of the recommendations they were going to make to the Minister of National Health and Welfare both of them were looking at this very bill and using it as a model for the nature and kind of concerns that would be presented in their report for improvements and changes to the Income Ikx Act.
It is quite true that this government did improve and add to the list of people and cases that could benefit from either the medical expense tax credit or the disability tax measures. There is no arguing that it has shown an improvement. As we know, the cost of medical care in this country is escalating to the point that it has become critical, and I would say the word critical would describe the serious concern.
If we can find measures to help people who are suffering and who because they cannot look after themselves cannot put into their homes the kind of support systems that will keep them in their homes, which gives them a sense of belonging and removes the need to institutionalize these people, to look after their care and their needs, are we not doing something that is much more helpful and far less costly to our society in the long run?
I do not know too much about multiple sclerosis, but I do know one friend who suffered from this disease. I watched the deterioration of a very bright mind and body. She ended up having to live in a hospital setting when it was no longer possible for her family to look after her.
Not everybody has a family and not everyone is in a position to afford what is perceived by many to be a simple luxury but in this case is a necessity. I heard an hon. member talk about people living in air conditioned homes and therefore how it should not be perceived to be a deductible medical expense. I do not know what world he lives in but everybody I know does not live in an air conditioned home.

Private Members' Business
This is a bill worth supporting. It is a recommendation to the government which I hope it will take into consideration. Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to add a few words if you do not mind as the clock does not yet say eight o'clock.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, in support of Bill C-277 I would say that it is a very simple case to make. If we examine the income tax structures of the countries we normally deal with, for example, the United States or Europe we will find not only air conditioning but swimming pools.
I have a list for the United States: Air conditioning, elevators, bedrooms added, swimming pool and sauna. Under the income tax act in the United States the Americans take the value of buying that particular thing and the amount of money that it would add to the value of the house and take the difference, which is approximately 50 per cent of the purchase price. That is what the deduction is.
As long as the condition exists for which it was approved in the beginning by the medical practitioner, the maintenance and operation of that air conditioning or swimming pool is deductible on the income tax returns in the United States of America. What better reason, as the member for Nepean has pointed out. Look at the other countries in this world that have similar systems to our income tax system and ask the question as to why we do not do what they do for people who are in need.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 eight o'clock p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 25,1993