1993-03-19

Hon. John McDermid (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill C-97, an act respecting marine insurance, and Bill C-83, an act respecting the transportation of goods by water, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Debate is on the subject matter covered in both bills.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be here this morning on behalf of the Minister of Transport.
I do not know why I in particular was asked to speak on behalf of the Minister of Transport. Possibly it is because he and I have certain physical features in common. I do not know but it is a great pleasure for me.
In beginning this debate on behalf of the government I would like to extend the minister's thanks to our colleagues on all sides of the House for the co-operation they have provided in making it possible for this somewhat unusual debate in which two bills are on the floor at the same time, Bill C-83 and Bill C-97.1 know that the minister wished me to extend his appreciation to the opposition. I will be very careful to ensure that the water remains here today and does not fly around the room as it did the last time I rose in this Chamber.
We are here today to debate two bills at second reading. The two bills are somewhat interconnected, in that they deal with the establishment of clear rules for conduct of business for certain aspects of marine commerce dealing with liability and insurance. I would like to make a few comments on both bills, but I will take them one at a time.
First, I will deal with the Carriage of Goods by Water Act, Bill C-83. The purpose of Bill C-83, an act respecting the transportation of goods by water, is to modernize Canadian legislation concerned with the rules of liability and compensation for damage or loss of goods during carriage by water.
The primary goal of the Hague rules is to establish uniform conditions under which shipowners or carriers are liable for loss or damage to cargo in their care. The rules set specific provisions on this liability and establish an upper limit on any claim made by cargo owners or shippers.
The new act has been the subject of much dialogue. It will adopt amendments to the original basis of the bill, the Hague rules, by increasing the shipowners' limit of liability and replacing the gold standard with the International Monetary Fund's modem currency unit, the special drawing right.

March 19, 1993
Government Orders
These amendments, known as the Hague/Visby rules, increase the limit of liability from $500 to about $1,000 per package and introduce an alternative limit of about $3 per kilo, whichever is higher. Another important amendment establishes specific provisions on liability for containerized cargo.
The development of international law in this area did not stop with the 1968 Hague/Visby rules. In 1978 a new United Nations Convention on Carriage of Goods by Sea, known as the Hamburg rules, introduced further changes to the limits of liability, burden of proof and procedures for claims.
The modifications introduced in the Hamburg rules would increase the limits of liability by about 25 per cent and would abolish the formal list of defence in support of a provision that holds the carrier liable for any loss or damage unless it is proven the carrier followed all reasonable steps to avert the loss or damage.
Generally the Hamburg rules are seen as being more favourable to shippers than the preceding international regimes. I have to mention that our industry was not unanimously in favour of adopting the Hamburg rules. Shipowners and their insurers, as well as cargo insurers and the legal community support the implementation of the Hague/Visby rules. The shippers, on the other hand, much prefer the adoption of the Hamburg rules.
Canada is not alone in not yet having adopted the newest regime. To date, the Hamburg rules have been actually adopted by only some of our trading partners, representing only about 2 per cent of our present water-borne trade.
In the absence of a consensus by our industry, a compromise approach is proposed in Bill C-83 by incorporating the Hamburg rules in schedule II. The bill requires the Minister of Transport to conduct a review and report to Parliament within six years of the adoption of the Hague/Visby rules as to whether or not they should be replaced by the Hamburg rules.
This approach will allow Canada to implement new liability rules on a gradual basis, in step with acceptance and adoption of international conventions by our trading partners. It will also demonstrate Canada's intention to accept the Hamburg rules when it is proven that they will provide a viable basis for new cargo liability conditions for international trade.
In the intervening period Canada will pursue with our trading partners the possibility of a co-ordinated action that we hope will lead to wider acceptance of the Hamburg rules in international water-borne trade.
We are in a position today to replace a badly outdated liability regime with legislation that not only brings us up to date but also positions us well for the future.
I would like to turn briefly to the second piece of legislation before us, namely Bill C-97, an act respecting marine insurance.
At the present time there is actually no federal legislation that governs the contract of marine insurance. The 1992 federal Insurance Act is confined to laws governing the operations of insurance companies while the provinces have enacted laws governing the contract of insurance, including laws over marine insurance contracts.
In 1983 the Supreme Court of Canada had to review the issue of provincial and federal jurisdiction in marine insurance. In its judgment in the Triglav case, the Supreme Court recognized that marine insurance is an integral part of maritime law and that the contract of marine insurance was a maritime contract clearly within the jurisdiction of Parliament as part of navigation and shipping.
We have been advised by our legal experts that the provincial marine insurance act may, at least in part, be inoperative as a result of this judgment by the Supreme Court.
This case brought into question the applicable law to contracts of marine insurance. It has led all interested industry groups to a unanimous position urging the government to enact a federal marine insurance act and thereby resolve the uncertainty which now exists as to the scope and application of the provincial marine insurance acts.
Bill C-97 provides a positive response to the concerns of the marine insurance industry. The proposed legislation, like the existing provincial legislation, is based on the British Marine Insurance Act of 1906 at the urging of our industry. Despite what may seem to be its extreme age, the British act is actually the most developed and widely recognized law on marine insurance. It has served as a model for national legislation in many countries.
March 19, 1993

The proposed act establishes a statutory framework for the contractual relationship of the principal parties to a contract of marine insurance, namely the insurer and the insured and their respective rights and obligations arising under the contract and the principles of indemnity for losses covered by the contract.
Not proceeding with the proposed legislation would perpetuate the current situation marked by anomalies and uncertainty that may make the conduct of marine insurance in Canada unpredictable.
I have been advised that all sectors of our marine insurance industry have strongly expressed their desire that we spare no effort in adopting the proposed legislation to correct the present situation.
Finally, in concluding my remarks on these two pieces of legislation, I would like to once again extend the thanks of the government, and in particular the Minister of Transport, to hon. colleagues on the opposite side of this Chamber for their courtesy and co-operation. The Canadian industry will be the beneficiary of the expeditious treatment of these two important bills.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, we will certainly take thanks whenever we can get it from the minister.
I suggest in response to my colleague from South Shore that the reason he was asked to speak on these bills has nothing to do with his shape at all. Rather it is not only the fact of his proclivity for spreading water around the Chamber when he speaks, but also the fact that as a maritimer, he is clearly learned in the intricacies of these two bills. That was a very concise and erudite explanation of a complex area of law. He is to be congratulated for it.
Really, there is not a great deal to add on these topics except to say I find the areas interesting as legal matters. We rarely deal with matters that might be described as private law in this Chamber. Most of the legislation we enact here is of a more broad public policy nature and the areas of private law normally fall to provincial jurisdiction.
This is an exception as a result of the fact that in C-83 we have the implementation of an international convention and in C-97, as a result of a Supreme Court of
Government Orders
Canada decision, we are dealing with insurance law which would normally be in the provincial jurisdiction. However, because in this case it relates to matters of international maritime commerce, the court has found that federal jurisdiction is touched upon as well. Therefore C-97 in that case attempts to create an interlocking relationship of federal and provincial law that ensures that maritime insurance is covered by a statutory framework.
There have been a number of submissions made to the minister as well as to the opposition parties concerning these bills. An example that I brought with me this morning from The Canadian Board of Marine Underwriters, referring to both bills, says:
Both bills are very important to the Canadian maritime industry, and will help to ensure the efficiency and competitiveness of Canadian importers, exporters and marine insurers alike. For that reason, all sectors of the maritime industry have supported the legislation.
It is of some concern to us that since an election must be held in 1993, either or both bills might not receive passage in time to be enacted. We would therefore urge you to do your utmost to see that both bills receive priority attention in order that they may become law.
I know we all eagerly hope there will be an election in 1993 and so we share the concern of the industry that these bills be dealt with in an expeditious manner. I did hear this morning that perhaps the Minister of National Defence will be looking for a way to suspend the Constitution in order to avoid having an election this year. However, we will put that in the category of rumour and carry on with the assumption that we will be going to the polls this year.
In that case, the reference of these bills to the Standing Committee on Transport creates quite an extensive work-load for the transport committee. The minister just last week referred the report of the National Transportation Act Review Commission to that committee as well and asked us to report on that by the end of June.
I would suggest, particularly in light of the disagreement among sectors of the industry on Bill C-83 as to what set of rules ought to apply, that the committee will need to review many of the implications of Bill C-83 and hear witnesses from the industry on that matter.

March 19, 1993
Government Orders
For our part, I would like to say we will do everything we can to try to expedite those hearings so that the bill can be properly considered and brought back to the House as the first priority. Perhaps this will be prior to entering into the detailed consideration of the review commission report, which as I say is also before the committee.
In juggling these priorities I would like to say that from our point of view, and I will be interested to hear what the NDP has to say about it, these bills should come first. They do require hearings. They do require witnesses, particularly on Bill C-83. We will attempt to have them back to the House as quickly as possible.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the two bills, Bill C-83, an act respecting the transportation of goods by water, and Bill C-97, an act respecting marine insurance.
I indicate right at the outset that we support these two measures, which basically are bringing marine law and marine insurance law into the 1990s. We will do whatever we can to quickly proceed through committee.
In fact, one of the reasons we want the bills to go to transport committee is that there are people on that committee who have a sense of the maritime industry already. They are well positioned to know what is in these bills and to determine what aspects of them need to be looked at and then move them back to the House. I honestly do not expect much of a delay there.
In terms of the transportation of goods by water the government speaker took us on a European tour with respect to The Hague Visby rules and the Hamburg rules. The bill is designed to allow the Minister of Transport to bring those rules forward when the marine industry of Canada decides it is time.
If we look at the breakdown in terms of the value of Canadian water-borne trade, we will see that almost 60 per cent of our commerce moves under The Hague Visby rules, $11 billion or 19 per cent under The Hague rules and only 2 per cent under the Hamburg rules. So we have a long way to go in terms of matching what the industry is doing.
I have one suggestion which I intend to have raised in committee. Under Bill C-83 there is a provision which says that: "The Minister of Transport shall within six years after the coming into force of Part I"-which is The Hague Visby rules- "(a) consider whether The Hague Visby rules should be replaced by the Hamburg rules; and (b) cause a report setting out the results of that consideration to lay before the House of Parliament".
There are two points. The minister can do that at any time during those six years. I think it needs to be clear in the act that the six years run out on December 31, 1999.
In addition, we have just gone through one process mandated by law that required a formal review of the National Transportation Act. There were hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars spent to review that act and the report was tabled last week.
The Transportation Safety Board had the same kind of mechanism built into it but only after three years of the act being in place. Now we are embarked on the same kind of course. In effect they have set up a commission which will spend taxpayers' money to review an act that is only three years old. By the very testimony of the chairman of the board the act is working quite well, thank you very much.
What I am suggesting is that in addition to what is in this bill the matter should automatically be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport at that time. Whenever the minister decides it is time to evaluate whether or not we move from the Hague Visby rules to the Hamburg rules, he would table it in Parliament and it would then be automatically referred to the Standing Committee on Transport. It will review it and send back a recommendation to the House as to whether or not we should move forward with whatever the minister's recommendation may be.
He or she may decide it is still not time to move forward to the Hamburg rules. We could call witnesses from the industry and get a sense from them and then we could report back to Parliament with our own recommendation that may or may not be consistent with the minister's. What it does is save taxpayers money, quite frankly. It saves having to go outside for a commission. It
March 19, 1993

allows some protection for Parliament from a minister just going ahead and changing the rules, so to speak.
I think the committee should look at that as a possible change in approach as to how we deal with this legislation. In any event, that is Bill C-83, the transportation of goods by water.
In terms of the marine insurance, clearly we are updating Canadian law because of a court case that brought into question whether or not Canadian law applied as opposed to provincial law. I am sure that once the officials come before us at committee we will get some sense of the nuts and bolts of that. I will be honest I am not familiar with the intricacies of insurance, let alone marine insurance.
There are some interesting clauses in this bill. I just want to read them into the record because I think they will pique some people's interest in terms of the weirdness in some ways of legalese.
For example, clause 18 states: "Every contract by way of gaming or wagering is void". Does this mean that people sort of gamble away their ships? Is that what this means and therefore there is some protection there? That might be a question worth raising with the officials. Schedule III, construction of marine policies, has some interesting wording too.
We have had some experiences in this House with marine legislation where we were trying to bring it into the modern era, the modern language, eliminating flogging for example on board vessels which was in the Canada Shipping Act until about 1986 or 1987. We finally got rid of that antiquated method of keeping the seafarers in line.


An hon. member:: Things do move slowly.


Iain Francis Angus: Things do move slowly, yes. Actually a lot of these bills that we are dealing with today are based on a 1924 law passed by Great Britain. We are just sort of fine-tuning it. It takes time in the House of Commons and the bowels of the bureaucracy to have these things worked through.
In fact, on Bill C-83 there was a white paper, a discussion paper in 1984 that led to the bill today. It took eight years, from 1984 to 1992, not for a philosophical bill, but for a nuts and bolts bill to work its way through the consultation which has to happen, the justice department in terms of legalese and what have you.
Government Orders
Back to some of the more interesting clauses in this schedule:
"pirates" includes passengers on the insured ship who mutiny and persons who attack the ship from land;
That is interesting but what happens if it is a pirate from another ship? Is that covered elsewhere in the bill? It is an interesting matter to raise.
Another clause in the schedule states:
"thieves" does not include persons who commit a clandestine theft or passengers, officers or members of the crew of the injured ship who commit a theft.
I am not quite sure I understand that kind of wording.
Here is an interesting one: In a marine policy a reference (b) to arrests, "and of kings, princes and people includes political or executive acts, but does not include riot or ordinary judicial process". Kings, princes and people, that is interesting.
Indeed, perils of the seas means fortuitous accidents or casualties of the seas but does not include ordinary action of the wind and waves.
Over the last while, we have seen the reality of the normal action of wind and waves with two major casualties, one on our coast and one on the coast of Great Britain. In a serious way, we need to take a look at the ramifications of that particular clause.
For those people who really find that legalese drives them crazy, here is the classic. This is under number (2) in a marine policy, reference (c): "To average unless general means a partial loss of the subject matter insured other than a general average loss but does not include particularly charges". Perhaps the government speaker might want to explain to the House what that particular clause means.
As I said at the outset, we support the two pieces of legislation. We agreed that they should be combined for the purpose of debate. We want the bills to go the transport committee because it will be in a position to give them speedier consideration.
I do not think we should wait another 10 years for these bills to come back. We should pass them at second reading now, get them into committee, back out of committee, given third reading and then on to the other place as quickly as we can. It helps the maritime industry do its job in an efficient and in a less expensive way.

March 19, 1993


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Since one representative from each recognized party has spoken in debate, pursuant to order made Thursday, March 18, 1993, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the two bills now before the House.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Bill C-97. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the next question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The second question is on Bill C-83. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Danis:: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the government House leader, I would like to thank my two colleagues from the opposition who have co-operated in the passing of this bill.

Considering the time, Madam Speaker, I wonder whether there is unanimous consent for suspending the business of the House until 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the House to suspend until eleven o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 10.35 a.m.
[Translation\


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 11 a.m.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: We shall now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31. The hon. member for La Prairie.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Madam Speaker, I have a message here from the Greek community of my riding.
The Skopje regime insists on seeking international recognition of its multi-ethnic former Yugoslav republic under the name of Macedonia, while leaders of the various ethnic groups accuse this regime of ignoring the wishes of the majority of the population on the issue of the republic's name and of violations of their basic human rights.
I would like our government to inform our Parliament whether these accusations are being taken into account, considering that ethnic Albanians alone constitute more than one-third of the total population.


APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, no nation in today's highly competitive world market will be able to bring about economic renewal without first having a well-trained and adaptable work force.
Such a work force comes about only when labour and management work together. Our ability to generate wealth and be successful in the global economy will depend on that.
The best way to build a highly skilled and highly relative work force is through a revised national apprenticeship program.
Canada's apprenticeship program has fallen into great disrepute. No longer is it seen as an integral part of our education system, but rather it is looked upon as a dead end by prospective students.
March 19, 1993

When is the government going to show some understanding and appreciation of the nation's lack of skilled tradesmen? When is the government going to announce a renewed, revitalized national apprenticeship program that will address the pressing current need in Canada for a well-trained work force? Canada can no longer afford a hit and miss approach to apprenticeship programs.


OLDMAN RIVER DAM
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, on January 23, 1992 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Alberta requires a licence under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the Oldman River dam. The Supreme Court upheld the March 13, 1990 Federal Court of Appeal ruling which quashed the required licence and ordered an environmental assessment and review of the dam.
The number one recommendation of the EARP report was to decommission the dam. The federal Ministers of Environment and Transport proved to be too wimpy to accept the fact that the dam is both environmentally and economically unsound. They rejected the number one recommendation but promised to implement the other 22.
On May 2, 1992 the Minister of Transport said of the 22 recommendations: "We will ensure that they are implemented". By November 19, 1992 not one recommendation had been implemented and the minister lamely promised: "We are going to see that these 22 recommendations are implemented".
Spring run-off is about to begin and the negative impacts will take effect.
Canadians should take note that the Conservatives refuse to obey the Supreme Court of Canada or stand up for their own promises. These ministers are the fat, wingless ducks of the Oldman River.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, one way that my community is trying to regain economic activity and diversify its economy is by helping local people prepare to start their own businesses.
The Brock University Centre for Entrepreneurship, Niagara College and the innovative New Enterprise Store are teaching potential entrepreneurs the techniques necessary to establish their own businesses. The Niagara Enterprise Agency is also being established to help identify potential entrepreneurs in the plants that are closing and provide them with the training necessary to commence their own businesses.
Training programs are also in place to help train people for the opportunities that will be created by these new businesses.
However, local entrepreneurs are all too often running into the same problem. This is an inability to obtain the necessary capital to put their ideas into effect. Many of these new businesses do not have the assets which they can mortgage in order to obtain the needed financing. Government programs like the Small Businesses Loans Act, the Small Business Financing Program and the Federal Business Development Bank make financing available, but we must do more.
Many businesses do not fit within established formulas used by the-


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


RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, November 21 is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Racism, anti-Semitism and racial discrimination are among the most destructive forces within any society. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibits discrimination based on religion, colour or place of origin. However, the charter cannot solve all of our societal problems.
To solve the social problem of racial and anti-Semitic discrimination and crime is to address the education system. School curricula at all levels must ensure that a component is taught in the classroom on the issue of race relations. From the very earliest stages through post-secondary education our school system must reflect our cultural mosaic.

March 19, 1993
I call on the government to establish a national depository of racial and anti-Semitic crimes in our society. Through such a depository, proper planning can be done to establish programs to respond to the challenges of racial harmony. We must act now to ensure that Canadians of all backgrounds continue to live and work in the finest nation on earth.


THIRD HOLLAND LANDING GUIDE TROOP
Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today to congratulate the Third Holland Landing Guide Troop for taking a interest in the future of this country as it relates to the problems of pollution in Lake Simcoe.
These young ladies have learned that fishing and tourism are veiy important to the people of Georgina. They also understand that Lake Simcoe is in big trouble and these guides think pollution is "very wrong", to quote them directly.
They are concerned that if the province of Ontario puts a giant mega-dump within one mile of Lake Simcoe it will affect the spawning ground, which is very near the proposed dump site. This has the potential of making the pollution in Lake Simcoe that much worse.
These young guides do not want to get anywhere near or go swimming anywhere near a dump. They feel Lake Simcoe has enough problems already because of fertilizers, sewage and other pollution. The quality of the water is already at risk in Lake Simcoe. They recognize that most of the fish which are caught in Lake Simcoe have been put there as a result of being raised in a fish hatchery because the algae and the pollutants that are now in the lake have ruined many of the spawning areas-


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


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon - Clark's Crossing):: Madam Speaker, the provincial budget tabled in Saskatchewan yesterday is tough because of a decade of PC government mismanagement and cuts to federal transfers. It demonstrates that a New Democrat government can commit to and achieve deficit reduction without doing it on the backs of those who are most in need.
Painful cuts were necessary and they were made, but they were tempered with compassion. This was not the situation in the provinces of Manitoba or Newfoundland, which also made budget announcements this week.
The slash and burn policies implemented by the Conservatives in Manitoba called for devastating cuts to 56 social service industries which are the front-line advocates for the poor and disenfranchised, those most affected by failed PC economic policies.
The Liberals in Newfoundland also decided that hiring investigators to crack down on social assistance abuse, cutting grants to volunteer organizations and cutting Public Service jobs without notice is their solution. That will not alleviate the serious social problems and chronic unemployment that are plaguing that province.
The budget tabled yesterday in Saskatchewan proves that New Democrats are serious about getting people back to work, containing as it does many job creation initiatives. It shows that fiscal responsibility and social responsibility-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The member's time has expired.


FLEXI-COIL LTD.
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Madam Speaker, Saskatchewan has some world-class companies underpinned by world-class technology.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate one of those companies, Flexi-Coil Ltd. of Saskatoon. People from Regina do not often congratulate people in Saskatoon, but this is one of those strange times.
March 19, 1993

Flexi-Coil manufactures farm machinery and its order books are overflowing. In fact, employment at the company has just doubled in seven months from 430 to more than 800 right now.
What is driving the company's success? The answer is research and development and leading-edge technology that allows seeding operations in high moisture conditions with minimal soil disturbance.
Flexi-Coil has not bought the argument that Saskatchewan is too far from major markets. Instead, it is developing international markets and putting people to work.
^ f 'i'


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Madam Speaker, the Minister for Science and the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, in responding yesterday to a question, said that we have a surplus of trade with foreign countries of $9.5 billion.
I would like to remind the minister that trade includes goods, services and financial flows, and those numbers are disastrous. The current account deficit with foreign countries amounts to $30 billion lor 1992.1 wonder when the minister is going to come clean with the Canadian public and portray the real economic situation of the country. For example, we have a national debt of $650 billion, which amounts to 95 per cent of the gross domestic product, equivalent to Brazil and Venezuela.


OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, oil and gas has faced a bad economic environment almost continuously since late 1985. Among western Canadians alone employment is down by about
35,000	jobs over the past eight years, partly because of our high dollar.
Even with gradual price recovery the number of jobs is still expected to decline by about 18 per cent by 1995. To put that in more human terms, another 11,700 families in western Canada will face the prospect of job losses.
We need to restore profitability and competitiveness to our domestic energy industry if it is to be rejuvenated.
The federal government has a role to play in the revitalization of the sector, which provides close to
100,000	direct jobs in Alberta alone. According to one estimate, 30,000 new jobs would be created in the west and throughout the Canadian economy for every billion dollars in new investment in our oil and gas industry.
With no change in the fiscal regime, industry investment this year might drop to $4.1 billion, or 85 per cent of forecast cash flow. The federal government has shown a commitment, thank goodness, to oil and gas in the Atlantic provinces. It could also stimulate the oil patch in the west.


ST. AUGUSTIN, QUEBEC
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, Sunday, March 7, 1993 is a memorable and historic date for the residents of the village of St. Augustin on the lower north shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the riding of Manicouagan, in Quebec.
On that date they elected their first municipal council. St. Augustin, the largest community of the lower north shore, is now a legal municipal entity with the powers and responsibilities administered by elected local residents.
I wish to pay tribute to all those who ran in the municipal election. Their involvement shows their interest in the development of their community.
I would also like to offer congratulations and best wishes for success to Mr. Harrisson Lavallee, the first elected mayor, and to Leo McKinnon, Andrew Fequet, Gerry Driscoll, Alfred Maurice, Jeoffrey Lessard and Eldon Gallant, all elected municipal councillors.
I want to assure them of my continued support and co-operation.
>k *	*


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, the concept of the elimination of Prince Edward Island, and possibly other Atlantic provinces, from the Canadian federation is finding more support from Tory members of Parliament and from candidates for the Tory leadership.

March 19, 1993
This morning I received a letter from a resident of Delta, British Columbia, expressing concern that this may be Tory policy. According to the letter the member for Delta, who just happens to be B.C. Tory caucus chair, on his March 12, 1993 cable TV program "On the line with MP Stan Wilbee" was asked by host Frank Buckles if P.E.I. was too small to be a province. The hon. member, who supports the leadership candidacy of the minister of defence, agreed and further advocated that the Atlantic provinces amalgamate to form one or maybe two provinces thereby saving the taxpayers in the rest of Canada a lot of money and helping to reduce the deficit.
The letter concludes with a request to ask the member for Delta and the defence minister if this is Tory policy.
I ask all Tory MPs, including the Prime Minister, if this is Tory policy or merely regional pandering passed off as deep economic thought as reborn Summerside friend, Garth Turner-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The member's time has expired.


YOUTH DAY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, each year on March 21, as we welcome the arrival of spring, New Brunswick celebrates provincial Youth Day.
Youth Day in New Brunswick marks the province's recognition of youth and their contribution to society. It is a special day that represents hopes and new beginnings.
Youth Day is celebrated with activities provincially, including an environmental clean-up and awards for youth initiative recognition.
These awards are an initiative of the Youth Council of New Brunswick. Each year two awards are presented to individuals or organizations that have demonstrated leadership, initiative and dedication in working with youth.
A recipient of this year's award is Fredericton's own Characters Incorporated, nominated for its sense of what Canada is all about. There can be nothing more moving than the intense feelings of youth expressed in dance and song, and Characters Incorporated represents
the best of what young New Brunswickers have to offer to Canada.
I would encourage the members of this House to join me in expressing appreciation for the inspiration and the contribution to leadership which our youth provide-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The member's time has expired.


VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, passengers using Vancouver International Airport will soon be paying a special tax of $5 to $15. This tax will be imposed on travellers by the Vancouver International Airport Authority in order to fund its capital construction plans.
This is a tax that could not come at a worse time for Canada's airline industry, but the villain here is not the local airport authority. Instead, New Democrats hold the Minister of Transport responsible.
We in this party warned Canadians that there would be hidden costs to the transfer of control of airports to local authorities. Sadly, we have once again been proven correct.
Successive Conservative transport ministers have imposed deregulation, reducing the government's role and responsibility in transport matters.
Canada is now reaping the bitter fruits of Tory free market philosophy with catastrophe in all transport modes. Now there is one more burden for the Canadian consumer: another tax on travel thanks to Tory transport policy. Regretfully it is one more reason for traffic to divert from Vancouver to Seattle in Bellingham, Washington.


CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton - Gloucester):: Canadian municipalities are still trying to obtain a reversal of the 1992 freeze imposed by the government on the portion of municipal taxes applied to federal property.

During Question Period last Friday, I reminded the Minister of Public Works that the government was responsible for paying its fair share of municipal taxes on its property, the same as any ratepayer.
I also reminded the minister that the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Municipality had recently reassessed all property categories and that the federal government stood to gain as a result. He promised he would consider these matters and try to find an equitable solution.
I may remind the minister that the municipalities are still waiting to be consulted. Meanwhile, other ratepayers feel it is unfair they should have to make up the shortfall.


BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISLATURE
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chiicotin):: Madam Speaker, last night on television I viewed a scene from Victoria far uglier than any clear cut I have ever seen.
Hundreds of environmental rowdies violently stormed the British Columbia legislature with the sole purpose of imposing their radical and intolerant views on the people of B.C. These people are prepared to use and abuse the freedoms of democracy but are also prepared to abandon the democratic process when it no longer suits their narrow purpose.
These people are akin to terrorists. They started with spiking trees and sabotaging vehicles. Now they have resorted to the violent intimidation of elected representatives.
Yes, it was an ugly scene and as a British Columbian I was ashamed. It is a shame I am sure that is shared by all responsible environmentalists.


LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, the boss of a political party might from time to time think that some of his caucus are less than confident with their position and their party's future in Canada. They may be disenchanted. They may be called radical, fanatic, militant, rebellious. They may be seen to
Oral Questions
be upset, overturned, distressed, grieved, troubled, disconcerted, disturbed, worried, up-ended, capsized, set back, collapsed, conquered, confounded or defeated.
This week we saw a national leader detect troubles within his caucus, troubles that caused him alarm. Without much thought to their legitimate concern about the crumbling of their support base, standing on a platform that was a mile wide and an inch deep, the Leader of the Liberal Party labelled his flock of sheep as being nervous nellies and cry babies.
A great leader for a party. A great leader for the nation.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['I will definitely do as the hon. member asks. If the expression was used describing someone in a derogatory manner, of course, a withdrawal would be in order.']
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister.
Yesterday, speaking in Kitchener, a Mexican diplomat confirmed the worst fears of Canadian workers. The diplomat said that although Mexico does have environmental laws it does not have the means to enforce them and that they would not be enforced until the year 2000. Meanwhile in Washington, Canadian NAFTA negotiators said they do not want a parallel accord on the environment to have any teeth.
How can Canada be calling for a toothless side deal on the environment when Mexico has said it does not intend to enforce its own environmental standards until the year 2000? How does that help our Canadian workers?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, yesterday and the day before the negotiators of the North American free trade agreement met in Washington to lay out the parameters for some parallel agreements to go with the NAFTA agreement.
It was reconfirmed yesterday that first, the NAFTA agreement will stand as is. It will not be amended. Second, all three countries agree that it will be implemented. The goal is to implement it on January 1, 1994.

March 19, 1993
Oral Questions
Third, they discussed various positions regarding the environment, labour standards and what is sometimes referred to in Canada as snap-back provisions on commodities.
I can tell the hon. member that they had good meetings. The meetings were very fruitful. Many ideas were exchanged among the three countries.
They are now going back to their political masters in each country discuss the options and establish negotiating positions. That will take place over the next period of time.
The hon. member should not at this particular moment jump to the conclusions that he is jumping to. He always does. He takes the first thing that is said in negotiations when there is not even-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Windsor West.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister.
I am quoting a Mexican diplomat who just spoke in Kitchener. He let the cat out of the bag and said that Mexico cannot and does not intend to enforce its environmental standards at least until the year 2000.

Madam Speaker, I quote what this Mexican diplomat said: "We already have standards, but we do not have the means to enforce them". He even added that some environmental measures would not come into effect before the year 2000.
I wonder why the government does not take this into account. Does the minister intend to ask our Canadian negotiators to demand that the environmental side agreement include a mechanism to ensure compliance with standards, to protect our Canadian workers?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, since the question was the same in French and English, the answer is the same.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the minister has just said that his government does not care about the effect of non-enforcement by Mexico of its environmental standards on Canadian workers. Why is
the government ready to see companies and jobs siphoned off to Mexico because of lax enforcement of its environmental standards?
Will the minister commit today that the government will not proceed with NAFTA legislation without a firm commitment from Mexico to a strong parallel accord on environmental standards, an accord which contains the means to enforce them? Will he make that commitment today?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, first of all, the hon. member stands up here and says that all these jobs and businesses are going to be siphoned off to Mexico.
At the same time in his own riding, Chrysler announced a half billion dollar upgrading of a facility there. If in fact all these businesses were going to flee to Mexico, then why would they be spending this tremendous amount of money reorganizing here in Canada to assure the jobs of Canadians? The hon. member is saying that.
Second, as far as protecting the environment is concerned, Canada takes a back seat to no one in protecting the environment. We have one of the finest environmental records in the world today, It is one we are extremely proud of. Our Minister of the Environment has done an extremely good job bringing in the green plan and leading our Canadian delegation to Brazil, where Canadians were praised by everyone for the positions taken on the environment in Canada.
The hon. member knows full well that Mexicans are not like Canadians, and Americans are not like Canadians. We are all different. The hon. member wants Mexicans to become Canadians. He cannot have it that way because it does not work that way.



Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Acting Prime Minister.
Yesterday, two provinces had no choice but to introduce extremely severe budgets, again cutting provincial programs as a result of the down-loading of the debt by the Government of Canada. The Newfoundland minister of finance and the premier of Saskatchewan have both added their voices to a call for a national conference to resolve the debt crisis in this country.

Why does the government refuse to call such a conference? Why does it continue to allow the debt to fall on the shoulders of those Canadians who have the least capacity to pay?


John Horton McDermid: I am glad this question was raised. The provinces had a meeting with the Minister of Finance. The finance ministers met a year ago January in Quebec City, as a matter of fact. I had the privilege of being at that meeting. I can tell the hon. member that the Minister of Finance at that time urged all the provincial finance ministers to come to grips with their deficits, to come to grips with co-ordinating in a more reasonable fashion the budgets of the federal and provincial governments so that we would be going after the same things. He repeated that in January of this year with the finance ministers at a meeting in Ottawa.
All finance ministers, no matter what their political stripe, including Newfoundland's minister of finance to give him full credit, agreed that deficit reduction was the number one priority in this country. All finance ministers at that time agreed to tackle this major problem. I have nothing but praise for the ministers of finance in Saskatchewan and Newfoundland.
Now, as far as the off-loading argument is concerned, I want the hon. member to know that the average rate of growth to Newfoundland over the last nine years has been 7.4 per cent. It is the highest of any province in Canada. It is expected to approach $1.4 billion to Newfoundland in 1993-94. That is over 40 per cent of its budget.


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, the fact is that the transfer payments were reduced from what was expected. They may be increasing but they were reduced from what was expected, forcing the provinces to find moneys out of their own budgets.
If what the minister says is true, that the Minister of Finance is meeting all the finance ministers and agreeing that the debt crisis is the most important thing in the country, why does the government refuse to call a national conference as the finance ministers and premiers have called for? Why does it refuse to do that?
Oral Questions


John Horton McDermid: The Minister of Finance, as I have said, met as recently as January with the finance ministers to discuss the budgets of this year. That has taken place.
Now the budgets are coming out. There will be another meeting following the provincial budgets and the federal budget to see where we go from there. That takes place all the time and will continue to take place.
The hon. member makes it sound like these finance ministers do not get together. Having formerly sat on the treasury benches, he knows full well that-


Bill Rompkey: I am just quoting them.


John Horton McDermid: I can say that the finance minister from Saskatchewan who called for that meeting was not at the January meeting. She was not the finance minister at the time so I understand why she is doing that. There will be another meeting called after the budgets have been delivered by the ministers of finance of this country. They are co-operating and the hon. member should be happy about that.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: My question is on the subject of NAFTA negotiations. Yesterday, John Weekes, Canada's NAFTA negotiator, claimed that the United States does not properly understand how NAFTA in fact works. Import surges of low-priced Mexican products, he said, are covered under the existing deal and no side deal was needed.
My question for the Acting Prime Minister is this: Does the government not understand how weak the present NAFTA deal is on import surges since it requires full consultation with the other country and can only be used once against a given product?
Why does the government not understand what the United States government has come to see, that much tougher and faster moves must be taken against import surges to protect Canadian jobs?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, in the NAFTA as in the free trade agreement there are provisions to prevent the sudden surges or to cover the sudden surges of import products, especially in the fruit and vegetable area. That is the area where they are primarily used. They are the

March 19, 1993
Oral Questions
snap-back provisions. They have worked in the past and will work in the future. That is what our negotiator has stated to the United States and Mexico.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I represent a constituency that produces many of those agricultural products which are supposed to benefit from the snap-back provisions. They have come into effect in every case where they have been used under the FTA at least six to seven weeks too late to do any good for Canadian farmers. I want to put a supplementary question to the government dealing with environmental enforcement since this area is one in which it has also failed.
Yesterday, as my colleague has indicated, a senior Mexican diplomatic official told a Kitchener audience that while Mexico had strong environmental standards, the country "has not yet the means to enforce them". This is the clearest admission yet by Mexico of what we have claimed all along, that environmental laws simply are not enforced in that country.
I ask why the government does not see that this lack of environmental enforcement dangerously threatens the Canadian record on environmental concerns.Why does-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the question has been put and we are getting into speeches.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I can say to the hon. member that Mexico is a developing country. Mexico does not have the wherewithal that we have in Canada and the United States, but we know it is getting better. It is working at it and it is trying.
We have a great opportunity, through an environmental commission that has been set up, to help Mexico with that very problem it has of policing environmental regulations. We are there to help. That is where Canada can add greatly to Mexico in environmental matters.
It is not a matter of bringing the big hammer on it, which the hon. member and the NDP want to do. That is not what we should be doing. We should be helping it
with guidance and support in policing its environmental laws and that is what we will do.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, the minister talks about policing and yet this commission which is being set up has absolutely no authority with respect to environmental enforcement. It is a cipher. It has no meaning.

And now for my supplementary. This week, Premier Bob Rae of Ontario attacked the Mexican government's record on human rights and democracy. He said that Amnesty International had reported instances of torture and the disappearance of 55 journalists.
Why does the government continue to support an agreement with Mexico?


John Horton McDermid: First of all to the preamble of the hon. member, I might say that if Mexico stopped trading with Canada because of one of our environmental laws, the NDP members would be the first on their feet saying that Mexicans are treading on the sovereignty of Canada. They would be the very first.
We do not believe that we need strict enforcement laws dealing with trade to deal with environmental matters. We believe that they can be accomplished in other ways, like we did with the United States on the acid rain treaty that we signed with them and many other examples. There are many other ways of doing it without using the big stick that the NDP would use, and it does not work.
Let me say this about a developing country. Certainly there are problems within developing countries. We see that around the world. We do not stop trading with them. We try to help them with their problems. As their economies grow and improve, so does the style within those countries. That will happen in Mexico.
We happen to think that Mexicans can produce and trade their way to a better way of life. The NDP wants to give Mexico hand-outs but keep it suppressed. That is not the way we do things.
March 19, 1993


SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
For many years, women working in the Canadian forces who had the courage to stand up and complain about sexual harassment were discharged without just cause.
Will the government have the integrity to set up an independent inquiry today that will make a thorough investigation of these reprisals?


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Madam Speaker, there are 30,000 women involved in the Department of National Defence. The department has taken the initiative, as indicated by the minister yesterday, of doing a questionnaire of 5,600 people to make sure that there is zero tolerance for sexual harassment in the Armed Forces.
Yesterday the minister indicated the report will be made available in April, as soon as it is finished. The Department of National Defence is taking every step possible to make sure that zero tolerance for sexual harassment remains in the Armed Forces of Canada.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the Acting Prime Minister.
Today women are being forced out of the Armed Forces because they have complained of harassment. Nothing is being done to stop it. These women have come forward with great courage to stand up against a system that closes ranks to ostracize, punish and force them out.
Is there anybody on the government benches who will promise these women that not one more woman will be discharged from the Canadian Armed Forces while those who protect the harassers continue to rise in the ranks?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Madam Speaker, I think that the hon. member meant to say that no woman will be discharged from the Canadian
Oral Questions
Armed Forces because of her complaints regarding sexual harassment during this period of time until something is done to correct it.
I think that is a fair statement to make. I can say that the Armed Forces in Canada are trying to make sure that no sexual harassment goes on in the Armed Forces. If the member has indications of people who feel that they are being pushed out today, then please, make sure these cases are brought forward and they will be investigated thoroughly.
I happen to agree. There should be-


Marlene Catterall: They have been brought forward for four years.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Oh, be quiet for a moment, Catterall. All you do is yap.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. We will check the "blues" see whether anything unparliamentary was said. I know that there was but I could not hear. If the hon. minister feels that he did say something unparliamentary, he should rise and withdraw right away.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Madam Speaker, I do not believe I said anything unparliamentary. If I did, I would certainly withdraw it.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, it is a delight to be in this House where chivalry lives.
I believe that there are people on the government benches who have zero tolerance for sexual harassment. I believe that.
Treasury Board policy for example calls for sanctions against sexual harassers. In the case of the Halifax public servants, which I have raised over seven times in this House, the report is done. Sexual harassment was found. Conciliation has been ordered for victims but no action has been taken by the Public Service management against the harassers.
Will the Acting Prime Minister or any minister on the other side of the House guarantee zero tolerance and see that appropriate action is taken against these men?


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board, I would like to answer the question by my hon. friend.

March 19, 1993
Oral Questions
She knows, and the Prime Minister has stated it on a number of occasions, what the policy of this government is concerning sexual harassment. It is one of zero tolerance.
I support that. In a certain time in my prior life, I was responsible for implementing sexual harassment guidelines at the University of Montreal. I know what it is and I support the policy. If my hon. friend has any particular case where she feels something has been done which is not fair, she should bring it to our attention.
I can tell my hon. friend because she speaks in generalities that if she has questions or cases, she can bring them to our attention and I will transmit them to the minister responsible for Treasury Board.


An hon. member:: And it will be dealt with appropriately-


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, I am delighted. The names are Ghislaine Jalbert and Heather Buchanan, those are the two people. There is a report. It is there, it is out. It is on the Treasury Board president's desk.
The two victims, who are public servants in Halifax, have been retaliated against for two years now. For two years, the three aggressors have boasted that they have not been punished. If the government is so devoted to fighting sexual harassment, what does the minister intend to do to ensure that these men are justly punished?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I think that the two ministers who spoke before honestly answered the questions raised by the member for Halifax and the member for Ottawa West and clearly stated that no form of sexual harassment would be tolerated.
My colleague mentions some veiy specific cases that have been referred to the President of the Treasury Board. When he is here, he can answer very clearly and precisely the questions on the cases referred to. But this week, I heard the Prime Minister and the defence minister repeat many times that the government, just like the opposition, does not want to tolerate any form of sexual harassment. However, it is the President of the
Treasury Board who will answer questions on specific cases.


THE ECONOMY
Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, my question is for whomever is answering for the Minister of Finance today.
Yesterday we saw two tough budgets in Newfoundland and Saskatchewan and yet the federal government continues, and did so yesterday, to trivialize the impact of federal off-loading on the provinces.
The Newfoundland minister of finance said: "The decline in transfer payments has placed a heavy burden on the province's finances and added pressure on our credit rating". The minister of finance in Saskatchewan said: "By far the most serious threat to our budget plan is the federal government".
I ask the minister responding, who is telling the truth here, the federal government or the 10 provinces and the two territories?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, the member from Saskatchewan and I this morning heard municipalities in Saskatchewan accusing the Government of Saskatchewan of off-loading the problem on to the municipalities.
I believe there is one taxpayer in Saskatchewan as there is in any other province. I think we should consider that the province of Saskatchewan followed exactly the example of this government when it decided that it had to deal with the deficit and debt of the province.
Everybody knows that Canadians agree with the way this government is working with the deficit and debt. They agree so much that the government in Saskatchewan, which is an NDP government, decided to do exactly the same thing.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, this is quite remarkable. If the minister had only looked at the budget yesterday he would have seen that in fact the budget is creating jobs in Saskatchewan and is arguing for full employment. It is a budget that is compassionate and is not hitting the hardest hit in this society as this government has traditionally done. It is a government which has controlled government spend-
March 19, 1993

Oral Questions
ing and it is the only government in Canada which has actually reduced current expenditures.
Therefore this government does not need to lecture the Government of Saskatchewan on how to deal with its budget, thank you very much.
The minister of finance yesterday indicated that no one government can tackle it alone. "We need national solutions", she said. "We need co-operation, co-ordination and a new national agenda".
When will this government begin to work with the provinces instead of fighting against them? When will the government work with Canadians?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, I do not know if I understand the meaning of the word "lecturing" in English. But in my view, I praised the Government of Saskatchewan for following the example of trying to control the deficit. However, the same Government of Saskatchewan did what we have not done so far. It has reduced by 2.8 per cent the transfers to the hospitals and school systems.
The Saskatchewan government considers that it has to manage the budget of Saskatchewan in a way that will control the deficit and debt.
Once again I praise the Government of Saskatchewan for doing exactly what this government has preached for eight years: control the deficit and the debt and you will control the economy of this country.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The minister will know that the unemployment situation on Cape Breton Island is truly devastating. There are thousands of fishermen who, because of the lack of fish stocks, will join the thousands already unemployed.
This situation is very serious. These fishermen have no income. They have no alternate employment. They have no means to feed their families in the months to come or pay what they owe on their boats. If the fishing industry is to recover there has to be fishermen to fish. What is the government going to do for these fishermen?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member points to a very serious situation in Cape Breton and other parts of the maritime provinces.
As the hon. member may know most of the fishermen and plant workers who will be affected by the reduced quotas announced by the minister of fisheries are currently receiving unemployment insurance, a good part of them.
The minister of fisheries and myself are working right now on a solution to the plight of those unemployed people. I expect within the next few weeks we should be able to apprise those communities of the initiatives we are going to put in place to try to help them out during these really tough times.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that perhaps the minister is well meaning but I do not think he truly realizes the seriousness of the situation.
These people are in a difficult position. They really do not know what they are going to do. They do not know how they are going to look after their families. They do not know how they are going to look after the payments on their vessels.
The unemployment rate in Cape Breton right now, according to Statistics Canada's own figures, is 28.5 per cent. That is a national disgrace. Surely the minister will admit that.
Will he please speed up the process? Will he please do something for the people who really need the government's help?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, the record is an example of the attention we give to these people. I think the hon. member will acknowledge that when, for example, we

March 19, 1993
Oral Questions
introduced the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program it was oriented toward trying to help these people.
We understand the plight and situation of these fishermen and plant workers who have no income at all because of the reduced quota.
As I indicated we are going to do our share at the federal level. We are speaking with the provincial government, because it is the responsibility of both levels of government. I expect in the next few weeks, as I said, to be able to apprise those people of the measures we are proposing to help them help themselves during these tough times.



Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, in the minds of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance the recession is over. Yet for the approximately 40,000 unemployed in Hamilton the pain of the recession continues. There are 5,000 more people unemployed in Hamilton today than a year ago.
Could the Acting Prime Minister tell Canadians what the finance minister is going to bring forth in the upcoming budget to alleviate this situation?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member would appreciate my giving the finance minister's budget today. I am not in a position to do that. I would suggest she wait until the minister delivers the budget in his place here in the House within the next few weeks.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party is trying to portray a youthful image for itself in the current leadership race using old faces with old ideas.
We have 392,000 unemployed young people in Canada today. That is 17 per cent of our employable youth. Will the Acting Prime Minister tell us what the government is going to do for these young people, who are the future of our country?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact in the last month an encouraging statistic showed that
14,000	of these young people found employment.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Part time.


John Horton McDermid: Excuse me. It is still unacceptably high. We are bringing forward many programs. The Minister of Finance announced a number of them in his December budget. We are seeing employment growth, especially in Ontario and in the manufacturing areas, which is a positive sign due to the record exports that are going to the United States and to our trading partners, with the exception of Britain.
That is very encouraging news for Canadians and for young people coming into the work force. We will continue to strive toward that end. I am sure the budget of the Minister of Finance, although it will be a tough budget and has to be out of necessity as the provinces are doing as well, will also pay very careful attention to helping those who need it most.


JOB START PROGRAM
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Madam Speaker, I see the Minister of Employment and Immigration has left the House. In any event I would like to put my question to someone who is answering for him.
There is a very successful training program in Oromoc-to, New Brunswick, for young adults called the Job Start Program. It is not just a classroom experience. It is a real employment scenario where they teach skills and the work ethic. It is a special and continuing approach with a track record of 70 per cent in continuing employment of those who have left the Job Start Program. Unfortunately the job start concept has no longer been included as part of the general national curriculum of the CEC program structure.
Is the minister's department considering the Job Start Program for a future curriculum nationally? Will it recognize the Oromocto project for its unique characteristics in its programming for 1993-94?


Benoît Bouchard: That is a very good question, finally, Madam Speaker.
The Department of Employment and Immigration has put forward in two provinces, particularly New Brunswick and British Columbia, a few experiences in terms of new retraining of social recipients in collaboration with the department of health and welfare.
March 19, 1993

The Department of Employment and Immigration is reviewing the cases and the possibility or opportunity to expand that program. The minister will certainly consider what the hon. member from Fredericton asks of the government.


FISHERIES
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, this government has abandoned collective bargaining with its employees. It has instituted a wage freeze. It has continued to demonstrate its contempt for federal workers.
Now the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the minister say they agree fisheries officers should be reclassified. The Department of Transport and the minister say marine surveyors should be reclassified. Everyone claims Treasury Board is the obstacle.
Can the government justify allowing mass reclassification of senior bureaucrats and refusing legitimate reclassification for fisheries officers and marine surveyors?


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board, I will take notice of the question of my hon. friend. I can assure her that as soon as the minister comes back he will get back to her on that.
She will have a supplementary question, no doubt.


Joy Langan: Yes, Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I appreciate the minister has undertaken to get that information from the President of the Treasury Board.
I have a letter from a fisheries officer that says: "Unfortunately I am beginning to doubt that fisheries officers are ever going to be recognized for the duties they perform or the services they provide to the people of Canada".
I am also told with regard to marine surveyors that Transport Canada recognizes the legitimacy of their claim after a review of the ship safety branch.
Will the government respect the important service of these workers and reclassify them as they deserve? I hope the minister will say yes and take that to Treasury Board.
Oral Questions


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.
Like I said in my prior answer, I will bring it to the attention of the President of the Treasury Board. Also I will talk to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Transport.


INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY
John Cole: Madam Speaker, there is a very delicate balance presently in the state of Lake Simcoe as it concerns the water quality and its importance to the Trent-Sevem waterway system.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Presently the Interim Waste Authority is looking at the mitigation measures and the net effects that a proposed dump site in this area would cause. He is talking about off-site impact studies, biology, geology, hydrology, surface water, all things that are very important to Canadians and to the minister of fisheries.
Is the minister going to report to the Interim Waste Authority prior to the final selection? Will he make a public and formal declaration to the authority? It has asked for submissions. Is the minister going to do this before the site selection process is completed?


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his question. The minister is away on government business today but I will be sure to bring the comments of the hon. member to his attention. Knowing the minister, I am sure he will reply very shortly to the hon. member.


JOB TRAINING
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of employment. This government and this minister often speak about their training strategy but there are some concerns about its efficiency.
The London Industrial Training Advisory Board has over $1 million slated for training but cannot spend it because the money is allocated to train UI recipients only and it cannot find eligible UI recipients.

March 19, 1993
Oral Questions
Why will the minister not relax his government's rigid training guidelines and allow the board to train people who need training whether they are on UI or are UI exhaustees?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has recognized that the Government of Canada is doing a tremendous amount of training and retraining and is spending funds in that regard. I thank him for that compliment.
I can tell the hon. member that moneys being spent for training and retraining of UI recipients is something new. It is very important to ensure that people have the necessary skills when jobs become available to accept them.
I will ask the minister to look into the particular suggestion the hon. member has made. If moneys are not being spent in one area for training then I think they should be spent somewhere else. I will make that suggestion to the minister, and I am sure he will look into it for the hon. member.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Madam Speaker, let the record show that I am not at all pleased with what the government is doing on the issue of training. As a matter of fact it has failed desperately in this particular area.
When the training board I mentioned met with officials from EIC to ask them to allow non-UI recipients into the training courses those officials said: "We would rather leave the classroom seats empty than put non-UI recipients in them".
That is absolutely ridiculous, and I ask the minister once again when he will adopt a comprehensive, flexible approach to training and abandon his government's present unfair position.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I caution the hon. member in bringing forward quotes like that because I am going to challenge him right now to name the person who said that and to bring to the minister's attention the name of the person the direct quote was attributed to.
I know members of my party and I would be very concerned with that kind of talk, because it really does
not fit what we are trying to do with training in this country.
If the hon. member would be so kind as to tell me who made that statement, we can question them to find out why they said that. I think it would be most helpful. It might be helpful to go outside the House and name that person as well.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Christine Lamont and David Spencer are now in their fourth year in Brazilian prisons. Christine has recently been tested positive for tuberculosis.
Will the Acting Prime Minister tell the House why the Prime Minister has not yet replied to letters written to him on January 7 and March 2 from leaders of the Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian, and United churches asking to meet with him on this very important issue?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows about this government's communications with the Government of Brazil.
A new development has occurred in Brazil in that the Brazilian Supreme Court yesterday agreed to consider the appeal on the length of the sentences. The Government of Brazil is aware of Canadian concerns regarding the length of the 28-year sentence. The Brazilian government is also aware of the importance that Canada attaches to an early decision on the appeals currently standing, but I think it is positive that the Brazilian Supreme Court is currently looking at the situation.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, in fact the minister will know that two days ago the Superior Court of Brazil agreed that the 28-year sentences for Christine and David were unconstitutional. No one knows exactly when the court will set new sentences, whether it will be in six months or a year or whenever.
The Department of External Affairs throughout this has taken the view that nothing improper happened in the Brazilian judicial system. Now we find two days ago that it clearly did.
March 19, 1993

In the circumstances, why will the Prime Minister simply not ask that these two Canadians be expelled from Brazil as is allowed by Brazilian law, and as so many Canadians, church leaders, members of Parliament from all parties have asked the government to do?


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know better.
I am sure if this government or any other government was attempting to interfere in the procedures of the courts in Canada he would be the first one on his hind legs screaming and yelling like a wounded hyena. The same is true with the-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will end with two single questions from the hon. member for Oshawa and the hon. member for Cambridge.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue.
One of my constituents, Mr. Harold Booth, purchased a 1991 Cadillac. He was rather incensed at the amount of goods and services tax he paid on the vehicle, $2,640.75.
He was infuriated when he found out through something called a national input credit formula for car dealers that the split on the goods and services tax resulted in the car dealer receiving $1,727.59 for processing the tax collection and the Government of Canada receiving $913.16.
How does the government justify a situation where a car dealer makes more money collecting taxes for the Government of Canada than it does selling the vehicle?


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is incorrect, of course, as he usually is.
If he would look at the cost of vehicles prior to the elimination of the federal manufacturers' sales tax he would know that the cost of the vehicles was higher than it is with the new GST.
For the sake of a healthier and more competitive industry, not only in the automotive area but across Canada as a whole, the government had the guts to eliminate that hidden, unfair tax and replace it with an
Oral Questions
open, visible GST which has lowered the cost of automobiles for consumers in Canada.


INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE
Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister for International Trade.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association estimates provincial barriers to interprovincial trade cost Canadians $6.5 billion a year. The C.D. Howe Institute in a March 16 statement on internal trade within Canada said that provincial and territorial internal trade ministers should seize the opportunity to agree to remove internal trade barriers.
These discussions have been going around since 1986 and in my opinion there has been a tremendous lack of political will.
Could the minister or the parliamentary secretary update this House about any progress made in meetings held yesterday in Montreal concerning the dismantling of provincial trade barriers?


Peter L. McCreath: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my hon. friend's question.
As all members of the House will know, nobody has been more vigorously working in the direction of breaking down interprovincial barriers, as he did in bringing forward in a major way the free trade agreement and the NAFTA, than the current Minister of Industry, Science Technology and Minister for International Trade.
I am pleased to advise the House that yesterday the minister and his provincial counterparts agreed to a basis, a timetable and a negotiating process by which they will eliminate interprovincial trade barriers.
I might mention that this timetable calls for the commencement of formal negotiations no later than July 1 of this year, the completion of negotiations by June 30, 1994 and the ratification of a comprehensive agreement by June 30, 1995. This is a tremendous announcement and is greatly to the credit of the minister who has done such an excellent job in preparing the Canadian economy for growth, development, jobs and other opportunities.

March 19, 1993
Routine Proceedings
* <1205 >
HOUSE MANAGEMENT


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue has just left the House for a moment I am sure.
From this side of the House I heard him using the term "a wounded hyena" and I thought it was in reference to another member of the House. I think perhaps you might check the "blues" and if this term was used, perhaps the hon. minister would consider withdrawing it.
It is bad enough that in the heat of battle we do use terms that are sometimes uncivil, at least from my perspective. I would feel that a term, if he did use it, like "wounded hyena" describing any member of Parliament should be withdrawn.
I would ask the Chair to please look into it and if she deems it necessary, make a ruling on it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will definitely do as the hon. member asks. If the expression was used describing someone in a derogatory manner, of course, a withdrawal would be in order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 58 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceeding.]


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 74th report of the Standing Committee on House Management concerning the list of members who are to sit on the legislative committee on Bill C-102.
Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), this report is deemed adopted once it is laid upon the table.



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I also have the honour to present the 75th report of the Standing Committee on House Management concerning the list of members of the standing committee.
If the House agrees, I intend to move concurrence in this report later today.



ELECTORAL REFORM


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to report from the Special Committee on Electoral Reform its fourth report. In accordance with its order of reference of Monday, March 8, 1993 your committee has considered Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and has agreed to report it with amendments.
The House would also like to know that the committee has ordered a reprint of Bill C-114, as amended, as a working copy for the use of the House of Commons at report stage.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]
March 19, 1993

Routine Proceedings



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr, Jim Hawkes (Calgary West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-417, an act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control).


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


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, this would be a fairly brief amendment to the Criminal code. There has been a recent interpretation which currently requires registrars of firearms to take firearms away from people who bring them in for registration and keep them for up to six months until a permanent registration certificate is issued.
This is happening in situations where most of the firearms are brought in by people who already have registered firearms. They have safe storage in their homes. These firearms would be better kept in those safe storage areas.
This would permit them to bring their guns in for examination and then take them home immediately to the safe storage situation, thus relieving some of the pressure on the Crown. Not all police stations have safe storage situations. It will be safer for society and better for the owners of guns. That is the thrust of the amendment.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Hawkes 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.



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, if the House agrees, I move concurrence in the 75th report of the Standing Committee on House Management, which was presented to the House today.


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


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, unfortunately I cannot give consent at this time. I would be more than happy to allow it to come forward later but there has been a breakdown in communications. I am not certain what is in it, and therefore I think it would be inappropriate for me to give consent at this time.


PETITIONS
Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, as you know, housing co-operatives are an affordable alternative to regular rental housing and help meet the huge demand for social housing in Canada. Unfortunately the federal budget cut 34 per cent from the projected spending on social housing in 1992 and led to the cancellation of the Co-operative Housing Program.
For these reasons, voters in the Ottawa Centre region have signed a petition urging the House of Commons to ask the government to restore the Co-operative Housing Program.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, the petition is certified correct as to form and content.
This petition has been signed by over 2,500 constituents in Cambridge and Kitchener and relates to the fact that these people feel the majority of Canadians consistently support more severe criminal sentences for violent crimes. It asks Parliament to pass legislation establishing mandatory minimum sentences for all violent crimes which would apply uniformly across all regions of Canada.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions on the same subject, the subject being free trade.

March 19, 1993
Routine Proceedings
The first petition is from the Council of Senior Citizens organizations of British Columbia. It is opposed to the present free trade agreement with the United States and petition the House and the government not to enter into a further agreement with Mexico.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I have another petition signed by a number of people, many of whom are from my riding of Port Moody and Coquitlam, British Columbia.
They ask the House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to get out of the present Canada-U.S. free trade agreement.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure today to table several petitions signed by over 1,000 people from several communities in my riding concerning Bill C-113, particularly the changes to unemployment insurance.




Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent to move the motion that I previously moved. I would ask you to seek that consent.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Charles A. Langlois: I move:
That the 75th report of the Standing Committee on House
Management be concurred in.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 463 and 474.


Mr. Dingwall: With respect to Canadian National (CN), (a) how many hectares of undeveloped land does it presently own (b) how many hectares of developed land does it presently own (c) what is the total market value of the land?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of IVansport):: The management of the Canadian National Railway Company advises as follows:
(a)	and (b) CN as a whole has approximately 150,000 hectares of land. Most of this inventory is in rail operating use.
At CN Real Estate, the real estate business arm of Canadian National, there are approximately 14,000 hectares of undeveloped land in the inventory at the present time, of which 8,700 hectares are abandoned rights-of-way, 5,000 hectares are other rural and miscellaneous lands, and 308 hectares are development sites.
Assuming that developed land includes buildings, these buildings would be generally measured in square feet, not acres or hectares. At the present time, CN Real Estate wholly owns approximately 726,000 square feet of office buildings, multi-use properties, retail and parking structures in major markets, and has an ownership interest in an additional 3,400,000 square feet of income-producing properties.
(c) The total market value of all of CN Real Estate's land holdings and income properties is approximately $900 million.


Mr. Whittaker: With respect to the publication "Canada Moves", dated February, 1993 distributed in the Globe and Mail of February 11, 1993, (a) what is the total cost of this publication to the government, departments, agencies and Crown corporations (b) how much was paid by each department, agency and Crown corporation (c) what is the cost of advertising by each organization which appears in the publication (<f) which agencies received the contracts for those ads?


Jean Corbeil: "Canada Moves" is a Toronto Globe and Mail publication (Supplement). The following corporations were invited to advertise.
The Canada Ports Corporation advises as follows:
(a)	Not applicable.
(b)	See (c) below.
(c)	Canada Ports Corporation (including the ports of Trois-Rivieres, Saguenay and Sept-iles and the Advantage Canada Initiative) $51,7000
Montreal Port Corporation $10,200 Prince Rupert Port Corporation $5,610 Vancouver Port Corporation $10,000 Halifax Port Corporation $5,610
(d)	Nil.
The management of the Canadian National Railway Company advises as follows:
(a) Not applicable. (b) $12,000. (c) Same as in (b) above. (d) CN's ad was placed through its agency, BBD Needham Worldwide.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Hon. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, yesterday, my party Whip asked me to do him the favour of responding to the statement made by the Minister responsible for La Francophonie. You were there yourself and since you presided over the proceedings, you know what I am going to say.
I am sorry, but this is the third time. Under "Routine Proceedings" in the table of contents in French, La Table des Matieres and Affaires courantes, my name is conspicuously absent. The Whip told me this morning that I did
Point of Order
not do my duty yesterday, because the Official Opposition was not represented under "Routine Proceedings".
You know very well I took part in the debate, and I brought this up because it is the third time this has happened. The first time I let it pass. The second time I decided to be patient, but now, the third time, enough is enough.
I was given assurances this morning that everything would be done to prevent a recurrence, but to the many people who read Hansard and look at the table of contents first to see what might interest them, it looks like the Official Opposition was not interested in World Francophonie Day.
I am raising this point of order so that corrections will appear on Monday. I don't know how the House will do this, but I know it is possible, so that Canadians know the Official Opposition, which I represented yesterday, is indeed interested in this very important subject. Under Routine Proceedings, under the heading "World Francophonie Day", we read the names of Mrs. Vezina, Mr. Samson, Mr. Plamondon and Mr. Kindy. There was a mistake, because the list should read as follows: Mrs. Vezina, Mr. Prud'homme, Mr. Samson, Mr. Plamondon and Mr. Kindy.
Being a seasoned parliamentarian, I will not pursue the matter. I realize people make mistakes, but you will admit it is very annoying. On my twenty-ninth anniversary as a member, the proceedings were interrupted to mark that occasion, which subsequently appeared under the heading "Agriculture". If anyone wants to know exactly what was said in that debate at that time, they will have to look under "Agriculture", in which case they will never be able to read again what was said on an occasion which I must say I enjoyed very much.
I hope this will not happen again and that the machines will be supervised more carefully, since today everything is electronic.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As the hon. member just said, I presided over the proceedings when the hon. member made his speech, and a veiy interesting one, in connection with World Francophonie Day. At least I can give the Liberal Whip the assurance that the hon. member did make a very interesting statement yesterday in the course of this debate.

March 19, 1993
Government Orders
This oversight in the table of contents is annoying. I certainly realize that. And I may say I don't blame the hon. member for being not only annoyed but even angry-


Marcel Prud'homme: Not angry, just sad.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: -or sad, and we will make sure the necessary corrections are made in the other editions of Hansard.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-113, an act to provide for government expenditure restraint, as reported (without amendment) from the legislative committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker:: There are 19 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-113, an act to provide for government expenditure restraint.
Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for South Shore, infringes upon the financial initiative of the Crown contrary to citation 698(7) of Beauchesne's sixth edition. Therefore it is out of order and consequently will not be selected.
Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 5, standing in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, will be grouped for debate with a vote on Motion No. 2 applying to Motions Nos. 4 and 5.

Motion No. 3, standing in the name of the hon. member for South Shore, seeks to amend a statute which is not even part of the bill before the House. This is
contrary to citation 698(8)(a) of Beauchesne. Therefore it is out of order and accordingly will not be selected.

Motions Nos. 6 and 12, standing in the name of the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau, also infringe on the financial prerogative of the Crown. Therefore they are out of order and consequently will not be selected.
Motions Nos. 16, 17, 19, standing in the name of the hon. member for South Shore, will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14, standing in the name of the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau, will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: (a) a vote on Motion No. 7 will apply to Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10;
(b)	Motion No. 11 will be voted on separately; and (c) an affirmative vote on Motion No. 13 will obviate the necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 14. A negative vote on Motion No. 13 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 14.	'
Motion No. 15, standing in the name of the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau, attempts to introduce a new concept into the bill and therefore is beyond its scope contrary to citation 698(1) of Beauchesne. It is out of order and accordingly will not be selected.

Motions Nos. 16, 17, 19, standing in the name of the hon. member for South Shore, will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.

Motion No. 19, standing in the name of the hon. member for South Shore, is consequential to Motion No. 3 and therefore will not be selected.
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 5 to the House.


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and I would ask for consent to table the royal recommendation for Motion No. 1 and to allow the three Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 19 to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
March 19, 1993


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.
Following the unanimous consent which was given a second ago, I would like to give this ruling to the House and I think it is the way we should proceed.
Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 19, standing in the name of the hon. member for South Shore, together with Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 5, standing in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, will be grouped for debate and voted upon as follows:
A vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 3 and 19. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 1 will obviate the necessity of putting the question on Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 5. A negative vote on Motion No. 1 will necessitate the question being put on Motion No. 2. The vote on Motion No. 2 will apply to Motions Nos. 4 and 5.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the indulgence of the Chair. The ruling you have offered to us will allow very clearly for a vote on matters relating to transportation in Atlantic Canada. That is the vote on Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 19.
By obviating the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 5, you prevent this House from having a separate vote on a matter directly related to western Canada, i.e., the Western Grain Transportation Act.
I am wondering if the House will agree to have a separate vote. We accept the grouping for debate, but ask for a separate vote on the clauses dealing with the Western Grain Transportation Act which are clauses 15 and 16. That would be Motions Nos. 4 and 5.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will put to the House a different possibility of applying the votes. I hope this will be agreeable to all parties.
The motions are still grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 3 and 19. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 1 will obviate the necessity of putting the question on Motion No. 2. A negative vote on Motion No. 1 will necessitate the question being put on Motion No. 2. The vote on Motion No. 4 will apply to Motion No. 5.
Is it agreed?
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Peter L. McCreath: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-113 be amended in Clause 14
(a)	by striking out line 23 at page 6 and substituting the following:
"be twenty-eight and one-half per cent for preferred move-"; and
(b)	by striking out line 31 at page 6 and substituting the following: "twenty-eight and one-half per cent rate."


Iain Francis Angus: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-113 be amended by deleting Clause 14.


Peter L. McCreath: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-113 be amended
(a) by adding immediately after line 31 at page 6 the following new clause:
"Maritime Freight Rates Act
15. Section 5 of the Maritime Freight Rates Act is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) thereof, by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (d) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph:
(e) movements of used household goods and movements of scrap and waste material"; and
(b) by renumbering the subsequent clauses and any crossreferences thereto accordingly.


Iain Francis Angus: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-113 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-113 be amended by deleting Clause 16.


Peter L. McCreath: Motion No. 19.
That Bill C-113 be amended in Clause 28 by striking out line 8 at page 13 and substituting the following:

March 19, 1993
Government Orders "(4) Sections 14 and 15 shall come into".
He said: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to the amendments I have put forward and begin by thanking my hon. friends opposite for their co-operation, particularly those in the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party who participated in the legislative committee on Bill C-113, in allowing these amendments to come before the House. I would like to apologize and thank Your Honour and the Ihble for the difficult procedural challenge I presented with these amendments as they have come forward.
These amendments are extremely important to the manufacturing sector in Atlantic Canada and members of the Atlantic Transportation Commission who first brought forward their necessity to the legislative committee on Bill C-113 and indeed the government.
The reduction in subsidies introduced in the December economic statement of the Minister of Finance would have cut the subsidies provided under the Maritime Freight Rates Act and the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act by 10 per cent.
Shortly thereafter the Atlantic Transportation Commission on behalf of manufacturers in Atlantic Canada approached the government. As business people they respected and appreciated the government's deficit control efforts and wished to support the government in its deficit control efforts. Their request was that instead of an across the board reduction in the subsidies they would prefer a selective application of the subsidies that would be more in tune with the concept for which these statutes were initiated in the first place.
I might remind the House briefly that these programs came about going back to the Duncan commission on maritime claims in 1926, after which the Maritime Freight Rates Act was brought in. Those statutes respond to the National Transportation Act in its intention and recognition of transportation as a key to regional economic development and commercial viability.
In Atlantic Canada manufacturers and producers are in effect price takers rather than price setters in the marketplace. As such they must generally absorb all or a major part of outbound transportation, particularly when selling into central and western Canada.
The Maritime Freight Rates Act and the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act provide a reduction in freight rates for the movement of commodities that have been manufactured or produced in Atlantic Canada. That in effect makes it more possible for Atlantic Canadian manufacturers to be competitive in the larger markets of central Canada.
What has been brought forward in the proposals encapsulated in this set of amendments would see, rather than 10 per cent across the board, no change in the basic subsidy for the selective westbound; in the basic westbound, a 5 per cent reduction and in the inter-regional, a 10 per cent reduction. Household goods would be eliminated from the basic westbound. Scrap and waste materials would be eliminated from the basic westbound. At the same time during the first year of the program there would be data collected with a view to making further modifications next year.
It is important to say that members of the House, in having amendments before them for discussion, are hearing what has been said to government, indeed to all parties, by Atlantic businessmen and manufacturers. It is going to be beneficial. It brings those two statutes back to their original purposes in terms of supporting manufacturing enterprises. I am sure it will be very well greeted by the business community in Atlantic Canada and the people whose jobs depend on those manufacturing enterprises.
I thank the House and strongly recommend the support of these amendments by all members.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I suspect some members were caught by surprise by the brevity of the hon. member's speech.
I rise today to oppose the contents of this bill, having put forward motions that specifically would delete the clauses to reduce subsidies under the Western Grain Transportation Act and subsidies under the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act.
The government has brought in a modification of the bill based on its consultation with the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission. We on this side of the House facilitated the government getting unanimous
March 19, 1993

consent in order to undo some of the damage being wrought with this bill.
I want to make very clear that we will vote against the government amendment. Although it makes a very bad bill slightly better, we are against the elimination of across the board subsidies to Atlantic Canada just as we are against the 10 per cent reduction of federal funding going to the Western Grain Transportation Act which is designed to ensure that our farmers on the prairies can afford to ship their grains to export markets.
Let us not fool ourselves. This is not just an exercise in deficit reduction. This is not just an exercise of down loading to the provinces or the municipalities. When it comes to the section of the Western Grain Transportation Act we are down loading into the pockets of the farmers. This is not a reduction in the rates charged by the railways. This is a reduction in the amount of money used to offset the cost to the producer.
Whether it is $1, $2, or $3 a tonne, that money has to come out of the pockets of farmers who have already been bled dry because of the price of grain around the world, thanks to the Americans and the Europeans in terms of the subsidy war. It costs a lot of farmers more to produce grain than what they get when they sell it. The government has decided to put more onus on those farmers to pick up the cost.
I am wondering what all this is about. It has to do with a law that was passed on September 28, 1988. It is called Public Law 100-449, entitled U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. I want to quote from an interesting section of it. It is section 304 that deals with negotiations regarding certain sectors' biannual reports. Referring to the President of the United States it says: "(a) in general and (2) as an exercise of the foreign relations powers of the President under the Constitution, the President will enter into immediate consultations with the Government of Canada to obtain the exclusion from the transportation rates established under Canada's Western Grain Transportation Act of agricultural goods that originate in Canada and are shipped by east coast ports for consumption in the United States".
How much of the free trade agreement agenda is found in Bill C-113? Certainly my colleagues will argue
Government Orders
that the whole question of the cuts to UI does nothing more than parallel what is available in a number of our competitor States today.
Obviously the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission has been successful in convincing the government that there is a better way to make these cuts. I give it credit for coming forward and taking a look at some of the elements in the current legislation that perhaps skew things in Atlantic Canada.
For example, the provision that scrap metal can be subsidized means that it is cheaper to send scrap metal to Hamilton or Sault Ste. Marie than it is for the metal to go to Sysco in Cape Breton. That does not make sense.
The subsidy for household goods is used primarily by federal employees who are being reimbursed by the government in any case to move their household goods from Atlantic Canada when they are transferred back across the country, whether it is DND, the RCMP or whatever.
Those things make sense. I understand why the APTC put them forward to get a reduction and more power to the commission, but I want to ask the government where the same consideration was for federal public servants who were told that they were having their wages restricted as a means of helping the government's deficit plan. Did the government sit down with them and work out a way in which perhaps money could be saved? There was not one discussion.
What about the unemployed who are being hammered by this bill? The unemployed who for whatever reason have to quit a job without having another one to go to are to be denied UI benefits entirely. Did this government sit down with those people and say: "Is there a better way?" Did it even ask: "If we put you back to work, will that help the deficit?" Of course it will. Those are areas my colleagues will pursue as they participate in this debate.
I want to return to the Western Grain Transportation Act. If the government was legitimately concerned about the act and the manner in which the funding is offered, it would recognize, as the Standing Committee on Transport did, that there are some imbalances in the act. It does not treat both directions in the same way. It does not provide assistance to the marine sector to take the

March 19, 1993
Government Orders
grain that comes to the port of Thunder Bay and move it to an export position in the St. Lawrence River.
The transport committee has recommended that on an interim basis the marine component be covered. That will stimulate the economy in eastern Canada because right now we are in danger of not having enough ships to move the crops from western Canada. The reality is that the west coast is plugged. One more bushel of grain cannot be moved through Prince Rupert or Vancouver. None of us want grain being moved through Seattle because we want the jobs to stay in Canada. If we do not act and provide for a better balance we are not going to have enough ships on the Great Lakes. We are not going to have enough people left in Thunder Bay to handle the grain, clean it, weigh it and trans-ship it. As a nation we are in danger of losing our ability to be flexible. The same arguments can be made for Churchill as well.
What the government is doing now by cutting the Western Grain Transportation Act is saying to the seaway: "No, we are not going to give you any more money. We are not going to help you out. We are going to let you go down the tubes". At the same time it is saying to the farmers: "We lied to you years ago when we passed this act".
The Liberals passed the Western Grain Transportation Act, and the Tories have not bothered to deal with its inequities. They were saying at the time: "Trust us. Do not woriy, it is in the law. It cannot be changed. The formula is firm". We have just proven that it is not firm. The government arbitrarily cuts 10 per cent and attacks the farmers at the same time, both in terms of the next two or three years by making them pay more for their transportation and also by sending them a signal that the Western Grain Transportation Act is up for grabs.
Certainly the United States would like us to get rid of it. My sense is that this government would like us to get rid of it, because of this warped sense that we have to get rid of the deficit.
We do not necessarily disagree with getting rid of the deficit and bringing it down to a manageable level, but we do disagree with doing it by attacking people. That is not the way. We need to put more money in the hands of people so they can get out there and buy consumer goods, create jobs and therefore create new taxpayers.
This is true for the bill itself in its entirety, but these three clauses in particular are going to undermine the fabric of this country. We on this side, my caucus, have no choice but to propose the kind of amendments that I have put forward to eliminate the clause that reduces the Western Grain Transportation Act by 10 per cent and to eliminate the clause that reduces in any way the freight subsidy in Atlantic Canada. We need to protect those areas of subsidy because in doing so we are protecting the regions and we are protecting the people.
For the government to bring forward this kind of legislation shows quite frankly that it does not care any more. It does not care about Atlantic Canada. It does not care about the unemployed. It does not care about western Canada. It does not care about any part of this country.
Therefore I am going to continue to oppose this bill, as will my colleagues. I am pleased that the member for Regina-Lumsden was able to second my motion, because of anybody in this House he is not only the most knowledgeable member on transportation but the strongest defender of the prairie farmers and the most vociferous opponent of the kind of cuts that we are seeing here today.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Madam Speaker, I am happy that the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission was able to talk a little sense into the government as this bill was passing through the committee and achieve the modest relief that is represented in the amendment.
The commission is fighting a losing battle and it has been, along with other transportation groups in Atlantic Canada, for the last several years this government has been in power. In Atlantic Canada we are seeing, through other legislation, the erosion of subsidies to grain producers and grain consumers in Atlantic Canada, as well as an erosion of the transportation infrastructure generally in Atlantic Canada.
This has been the legacy of this Conservative government. It is one that has been very much on the minds of industries that use transportation services, be it to bring grain or other products in from central Canada or to send our own products such as food products, pulp and paper and our basic resources across Atlantic Canada and through the rail system and the road network out to market elsewhere in Canada and the United States.
March 19, 1993

This may be a small victory, and I would certainly respect the ability of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission to speak on behalf of transporters in Atlantic Canada. It has proven itself in other instances to be a responsible advocate of the transportation industry in Atlantic Canada. It is certainly willing to work within the confines of legislation that is put before it.
Certainly this legislation does very little to enhance the ability of our industry, producers and consumers in Atlantic Canada to receive a level playing field when it comes to east-west transportation. The amendment before us does not exonerate the bill itself, which we continue to oppose.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Madam Speaker, I have a feeling of deja vu. I have a feeling we have been here before, between 1980 and 1984 when the Liberals abolished the Crows Nest Pass freight rate agreement of 1897 and implemented the Western Grain Transportation Act over my objections and the objections of my colleagues and major farm organizations.
It got to the point where the prairie wheat pools reluctantly accepted the abolishing of that rate and the increased freight rates for grain producers. It reluctantly accepted those changes because of the guarantee of a basic rail network, the guarantee of a sufficient supply of grain cars and the guarantee that the Government of Canada would continue to pay its share of the freight rates under the Western Grain Transportation Act.
This bill proposes to reduce the government's share of the cost of moving that grain by 10 per cent, which means that the difference will have to be picked up by farmers.
Ever since 1984 the grain producers of western Canada have been paying an ever-increasing amount of the cost of moving grain. In 1986-87 their share was $5.97 a tonne. For 1991-92 it had almost doubled to $11.07 a tonne. For the current year it will be $14.12 a tonne. That is an almost threefold increase in the farmers' share of the cost of moving grain, while grain prices have been steadily dropping since the 1980-81 crop year. They have gone down almost every single year.
Government Orders
The prairie wheat pools, representing 100,000 grain producers in the three prairie provinces, made it clear that it does not like, does not accept and does not agree with this provision in the bill. It says that its concern about the expenditure cuts legislation lies in the section that deals with a 10 per cent cut to the assistance paid by the federal government under the Western Grain Transportation Act.
The WGTA was implemented in 1984 under the Liberal government and with reluctant support by the Tories, or at least they said they were reluctant. Prairie farmers reluctantly gave up fixed freight rates and accepted increasing freight costs in exchange for a guarantee of service from the railways and a commitment of a constant amount of assistance from the federal government. This assistance, the Crow benefit, was set up in perpetuity in the Western Grain Transportation Act.
The Tories have done it again. They have even brought an end to perpetuity. It was only on the condition that the prairie grain producers had this guarantee in perpetuity that they reluctantly went along with the abolishing of the Crows Nest Pass freight rates.
If this is not a betrayal, if this is not going back on the word of the Government of Canada, of the Parliament of Canada, then I do not know what is.
I want to say to the Minister of Supply and Services that he can inform his four colleagues from Saskatchewan that not a damned one of them is going to be back here. There will be no Tories from Saskatchewan, just as there are no Liberals from Saskatchewan. Both parties are going to be wiped out because of what they did from 1980 to 1984 and what they are doing again now.


An hon. member:: We have no money to spend on it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If the hon. member knew what a bushel of wheat looked like if it hit him in the face I would be prepared to listen to him. He can get up and make his own speech later.

March 19, 1993
Government Orders
The United States Congress is proposing to authorize the President of the United States to disallow grain moving from Canada to the United States under the Western Grain Transportation Act for United States consumption. If that is not a direct interference in the internal affairs, sovereignty and independence of Canada then I do not know what is.
The government has taken action, to its credit, to intervene and prevent the American government from making American subsidiaries obey United States' law in Canada. The government put a stop to that kind of interference. It damn well has to put a stop to this kind of interference as well.
The equalized grain rates, the subsidized grain rates, are meant to put Canadian grain producers in an even position, a level playing field-the Tories want to call everything a level playing field. What the hell is the use of having a level playing field if the other guy has the ball on our 10-yard line all the time?
The average haul for Canadian grain producers is over 900 miles, for American producers it is about 700 miles, and for producers in Australia and Argentina it is under 200 miles. In order to have equal competition with grain-exporting countries we devised a freight rate system that put our grain producers in the Canadian Wheat Board in a position in which they could compete. Now the government wants the farmers to pick up some more of the tab.
It is kicking them when they are down. I guess that is the way the Tories fight, that is the way they govern. They kick them when they are down.
We warned about this in the period from 1980 to 1984 when the Liberals were in power. We told them what would happen. They pooh-poohed us, would not believe us. Railway companies would not believe us and declared they would not be doing the things we said they would. They have done it. The railways are now applying to abandon even some of those rail lines that are guaranteed in the basic network until the year 2000. So much for their guarantees. So much for the government's guarantees. So much for the government's law that says that these are guaranteed in perpetuity.
Any benefit we were getting out of the Western Grain Transportation Act, supposedly in perpetuity, supposedly with guarantees, is being wiped out with a stroke of a pen by this government.
I do not understand why it has to do this. The impact it will have on the deficit is negligible. But the impact it will have on grain producers to the tune of about an additional $2 per tonne will be $2 per tonne less that they will spend in their communities. It will be be $2 a tonne less that they will spend on buying farm machinery which is manufactured in eastern Canada; $2 a tonne less to survive.
While thousands and thousands of our grain producers over the last several years have gone bankrupt and lost land that had been in their hands for three and four generations, the Tories, the Liberals, the press and free enterprise call it a recession.
In some respect what they are going through in western Canada right now is a depression and in some respect it is worse than what the grain farmers experienced in the dirty thirties. Tory times are tough times. Tory times and Liberal times are dirty times like the dirty thirties. It is time to put a stop to this.
We must not allow this to happen to our grain producers again. Enough is enough. I hope that hon. members will see that this has to be stopped. I hope that the Liberals will be willing to admit the errors of their ways and that they were wrong between 1980 and 1984.
Now they are opposing this kind of measure. They did not then. I hope that they will admit the errors of their ways and confess their sins of omission and commission. Vote for this amendment. I hope government members, particularly those of the three prairie provinces, will think twice before they vote for this kind of legislation.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden, who is a very senior and very distinguished member of this House, has made some rather silly statements in his speech. Frankly I was very very surprised.
I know that he is something of an elder statesman in this House and will not mind me referring to him as such. He has indicated he is not going to run in the next election. No doubt the House will miss him.
What I was surprised at was his outrageous suggestion that somehow because there were no Liberals in Saskatchewan at the moment, there would not be any after the next election. I suspect that he knows as well as I do that the people of Saskatchewan have woken to the reality that things have not worked properly for them, either under a Conservative government, which we all acknowledge and he will agree with me has been a
March 19, 1993

disaster for this country, and of course for his province with an NDP government. The Devine government was anything but divine for the people of Saskatchewan.
He had a further difficulty in that he suggested that somehow the NDP provincial government in that province had changed things around. It had a budget yesterday that changed things around all right. It is a change from the Tories, I agree, but it behaved just like the federal Tories.
A little while ago in Question Period, the minister was making some comment.


An hon. member:: Point of order.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: If the hon. member has a point she can get on her feet and raise it.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I think it would be nice if the hon. member would address the amendment.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is a smart idea.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It is a brilliant idea, Madam Speaker. I am doing that. I am simply responding to the hon. member's speech. He was making these comments during his speech. I am replying to the comment because I want to set the record straight. I did not want Canadians to feel that perhaps things were not accurately stated in this House.
Aside from his statement that this New Democratic government was doing the right thing, we had a budget that one of the ministers in Question Period was praising today because he said it was exactly the same kind of budget that the government had been introducing in this House all these years. I point it out to the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam who just raised this issue on a point of order that NDP governments behave just like Tory governments. They say one thing in opposition but they act just the opposite when they get in office.
For the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden to sit here and suggest that somehow our actions are the same as the government's is frankly outrageous. Our party is supporting this amendment. We have indicated our support for the amendment. We are voting for it as he
Government Orders
has indicated he is going to vote for it and we do support the amendment.
In case he was not clear on that, he seemed to have some inability to grasp, but we do support it and speakers on this side of the House have previously said that.
I urge him to bear in mind that we are. I urge him to speak to his colleagues in the NDP and suggest that perhaps they join the Liberal tide in Saskatchewan so they can get elected because I fear as he must that come the election there will not be any NDPers left in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia or anywhere else in this country.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, I am rising on the amendment. I want to say that the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden has not lost any of his fire over the years he has served in this House. It is always a treat to hear him.
I want to speak to the amendment and to the reasons this government is bringing forward the changes to the Crow rate. These reasons affect not just the prairies but also the west coast. They affect the grain workers in British Columbia. They also affect railway workers.
Last year the railway bypassed British Columbia, bypassed the Vancouver grain terminals and shipped Canadian grain to Seattle. They shipped that grain to Seattle for trans-shipment overseas on a trial basis. The trial failed. Seattle grain terminals were not clean. They were full of pesticides. They were full of rodents. The terminals were filthy.
At a port of destination, Canadian grain, which has always had a reputation for being of the highest standard in the world was found to be unacceptable and certainly not up to its normal standards. This bypassing of the grain terminals in British Columbia was abandoned. The trial did not work.
It is passing strange that this proposal to cut the Crow rate comes on the heels of this experiment. One would not want to presuppose that this government would be at all mischievous nor would one want to presuppose that this government was even so together as to be able to come at an issue from a number of fronts at the same time.

March 19, 1993
Government Orders
Here we have a trial run to bypass grain terminals in British Columbia with the railway, affecting grain and railway workers. Then we have a proposal, a piece of legislation introduced in the House to cut the Crow rate. Now the grain and railway workers in British Columbia have been advised that there are discussions going on to develop a north-south transportation route for grain. Guess where the terminals are going to be. The terminals are going to be in Mexico.
Is it not funny that this government is racing to ram through a North American free trade agreement? It is not just all the other jobs we have been talking about fleeing Canada and going to Mexico, now we are talking about Canadian grain going through Mexican terminals to other ports of entry.
This is the rumour and believe me the workers are worried. They have not been able to verify all of it but they certainly have a lot of bits of information that lead both the grain and railway workers to believe that is the intent of this government.
If this is the plan of the government not only are we facing cuts in Crow rates and other impacts on the other industries in British Columbia, we are now facing Canadian railway workers being bypassed for American railway workers and Canadian grain workers being bypassed for Mexican grain workers.
Here we will have a situation.
We have no control over the cleanliness of the terminals. We just heard today during Question Period that it is a proven fact and the Mexicans are admitting that they have no control over the environment, no control at all over how many or what kind of pesticides would be used in those terminals in Mexico.
Put all these little pieces together and you start to see a picture of deceit and collusion and funny-headed thinking about what is good for Canada.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan said: "If the Government of Canada could negotiate with the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission for a better way to cut freight subsidies why, I would ask you, could it not negotiate with the Canadian public sector workers for a better way to cut costs than to freeze their wages arbitrarily as it is doing in this bill?"
Here we have a government which took the time to negotiate with the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Committee for a better way to cut freight subsidies and then arbitrarily introduced legislation to freeze public sector workers' wages. The government has a legislative responsibility to negotiate with them.
It brings in a piece of legislation and says: "Here it is, no wage increase for you folks for two years. We are off negotiating with other people; we do not have time to negotiate with you".
I would suggest that again we see in this bill on three counts this government abrogating its responsibility to Canadians: a responsibility to Canadian workers to negotiate their wages; the responsibility to the west and the jobs in the west, to negotiate Crow rate changes, not arbitrarily implement then, but negotiate them as they did with the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission.
The third is to arbitrarily kick the heck out of unemployed workers in this country who have no control over what the government has done to this economy.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to put these issues before the people of Canada and I hope the government will rethink this bill, particularly as it comes to the Crow rate prior to this bill being put to a vote.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate. It is possible that we should actually consider debate on this amendment today to be the Les Benjamin memorial debate because for those of us who were not part of the House of Commons before 1984, there is a legend which exists.
That is the legend of the great Crow debate, the legend which led to New Democrat members from every conceivable constituency across Canada standing up to speak out in favour of the Crow benefit for western farmers.
I will tell you that the legend lives in our caucus. There are people who have never seen a field of wheat, who have never been to Saskatchewan, who made passionate speeches during that debate. They made passionate speeches because of the leadership which the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden gave to our caucus at that stage.

This is the last term which that member will be here as part of our caucus, unfortunately.
I want, as I start my comments on this, to pay tribute to his contribution over the years to the New Democratic Party. I also want to tell people across this country that debate and that fight took place at a time when the New Democratic Party was down in the polls. In fact, it took place at at time when we were much lower in the polls than we presently are. It was one of the key ingredients that demonstrated yet again to the people of Canada that there is one party that will stand up for average Canadians. There is one party which will fight on behalf of people who are not privileged, who are not rich, people who have been picked on and betrayed throughout their history. That has been the New Democratic Party. That will continue to be the New Democratic Party.
The fight that the member for Regina-Lumsden led back in 1984 and which has passed into the history and traditions of our caucus will be something which will continually be a source of inspiration to all of us who are part of this caucus.
Some members in the Liberal Party say this is an example of the New Democratic Party defending the status quo. Let me suggest it is an example of the New Democratic Party defending solemn promises made to the people of this country. I know that is something that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals understand, the notion of a solemn promise made by a government to the people.
The Liberal Party made a solemn promise to the people in western Canada that the Crow rate would exist forever. It is not surprising because it was a return for tremendous benefits, tremendous handouts given to the Canadian Pacific Railway. This was a tremendous giveaway in terms of tax, in terms of land, in terms of privileges of every sort. In return for that the Crow benefit was to be maintained in place forever, a sacred promise which the Liberals broke.
It was a sacred promise which they broke when they brought in the Western Grain Transportation Act, the WGTA. That too, though it broke a sacred promise,
Government Orders
offered a new sacred promise, that there would be benefits paid to the railways to keep the rates for grain transportation down in the future for all western grain transported in perpetuity. It was a sacred promise.
The Liberals broke one sacred promise but offered another. The Conservatives raged against that broken promise of the Liberals in 1984. I hope I am not mistaken. I suspect they stood up beside the member for Regina-Lumsden and said: "It is terrible that the Conservatives have to stand up for these promises that the Liberal Party is so abjectly breaking". Today we have this same Conservative Party breaking that further sacred promise and making things even worse for the people who produce and sell grain from western Canada.
How much of this damage is going to be inflicted on western farmers? The estimated reduction in transportation subsidies is estimated at $73 million for 1993-94; $104 million in 1994-95.
The retiring president of the National Parmers' Union has estimated that for western farmers it means an increase in transportation costs and therefore a reduction in the amount of money which they will receive for their grain of from $2 to $2.50 per tonne. That is a major bite at a time when all of us in the House of Commons know that western farmers are being hammered. They are being hit as never before, with the possible exception of the 1930s.
In the 1930s it could be put down to problems with weather, at least in part. What is hitting farmers in western Canada now is damage which is inflicted by the policies of the United States with respect to the massive subsidies for grain exports which it has put into place.
Once again in the House of Commons there is just one party standing up and saying that the broken promises of the Liberals in 1984 deserve to be remembered and the broken promises of the Conservatives in 1993 deserve to be remembered.
We are talking about a betrayal of faith, which is being carried out at a time when the farming population is on its knees and the economic conditions for farmers in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta are as devastating and desperate as they have ever been.

March 19, 1993
Government Orders
I cannot understand the heartlessness with which these promises have been broken. I cannot understand the lack of compassion and economic sense which is involved in breaking these promises because everybody who analyses the history economically knows that when our farm communities in western Canada have done well, this country has done well.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the chance to put these comments on the record. I hope the government will accept some of our amendments to eliminate some of the broken promises that it intends to put in place with respect to the WGTA.
had read about Cuba. In the 1950s in Cuba children	I
starved. They died very young from lack of food because	I
the good agricultural land produced one crop, sugar.	I
Sugar was sold abroad to make rich the few people who	I
controlled the sugar industry and to pay starvation	I
wages to the Cuban people who worked to produce it.	I
That situation has changed. For the last 30 years Cuba	I
has moved toward producing its own food. It should	I
always have done that but it took a revolution by the	I
Cuban people to bring in a government which would	I
make it possible for Cuban people to use Cuban land to	H
feed the people.	H


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a point in the debate regarding western transportation, the original Crow rate and the subsequent western grain rate that replaced it.
I want to explain why, as a person with no direct contact with grain farming in the west or even in Ontario, I feel very strongly on this point, along with the rest of the NDP.
I grew up thinking that I was growing up in an agricultural country, a country that produced food to feed its people and even food to sell to the rest of the world. In the last few years I have begun to wonder when I found that farmers are being forced off the land. It happened when I was a kid during the depression. It happened partly because of a massive drought in the west and also because, as one old farmer said to me bitterly, they were selling their beef at one cent a pound in the depression.
But it is happening again without massive drought, without a world-wide depression of the same sort, but with something like a depression, with deliberate restructuring ol the economy of North America and other places by a few very powerful companies such as Cargill. These companies have great power to influence the decisions of government in their favour.
It is no longer certain that the land of Canada will feed the people of Canada. That might sound fantastic and ridiculous but for 15 years I have grown concerned about that when I learned Canada was exporting more and more beef cattle and hogs, and importing more and more sides of meat from as far away as Australia.
I began to wonder if we would lose the ability for Canadians to feed Canadians. Then I thought of what I
Mexico is a closer example. In the last 10 or 12 years the Mexican people have been eating less food. The consumption of food in Mexico has decreased by one-third. They eat only two-thirds as much food as they used to eat around 1980. This is not because the population has shrunk, if anything it has grown. But they eat less food.
One-third of the food they do eat is imported. What went before that was the gradual year by year destruction of the family farm, the campesino. The ejido, the communal lands protected by the Constitution, enabled a large number of Mexican campesino or farmers to produce the corn, rice, and beans they needed, plus a little over to sell to the people in the cities.
Those people are being forced off their land by changes in the Constitution brought about by Salinas at the direction of international capital so that the farmers will be pushed off their land. The Government of Mexico has reduced the subsidies to the farmers for irrigation, herbicides, pesticides and farm equipment. They can no longer compete with imported corn.
Corn grown in Iowa in the United States sells in Mexico for less than the price that the campecinos must charge in order to live because the United States subsidizes Iowa corn at $12 billion per year. This is more than the whole budget of the department of agriculture in Mexico.
Those farmers are being forced off their land in Mexico. Farmers are being forced off their land in Canada. It is not by drought or world-wide depression, but by the decisions of large corporations and by the decision of this government. This government is forcing farmers off their land by reducing the possibility of
March 19, 1993

farmers being paid what it costs to produce and sell wheat. It is forcing them to leave the land.
The beneficiary will be the great American-based corporations such as Cargill that will take over the land as corporation farms. Then they will be able to raise the price of wheat, flour and bread to anything they please in Canada. They will control the supplies in Canada. They will control the supplies that we can import from the United States or anywhere else. They will be able to push the price of basic food in Canada sky-high.
This government through legislation like this is giving them the opportunity to do this. This government is giving away the birthright of Canadians. It is giving away the control of our best farm land by raising the transportation costs the farmers must pay.
This government signed an unequal treaty with the United States which says that the United States can subsidize the Mississippi transportation system to 100 per cent and take Canadian grain down to New Orleans. But Canada cannot subsidize the transportation of grain through Canada to the west coast or the east coast.
One simple little gimmick does it. It is because the United States treats the Mississippi as a military installation, maintained by the U.S. Army Engineering Corps and therefore a subsidy is not a subsidy. However, Canada is prevented from doing anything similar.
It is clearly the United States which has directed the Government of Canada to introduce this disastrous law. It will have the effect of destroying a great many more family farms in Canada. Eventually Canadians will pay intolerable prices for the flour and bread produced. The price will be controlled from outside Canada by companies that have no interest in whether Canadian farmers can farm or whether Canadians can eat.
Shame on this government.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate this very important topic. The member from Trinity-Spadina eloquently pinned it down in his speech. What we are talking about is the cost of food and the supply of food.
Government Orders
What could be more important? What could be more important to a country with a traditional agricultural past like Canada has? What could be more important for a country than to be independent?
I know the independence of this country is slipping away. People sense that. That is the problem the Conservatives are going to have in their leadership campaign. It will come up in their attempt to hang onto office. They are not going to make it because they have basically been giving away this country piece by piece and people sense that. People want new policies to protect Canada.


An hon. member:: Liberal policies.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My friend says Liberal policies. No, not Liberal policies because in this very issue talking about the Crow rate and transportation rates, I was in the House when the Liberals brought in the changes. They started it. I remember that debate well.
The member for Essex-Windsor paid tribute to one of our great colleagues here in the House, the member for Regina-Lumsden. I recall his leading us; he was leading the pack. We started as a dishevelled pack but ended up being pretty effective at the end of that debate.
I vividly recall the debate and I recall the contribution of the member for Regina-Lumsden. He led the debate and taught me at the time a little bit about farm economics. For someone who represents a suburban riding in British Columbia that was important. There were a lot of details about the Crow rate. We went through all the details, up and down the details.
The thing that sticks in my mind is basically what the member for Trinity-Spadina was getting at. The member for Trinity-Spadina represents an urban riding, right downtown. What he was getting at is that we people from urban and suburban ridings have to understand that it is important to protect the family farm and farmers in Canada. If we do not it will mean in the long run that people from outside this country will control our farms and the price of our food. We cannot really have an independent country if we have that.

March 19, 1993
Government Orders
Before I leave the dastardly deeds of the previous Liberal government which started this problem, I did want to pay tribute, as the member from Windsor did, to my retiring colleague, the member for Regina-Lums-den, for his leadership in this issue and in other issues in this House, especially transportation issues. We used to call him "Boxcar Benjamin". That was a term of endearment because he would raise the railway issues all the time. They were important issues.
People will say to us: "New Democrats, the world is changing. It is a global economy. You cannot protect the status quo. You cannot do these things". At first it sounds good that it is a new global economy and we have to make changes in the old way Canada was operating. However, there is a limit to what those changes could be.
If we get rid of the family farm for big, corporate, foreign-controlled farms, we are not going to have control over future farming in Canada. People will say to someone on the west coast and this is happening now in the Port of Vancouver: "Well, we are just going to let some of that grain go down to Seattle or we will let some goods that are being shipped be picked up by trucks south of Alberta or south of British Columbia and connect it through that way. We will make it cheaper to go that way". Many of my constituents depend on the Port of Vancouver. Gradually what will happen is that those of us who depend on that port will see it decline. The lesson is this talk of: "Well, it is all in the global economy".
As the member for Trinity-Spadina pointed out, the Americans are subsidizing the Mississippi route, giving $12 billion to their farmers, more than the entire budget of the poor Mexican department of agriculture. Let us get into the real world and forget the propaganda.
In the real world one has to fight for survival and that is why Canada has been a great country. The Conservatives under Sir John A. Macdonald, a man for whom I might have even voted, he being a Scotsman, a lawyer, a good speaker and besides, the New Democratic Party was not around in 1867, had a national vision of Canada. He had a national policy. The policy was to link the east and the west. This government is de-linking it, making it north and south. Eventually it is going to join Canada with the United States. That is the agenda. That is the corporate agenda, to sell the country out so we will no longer have a country.
People wonder why NDP members get up and fight these battles. It is because we love Canada. We are getting into these fights in this battle over changes in the transportation subsidies and in the way we deal with our farmers in Canada.
People ask: "Why are you standing up to support the Canadian farmer? You are from the west coast". My answer is that the fate of my constituents on the west coast is tied to the fate of the Canadian farmers. Their survival is tied to the survival of my constituents and their jobs.
The New Democratic Party is the only party so far in this coming election to have put forward a job creation strategy. It is out there for everybody to see.
People are now focusing on a Conservative leadership on personalities or on the Liberals and personalities. I have been through one of those leadership campaigns. I challenge the members in the leadership to put out some policy so all Canadians can see it. Bill Clinton did that when he ran for President of the United States. He actually put out some policy. He said to people-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to know what that has to do with this bill.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I was getting to that. I am glad you asked that question, Mr. Speaker.
What it has to do with this bill is our attack on the provisions of this bill in withdrawing the transportation subsidies. I suggest that people look at these notes from the National Farmers' Union. The changes in this bill would be phased in commencing August 1, 1994 over a four-year period by increasing the farmers' share of grain freight rates by $5 a tonne annually for three years and bringing farmers to payment of full compensatory rates in the fourth year.
In fact, what the government intends to do is break the promise and trust of the farmers. It is going to break the family farm. It is going to attack those on the west coast in the Port of Vancouver and the transportation system there.
We in the New Democratic Party say no. There is an alternative. We have an alternative economic policy and we have an alternate transportation policy. We hope that this House and Canadians will look at these policies as a real alternative to this government which is selling out Canada and will destroy this country.
March 19, 1993


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins -Chapleau) moved:: Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-113 be amended in Clause 18 by striking out line 38 at page 7 and lines 1 to 3 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"ment exists where any of the following circumstances applied to the claimant:".
Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-113 be amended in Clause 18 by striking out lines 31 and 32 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"(n) formal promise of increase in wages or salary that was not fulfilled;
(o)	unjustified reduction in wages or salary;
(p)	loss in wages or salary due to employer's financial difficulties;
(q)	wages or salary that are less than provided for by legislation;
(r)	intolerable working conditions;
(r) unreasonable work requirements;
(t)	moral objections to employer's practices that are contrary to professional ethics, the law or regulations;
(u)	moral objections to employer's illegal activities or employer's activities that violate freedom of conscience;
(v)	place of work distant from family and serious sickness in the family;
(w)	exertion by employer of excessive pressures to retire;
(x)	working conditions that, in the opinion of a medical practitioner, adversely affect the person's health;
(y)	working conditions considered, on credible and convincing explanations by the claimant, as adversely affecting the claimant's health;
(z)	long period of separation from family due to distance of place of work from family residence;
(ad) moving because of impending marriage;
(bb) decision to start a business or to become self-employed;
(cc) ceasing to act as strike-breaker;
(dd) refusal by employer to grant leave of absence for incapacity to work due to a difficult pregnancy;
(ee) refusal to grant leave of absence to take care of any adopted child;
(ff) need to attend a course of instruction on the recommendation of the Commission;
(gg) refusal to perform job duties on grounds of objections based on religious beliefs;
(hh) failure to re-enlist for a further term of service in the Canadian Forces;
(ii) abusive treatment from co-workers;
(jj) serious or unsolvable transportation problems;

March 19, 1993
Government Orders
(kk) in the case of a minor, having to move with parents;
(It) intolerable living conditions related to employment, particularly with respect to accommodation, food or other physical aspects;
(mm) disciplinary action that is clearly disproportionate; and (nn) such other circumstances as are reasonable."


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if you would have the name of the member for Mission- Coquitlam as a seconder of those motions of the member for Timmins-Chapleau.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Those motions of the member for Timmins-Chapleau will be seconded by the member for Mission-Coquitlam.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-113 be amended in Clause 18 by adding immediately after line 32 at page 8 the following:
"(5) A claimant is not disqualified from receiving benefits under this Part unless the Commission establishes, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the claimant had no just cause under subsection (4) for leaving the claimant's employment."
Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-113 be amended in Clause 18 by adding immediately after line 32 at page 8 the following:
"(5) For the purposes of paragraph (4)(&), "spouse", in relation to a person, includes a person of the opposite sex who has been cohabiting with that person in a conjugal relationship for at least one year."
Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-113 be amended in Clause 19
(a)	by striking out line 11 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"fied under paragraph 27(l)(a) or (b) or section 28, the"; and
(b)	by striking out line 23 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"ing of a disqualification under section 27 or 28".
Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-113 be amended in Clause 20 by striking out lines 32 to 46 at page 9 and lines 1 to 17 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"disqualification is for such weeks for which benefit would otherwise be payable following the claimant's waiting period as are determined pursuant to subsection (2).
(2) The number of weeks of a disqualification under section 28 shall be:
(a)	for a first disqualification, not less than seven nor more than twelve, as determined by the Commission;
(b)	for a second disqualification, twelve; and
(c)	for any subsequent disqualification, fifty-two."
Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-113 be amended in Clause 20 by striking out lines 3
to 16 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"tial claim for benefit, the weeks of insurable employment before the week in which the event giving rise to the disqualification occurs, and the weeks of insurable employment in any employment that the claimant loses, after the event, shall be used for the purposes of subsection 6(2) or (3).
(5) The weeks of insurable employment mentioned in subsection (4) shall be used for the purposes of sub-".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the intention of this bill is that as a result of the Minister of Finance's economic statement, the Minister of Employment and Immigration will bring the expenditures of the bill under control. This is something that I very strenuously differ with. The expenditures of the Unemployment Insurance Commission are out of control, not as a result of the unemployed but as a result of the economic policies of this government.
The purpose of my amendments is to attempt to bring some sensitivity and some sense to the changes within the UI portion of Bill C-113.
There has been an awful lot of emphasis put on voluntarily leaving one's employment and relating that to just cause. For the record, I would like to read into the record the definition of the word voluntary. I got this definition from the dictionary. It says that voluntary is: "done, acting, able to act of one's own free will, not constrained or compulsory, intentional". That is the definition.
Given that definition, I do not think that there is anyone in Canada today who leaves his or her job voluntarily. Everyone has a reason for leaving his or her job.
The problem is that it is a good reason, but according to the commission and the act it may not be a just cause reason. The onus and burden of proving that just cause is on the backs of the unemployed.
We have at our disposal a document that I have called a "but book". It describes a situation in which a person has just cause to leave his or her employment, but there are many conditions that must be met. This "but book"
March 19, 1993

now has been transposed and it has been put into this grey bible that we received from the commission.
I would just like to refer to it for a moment as it pertains to the case of sexual or other harassment. It states, among other things on the page, and rightfully so, that harassment of any kind is unacceptable, whether of a sexual nature or otherwise, intimidation, threats, blackmail, abuse of authority or poisoned work environment, whether by superiors or co-workers. I agree with that whole-heartedly, but the part that follows is what causes me some concern.
This grey bible lists reasonable alternatives for an employee who is sexually or otherwise harassed to follow. That is where the problem lies. As an alternative, a person who is sexually harassed must speak to the employer. If that employer happens to be the person who is doing the harassing then how can this employee be expected to face that employer? If the employer is despicable enough to be sexually harassing an employee how can that employee in all good faith go to that employer and say that the employer has to stop it? That will only cause more harassment.
People must explore the possibility of a transfer to another unit. If the employer is the person who is causing the harassment does anyone think for one minute that the employer is going to be willing to transfer people, to say that they are right, he has been harassing them so he will transfer them to another unit. Does anyone really think that is going to happen? I do not think so.
They must seek assistance of the union or association. They must follow the grievance procedure. They must use the provisions of the collective agreement. They must go through all of this process prior to proving just cause.
On the same page, under the title of Just Cause, it says: "No other reasonable alternative to quitting. Existing reasonable alternatives cannot resolve the situation. The harassment is intolerable for any period of time. Not necessary to undertake or to await the result of a tribunal hearing in respect to the employment or human rights". That last part causes some problems not only for me but for the agents who are hearing the evidence put to them as it relates to just cause for sexual harassment.
Government Orders
It is not necessary to undertake or await the result of a tribunal hearing.
When we look through this grey bible we can see that every section relates to what the claimant must do. I would like to relate some of the cases for applying just cause. There is a case of an employee who is 18 years old and is being harassed by her employer to do more work. She must tolerate shift changes on very short or no notice at all. The claimant worked from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. in a gas station. She worked from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. in the kitchen and she worked from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m., also in the kitchen.
The case is too long to read all its parts, but the point is, and it is not the only part that involves this case, it is a matter of this employee not having the ability to even correspond with her employer. She tried to speak to the employer but he was not there. She tried to speak to the kitchen manager but that person was not there on numerous occasions, so she finally had to tell her co-worker that she was leaving.
The adjudicator or the agent who saw this case said that this employee did not have just cause for leaving her employment and as a result disqualified her for nine weeks and reduced her benefits to 50 per cent.
When we look at numerous cases and talk about people leaving their employment for various reasons one wonders, when we talk about the jurisprudence and we talk about the 40 just cause reasons, as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Employment and Immigration referred to them, we can cite time after time various cases in which people have been harassed.
Here is another one. It concerns a 45-year old woman. The agent says: "According to the information presented with your claim for benefit you voluntarily left your job without just cause. You are therefore disqualified from receiving UI benefits for seven weeks and you will get a reduction in your benefits to 50 per cent".
If we look at the evidence there are three and one-half pages of written testimony from this 45-year old woman who was sworn at and told that she was despicable and did not know how to dress properly. She was put under such stress that her blood pressure soared to 220 over 150. She was told if she did not quit she was headed for a stroke or maybe a heart attack.

March 19, 1993
Government Orders
There is half a page from the employer that says: "In closing, I feel the remarks made about myself go beyond the sour grapes of a disgruntled employee and I will be forwarding a copy to my lawyer for an opinion on my legal rights".
This is clearly a case in which an employee made a claim to an agent and said: "I had to quit, I have no other recourse". The information was made available to the employer, and now the employer is going to seek legal action.
To add insult to injury, this woman lost benefits for seven weeks and her benefits were reduced to 50 per cent. Is that just cause? What determines just cause?
When we talk about the problems that exist today and when I look at legislation, I look for legislation that will make things better for people, that will do what it is supposed to do.
Allow me to quote a letter from the Attorney General addressed to myself dated March 5, 1993 in keeping with what I have been saying, which is that the decisions by adjudicators, by agents are inconsistent and that the 40 reasons of which we have heard are not being applied. Mr. Speaker, please allow me two quick remarks on that point to emphasize what I am saying.
The Attorney General says: "In paragraph 3.188 of the 1991 annual report we further reported that penalties were still applied inconsistently". He goes on to say: "As you can appreciate the application of penalties requires close monitoring and as such is an ongoing concern of the commission".
I also have a copy of a letter that was addressed to the chairman of the legislative committee that heard our arguments in regard to this legislation. It is from an employee representative on a hearing commission. In the letter this officer states: "I have heard reference to 40 reasons that will be allowed. I do not know what they are and if 40 reasons are contemplated then the public has a right to know what you are considering and I request a copy".
Mr. Speaker, I know you are being very generous and I appreciate that. My point is that my amendments would include those 40 reasons in the legislation, and would include a common law spouse. I am told the policy is that they are accepted, but it is not in the legislation.
My amendments are friendly amendments. In the strongest terms I urge everyone to support these amendments and I do thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to comment on the motions presented by the hon. member for Timmins- Chapleau.
I would like to consider these motions one by one and comment accordingly. Motions Nos. 7 and 8 standing in the name of the hon. member are actually an attempt to expand the definition of just cause. This definition is found in clause 18 of the bill. Although there is no objection to the motion as such, the motion is unnecessary because the 13 reasons listed under clause 18 of the bill already cover the vast majority of the additional reasons proposed by the hon. member. I will remind hon. members that paragraph 28(4)(n) of clause 18 allows for prescribing regulations, which could easily serve the same purpose as the changes proposed by the hon. member.
Finally, all the reasons proposed by the hon. member are already part of the jurisprudence and, as such, are binding on the commission's officers, who must take these into account when making their decision. Unemployment Insurance officers cannot ignore the forty or fifty reasons recognized in the jurisprudence when they make a decision on the eligibility of a claimant.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to comment briefly on motion No. 9. It would require from the commission a standard of proof applicable to criminal cases "beyond any reasonable doubt". I may remind the hon. member that the Unemployment Insurance Act is social legislation, not criminal legislation providing for punishment, as does the Criminal Code. That is why I cannot support this motion.
Motion No. 10 proposes to include in the Unemployment Insurance Act a definition of the term spouse that adds the concept of common law spouse. I admit that the principle which inspired the hon. member for Timmins- Chapleau is sound, but I cannot support this motion
March 19, 1993

because it is not entirely necessary. Practically speaking, people who have lived together for at least one year are already treated as spouses according to UIC policy. In this respect, I may refer the hon. member to page G-45, chapter 6 of the guide. I would be delighted to send him a copy if he is interested.
I will now consider motions Nos. 11 and 13. There are two objectives here: first, to reinstate the system that existed prior to Bill C-113, and second, to introduce a three-stage disqualification system which would be based on the claimant's record of disqualification.
Even if these motions did not exceed the scope of this bill, I would object in any case, since the government has made it clear that individuals who leave a job voluntarily and without just cause should not have access to unemployment insurance benefits. These two motions would destroy the principle of the bill, and this of course means they are entirely unacceptable.
Finally, Motion No. 14 would provide that individuals leaving a job without just cause would be able to use the weeks of insurable employment preceding their voluntary departure to qualify again for benefits. This motion would lead to situations where individuals would leave a job without any penalty whatsoever. You will understand why the government cannot accept this motion.
As for the matter raised by the hon. member concerning sexual harassment, there are a few things I would like to say. The only reasonable alternative does not mean that the employee must speak to the employer if she is harassed. That would only be the case if the harassment came from someone else. It means the employee must at least make an effort to correct the situation, if at all possible. In some cases, the individual will not have to speak to the employer.
When there is just cause, there is nevertheless a procedure that says the employee must make a reasonable attempt to correct the situation. This applies to all cases of just cause. An attempt must be made at one's place of work to correct the situation. If that is impossible, then there is just cause because the situation cannot be changed. This also applies to sexual harassment.
Government Orders
In concluding, I would like to go back briefly to the motion which deals with the definition of common law spouse. I repeat, the principle which inspired the hon. member has great merit, but in practice, unemployment insurance officers have specific guidelines that provide that a common law spouse is to be treated as a spouse in the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Therefore it is unnecessary to have a debate on an amendment that is redundant and unnecessary, since in practice, the treatment of these cases is already fair and equitable.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I thank the member for Timmins-Chapleau for his amendment.
We have heard debate on both sides of this amendment. I want to put this amendment in the context of the bill and give a few ideas I have dealing specifically with the amendment but also with the bill in general.
What we are talking about here are changes to the UI program which are included in Bill C-113. These were first proposed by the Minister of Finance on December 2 here in the House of Commons. The changes involved the following: That the new UI benefit rate for new beneficiaries would be reduced from 60 per cent to 57 per cent of insurable earnings as of April 1, 1993, which is just a few days away; second, and this is the contentious issue, that people who voluntarily leave their jobs without just cause, as defined by section 28 of the UI Act, or lose their jobs through personal misconduct will no longer receive UI benefits.
Let us put that into the context of the state of the UI fund. You will see what effect it is going to have. There are a few people in this House and in Canada who know that the unemployment insurance program is the federal government's single largest expenditure for 1993 of almost $22 billion.
What does that mean? It means that more money is spent on the UI program than on national defence, Old Age Security or the total administration of the federal government. That is what we are dealing with here today.

March 19, 1993
Government Orders
Before 1990 the federal government's contribution to the UI fund was about 20 per cent. In 1990 the government decided that general revenues would no longer contribute to the UI fund. How was it going to do it then? The fund was going to be financed by UI premiums paid by employees and employers.
How did it raise all this money? These premiums have been raised since 1990, first by a 24 per cent increase in July 1991 and then by another 7.1 per cent increase in January 1992. Revenues collected from these premiums totalled almost $18 billion for 1992-93. Despite such revenues the cost of the program has climbed $7 billion since 1990.
Why? It is due in large part to an unemployment rate which has gone from 8.1 per cent in 1990 to 10.3 per cent in 1991 to 11.3 in 1992. I think in fairness that we have to say that this could be directly attributable to the policies of the present government. Because of the steadily rising UI costs the UI fund is in a deficit position. The cumulative deficit is $4.9 billion.
With that as a background, just what effect will the changes in Bill C-113 have on the UI fund? Surely if we are going to make changes they will tend to clear up the deficit. Let us have a look at some of the figures.
The government expects that cutting the benefit rate from 60 per cent to 57 per cent and eliminating UI benefits for voluntary leavers and those who are fired from their jobs will save a total of $2.5 billion over two years. Nonetheless, even with these cuts the deficit in the UI fund is expected to rise to $7.6 billion by the end of 1993. That is up from $4.9 billion now, as we speak.
It is clear therefore that the effect of the changes in Bill C-113 will be negligible. If the purpose of the government in introducing these changes was to control spending as was stated by the minister in December 1992, it can be said in fairness that the government has failed.
We have to ask another question. What effect will these changes have on Canadian society? It has been shown that the measures proposed in this bill will not reduce or even contain a deficit of the UI fund. It is also clear that the changes do not target cheaters and by
going after quitters the restrictions are aimed at a relatively small section of the UI recipients.
It is safe to say therefore that the government in this instance is simply cutting for the sake of cutting without any all-encompassing vision of what the UI program should be doing and without any idea of how the program could be made to work better.
The stated purpose of hunting down and punishing quitters is nothing more than a convenient fiction used to distract people from the real issue. The government does not know what to do about Canada's unemployment crisis and that is the real problem. Unfortunately the price to be paid by society in general for these relatively inconsequential and ineffective cuts could be quite high.
In 1990 the government enacted the latest UI restrictions and thousands of families were thrown into poverty. The percentage of unemployed workers covered by the program dropped from 70 per cent to 58 per cent. Where did these people go? They had to eat. They had to live some place. They had to keep their families going.
If the proposed changes in this bill become law those people no longer eligible for unemployment insurance will have to turn to the already overtaxed welfare system that is for the most part covered by the cities.
The Conservatives, this government, have clearly decided to attack the unemployed rather than attack the scourge of unemployment. Under this proposal Canadians will bear the burden of proof in establishing their just cause for leaving their jobs.
In 1986 I recall the Conservatives established the Forget commission which presented recommendations which would have gutted the UI system as we know it. However, even Claude Forget, the head of the study questions the Tory measures calling them "a political miscalculation and economically just an empty gesture, a waste of time and of political credibility".
Not even their ideological soul mates are with the Conservatives on these measures. The measure dealing with just cause will discourage legitimate complaints about sexual harassment and substandard working conditions.
March 19, 1993

Immigrant women and non-unionized workers will be even more vulnerable at the work place as a result of these changes. The government should not support measures which chain a worker to a particular job regardless of the treatment received from an employer. This is Canada. This is 1993. We are not at the stage where we used to have people come over in servitude. Surely in this day and age we can be a little more compassionate with our Canadian confreres.
The UI program is designed to provide income replacement and to promote labour flexibility and mobility. Many people will be discouraged from seeking better employment opportunities for themselves given this punitive and Draconian measure. Many workers will be forced to stay at low paying and dead end jobs. Is that what we want for our Canadian workers? I suggest it is not.
If this legislation passes the UI system could find itself buried under an avalanche of appeals, literally hundreds of thousands of appeals. In 1991, 191,000 UI applicants were held to have quit their jobs without just cause and were penalized. About 19,000 of these rulings were reversed. Why if everything was so fair and above board?
Resources of the department are stretched in dealing with this level of appeals. It is ludicrous to believe that a department could cope with 190,000 appeals. Should it attempt to do so? It is entirely likely the standards of just cause will be applied in an inconsistent and arbitrary fashion.
I remember the police, the squealer police or whatever they are called. If we thought our neighbours were doing wrong we would call the police: send in the cops and make sure they were punished and penalized for losing their jobs or leaving a job they could not stand.
We have come a long way since 1984. A 1991 Economic Council of Canada report found that people who quit their jobs were not a drain on the UI fund. In an analysis of 1986 the unemployed figures show that half of all job quitters went to another job immediately. Another 43 per cent found new jobs within 10 weeks. By contrast, one in five persons who lost their jobs found work immediately and another 50 per cent had found work within 10 weeks.
Government Orders
I know that time is running short. I want to leave this thought with the House. The people of Canada want to work. They want good paying jobs to support themselves and their families. I suggest to the House that if this bill is passed it will call into question the honest, hard working people of Canada who in a time of need had the Government turn its back on them and literally throw them on to the welfare rolls.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, shame on the government. It is sad to say we are debating a bill that does not have one redeeming factor.
As I said earlier when I spoke on the bill, not only does it attack unemployed workers when they are down, when they are hurting the most, when they are faced with double digit unemployment, it attacks Public Service workers who work for the unemployed in unemployment centres. We have workers who for economic reasons, because of failed economic policies of this government, are unemployed and on unemployment insurance. They are now being penalized, harassed and threatened. They are guilty until they can prove their innocence. We also have public sector workers whose wages have been frozen, who have to work in understaffed UI centres and somehow have to accommodate and work with angry unemployed workers whose benefits are being yanked back by the government. We have two sets of workers this government is managing to mesh into one piece of legislation.
I want to address most of my remarks to the additional clauses introduced by the UI critic for my party, the member for Timmins-Chapleau, concerning legitimate just cause. The hon. member pointed out that the government had touted 40 reasons why one could quit a job but in fact spelled out less than half of them in the bill. Why would that be? Are 27 of the reasons secret? Do we have secret reasons and public reasons? Why would the government not have included all 40 reasons in the bill rather than only 13 of them?


An hon. member:: A lucky number.


Joy Langan: Lucky number 13 is not so lucky for the workers of Canada, but maybe the government figures it is a lucky number.

March 19, 1993
Government Orders
I want to address some of the reasons the hon. member has added in his amendment, such as a formal promise of increase in wages or salary that was not fulfilled. Formal promise is equal to a contract. If somebody breaks a contract is that not just cause for leaving the work place? Or, are we setting up a situation wherein the government is providing a scenario so that the employer can now renege on agreements and know that the worker cannot make a move because the worker will not be able to collect unemployment insurance if the employer does not live up to his end of the agreement?
The second reason that the hon. member has in his amendment is unjustified reduction in wages or salary. That is not just cause for leaving a work place, a wage cut. A worker goes to work with a commitment that he or she will receive certain compensation for doing that work. Now the scenario is that an employer can say arbitrarily: "You will take a wage cut. You have nowhere to go because unemployment insurance is cut off for you". Shame.
Loss in wages or salary due to the employer's financial difficulty is another reason. What can the employer do if he or she has financial difficulty? There are several remedies the employer could seek. The employer could seek funding from financial institutions. The employer could seek bankruptcy. It is not pleasant but it is available to an employer. An employer could in fact cut workers' wages. What does the worker have to do? The worker has no options because he or she is caught again by this bill which leaves him or her guilty of something if he or she withdraws his or her labour.
Intolerable working conditions, unreasonable work requirements, wages or salaries that are less than provided for by legislation, or an employer who does not pay minimum wage are other reasons. A worker has to stay there and work because the government says that worker has no right to unemployment insurance. It is shameful.
Moral objections to the employer's illegal activities or employer's activities that violate freedom of conscience are not cause under the Unemployment Insurance Act for quitting a job. Place of work distant from family and serious sickness in the family are not causes under the Unemployment Insurance Act to quit a job.
Exertion by employer of excessive pressures to retire is not cause to collect unemployment insurance any more. In this economic climate many employers are putting pressure on older workers to retire.
Working conditions that in the opinion of a medical practitioner adversely affect the person's health are not cause under this bill to quit a job. Shame. A doctor says this job is going to kill you but this government says you have to stay in it because it will not give you unemployment insurance while you seek another job. It is shameful.
Working conditions considered on credible and convincing explanations by the claimant as adversely affecting the claimant's health are not just cause. Again, too bad about the employee's health. The government says the employee has to keep working and cannot collect unemployment insurance.
Long periods of separation from family due to distance of place of work from family residence is not just cause. This is a country where we have all kinds of industry with camp living: fly in and fly out. Marriages can hardly survive. They have very tough times surviving because the workers have to leave home for long periods of time. We could even say that for members of Parliament. We know about fly in and fly out work conditions and how tough it is to keep the family together. But it is too bad for workers. It is not just cause to leave a job to try to save a marriage, to save a family, and be at home with kids who are having problems. Those are not just causes under this government legislation.
If the government really thought about the conditions being created for Canadian workers and what it was really saying to Canadian workers, after sober reflection it would probably withdraw this bill with a whole bunch of shame. The government's attitude is: if you quit your job in this country you are a cheat; if you quit your job in this country you want to go skiing; if you quit your job in this country you are lazy or if you quit your job in this country you are guilty until you are proven innocent.
If that is what a Tory Canada is all about, I would suggest the government had better hasten its way to the electoral ballot box. I do not believe most Canadians
.fe
March 19, 1993

think this is what our Canada is about. I suspect there may be a change of heart when the election comes and the government finds itself with a bunch of amendments as it sits in opposition. Then we will amend this bill so the workers of Canada are treated with dignity and respect and are innocent until proven guilty.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to talk about men and women who have left their jobs voluntarily and about the fact that this bill proposes they should not receive any unemployment insurance benefits if they left without a good reason.

What I have discovered in discussing this bill and the new penalty provision with many of my constituents is that the presentation of the issue, I suppose particularly by the minister, has resulted in a great deal of misunderstanding among the general public about what the existing rules are for unemployment insurance in the event people leave their jobs voluntarily without just cause.
The minister through his rhetoric has managed to convey to many Canadians the notion that lots and lots of people are quitting their jobs, that this fact is causing a large expenditure of public money, and that unless this bill is brought in these people will simply get UI without problem and very easily.
Many constituents to whom I have spoken have the notion that people who quit their jobs voluntarily are not at the moment subject to any penalty for doing so. That impression in itself is not correct. The existing law provides for a penalty of a minimum of seven and a maximum of twelve weeks without benefits in the event of somebody quitting a job without just cause.
Surely the starting point is that Canadians need to understand this is a phenomenon subject to penalty already and it is not necessary to have this particular bill passed to penalize people who quit their jobs without just cause.
The second notion is that these quitters are causing a major drain on the fund. It is important to understand that the number of people who actually quit their jobs is relatively limited and has been declining over past years. In fact the number who quit their jobs at the peak of the
Government Orders
economic cycle in 1988 was much higher than now. This reflects the fact that people do not quit their jobs readily when they know times are tough. They may be more inclined to do so when they are better able to find another job. According to a 1991 Economic Council of Canada report, about half the people who quit their jobs voluntarily do so to go to other jobs. About 43 per cent of the remainder find new jobs within 10 weeks.
We also know, according to the Economic Council of Canada, may it rest in peace, only 1.5 per cent to 1.7 per cent of the unemployment rate consists of people who left their jobs voluntarily. The notion that this is the remedy for the UI deficit is ridiculous. That is just not the point.
The next thing I want to raise so people understand is that the existing system of a penalty of seven to twelve weeks where people quit their jobs without just cause provides, for the adjudicator of unemployment insurance claims, the ability to weigh the merits of the reasons for quitting their jobs, consider their credibility in making the statements made for giving reasons, and judge what the appropriate penalty should be.
When people come in and say they are applying for UI benefits because they quit their jobs, the first stage is to determine whether or not they had just cause. The second stage is if they did not have just cause, what degree of penalty is appropriate in that case. That is the existing law. When the UI law was initially reformed in a major way in 1971, the penalty for quitting a job was one to three weeks. It was later increased to a maximum of six weeks. It was then increased to a minimum of seven and a maximum of twelve.
Although it changed throughout that period of time, there was always a discretion involved in determining what the appropriate period of disqualification was.
This bill has made a major change in that, not just by increasing the extent of the penalty but by narrowing the discretion to one which must be exercised either in favour of the claimant by saying yes this person quit with just cause, in which case no penalty is applicable, or at the other extreme this person did not have just cause and the penalty is no benefits whatsoever. It is sort of the capital punishment of unemployment insurance penalties.

Government Orders
The essence of mitigation, of figuring out whether somebody took appropriate steps in the circumstances, or tried to but gave to the insurance officer an ability to use some discretion, is lost. To my mind it entirely undermines a system on which years of jurisprudence have accumulated in determining what is just cause and what is the appropriate degree of penalty that should be meted out to somebody who quits his or her job.
I did not bother to bring in the decisions of the unemployment insurance umpire and the Federal Court on this issue. It is sufficient to say there is a large range of cases that have dealt with issues of voluntary quitting or dismissal for misconduct and determinations made as to what the appropriate penalty was.
What we do know is that under the existing system in which the penalty period is a range of weeks of disqualification from seven to twelve, the average penalty given to people who are found to have quit voluntarily without just cause is just over eight weeks. In other words, the average penalty is close to the minimum one.
It reflects the fact that adjudicators under the Unemployment Insurance Act, in considering whether people have just cause to quit, usually come to the conclusion that although they did not have sufficient cause to quit, they did have good enough reasons to lessen the degree of penalty being prescribed. Even with that there are a lot of appeals.
Consider this point. Put yourself in the position of the adjudicator of an unemployment insurance claim for leaving a job voluntarily. Your choice as adjudicator is this. Does this claimant get benefits or no benefits, full benefits or no benefits? Under this bill that remains to be the choice.
I suggest that most adjudicators, if they can find a shred of justification for people quitting, are probably going to give them benefits. I know this may even differ from what some of my colleagues have said.
Even looking at it from the point of view of the government's attempt to justify this on fiscal grounds, it just does not make sense. If they lean the other way and refuse benefits, because the penalty is that severe they virtually ensure that there will be an appeal.
I tell you, Mr. Speaker, in the unemployment insurance administration the processing of appeals is a very expensive one because a panel must be brought together. The panel members are not regular employees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. They are paid a fee for the day. They have to be given briefs of what the law is. They have to be given all the facts of the case. By creating this mechanism, the government has stood fiscal responsibility on its head.
Why has the government done that? Other than out of sheer stupidity, I suggest it is because in fact we are right. It is trying to go out and appeal to a right wing constituency in Canada by misleading them into thinking that there are thousands and thousands of people quitting their jobs without just cause and it has to put a stop to that. It is not true.
What the government is doing is fiscally irresponsible. It is unfair, it is unjust, it is against the traditions of our system of justice, it is wrong and it should be stopped.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I rise with hesitation to ask a question and seek guidance on this. Is it appropriate for a member of the legislative committee on this bill to be sitting in the chair during debate on this bill? I am seeking guidance of yourself or the Clerk on this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Soetens):: I guess I can only respond by saying I was asked by the Speaker to fill in for a few moments while he left the chair. He advises me that he will be back shortly. All I can suggest to you is I will reserve an answer on that. The Speaker has returned and I will suggest to him that somebody has raised this point of order and I will leave it up to him to respond.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Really there was nobody else to come and occupy the chair but the hon. member. I thought it would be appropriate for him to sit here a couple of minutes.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I am of two minds rising to speak on this bill this afternoon. On the one hand I am as always delighted to partake in debate here. On the other hand, I really am sick at heart at what has been done to the working people once again by their government.
March 19, 1993

I have some notes on this bill and in black print above the second list of notes are the words "guilty until proven innocent". Those words are the complete antithesis of our belief in law in this country.
We refer to the problem of a person before our courts who is considered guilty until proven innocent as the reverse onus. That reverse onus has in a number of cases before the Supreme Court of Canada relating to the criminal law been thrown out, so far, I might add, that it has bounced into obscurity. In Bill C-113 we are right back to a reverse onus against the people who are least able to defend themselves.
It is a reverse onus against workers who will be thrown out of jobs, who have no money and no back-up, who cannot afford recourse to lawyers. Because of other cuts by the government, the legal aid offices in this country from coast to coast to coast no longer take the kinds of civil cases these amendments would engender. It is a disgrace and a scandal.
I cannot believe people good and true on the government side of the House can support this. I cannot believe first and foremost the scam that is being perpetrated on the people of Canada with regard to the whole question of sexual harassment under this bill.
This week we have had a number of questions in this House put to the members of the government on the question of sexual harassment. I have heard time and again from the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the President of the Treasury Board and again and again from the Prime Minister, and what have I heard? I have heard the words that this government has zero tolerance for sexual harassment. Well, talk is cheap. Words are pretty. Actions are what we need here, action that proves that sentence.
Now, my learned and dear friend from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso just said, and I am going to quote him: "What this government has," and I agree with him, "is zero tolerance for Canadians". Very soon Canadians are going to have zero tolerance of their own.
The whole question of this bill vis-a-vis the question of sexual harassment has snowballed to the point where
Government Orders
women and men of goodwill are asking: "What is the government doing?"
Time and again the situation has been explained by members on this side of the House to the minister of employment, the Prime Minister and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. It is as if ears are filled with wet cement. They are not hearing what we are saying and if they are hearing, they certainly are not understanding.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: The cement goes deeper than that.


Mary Catherine Clancy: True. The hon. member for Timmins- Chapleau says the cement goes deeper than that and he is right. This is a very serious matter, this question of sexual harassment and how it is affects women in this country.
Years ago, between 1980 and 1984, I chaired the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board in Halifax. I sat several days every month and listened to cases brought by working people who had been disqualified and penalized for a period in those days of from four to six weeks from receiving their UI benefits.
I discovered we had a very stringent bill and if people left their employment voluntarily, you were disqualified for a severe period of time. Eventually, as a result of the insurance nature of the scheme, the disqualification ended and they did receive benefits for a certain period of time.
The hardest thing to prove at that quasi-judicial committee was just cause in a voluntary quit. Now it is even more crucial that just cause be given the widest possible interpretation because women who claim they have been sexually harassed will have to prove it on the balance of probabilities or they will lose all their benefits. They will be disqualified and disentitled.
The same goes for other people, men and women both, who quit for other reasons. The onus will be on them to prove it.
The second problem is that the employer, who can be the best witness of a voluntary quit and just cause, is not compellable to these hearings. He does not have to come and testify. There is no power of subpoena. How are we going to get him there? Sorry about the pronoun but in most cases it is going to be a him.

Government Orders
What are we going to do? We cannot bring this person by compulsion to these hearings. We have a woman, in most cases, who probably makes $20,000 a year so she cannot afford legal representation. Legal aid offices are not taking cases like this anymore because of cutbacks from this government and other governments across the country.
The whole question of sexual harassment is very embarrassing and painful to a woman in the first place. She goes in and says she quit her job because her boss poisoned the work place or said that if she did not sleep with him, she would not get this promotion or would be fired, any one of two dozen possible scenarios that come under the realm of sexual harassment.
She gets to someone in Employment and Immigration Canada who says she has to prove it, and the civil burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities. It is not as strong as beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the criminal burden, but it is still a heavy burden that must be discharged and there is no help for her.
Over and over again I listened to the minister of employment say that sexual harassment is grounds for just cause. It may be just cause on paper but what about in practice? Practice is what we are dealing with.
I would be delighted to hear from any member of the government, from the minister of health on down, a scenario in which someone in that situation proved a just cause in a voluntary quit.
I would be happy and delighted. I promise I would eat crow from one end of this nation to the other. I would be happy to do that if anyone could show me a case in which a woman was able to prove just cause given the situation I set up: with a boss who is not compellable, with an Employment and Immigration Commission that says the burden of proof is on her, and with no recourse to legal counsel which is where most of them-


An hon. member:: Oh, Oh.


Mary Catherine Clancy: If the minister would like to answer my question I would be delighted to hear him say it. Ah, shrug. Nice to see you.
I would be delighted to backtrack on this. I say here I will backtrack if anyone can show me a case in which a woman was able to prove that in those circumstances,
because sadly I know that is not possible. Sadly, if it is not possible now how much worse does the whole thing become when Bill C-113 becomes law and women are disentitled right off the top?
In a nutshell the problem is this with regard to sexual harassment. There is not a woman in the world who does not know what we are talking about. I have never had a problem explaining sexual harassment to a woman. I met with all sorts of groups yesterday and every time I talked about it the nods started. Women of good faith who were being honest, and in most cases they are.
There are two kinds of men. There are the men who indulge in this kind of activity. They do not want any more publicity about it so they deny it. Then there are the other men who are the majority of those who sit in this Chamber. They are good men who want to do the right thing, regardless of political affiliation. I believe that of the 295 of us, of the 255 men, the vast majority want to do the right thing. I believe that. I do not think I could stay here if I did not believe it.
The difficulty is that the whole question of sexual harassment is so foreign for most men that they cannot believe anybody does it. Gentlemen, we are here to say that it happens all the time. It happens everywhere.
I see my time is up. Let me just end with a plea. This bill is going to make it worse.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to seek unanimous consent to move:
That Bill C-113 be amended by deleting Part I, the Public Sector
Compensation Act portion of the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret, there is no unanimous agreement to put the motion.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am glad of the chance to support the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau on his motion in this matter because it is a very serious attack that is being made on a large number of working people in this country, hundreds of thousands by the government's statistics and many more than that potentially or by threat.
March 19, 1993

Working people are to be denied the unemployment insurance they have paid for if they quit under circumstances they consider justifiable, perhaps even under circumstances listed in the law but which they cannot prove because the rules by which they have to prove it are loaded in favour of the employer who may have forced them into quitting.
Some years ago I heard it said by a lawyer, who in fact was minister of justice in a provincial government, that union members are second class citizens in this country because they are the only ones who can be sent to jail for not working. If a doctor does not work or if a banker does not work they do not go to jail. A union member can.
At first I was surprised. Then of course I saw it happen.
I remember what Jean-Claude Parrot said about his experience. He said: "There seems to be two kinds of laws in this country. When the RCMP illegally opened the mail the government passed a law to make it legal. When workers legally go on strike it passes a law to make it illegal".
This law does not apply only to union members. It applies to all employees and potentially threatens every employee with being starved for lack of unemployment insurance if he or she takes the risk of quitting for what he or she believes is just cause.
The basic reason for that, which others have mentioned but which deserves to be emphasized again, is that the burden of proof is on the worker. It is not on the employer nor on the unemployment insurance system. He or she must prove by rules that have not been clearly stated what it was that gave grounds for quitting. In fact that person is guilty until proven innocent. Unless it can be proven that the person is innocent of the offence of quitting without just cause, then that person is treated as guilty.
This is in reverse of the general way the law is applied in our country, but there is a precedent. It is not applied to Canadian citizens or Canadian residents. It is applied to someone who has come to Canada and applied for refugee status. That person is treated from that moment as though he or she were a criminal or at least a violator of the Immigration Act. This would be until months or years later as the law drags its course and that person can prove that he or she really was a refugee and therefore
Government Orders
was not to be held guilty for entering the country without a valid visa.
In other words, the government tried it out first on people who were in Canada without the protection of either citizenship or Canadian residency. Having made it work there in the sense that it got away with it, the government is now trying it on every Canadian who is employed. If you quit you are guilty, unless you can prove you are innocent.
There are no clearly stated rules adopted by Parliament by which that is to be decided as there is in the case of criminal law. There are rules which can be changed at will by the cabinet. They may or may not be fully published. They may be left vague. There is nothing that the public, nothing that Parliament can do about those vague rules.
The person is deprived of income from the word go without anything to live on. This is until the person is able to prove he or she is innocent of quitting without due cause. This may be after months without legal aid.
There is no time limit for the UI system to give a decision. The UI system is not losing money. It is the worker who has to live without money. The unemployment insurance system does not care whether it takes two weeks, two months or two years to give a final decision on an appeal to an umpire.
I have a letter concerning a constituent in Trinity- Spadina. It is a very concise statement of her problem written by a person on her behalf. It reads:
"This person quit her job in November 1992. Her boss was an alcoholic and was verbally abusing her. She had 18 former employees as witnesses. Her claim was accepted at the unemployment insurance office; she was not penalized at all.
In January 1993, her former boss appealed the decision to the board of referees. This worker went to that hearing with three witnesses and five letters and the 18 names and phone numbers of former workers who were her friends and were willing to testify on her behalf. The referees did not question her witnesses at all. She was accused of stealing those 18 names and phone numbers from her boss's work place.
On February 11 a decision came down that she had good reason to quit but not just cause."

March 19, 1993
Private Members' Business
What gobbledegook. I know this government spends millions of dollars of taxpayers' money studying what words will con the public into thinking the government means what it does not mean by the words it uses. So having good reason to quit is not the same as having just cause. That is the kind of gobbledegook that a worker cannot be expected to foresee.
She is now penalized seven weeks and gets 50 per cent of her pay. She was lucky under the old system. She is appealing to the umpire. The lawyer believes she has a strong case. Her former boss also had former employees go to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and there has been no decision yet and to the Ontario Labour Relations Board which has ruled in his favour.
If she had the misfortune of having this happen to her after this present law she would not be losing just seven weeks. She would lose all her weeks and not know when she would ever get a decision on her appeal to the umpire.
This is a monstrously unjust law which victimizes workers for being workers, for being employees and not for being bosses.


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mac Harb: that Bill C-371, an act respecting a national child day, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and independent members. I believe you will find there is agreement to adopt my private member's Bill C-371, an act respecting a national child day, at all stages including second reading, committee of the whole, report stage and third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to proceed through all stages of the bill today?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, considered in committee, reported and concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mac Harb: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a very few words and allow my colleagues on both sides of the House to also say a few words on this bill. I would first indicate that the purpose of this bill is to designate November 20 of each year as national child day in order to promote in Canada an awareness of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which was adopted in the United Nations General Assembly on November 20.
On behalf of Canada, as you know, Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister chaired the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and this bill continues this momentum. Before proceeding I would like to take this opportunity to thank many people who have made this bill a reality.
In particular I owe a deep thanks to Our Kids, Results Canada and the Coalition for the Rights of the Child, all of whom played an integral role in bringing the issue of child poverty to light.
Also I owe a special acknowledgement to Janis Ma-chin. Without her initiative, help and support this bill would never have got as far as it did.
Finally, I would like to recognize the support I have received from the House leaders of all parties on both sides of the House. In particular, I would like to thank the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his department, my leader for his unwavering support and encouragement, and the many members of this House who have contacted my office to offer their support for Bill C-371.
March 19, 1993

The interest this bill has created certainly shows the importance that members from all parties in this House place on recognizing the importance of children.
Canada is recognized as being the number one country in the world in terms of social, economic and political stability and prosperity. Yet, unfortunately, we have over one million children who live in poverty. In fact, according to Statistics Canada, children now make up the single largest group of poor people in our country.
Children who live in poverty are at twice the risk of dying before reaching the age of 20. They have increased rates of chronic illness; they often suffer increased physical and mental disabilities and increased psychiatric disorders; and a greater percentage of poor children and youth struggle in school and face higher drop-out and illiteracy rates.
At a time when our children should experience the joy of growing up, learning and experiencing new things, many children unfortunately are left out.
This bill I believe takes a giant step forward in recognizing the many challenges the children and youth of our nation face today. By designating every November 20 as a national child day we are sending a signal to all Canadians that the issues affecting our youth are important to us all.
This bill ensures that once a year communities from coast to coast will stop and recognize children and the issues affecting them. We can ensure that every year we will pay tribute to the future of our great country Canada.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to affirm my support and the support of the Minister of National Health and Welfare for this bill and to compliment my hon. colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, for his initiative in bringing this bill forward.
Canadians will remember that our Prime Minister was an early supporter of the World Summit for Children and that when asked by UNICEF and member states of the United Nations to co-chair the summit, he accepted and that summit was an unqualified success.
Canadians will also remember that one of the subjects of the World Summit for Children was the Convention on the Rights of the Child and in the final communique
Private Members' Business
and the subsequent action plan endorsed by the 71 participating leaders, the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child became the first commitment expected of governments around the world.
History will record that the Prime Minister returned to Canada from the world summit to fulfil his promise that the conditions of children must become a major issue on the political agenda in all countries. The Prime Minister created the Children's Bureau in October 1991, ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in December 1991 and oversaw his government's introduction of Brighter Futures in May 1992. Let me take each of these accomplishments in turn.
A dedicated bureau within the Government of Canada to co-ordinate and reflect the interests of children in policy and program development was the recommendation of the International Year of the Child Committee in 1979. Today it exists in the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Canada has ratified the convention on the rights of the child. In a ceremony held here in the Parliament Buildings in the presence of children from all regions of Canada and members of the Canadian Coalition For the Rights of Children, the convention was signed by the Prime Minister. The convention on the rights of the child is very important to Canadians and I would like to take this opportunity to elaborate upon this point.
Children are exceptionally vulnerable. They require special rights to protect them and meet their unique needs. The convention, as an international legal agreement, provides us with a set of standards that confirms the respect our society gives its youngest members. The convention asserts the underlying principle that the best interest of the child should always be the primary consideration. It outlines the responsibility we have as legislators and parents. The convention asks us to look at children in a new way as people and citizens with the same inherent rights as all other members of the union family.
In the hustle of our daily lives, among the constant demands upon our time and energy, this is not easy nor is it simple. In creating this national day to draw attention to the convention, we are responding to article 42 of the convention. This article, one of the shortest of the 54

March 19, 1993
Private Members' Business
articles that make up the body of the convention, is one of the most powerful for the future well-being of children. It says: "States parties undertake to make the principles and provisions of the convention widely known by appropriate and active means to adults and children alike". This bill will help us accomplish this objective.
Under the Brighter Futures program, which I will speak about in a moment, the Government of Canada has embarked upon these important tasks of public awareness and involvement in the convention on the rights of the child. In partnership with Professional Publishing Associates, the publisher of several parenting magazines, including Today's Parent, a delightful booklet has been developed that parents can read with then-young children. This colourful booklet outlines, in appropriate language, the intent of the convention for children and parents. Over the coming months, over one million households with young children will be receiving this booklet.
The Department of Multiculturalism has produced a beautiful poster that voluntary organizations and professional publishing associates are distributing to children's hospitals, child care centres, parent resource centres and schools and parents. Over 40,000 copies will be provided. These two programs are part of a thoughtful effort to familiarize Canadians with the convention in a user-friendly way that involves children and their parents together. We must never forget that the convention speaks eloquently to the central importance of parents in the healthy upbringing of children. The convention safeguards this parental role by stressing that the state must respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents in providing appropriate direction and guidance. There will be many partners as we recognize the national day to recognize the convention and the children of Canada.
The Canadian Coalition For the Rights of Children, a coalition of over 45 national organizations, has written the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare expressing its support for a national day. The city of Ottawa anticipating this national day by a year, held a celebration of children last November 20 at a local school. The Government of Canada will welcome the date of November 20 as an annual day for children. By selecting November 20, this government will affirm a common national day around which Canadians, their
organizations and governments will mobilize their efforts to recognize the rights of children.
This bill is also consistent with the government's comprehensive program for children, called Brighter Futures. In fact, the convention on the rights of the child is the first of four components of Brighter Futures. The other three are the new child tax credit recently passed by this House, Canadian action plan for children and the Child Development Initiative. Taken together, these four components form a major commitment toward children by this government that totals approximately $2.6 billion over five years, and ongoing funding for many programs beyond the five years.
Brighter Futures is more than a program or list of activities. It is an idea and a way of thinking about children. The convention is the cornerstone, a set of standards that must be the ever-present guide to all we undertake on behalf of children. The child tax benefit supplement for low and middle income working parents is a new policy instrument that recognizes the serious economic pressures on many Canadian families as they raise their children. The action plan is an outline of the longer-term issues that must be addressed by Canadian society in order to constantly improve the conditions in which our children live and grow. The child development initiative is our confirmation that early involvement with children, particularly those growing up under conditions of risk, can change the outcomes of children for the better as they grow to adulthood.
.(1515)
Brighter Futures recognizes that in recent years a body of research on child development is shifting the focus of social policy for children from attempting to solve problems once they have disrupted the child's life, to anticipating and preventing them through timely intervention.
Increasingly we can see the pathways that lead to problems in later life and the influences that protect or buffer children. Positive influences include healthy pregnancies and birth weight, loving parents who are knowledgeable about child development, caring families and supportive communities. Relatively simple and early interventions are targeted that can help a child move from a dangerous pathway to a healthy pathway.
March 19, 1993

The programs that illustrate the idea of Brighter Futures are coming on line. A guide to Brighter Futures will be available in several weeks. It will describe over 20 separate initiatives within the child development initiative, all based on early investment in children and the prevention of conditions of risk.
I am proud of the progress begun by this government on behalf of children, beginning with the world summit just over two and a half years ago. I am conscious that this progress reflects the Prime Minister's interest in children.
I am delighted to express my support for the bill currently before the House. Children are important to all of us. Contributions to their well-being must be made by all of us. This bill adds to our society's recognition of the important place we must establish for children and is welcome.
I would like to add that as chair of the subcommittee on poverty we are preparing a system so that perhaps next November 20 we will be able to have some measures to help us assess our progress in combating child poverty.
I know the member for Ottawa Centre has been tabling petitions, as have many other members of this House and I. Indeed I was at the ceremony beginning the spreading of that petition. Members of this House have also passed a resolution to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.
Our subcommittee is hard at work developing standards so we can assess the state that children are living in across the country and perhaps work to have national standards in welfare or a guaranteed annual income. That is also being discussed at the current moment, and a paper by the minister will be presented on it.
All Canadians want to see that children in this country have a standard of living that is acceptable and reasonable and that they all have the opportunity to thrive.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill because of children, not because of the hypocrisy that has come to this House with the presentation of the bill.
It is hypocritical to have a national child day without accompanying policy that sees an end to hungry children in this country. We have just heard the litany of things
Private Members' Business
the government has done and will do for children, a government that has reneged twice on a national child care program to make sure children are safe and secure while their parents works.
Forty per cent of those using food banks in this country are children under 16 years. We just debated today a policy that will create more families having to resort to food banks because they cannot get unemployment insurance and we have double-digit unemployment.
One million children live in poverty and yet the government member who just spoke from Don Valley North, the chair of the subcommittee for poverty, has recently said the poverty line should be lowered. Will this help children?
Seventy-four per cent of women in their child-bearing years are in the work force. Yet, as I said, there is a dramatic shortage of child care spaces.
Are our children not worth government attention when it comes to their safety and care while their parents are working? The government withdrew funding for the Kids Help Line, a national line designed to help children in crisis.
Now we have a proposed national child day. As I said we support anything that will improve the conditions of children but will a day, November 20, improve the conditions of children without policy?
Where is the Liberal policy on child care? It is the NDP government in Ontario and the federal NDP policy that has taken real positive steps to address the crisis in child care in Canada.
Marion Dewar, the national director of the Canadian Council on Children and Youth is a former member of this House. We hope with the support of the people from Ottawa Centre she will be a member of this House again. She has advocated for an end to child poverty for years. She said: "Spending money on child poverty is not an addition to deficit but an investment in the future".
It may interest those in this House and Canadians who are watching that the sponsor of this bill joined with the then mayor of Ottawa, Jim Durrell, in abolishing the Youth Advisory Council. That council provided a way for the needs of young people to be recognized in those programs delivered by the city of Ottawa.

March 19, 1993
Private Members' Business
There is considerable irony in the fact that here today the Liberal member is calling for a national child day. However, when pushed to put into action those policies that truly benefit children, we find the Liberals lacking and in fact, doing just the opposite to what this bill is all about.
I listened to a member from the Liberal benches on an open-line show in British Columbia. He talked about economic policies that would create even worse situations for children currently living in poverty.
On Monday, September 25, 1989, I introduced a private member's motion concerning a suggested child protection commission. It read: "That in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of negotiating with the provinces to provide a comprehensive bill of rights for children which would standardize laws throughout the country and that this bill of rights include a child protection commission and an emergency hotline which children could contact in times of crisis".
People might be interested in knowing that the hon. member who sponsors this bill not only did not speak for
or against that private member's motion but in fact he could not make his way from the city of Ottawa to this Chamber to vote for it.
In addition, we have been told over and over that private members' business is non-partisan and should be non-partisan, that there should be a free vote. However, when we came into this House to vote on that private member's motion, the government Whip turned to his members. The government voted against a child protection commission and a children's bill of rights.
Again, I speak in favour of this bill. I am sure the hon. member and the member from Don Valley North both feel that what they are doing is going to help children. I hope they are right. But to have a child day without child policy and policy that will protect children is not going to solve the problems of children in this country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 3.23 o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday, March 22, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.23 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 22,1993