1993-03-24

[Stage Direction]
42 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Communication Group - Publishing, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 24, 1993
[Stage Direction]
Prayers

Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, government investment in education should be one of the most effective ways to build a better future for our country. The student loans program, for example, should be one of our most important initiatives toward creating a more competitive economy.
Unfortunately such educational investments are not paying off for Canada nearly as well as they should. Nothing could more graphically illustrate the reality than the advertisement being placed by students in New Brunswick this week. It says: "Help wanted. We are seeking 18,000 employers to hire a student for a summer job".
As we currently review and revise the student loans program to improve its fundamental mission of enhancing access to post-secondary education for students in need let us also revive the investment spirit of that program. Together with Canada's students let us accept the challenge to use education as an instrument for productive innovation so that we may generate dividends in the form of increased career opportunities.
It is only from such future employment dividends that the financial stability of the student loans program can be assured.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
M. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, economic development in the Montreal area is greatly hindered by the enduring mess in air transportation. In addition, the federal government is reluctant to put in place a policy to make facilities more efficient.
Now a consensus is building in Quebec both at the political level and within the business community around one idea. That is to reaffirm the role of Dorval as a traffic exchange point for regular flights while assigning an essentially industrial role to Mirabel.
As transportation critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I support this idea and hope that the government will ensure that the required changes are made as soon as possible.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, the delay in the fixed link project is disappointing to its many supporters in the maritime provinces.
I urge the federal government to react with a twopronged approach to the recent court decision. I urge that the decision be appealed. At the same time the government should move to meet the environmental requirements by making a section 12 determination in compliance with the court decision. The province of P.E.I. should move quickly to propose a motion requesting that the Constitution be amended, as is also outlined in the court decision.
Having just completed two weeks of legislative hearings on the fixed link process, I am impressed with the high level of environmental assessment work done on the fixed link. Transportation is synonymous with economic development in Atlantic Canada. Without this component being added to our transportation system Atlantic Canada will never achieve its potential.

March 24, 1993
For these reasons I strongly encourage all parties involved to address the concerns and progress with the project as quickly as possible.


RAMADAN
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, this morning 1 had the great pleasure of joining with thousands of Muslims from the nation's capital who were taking part in the celebration of Id Al-Fitr, or the Little Feast, to mark the end of Ramadan. I would like to wish all Muslim Canadians and Muslims throughout the world Bid Mubamck.
Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic religious calendar and a time of fasting and prayer. It has traditionally been regarded as the month in which the first revelation of the Koran was made by Allah, which was about how he and his people should live.
Ramadan is an equalizer, when both rich and poor experience the feeling of what it means to be hungry. During Ramadan Muslims do not eat or drink anything from dawn to dusk, not even water unless someone is ill. This fast is one of the five pillars of Islam, together with recitation of the creed, prayer, pilgrimage and Zakat.
The celebration of the Little Feast to mark the end of Ramadan is a testament to the freedoms and privileges we all enjoy in our society. On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and my colleagues in the House of Commons I want to express my best wishes to all Muslims on this most special day at the end of this most special month. Eid Mubarack.
* # *


TAXATION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, a column in The Bottom Line, a magazine for accountants, has described the Tory $500,000 lifetime capital gains tax deduction of 1985 as the biggest budget goof in Canadian history. It might also be described as the single biggest act of hypocrisy in Canadian history.
A government that has constantly lectured Canadians on deficit reduction threw away $20 billion, $14 billion of which was totally wasted even by the government's own
standards because it was claimed by people who were not engaged in the kinds of economic activity that the government was trying to stimulate. It was basically a windfall for a minority of speculators and others of their ilk who should be driven out of the temple with a whip.
Now after the horse has left the barn we see attempts to close the door, but again only in a way that betrays the Tory bias for the rich. Ordinary Canadians with cottages are being hit, but not so ordinary Canadians with huge family trusts are having their capital gains tax exemption extended.
A government that asks so little of those with so much and so much of those with so little will not be surprised if the many reduce the Tory numbers to a few in the next election.


LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, I have given up long ago trying to make sense of the choice of candidates in the Liberal Party. I think that Canadian people, who are after all financing the activities of the recognized political parties to a large extent, have the right to know on what basis the Leader of the Opposition can make nominations as a matter of course and turn down or forget about others.
For instance, the leader of the Liberal Party has recently prevented his party's president, Don Johnston, from running in Saint-Henri-Westmount. But this week the Liberal Party was welcoming Elijah Harper who has single-handedly and stubbornly blocked the passage of the Meech Lake accord in the Manitoba legislature.
I do not doubt the personal merits of lylr. Harper. What I do question however is the judgment of the leader of the Liberal Party who not only embraced Clyde Wells in Calgary the very next day after Meech died but is now embracing Elijah Harper. It is as if the Leader of the Opposition, having lost any hope of electoral success in Quebec, has decided to run in the rest of the country by siding with those who killed the Meech Lake accord.
March 24, 1993


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Kingston and the Islands I am happy to inform the House that Kingston was the site of the Live Music Lovers' Weekend this past Saturday and Sunday. It was a weekend of great celebration. Dozens of local musicians participated in a spectacular display of musical talent organized by Kingston guitarist Matt Woodward.
Kingston's most famous rock group was away in Australia on tour while it received its second Juno award as entertainer of the year. Rob Baker, Gord Downie, Johnny Fay, Paul Langlois and Gord Sinclair, better known as The Tragically Hip, are winning fans worldwide for their composing and performing skills.
Parliament's acknowledged authority on rock, the hon. member for Windsor West, was heard to remark: "The Tragically Hip? They're terrific". What higher commendation for an outstanding group of musicians?
* * #


PARAMEDIC APPRECIATION WEEK
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize one of the most important facets of our health care system, ambulance paramedics.
In British Columbia paramedics are seen as front line health care providers in every type of emergency situation. Every year thousands of people are cared for by this system, by air, land or sea.
For instance, on March 12 of last year paramedics played a significant part in providing assistance to passengers in a collision between a B.C. ferry and a Japanese bulk coal carrier. As a former physician I know the importance of these men and women and the effective and efficient service they provide.
The week of April 4 has been designated by proclamation as Paramedic Appreciation Week in B.C. Please join me and my colleagues from British Columbia in showing appreciation for B.C.'s province-wide ambulance service.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago 15,000 farmers rallied in Saskatoon to protest the policies of this government and support farm families. A week or two later a similar rally was held in Lucknow, Ontario.
Projections for farm income for this year are dramatically worse than last. A cut of over $1 billion in net farm income is projected for this year. In Saskatchewan net farm income is projected to fall 40 per cent from 1992 levels to an average of less than $4,000 per farm family.
Next Tuesday eight farm organizations from across Saskatchewan will make presentations to a televised hearing of the Standing Committee on Agriculture to outline the desperate situation facing farm families in that province.
I call on the government to recognize the failure of its policies and programs and provide more assistance on an urgent basis so that these farmers can survive and stay on their land.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, as a small business person in my private life, I rise to laud the initiative shown by the Bank of Nova Scotia on the small business lending front.
Scotiabank appears to want to lead by example. The bank has demonstrated a much needed aggressiveness in the area that is so important to our economic prosperity. Our small businesses must have access to start-up cash and loan capital to grow and expand.
This initiative carries with it an important message to the federal government, which is that a lot can be accomplished under new management and a fresh, renewed approach.
Sweeping changes to the Small Businesses Loans Act have kick-started the process, but let us not stop there. Others are needed to revitalize this sector. Let us have our departments root out and address our existing inhibitors. These are regulations, policies or practices which actually constrain the growth of our small business community.

March 24, 1993
Oral Questions
Initiatives such as the changes to the SBLA and those of Scotiabank have set the stage. I insist that now is the opportune and appropriate time for us to press forward.


PEACEKEEPING
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, in the midst of the human tragedy we know as Bosnia-Her-cegovina emerge remarkable heroes, men and women from many nations. First there are Canadian peacekeeping forces. Some 1,200 Canadian troops and 45 RCMP monitors are putting their lives on the line every day. We must not forget the family members of our forces here at home. They feel the risks more than anyone.
Just today British helicopters airlifted two Canadians wounded during the massive effort to save the town of Srebrenica.
We have French General Philippe Morillon who took over as the top UN commander from our own General Lewis Mackenzie. He is making a heroic stand to save the 60,000 civilians of that town.
We must not forget Larry Hollingsworth, a former British army officer who is now serving with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. He arrived in Bosnia directly from Somalia last July.
I call on all members of the House to recognize these brave, unsung heroes today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
* * +


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to a benefit of the free trade agreement of which many Canadian companies should be made aware.
I cite the case of Gray Tools of Brampton, Ontario. After the free trade agreement this old, family-owned Canadian firm was allowed to join a U.S. trade association, the American Supply Machinery Manufacturers Association. It formerly excluded Canadians and hosts one of the most important trade shows in the North American industry.
As a result of its first trade show last year, Gray Tools picked up 17 new customers. The new contacts and exposure it has gained have boosted U.S. sales to 40 per cent of total sales from just 25 per cent in 1988.
Aleck Gray, president of the company said: "As far as our exports are concerned the free trade agreement is only positive. While our Canadian sales were lagging through the recent recession, our U.S. sales were roaring along".
Now that is good news for the firm's several hundred employees.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[Translation)

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Last night, in a speech to a gathering in Toronto the Minister of the Environment said that Canadians are concerned about the school dropout problem, the unemployment rate which is too high and the increase in poverty. The minister added that young people's problems are due to a sick economy, not the school system.
Does the Minister of Finance agree with his colleague that the economy is sick and that it is hurting young people? Will he correct this situation in the next budget by creating new programs specifically addressing youth?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment never made such a statement about the economy being sick. He pointed out some problems that exist, but indicated the major efforts made by the Minister of Finance and the government that have given us the lowest interest rates in 21 years, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the lowest mortgage rates in 35 years and a growth rate-


An hon. member:: What about unemployment?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, a lower unemployment rate than when you Liberals were in power. That is the reality. That is what the Minister of the Environment said and we are ready to wage an election campaign on our economic record in due course.
March 24, 1993


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may be able to control what some of the leadership candidates say but in this case I would like to read to him directly from an article in The Toronto Star today. His colleague says he finds it "objectionable that people blame schools for the high drop-out rate". He said many students are dropping out not because of poor schooling but because they feel the faltering economy no longer assures youth they can land jobs after graduating.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, since he has entered the debate, does he agree with the assessment of his colleague that the faltering economy is causing young people to lose hope in this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is a far cry from a faltering economy, a far cry from what my hon. friend said in French in her opening question where she imputed something absolutely false to the Minister of the Environment, which he never said.


Some hon. members:: Withdraw.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If there is going to be a withdrawal I hope it would be the member for Hamilton East withdrawing something she imputed to the Minister of the Environment which he never said.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Obviously what Canada and the industrialized countries have gone through in the last two years has not been helpful to our young people seeking employment. We regret that very much. The situation that prevails in France, Germany, England and the United States has taken a toll on all citizens, including the youth. Unfortunately Canada has not been an exception to that.
My hon. friend, the Minister of the Environment, was quite properly pointing out that a faltering economy in Canada, or the United Kingdom, or France or the United States takes a toll on the young. We have to make sure this is not repeated. That is why we are trying to control government expenditures. That is why we are trying to limit the rise in deficits and debt which have
Oral Questions
brought about the lowest inflation rates in 30 years, the lowest mortgage rates in 35 years and the highest growth and employment growth rates of the IMF and OECD countries in 1993-94.


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Nobody has a job.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will conclude with this. My hon. friend from Winnipeg says: "No one has a job". He is right that too many people are out of work but it is less in percentage terms than were out of work when my hon. friend and the Liberals were in office.


Lloyd Axworthy: We had programs for them. You do not and that is the difference. We put them back to work.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has already fired one leadership candidate whose opinion he did not agree with on the helicopters. I would like to ask him very specifically: Does he agree with the position taken by his colleague in Toronto that it is the sick economy that is causing young people to drop out of school and not the education system? Does he support that statement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, how could I support the statement when my hon. friend the Minister of the Environment never made it? This is the unique and delicious interpretation of the member for Hamilton East of what the Minister of the Environment said and it is extremely dangerous for anybody.
We all learn things around here. What we all learn in all parties is never to accept the interpretation of the member for Hamilton East for anything we are alleged to have said.


An hon. member:: That is right. Lesson number one.
Mr. Mulroney My hon. friend says remember what your leader said. Brian, remember what your leader said: "Do not be a nervous nelly".


Mr. Tobin:: Bye, bye, Brian.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend from Newfoundland says: "Bye, bye, Brian". You are right and I say to you, bye, bye, Brian.

March 24, 1993
Oral Questions YOUTH EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand -Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Youth.
There are many nervous young people out there who cannot find jobs. I want to say to the Minister of State for Youth that since 1989 the number of Canadians who have never held a first-time job has increased by 51 per cent, from 367,000 to 556,000. Over 500,000 young Canadians are looking for a first-time job and cannot find it.
When will the minister come forward with specific job creation programs to put these young Canadians to work?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, we had the occasion last week to debate this issue following a motion by my hon. friend. Obviously he did not listen to the debate and what we had to say.
We have explained the numerous initiatives taken by the government, notwithstanding the attempts by the opposition to try and stop the legislation that we tried to put in place in order to control the debt, put the economy back in shape so that our young people in Canada, our future, can have all the opportunities they deserve.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, the minister is still talking about inaction. We are near the end of the school year and the minister knows that hundreds of thousands of young Canadians are looking for summer jobs to be able to continue their education. At the same time the government has cut in half funding for summer employment initiatives from $205 million in 1985 to only $101 million today.
Why is the minister, at a time of such great need, cutting this funding in half?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Again, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend either refuses to admit facts or tries to play partisan politics.
The program for summer employment for this summer has been increased by $5.1 million.



Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is increasingly obvious that the reason the government is unable to reduce the deficit and the debt is its own policies. It lacks something fundamental: low unemployment.
When will the government decide to do what it must to change its policies in order to achieve what is essential for any economic recovery: low unemployment?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not really following the progress that has been made on the expenditure reduction track.
When the government came into office we had experienced 15 years of annual program expenditure increases of about 14 per cent. We have brought that down to a level of around 4 per cent, or less than the rate of inflation. Putting it another way, when we came into office the government of the day was spending $1.33 for every dollar's worth of revenue that was taken in. Obviously that could not be sustained.
The hon. member should look at what we have done. We have shaved some $118 billion worth of expenditures. Had we not taken that action, instead of having a $34 billion deficit today, we would have had an $82.5 billion deficit.
In conclusion, I must say-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if we had not taken the action, if we had gone merrily on our way, spending in the old Liberal and NDP tradition, we would have had a deficit of $82.5 billion today.


Mr. Fontana:: What kind of arithmetic is that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I say to the hon. member that the initiatives we took-
March 24, 1993


An hon. member:: There are a lot of nervous nellies over there.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I remind the House and the people of Canada the initiatives we took with respect to expenditure reduction were opposed every single solitary time by members opposite.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, in fact there are many studies to indicate-I have one here by Informetrica, one by Wood Gundy, one by WEFA-it is the government's own monetary policies that have reduced the number of jobs in the economy, that have reduced the amount of revenue to be raised in this economy. If the government had different monetary policies we would not have had the debt and deficit we have.
For example, I would cite a quotation from Wood Gundy which says that the government's single-minded pursuit of inflation has "already blown the government's revenue projections off this year by $8 million".
My question to the minister is this. Will he abandon the failed ways of the last nine years and bring in a budget which addresses the fundamentals of reducing unemployment and getting this country really back on track?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is proposing is a Bob Rae solution to the economy. I would rather take a Roy Romanow solution.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Once again the federal government finds it impossible to defend its own policies.
I want to point out something that happened yesterday. I think this is really what it is all about. There were 3,000 people lined up for three days in Edmonton for 700 part-time jobs. Surely the government must see that it bears some responsibility for this. Its own policies have contributed to this situation of unemployment.
Just two days ago the Dominion Bond Rating Service said that the main reasons for provincial shortfalls had to do with federal caps on transfer payments, the recession, and the decline in manufacturing jobs.
If the Minister of Finance is really serious about provincial debt and unemployment will he make sure his
Oral Questions
government stops reducing transfer payments, stops making trade deals that cause unemployment, and brings in a budget that puts people back to work?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there are 12,328,000 Canadians who are working in Canada today. That is up from 11 million when we assumed office. There have been well in excess of 1.3 million new jobs created. As a matter of fact-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They say it is not enough. I agree, but it is still the best job creation record within the G-7 over the last 10 years.


An hon. member:: It is the highest unemployment rate of the G-7.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member asks: "Why don't you do something to create jobs?" Since she is speaking about Alberta the hon. member might want to know that since 1987, 80 per cent of the new jobs created in Alberta have been created in the newly emerging economies, those new industries related quite directly to the new economies such as high information-based technology, telecommunications, the communications sector, and primarily exports to the United States.
The New Democratic Party is opposed to the free trade agreement.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Go out and try to sell that to Albertans, because exports to the United States have increased by 48 per cent since the free trade agreement was put into place.


An hon. member:: Albertans aren't the only people in the world.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Clinton pledged that he would not introduce the NAFTA legislation until the agreement is made tougher in the areas of the environment and of labour, something the opposition has been advocating all along.

March 24, 1993
Oral Questions
However, the Minister for International Trade stated yesterday that environmental and labour issues "should not be at the core of a free trade agreement".
Is it the policy of this government that the environment and labour questions should instead be peripheral? Or, does the minister agree with President Clinton and indeed with the Official Opposition that the environment and labour side agreements should be utilized to improve significantly the agreement itself?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend has tried to distort what I said yesterday.
The point I was making yesterday, and I will be quite clear, is that the trade remedy laws are at the core of a free trade agreement. The environmental and labour issues the U.S. administration is trying to address, and we have been trying to address since I raised this at the meeting in Montreal in February of last year, are parallel agreements to the free trade agreement that are not a central part of the agreement itself.
Both Mr. Clinton's objectives and the objectives of Canada are of the same nature: not to address the core nature of the agreement but to improve some of the elements surrounding the agreement in relation to the environment and labour.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the situation is now becoming clearer. The President of the United States says that these two matters, environment and labour, are so central to the NAFTA that he will not even take the legislation forward without agreement on those side accords.
What is the Canadian government's position: central or peripheral? The government is introducing the legislation tomorrow.
Let me ask the minister this question. The President of the United States said yesterday that NAFTA is not simply a trade agreement. It is an investment agreement. He added: "the investment provisions of NAFTA will be needed to be used in ways that will raise wages" referring to Mexico and the United States.
Could the minister explain from the recent talks among Canada, the United States and Mexico what the U.S. administration means by changing the way the investment provisions will be interpreted with regard to Mexico and the United States, and does Canada support such modifications and changes?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to give my hon. friend a full briefing on this matter, but the side agreements on labour and on the environment do not change in any way the investment provisions of the NAFTA. Those provisions of the NAFTA stand.
What the United States, what Canada and what Mexico are interested in is precisely the same. We want to see economic activity in all three countries increase and that is going to be a primary result of the North American free trade agreement.
For my hon. friend-I cannot understand why he is saying this-to say that the environmental agreements are central to a trade agreement is simply not true. It is not accurate. It does not bear any resemblance to reality.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who so far, unfortunately, has nothing to show for his efforts to reach an agreement with France on the cod quotas. He will know that St. Pierre fishermen have made no bones about their intention to get a bigger piece of the action. He will also know that France now wants to send the quota issue to another international tribunal.
If France refuses to back away from that particular stand to send it to a tribunal, what is the minister then prepared to do to end the stand-off with respect to the cod quotas so that the Grand Banks based scallop fishery can resume?


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. The question is hypothetical. The minister may want to deal with it.
March 24, 1993


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, most of the questions raised in this House are hypothetical, but they still have to be dealt with so I would like to deal with this one.
With respect to the hon. member's latest hypothetical question, the position is that Canada made a generous offer to France in accordance with our obligations under the 1972 treaty entered into by-I will not even mention the name of the government-a Liberal government.
Under the terms of that arrangement we had to offer to France the opportunity to catch fish within our waters, but Canada has the right to determine what amount it should be permitted to catch based on conservation and the like.
Despite our difficulties we did make a generous offer to France which was not accepted after a number of meetings so any next move is up to France. We cannot go any further. We are not going to go any further when our own fishermen are in desperate straits as a result of a decline in the resource.
With respect to the suggestion by France that this issue should go to arbitration under the terms of the 1972 agreement, our position is clear. We will not put that kind of an issue to arbitration. We are sovereign in our own waters and the question of what amount of fish should be taken by anybody within our own 200-mile economic zone is for Canada and Canada alone to decide. We will never agree to go to arbitration on that issue.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I suppose hypothetically with that kind of leadership and a nice blond wig he should run for leader.
This scallop fishery has been at a standstill down there since last summer. The minister has been quoted in the press the last few days as saying that he is optimistic, that after the French elections this weekend are out of the way we can expect a resolution forthcoming and fairly quick.
What is in store for that scallop fishery in the event that his latest bit of optimism is not well founded? What is his plan bl
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am under very heavy pressure these days and that is why I am somewhat nervous. If I could speak two or three consecutive sentences in French I would be already in the race and well on the way to winning, I can assure you of that.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: That might well be hypothetical.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John Carnell Crosbie: Out, monsieur le President, we do have a serious problem with the fishery for Icelandic scallops in the area because the most prospective areas are on the St. Pierre bank controlled by France.
There will be no settlement with France unless we have proper access to those scallops, as the hon. gentleman knows. I am hoping when the election is over in France that we will have some progress in that direction.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer probably makes many Canadians very happy that this is an officially bilingual country. My question is for the Minister for International Trade.


Mr. McDermid:: Explain yourself.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The government intends to introduce the trade bill for second reading tomorrow for a partial day's debate and to close off debate at second reading after one more day next week.
I ask the minister: How can the government be so outrageous as to limit debate to less than two days on an issue that is so important to so many Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend might ask himself that question because I believe for two weeks now we have been trying to get this bill into the House, and we have been obstructed at every turn in the road by the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Barrett:: You used closure.

March 24, 1993
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In addition to that we have been holding public hearings on the NAFTA starting in late November right through till last month. We have been in nine cities and met with 120 different groups of people presenting their views both pro and con the agreement. It is on that basis we believe it is time we get this bill into the House and into committee where people can study the specific elements of the agreement and get by the posturing of the New Democratic Party.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, most of those 120 groups that had a chance to participate were limited to five or ten minute presentations and he knows that. The government also made it very clear that the committee's role was going to be very limited and very short-lived. Of course the New Democratic caucus said no to that.
My supplementary question is: How can this government accept any responsibility of decent democracy? How can it say that, if it is going to limit debate on an issue of this importance to less than two days?
What is the purpose of parliamentary democracy if we are not allowed to speak for a reasonable amount of time on an issue that is so important to so many Canadians and to so many Canadian communities?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, as my seat-mate, the Minister for International Trade, has pointed out, a committee that has been looking at the NAFTA deal since last November toured the country. I have made offers to the House leadership of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party to have the whole deal referred to a committee a couple of weeks ago so that it could study-


David Barrett: Tell the truth. You used closure. We were lied to in that committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I may not have heard what I think I heard, but I do not want to hear it again. The hon. minister has the floor.


Harvie Andre: In fact I made an offer to-


David Barrett: We were lied to in that committee. You tell the truth.


An hon. member:: You were not around, Dave. You were in Mexico.


Some hon. members:: Out, out.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member who has a great deal of experience, not just in this House but also in the legislature of our province which we care for very much, would know that he has gone too far.
I know he feels very strongly about this and that is why, of course, we have debate. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the allegation.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I refuse to withdraw that the government lied to us and to me about that-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I might ask the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party whether that position is the position of her party in the House today.


David Barrett: I speak for myself. I do not speak for my party. We were lied to.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could remain in his seat and we will discuss this at the end of Question Period.


CROW BENEFIT
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg -St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who met with the premier of Alberta last week.
There are reports that the federal government is making a move toward a change in the method of paying the Crow benefit. This comes after many consultations involving senior levels of government and farm organizations.
By the way, those consultations did not produce a consensus on how to proceed, if at all, on this issue. Now, however, there are indications that the federal government is prepared to bring in legislation.
My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is this. Are we to assume that all the major stakeholders involved have agreed to the changes and, if not, why is the government proceeding without a crucial consensus?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that this has been a topic of discussion for a number of years, probably going back at least 15 years. We presently have discussions under way with all of the provinces. Many of the people involved are trying to reach a national consensus around an over-all payment through a NISA type approach.

We said in Alberta on Friday that we would continue with that type of approach in order to try and reach a national consensus and if we could not, we would be prepared to proceed on the basis of a solution that would identify and try to take into consideration as many of the provincial priorities as we possibly can.
We also put a date on it to be effective August 1, 1994. Obviously the discussions will continue with everybody involved to try to reach a consensus. That includes as many of the provincial and the individual concerns as we possibly can.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, so there is no agreement.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. As the minister well knows, the Crow benefit, regardless of how it is paid out, is important to all prairie farmers. Farmers want to know whether any possible change to the method of payment would affect the level of support. That is crucial.
Will the minister indicate to the House now that he has given assurances to farmers that the level of freight assistance under any proposal under consideration will not be diminished, that the level of support will not be diminished?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the discussions are continuing on the basis of a certain amount of money being available identified as the Crow benefit.
If we were having this discussion prior to December 2 last year, the number would have been $720 million. Since then we have had a financial statement that reduced grants and contributions by 10 per cent.
Obviously those considerations will have to be taken into account no matter what kind of a solution is arrived at. On the basis of the financial condition of the government at the time, that will determine the amount of money that is available.
Oral Questions


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Since the minister admitted yesterday that he has no plan for the airline industry, will he acknowledge that his government's policies have substantially contributed to the serious problems facing this industry and that now he does not have the guts to announce a genuine stabilization plan for an industry that is so important to Canada's economy?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that, based on his behaviour, the hon. member for Ottawa South is not one of the nervous nellies, but I think he is being less than forthright when he tells Canadians that I admitted yesterday we did not have a plan. I told the hon. member yesterday that the directors of both airlines had officially stated that in their view the only way to remedy their financial situation was to eliminate overcapacity, that they were in a position to do that themselves and that we would intervene only if they refused to act responsibly.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, after months of tough talk about how he was going to recalibrate the regulatory framework, in his words, of the airline industry, yesterday the minister said that the airlines can address the problems themselves. That was the day after a major carrier had to seek bankruptcy protection from its creditors.
Does the minister have some secret plan stashed away somewhere to deal with the problems in the airline industry or can he not see that the national duopoly that exists right now is inherently unstable and will continue to be so?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I have said repeatedly and I will repeat again today that the airline industry knows what the problems are. It has all the means to do it. We are giving it the time to impose self-discipline. If it does not we will come up with a recalibration process.

March 24, 1993
Oral Questions CROW BENEFIT


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
On March 12 in this House I asked the Minister of Transport if it was the government's intention to pay the Crow benefit to producers as recommended by the National Transportation Act Review Commission and I was told that it was not.
In light of the agreement that the Deputy Prime Minister reached with the premier of Alberta on Friday where he said in part that the federal government will proceed with enabling legislation which will provide for a national solution, et cetera, to that very issue, is it now the government's policy to do away with the Crow benefit and pay it to the producer?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mixing metaphors. There is a difference between doing away with it and paying it to the producer. I think most producers would want to see the benefit maintained. How it is paid I guess is a question for discussion.
We get this all the time from producers. They say: "If we cannot increase the price of grain, help us reduce our over-all costs". The member should know as a farmer that transportation costs from an elevator beside his farm to a hold in a boat costs about $60 a tonne. In the case of wheat that is over $1.50 a bushel. What we are doing is looking at over-all costs, the Crow benefit being one of them, to see if we can do it in a way that reduces farmers' costs and help them stay in business.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport said there had been no policy decision made on that. We did not get a clear message from the Minister of Agriculture, but we do have a signed statement that was issued as a result of the meeting between the Deputy Prime Minister and the premier of Alberta which seems to make it fairly clear that the government policy has changed. It has made up its mind.
I want to know if the policy which said that this decision would not become final until all of the provinces had agreed has now been abandoned as well. Is the government going to make agreements with one province at a time and get to the solution that way?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. .Speaker, let me read the full paragraph that the member
started: "The federal government will proceed with enabling legislation which will provide for a national solution which can include provincial variations in design and delivery of the program".
Clearly what we as a federal government are trying to do is to take as many of the provinces' concerns as we can into account, get everybody to the table to seek an over-all solution and when the solution emerges hopefully to have as many of the individual concerns addressed as we possibly can. That is in the best interests of everybody. We want to make sure that the money that is put up by federal taxpayers is used in the best possible way to keep producers' costs down.
As a farmer who is a long way from any ports, either Vancouver, Thunder Bay, Churchill or Prince Rupert, he should be in favour of that.


THE DEFICIT
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
In its February 1992 budget the government predicted a deficit of $27.5 billion. Last December, the Minister of Finance acknowledged his failure to keep the deficit at the level predicted and that the deficit would exceed $34 billion. Considering current tax revenues, many observers are saying that the minister will be unable to keep the deficit below the $35 billion limit he had announced.
Could the minister give the House the assurance today that for once his predictions will be accurate and that the deficit will not exceed the level anticipated last December?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I covered that in the December statement when I indicated that the December statement was necessitated by a dramatic fall-off in revenues as a result of slower than projected growth. We projected growth in the February budget of 2.7 per cent and that forecast was shared almost unanimously by all forecasts of independent analysts.
March 24. 1993

Unfortunately world growth was a lot slower than that and as a result we had growth of something in the range of 1 per cent. As a result there was the fall-off in revenue of some $8 billion or more and that will project into the upcoming year as well.
It was for that reason I issued the statement in December. The budget that I am putting together now will be based upon the December statement as well as many of the initiatives that we undertook and advanced in the February 1992 budget.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, this kind of verbal manoeuvring will not sound reassuring to the financial markets and is an even better indication of the reasons for the government's reluctance to bring down a budget that will reveal the extent of the damage.
The provinces were the first to suffer because of the government's failure to act. For the past eight years they have lost nearly $10 billion to cuts in transfer payments.
I want to ask the minister whether he can give the House the assurance that in the next budget he will not further aggravate the serious financial problems of the provinces by offloading an additional fiscal burden.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member has just said, and this is a very important point, there have been no cuts in transfer payments to the provinces. These payments have been increased by an average 6 per cent annually for the past nine years, and meanwhile, we are keeping government expenditures at 4 per cent below the rate of inflation. I know of one instance where restrictions and cuts were introduced unexpectedly and where this led to the rejection of collective agreements previously signed on behalf of public servants. This happened in 1981-82, at the behest of the Government of Quebec, and I believe the hon. member was one of the players in this sequence of events.
Oral Questions


CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CANADA
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and refers to the facility for federally sentenced women in Truro, Nova Scotia.
Correctional Services Canada has been negotiating with the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. to have them join in the project because they do not have facilities for their sentenced women.
Have we offered the provinces the best deal and are we making any progress toward accomplishing the goal?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome my hon. friend's continuing interest in this facility.
Yes, we are discussing the matter with the provinces but whether we have offered them the best deal, I would not want to comment on that.
We want to provide facilities for women and we are perfectly willing to accommodate provincially sentenced women within the facility if it makes sense for both sides.


EDUCATION
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
For several months now the government has been considering reforms to the student loans program. As we approach the end of another university year, students across Canada are concerned about the changes which may be coming about, for example, whether loan limits will be enhanced to recognize cost increases that have occurred since they were established in 1984, whether part-time loans to part-time students will be available perhaps on a matching basis, whether there will be provisions for interest relief in the event of unemployment and whether or not the 3 per cent administration charge will be eliminated.

March 24, 1993
Oral Questions
The students of Canada need answers to these questions. Will the minister advise us when the reforms from the student loans program reconsideration will be announced?


Hon. Monique Landry (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I know the importance of the student loans program not only to my colleagues in the House but mainly to the 250,000 students who are receiving assistance on a yearly basis.
I want to assure my colleague that the government is committed to reforming the Canada Student Loans Program to do exactly what he is asking for, enhancing aid to needy students, but at the same time reducing the costs. That is why we have been discussing new financial arrangements with lenders based on risk-sharing as announced in the budget.
I am sure that with the consultations we have had with the different groups, the provinces and the students the program will go on to respond to the needs of those students very soon.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Witness after witness before the subcommittee on health issues has asked for a public inquiry into the tainted blood tragedy.
Does this not finally convince the minister that today is the day to call for a public inquiry? With over 1,000 Canadians dead or dying, why does this government persist in saying they do not have the basic right to know? Why?


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
HIV tainted blood has been a major issue for all of us. We have worked very closely with the haemophiliac society and realize the difficulties that they have been suffering.
We provided some compensation to those people and while it might not be enough it offered them some compensation.
My colleague from Delta, B.C. is chairing the subcommittee on health and welfare which is hearing these
witnesses. We look forward to the committee's recommendations which will answer his particular questions.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Ed Tchorzewski, Deputy Premier of Saskatchewan and Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


MEMBERS
Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could return to the matter that engaged us for a moment or two during Question Period. I asked the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca to remain in the Chamber and I see that he has done so.
I think all of us who are in public life know that there are times when we feel very strongly about issues. That is a good thing, because as I have said many times, this is not a tea party and the long history of this place is that the men and women who vote in our country and in the country from which our institutions came have insisted on sending strong-minded and idealistic people to the House of Commons. We all understand that.
The dispute that took place a few minutes ago no doubt stems from strong-minded views on both sides of the House.
The difficulty is that one could make light of this. I sometimes have said to the many groups of students that come to the House of Commons that the distance between both sides of the Chamber has at least been considered to be two sword lengths. It is an adversarial system, and for better or for worse, we who have inherited it and adjusted it to our own needs have nonetheless maintained it. Because we believe as we do in our court system, the adversarial system is probably as competent a way of getting at the truth and the facts as has been developed by any civilized people anywhere. It is not the only way and it is obviously not perfect but that is what it is.
However, it only works if we respect the traditions of this place and the rules we have set for ourselves. It means that conduct in the Chamber has to have some restraints upon it.
March 24. 1993

I take nothing away, as I said at the beginning of these brief remarks, on how strongly we may feel about things. As your Speaker of course I am all sweetness and light, and kindness and gentleness, and I am not supposed to have a single thought in my head. Perhaps some of you will remember that there were times when I was sitting there that I may have provoked some anguish on the part of a Speaker myself. Most of us have probably been in that position at one time or another.
The point is that the institution and our countiy has to take precedence over our own anger or our own convictions when it comes to remarks in this place. I have never said that there had to be some kind of antiseptic, absolute order in a place like this. There never has been and I doubt there ever will be unless we just send zombies here. But there has to be reasonable order. When I say reasonable order I say that because without it there is no free speech and that is the fundamental that this place is all about: the right to speak.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: If we do not abide by the rules that we set for ourselves, that right to speak will be lost.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca is well and honourably known to me. When I say well-known that implies many things. I know the hon. member very well. I also know his passion, his convictions and his principles. Along with most decent-minded people in British Columbia, I admire that. I also know that he has had a great deal of parliamentary experience, not just in this place but as premier of my province in the legislature of British Columbia. His contribution to public life has been extensive and no doubt will continue to be.
Now that is as far as I can go in this disputatious place. I think I heard some hon. member say a moment ago: "Just a minute, Mr. Speaker, you are going to get him re-elected". That of course is not my purpose.
My purpose is to ask him upon consideration if he could, in the interests of this place and of our traditions, just very quietly say that he withdraws his offensive words and then perhaps we could end that part of the issue. The issue to which he takes such umbrage continues and there are other places to debate it.
I wonder if the hon. member could assist the Speaker. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.
Oral Questions


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I have had a great deal of experience, all of it positive. I have had a great many wounds, most of them self-inflicted. But, Mr. Speaker, I am not talking here about a difference in debate; I am talking about a matter of fact. There is a passionate difference in debate between myself and the government on this issue. Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I have asked the hon. member to make his remarks, and I hope that they will be of assistance to the Chair. I want to hear his words. He may have said something which I may not have heard because of comments in the House. The hon. member.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the rare thing in this experience of being in public life is not being told the truth. In the presence of the member for Etobicoke North I was told that that committee would be travelling to Mexico and the United States to further expand questions that we had about the nature of it. Mr. Speaker, I was lied to. That is what I referred to-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. It may be that things were said. Whether they were said with the intention to mislead, which is what is necessary in order to amount to a lie, is a matter of opinion. But we cannot use those words here. I am going to ask that the hon. member consider perhaps for a few hours his position, and I hope that he will find it appropriate to withdraw.
The right hon. the Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might, as a statesman on his way out, make a comment that my hon. friend might reflect upon.
The Speaker in his very eloquent comments asked the member to withdraw his remarks. Mr. Speaker, if you spoke like that about me I would be ready to withdraw my resignation.
May I just make a suggestion to my hon. friend. I am not aware of the to and fro but may I just point out, out of respect for someone who has emerged as one of the most remarkable and successful Speakers in modern history, and given the point of view expressed by Mr. Speaker, why does my hon. friend, as a statement of respect for the Speaker and for the House not simply withdraw the remarks and we will get on to other things?

March 24, 1993
Routine Proceedings


David Barrett: I have profound respect for the Chair and for this Speaker in particular. There is no finer son of British Columbia, if that is what is being measured, than the hon. gentleman who now sits in the Chair of this House. This is not a dispute with the Chair. This is not a dispute with the rules of the House. This is not a dispute with the Chamber that I love and the British parliamentary system. It is simply a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot change. I have been lied to. And no number of hours will change that.


Some hon. members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I have asked the hon. member to reconsider his position and I have to take it that he has considered his position and is not going to change it.
This is regrettable, I think. But under the rules which we have set for ourselves, this is a situation in which I think now, and the right hon. the Prime Minister has probably spoken for most of the members in this place, we have tried to urge our colleague to withdraw but he is not going to do so. The only sanction that the Chair has, I think under these circumstances, is regrettably to name the hon. member.
Mr. Barrett, I have to name you for disregarding the authority of the Chair. Pursuant to the authority granted to me by Standing Order 11, I order you to withdraw from the House for the remainder of this day's sitting.
[Editor's Note: And Mr. Barrett having withdrawn:]


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In crossing from the other side to my seat-


An hon. member:: A point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have no idea who is apparently screaming at someone, but I cannot hear two points of order at the same time. I have already recognized one of your colleagues, if I may. The hon. member for Miramichi has the floor.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, in crossing from the other side of the Chamber to this side I inadvertently crossed in front of the Speaker. I simply want to apologize.



William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would simply like to raise for the consideration of the Chair what I consider to be the inappropriateness of what happened from the Chair during the course of Question Period.
In a way that I have never seen in my years here, and as far as I am concerned it has probably never happened before, the Chair saw fit to ask a leader of a particular party to rise in Question Period to state a position with respect to something that a member had said from the leader's party.
This was totally inappropriate behaviour as far as I am concerned on the part of the Chair. I would ask that the Chair and the Clerk consider the appropriateness of this behaviour. I look forward to an apology for the inappropriateness of that behaviour.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the hon. member. I am sure the point he has raised will be discussed in chambers and will be brought back to the House if it is considered necessary.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, and I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for consideration of the motion.
March 24, 1993


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.
[,Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PUBLIC WORKS


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, on March 11 I gave the House an undertaking to obtain all relevant background documentation from my department regarding the disposal of certain properties around the airport at St. Jean-sur-Ri-chelieu, Quebec.
I have now been provided with that information and under Standing Order 32(2) I wish to table it for the information of members.



BILL C-72 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-72, an act to establish the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy with amendments.



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton Southwest):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 77th, 78th and 79th reports of the Standing Committee on House Management, regarding the list of members who will sit
Routine Proceedings
on the legislative committees on Bills S-17, C-301 and C-106.
Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), these reports are deemed adopted when laid upon the table.



FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
18TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
['The motion is transferred for debate.\nMotion transferred for debate.']
Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Finance concerning Bill C-92, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and certain related acts.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Robert Nesbitt Horner: Madam Speaker, it is my duty, honour and privilege to present a petition signed by hundreds, probably thousands, of Canadians of Croatian descent.
They ask that the Government of Canada consider recognition of the Republic of Croatia in view of the fact that the democratically elected government of the Republic of Croatia has complied with conditions of resolution 743 of the United Nations Security Council.
The petition is correct as to form and content and has been certified.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege of presenting petitions duly signed that call upon Parliament to attend to the issue of violence against women and children. It states: "The undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to accept legislation designed to eliminate violence against women and children; encourage and support women to report incidents of assault or abuse; provide assistance and support for women reporting assault or abuse".

March 24, 1993
Routine Proceedings
They ask that we concentrate a special effort on training of police, lawyers, court workers and judges to become knowledgeable about women and child abuse and to focus public attention on this very important and long ignored problem.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to introduce a petition with over 5,000 names questioning the decision to close the Canadian Forces Base No. 5 Supply Depot in Moncton.
The petitioners call on Parliament to reconsider this untimely decision and keep these military facilities where they have been so capably serving the troops, the militia and other bases throughout Canada and overseas for the past 52 years.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to present a petition from several residents of North York, Toronto, Brantford and Port Dover who are concerned that the North American free trade agreement has resulted in even greater trade concessions being demanded of Canada so that Canadians will lose more jobs and there will now be further restrictions placed on the provincial, federal and territorial governments and even municipal governments from assisting Canadian industry, conserving natural resources and advancing our social programs.
Therefore, these petitioners call on this Flouse to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have many thousands of signatures on petitions here to add to the over 1.5 million signatures that have been presented by all parties in the House. These petitioners feel that there are serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system.
They ask that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society.
They ask the government to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon -Dundurn):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition, duly authorized under Standing Order 36, signed by people from the city of Regina and the community of Raymore, who point out that the proposed North American free trade agreement will erode Canada's ability to do many things and will also erode Canada's ability to maintain its level of employment.
They point out that if it is implemented, the trade agreement will result in further restrictions being placed on the ability of Canada's federal, provincial and territorial governments, now and in the future, to assist Canadian industry from using the natural advantages Canada has through its natural resources for Canada's own benefit. They ask that because the free trade agreement has to be implemented before January 1, 1994. They call upon the House of Commons to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement.
They also recommend that the free trade agreement with the United States be abrogated.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition of 150,000 names in my office being certified, but I have a petition of 600 names here. The petition is in memory of all children who have suffered at the hands of others.
We have formed this petition to stress our belief that the penalties in retrospect for child molesters and child murderers are far too lenient in this country. We strongly request that this petition be heard as a people's vote to reinstate capital punishment for child murderers and stiffen penalties for child molesters.
If we cannot protect our children from the people who commit these heinous crimes, then who will?
Therefore, your petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation against these types of offenders.
March 24, 1993


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a group of petitions to add to some earlier ones that have been certified correct according to Standing Order 36.
These petitioners recognize that treaty rights entitle Indians to preserve their traditional way of life, including hunting, fishing and gathering, but express concern that completely unregulated hunting interferes with good conservation and sound wildlife management practices.
They ask that this government conclude an agreement with Canada's treaty Indians regarding sound wildlife management practices, including restrictions on native rights to hunt, fish and gather, to personal consumption needs and prohibiting the sale for profit of wildlife meat or parts obtained by treaty rights.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, Question No. 470 will be answered today.


Mr. Proud: Willi respect to the Department of External Affairs and
International Trade, (a) how many trade missions does the
Government of Canada have abroad (b) where are they located (c)
what is the cost of running each one?


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Canada has 105 diplomatic missions abroad of which 103 undertake trade-related activities. Shown below is a list of those missions and the estimated costs apportioned to their trade program. The total of these estimated costs for the 103 missions is $86.5 million.
It should be noted that mission budgets integrate all the program costs associated with the conduct of political relations, public affairs, consular assistance, immigration and social affairs, and trade promotion. In calculating the costs of trade-related activities of a mission, the salary and benefits for Canada-based and locally-engaged trade officers have been added to a prorated share of the mission's over-all budget.
Routine Proceedings
Mission	Country	Trade Related Portion of Budget ($ 000)Abidjan	Ivory Coast	372Accra	Ghana	113Addis Ababa	Ethiopia	122Algiers	Algeria	964Amman	Jordan	193Ankara	Turkey	620Athens	Greece	552Baghdad	Iraq	441Bangkok	Thailand	819Beijing	China	1,843Belgrade	Yugoslavia	437Berne	Switzerland	1,015Bogota	Colombia	735Bonn	Germany	1,536Brasilia	Brazil	500Bridgetown	Barbados	255Brussels	Belgium	2,964Bucharest	Romania	390Budapest	Hungary	362Buenos Aires	Argentina	940Cairo	Egypt	340Canberra	Australia	429Caracas	Venezuela	763Colombo	Sri Lanka	111Copenhagen	Denmark	902Dakar	Senegal	96Damascus	Syria	78Dar-Es-Salaam	Tanzania	260Dhaka	Bangladesh	174Dublin	Ireland	512Georgetown	Guyana	52Guatemala	Guatemala	75Harare	Zimbabwe	38Havana	Cuba	536
March 24, 1993
Routine Proceedings
Mission	Country	TVade Related Portion of Budget ($ 000)Helsinki	Finland	792Hong Kong	Hong Kong	1,412Islamabad	Pakistan	368Jakarta	Indonesia	739Kiev	Ukraine	318Kingston	Jamaica	449Kinshasa	Zaire	159Kuala Lumpur	Malaysia	858Kuwait	Kuwait	1,645Libreville	Gabon	293Lima	Peru	332Lisbon	Portugal	381London	Britain	2,912Lusaka	Zambia	123Madrid	Spain	1,234Manila	Phillipines	527Mexico	Mexico	1,511Moscow	Russia	1,401Nairobi	Kenya	219New Delhi	India	711Paris	France	3,522Port au Prince	Haiti	214Port of Spain	Trinidad	380Prague	Czechoslovakia	558Pretoria	South Africa	131Rabat	Morocco	545Riyadh	Soudia Arabia	1,137Rome	Italy	934San Jose	Costa Rica	387Santiago	Chile	725Seoul	Korea	1,745Singapore	Singapore	562Stockholm	Sweden	1,058Tehran	Iran	1,332Mission	Country	Trade Related Portion of Budget ($ 000)Tel Aviv	Israel	560The Hague	Netherlands	922Tokyo	Japan	8,645Tunis	Tunisia	506Vienna	Austria	658Warsaw	Poland	419Washington	United States	2,102Wellington	New Zealand	896Windhoek	Namibia	105Yaounde	Cameroon	288Brussels (EEC)	Multilateral	37Brussels (NATO)	Multilateral	270New York (PERM/MISS)	Multilateral	34Atlanta	United State	1,712Berlin	Germany	476Bombay	India	118Boston	United States	1,089Buffalo	United States	537Chicago	United States	1,051Dallas	United States	720Detroit	United States	897Dusseldorf	Germany	991Los Angeles	United States	498Melbourne	Australia	474Milan	Italy	1,658Minneapolis	United States	935Munich	Germany	1,050New York (CON GEN)	United States	3,021Osaka	Japan	1,295San Francisco	United States	1,785Sao Paulo	Brazil	925Seattle	United States	785
March 24, 1993

Mission	Country	Trade Related Portion of Budget ($ 000)Shanghai	China	1,069Sydney	Australia	766Conakry	Guinea	41Grand Total	86,488[Translation]


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


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, would you please call Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers, Nos. P-23 and P-24, standing in the name of the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur.
Motion No P-23-Mr. Arseneault:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all financial statements compiled over the past five years relating to the operation of the Pointe-Verte post office located in New Brunswick.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, the financial statements of a post office are data of a commercial nature which is deemed to be proprietary information by the Canada Post Corporation.
However, the present plan of the Corporation for the rural conversion program calls for an annual reduction of about $6.5 million in operating costs, based on some 200 to 250 conversions.
Government Orders
I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Since the hon. member who tabled this motion is not in the House, would the hon. parliamentary secretary agree to allow this motion to be transferred for debate?


Charles A. Langlois: Yes, Madam Speaker, I agree. We could do the same in the case of Notice of Motion P-24.
Motion transferred for debate.
Motion No. P-24-Mr. Arseneault:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all
documentation, notes, memoranda, reviews, and other relevant
information concerning the decision of the Canada Post
Corporation on the matter of the announced closure of the
Pointe-Verte post office located in New Brunswick.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion is transferred for debate.
Motion transferred for debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


Hon. Barbara McDougall (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-113, an act to provide for government expenditure restraint, be now read a third time and passed.


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in the debate on third reading of Bill C-113, an act to provide for government expenditure restraint.
Since we took office in 1984, we on this side of the House have not ceased to wage a tough battle against the deficit by presenting a very long series of budgets and bills to put the public finances in order and reduce government spending.

March 24, 1993
Government Orders
Despite all these efforts, the battle is still far from won and the struggle must go on if we want to put Canada back on the road to prosperity. Nevertheless, positive results have been achieved in spite of the constant and vicious attacks from the opposition and the disinformation campaigns and bad behaviour of the opposition parties-the Liberals, New Democrats and the rest. These positive results tell us that we are definitely on the right track and going in the right direction.
Although referring to the historic and very costly errors of the government of Trudeau and Chretien does nothing to solve the present situation, as the opposition loves to say-and I understand their reaction; they do not like to be reminded of those things and if I were in their place, I would do the same because I would be very embarrassed about it-the fact remains that to have a good idea of the progress made, we must have a good idea of where we started from.
Where did we start from, Madam Speaker? In 1984, the deficit was $38.5 billion, or 10.3 per cent of the gross domestic product. To what was that $38.5 billion deficit and that $200 billion debt left to us in 1984 due? It is worth refreshing our memory and delving a little into the past.
Let me quote some statements made at the time. I will quote something Pierre Trudeau said in the expenditure guidelines statement of August 13, 1969. Mr. Trudeau said that if we did nothing to slow the increase in spending we were headed for disaster. Do you know how much spending increased that year, Madam Speaker? Government-spending rose 11.5 per cent.
I now come to 1970 and 1971. The same Pierre Trudeau, at the Liberal convention on November 20, 1970, said: "You know, it is easy to say, Why don't you do more, but the answer to that question is always the same: people expect a lot from the economy and these expectations are often competing and contradictory". At that time, government spending was rising at a rate of 12 per cent.
In 1971-72, Edgar Benson said, and I quote Hansard for June 18, 1971: "We have constantly urged government, business and labour in Canada to moderate their demands on the economy to levels that do not exceed the additional benefits of increased productivity". At the time, the rate of increase in government spending was 15.5 per cent.
In 1972-73, we read the following at page 2011 of Hansard of May 8, 1972, in a statement by the member for Vancouver Quadra: "The bare fact of the matter is that we cannot do everything at once. We simply don't have the resources. There are limits to the scope of fiscal policy. There are limits to stimulus and readjustment". In 1972-73, government spending increased by 15.6 per cent.
In 1974-75, we read at page 7183 of Hansard of July 2, 1975, and I quote the Leader of the Opposition: "We have decided that restraint is necessary. In order to exercise restraint, we had to cut back on planned expenditures". And, Madam Speaker, do you know that at the time, government spending increased by 28 per cent?
In 1975-76, again in a statement by the Leader of the Opposition we read at page 11059 of Hansard of February 18, 1976: "I have continued to state the government's intention to hold the growth of expenditures between 1974-75 and 1975-76 to 16 per cent or less. This has been done through the exercise of great restraint on new expenditures and through actual reductions in previously approved expenditures". Do you know how much government spending had increased at the time this statement was made? It had increased 20.1 per cent.
I will now move up to 1980-81. This is from a statement by Allan MacEachen in his budget speech on October 20, 1980 when he said that to reduce the deficit, it was necessary to introduce drastic spending restrictions. At the time government spending had increased by 16.5 per cent.
We will now move on to 1982-83.1 am still quoting Mr. MacEachen, who said in his budget speech on June 28, 1982: "Some say the government should print more money. Others say it should let the deficit rip. But that would fail miserably. Inflation and unemployment would get worse. Interest rates would rise even more. Canada would price itself out of world markets. Recovery would be postponed". Did you know that at the time Mr. MacEachen made his speech government spending had increased by 19.8 per cent?
The result of all this is clear. From 1970 to 1984 the annual average increase in government spending was 15 per cent. The deficit as a percentage of GDP was allowed to rise to 8.6 per cent. What was the situation in 1984 when this government came to power? Interest rates of up to 22 per cent, an inflation rate of 12 per cent and an operating deficit of $16 billion was the situation
March 24, 1993

under the Liberal government. This means we were borrowing to pay the groceries.
Someone said once: When I look at myself, I feel bad, but when I look at others, I feel better. I think those words are particularly apt today. What do we have now? In 1993 we have a deficit of $34.5 billion. In 1993 the average increase in government spending was reduced from 15 per cent to 4 per cent. The deficit as a percentage of GDP was reduced from 8 per cent under the Liberals to 5.2 per cent. In 1980 interest rates had soared to 22 per cent and in 1993 they have dropped to 6 per cent and 7 per cent.
In 1980, inflation was running at 12 per cent, while in 1993 it is down to about 2 per cent. We went from an operating deficit of $16 billion to a surplus of $6.5 billion. Not only do we not borrow a thing to feed ourselves but we produce a $6.5 billion surplus which allows us to absorb in part the cost of servicing the debt.
Our exports to the United States have increased thanks to our policies to a record $122.3 billion, a 13.5 per cent increase since 1991. This is important as we know that on an annual basis, for every additional $100,000 worth of products sold abroad, a new job is created. I could go on like this forever, but I only wanted to show very clearly that we are on the right track.
Basically, why can we now say we see the light at the end of the tunnel? Because the government faced up to its responsibilities, according to the mandate it received from the people and in spite of the vicious opposition from the New Democrats and the Liberals, and introduced legislation similar to Bill C-113 in order to bring public spending under control and to reduce it.
This has demonstrated to the world that Canada is still able to make the necessary decisions to put its finances in order and to live within its means.
The decisions we took had only one objective: to remedy an atrocious situation which in the long run would have jeopardized the future of this country, a situation which we inherited from the Trudeau-Chretien era. But during all these years, during each and every debate we have had in this House on legislation aimed at controlling public spending, one fact has become very obvious, the disinformation coming from the opposition.
Government Orders
How many gloom and doom predictions, groundless exaggerations and vicious accusations are at the basis of the disinformation campaign carried on by the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebe-cois members? It must be said that these people have never hesitated to throw their support behind unions and pressure groups and to back their outrageous statements.
The debate on Bill C-113 is just another powerful example of that, as was the one on Bill C-21, drug patents, free trade between Canada and the United States and so many other instances. But in the specific case of Bill C-113, we heard a wide range of questionable statements of which the intellectual honesty was very doubtful.
What about the action of the Federation des travail-leurs et travailleuses du Quebec, the FTQ? First, it caught the attention of the population by organizing a demonstration in the offices of Quebec members and even vandalizing some of them. However, later on it did not even appear before the legislative committee to present its arguments after having confirmed it would do so. No excuses. No explanations. The federation simply did not come.
It is very easy to make all kinds of idle statements during public demonstrations but when it is time to testify before a House committee, to state one's case before a legislative committee, to ship out without notifying anyone, without giving any explanation or excuse. I find such an attitude rather reprehensible. During all that time and since then, these people have instigated demonstrations once again using misinformation. Who in this House would agree with such totally unacceptable actions? The member for Timmins-Cha-pleau.
In the bill it is said that we will freeze UI benefits by decreasing the rate from 60 to 57 per cent for a two-year period. In the conclusion of the brief it presented to the legislative committee, why did the Confederation of National Trade Unions omit to mention that this measure will apply for a two-year period? Did it forget or was it deliberate? The CNTU also stated in the same document, and I quote:
Bill C-113 retains the absolute disqualification from benefits for
people who have quit their jobs or been fired.

March 24, 1993
Government Orders
Why did it not specify, as the bill does, that the disqualification applies to those who have quit their jobs without cause or have been fired for misconduct? It is a major piece of information to omit and it alters radically the purpose of the bill. Yet the CNTU did not hesitate one second to convey this totally biased and false information. This is one more example of the kind of disinformation used by Bill C-113 detractors to discredit the government.
Let me give this example where they say that Canada is adjusting its social programs, the unemployment insurance program in particular, to the U.S. programs because of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. We have no free trade agreement with France; still the benefit rate is 59 per cent over there and those who quit their jobs without cause are not entitled to any benefits. This in a country that has been run by a socialist government for years.
We have no free trade agreement with Japan. Nevertheless, in Japan benefits are paid at the rate of 48 per cent, not for one year but for six months.
We have no free trade agreement with England. Nevertheless, the benefit rate paid in England is 16 per cent. We have no free trade agreement with Italy and yet the benefit rate paid in Italy is 15 per cent.
Sweden is another country that the socialists constantly quote as an example. Go and see what is going on in Sweden. Let them go and see what is going on in Sweden. Decisions have to be made there too to control the system and cut costs.
As the Prime Minister said even with Bill C-113 our unemployment insurance program remains one of the most generous in all of the G-7 industrialized countries.


An hon. member:: One of the most generous, really?


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Yes, one of the most generous. Germany does give a few percentage points more than we do.
Long-standing opponents of free trade making this kind of connection between free trade and this bill is yet another striking example of disinformation.
Let me give you this example of a statement made by one of those who oppose this bill and certain hon. members of this House. I am quoting from the brief given by Mr. Paquette, of the CNTU, before the legislative committee:
A person may have worked for the same employer throughout his
entire life, and if he then quits his job and takes another job for 15
weeks, he would be disqualified from receiving benefits if he were
required to have had 16 weeks of insurable employment. With Bill C-113, all the weeks of insurable employment in the first job would not count, even though premiums had been collected during this time.
Such allegations have been presented as the unquestionable truth to the workers in Quebec and Canada. The most telling however is the reply Mr. Paquette, the CNTU spokesperson, gave the legislative committee when asked what section of Bill C-113 he is referring to when making such an allegation. Here is what he said, and I quote:
This is an interpretation we discussed with Mouvement action-chomage, amongst others.
It gets better. I am still quoting from Mr. Paquette's testimony:
We consulted some Employment and Immigration employees. They have told us that our interpretation will be corrected by regulations.
On the basis of an interpretation, their interpretation of the proposed section 30.(1), and in spite of having been provided with ample information in their discussions with department officials, they did not hesitate one second to spread information they knew to be completely unfounded. Once again this is a clear case of disinformation for political purposes. The trouble is they did not even think for one minute about all the uncertainty they created among Canadian workers, some of whom are members of the CNTU who pay their union dues and should expect a more professional approach from their union executives.
What about the testimony of Mr. Hayes and Ms. Nancy Riche from the Canadian Labour Congress who said, and I quote Ms. Riche: "Approximately 20,000 penalties have been reversed. That is to say, if they were given an eight-week penalty, it was changed to four weeks or three weeks or two weeks or zero. For 20,000, whatever penalty they had been given was reversed altogether".
In fact, according to the official data from Employment and Immigration Canada, the situation is quite different. Employment and Immigration Canada is telling us that in 1992, 36,003 initial decisions were appealed to what is commonly known as the Unemployment Insurance Arbitration Tribunal. Out of these 36,003 appealed decisions, 26,700 were upheld and 8,800 reversed, a far cry from the 20,000 figure quoted by Ms. Riche.
March 24, 1993

Where did Ms. Riche, executive vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress, and Mr. Hayes, senior economist in the same organisation, get their figures? On what official data did they rely to say such a thing publicly in front of a legislative committee of the House? Here is the answer of Ms. Riche and her colleague, Mr. Hayes, and I quote him: "The figures we got initially were over the phone". These people testified on the basis of telephone calls, just like that. This was not very professional and it was one more example of the kind of disinformation they used on the Canadian public. It is shameful.
What about the evidence we heard from Mrs. Suzan Giampietri, vice-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and her colleague, Mr. Cres Pascucci, national president of the Canada Employment and Immigration Union, who said assessments made by departmental employees, who happen to be members of their own unions, were more like guesstimates, hence questioning the professionalism of their members who work for that department and prepared the administrative data officially provided to all members of the committee.
Those who questioned the work done and the data provided showed a total lack of respect for the employees of Employment and Immigration Canada. Another fine example of how to knowingly misinform the public.
I have many more examples describing the disinformation campaign aimed at the Canadian population and orchestrated by several union leaders for political purposes, obviously in collusion with members from the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Bloc Quebecois.
Not surprisingly, things got very tense at times and the people responsible for that situation should be ashamed of what they did with full knowledge of the facts.
What exactly is Bill C-113? In reality it is an act to provide for government expenditure restraint following the economic statement made by the Minister of Finance on December 2. This legislation has become necessary in order to restrain the country's deficit and control the deficit in the unemployment insurance fund which is threatening our UI system.
Government Orders
Under this bill, salaries of public servants, members of Parliament, cabinet ministers, judges, the Prime Minister, senators and the Governor General will be frozen for two years; in fact salaries of members of Parliament will be frozen not for two, but for three years. Also, unemployment insurance benefits will be frozen for two years because of a decrease in the UI benefit rate from 60 percent to 57 percent. And I do mean for two years, because opponents and the opposition regularly forget to mention it.
In addition, the bill provides that from now on, anyone who quits a job without just cause or reason, as well as anyone who is dismissed for misconduct, will not be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
It is unacceptable for all workers in Canada who contribute to the UI fund to pay for the decision freely taken by an individual to leave his or her job without valid reason or provocation. It is a matter of fairness.
Just because we pay fire or accident insurance premiums does not mean that we will automatically collect if we are responsible for the fire. It must be the same for unemployment insurance, which is and must remain a safety net so that those who lose their jobs can receive support until they find other work.
It is important to mention that there was another way to limit the deficit in the UI fund, namely to increase the premiums of all workers and all employers in Canada by 10 per cent, 20 per cent, 30 per cent or 40 per cent. The government rejected this option knowing that it would adversely affect the economic recovery. A 20-cent increase in UI premiums would cost 30,000 people their jobs in 1993 and 60,000 in 1994. We cannot afford to endanger a recovery that is already well under way.
The bill also increases the number of valid reasons for leaving a job from 5 to 13 and recognizes over 40 situations in which a person can quit and still be eligible for UI benefits.
It is to be expected that the opposition would try to downplay this given their highly partisan objectives. Nevertheless, these reasons for quitting are in the legislation. There is no getting around them and they are a further guarantee for future claimants.

March 24, 1993
Government Orders
The bill also provides for private hearings and the possibility for a victim of sexual or other harassment to testify without the person who harassed him or her being present. This will help create a better environment for putting a victim at ease and thus encourage the reporting of these unacceptable acts.
It is surprising that the member for Timmins-Cha-pleau tabled an amendment at report stage that would not allow hearing the testimony of a harasser unless the victim was present.
I think that our bill allows the chairperson of the Unemployment Insurance Arbitration Tribunal, in hearing testimony from the victim or the harasser, not to expose the victim to the harasser's testimony, since the person has already suffered harassment.
The bill also imposes a more objective process for deciding on eligibility, requiring officers of Employment and Immigration Canada to obtain and consider the employee's and employer's versions in rendering a decision.
The commitments made by the minister, Mr. Valcourt, on training programs for the personnel of Employment and Immigration Canada who have to deal with cases of sexual harassment must not be minimized either.
Consider the following breakdown of staff at Employment and Immigration Canada: 85 per cent of front-line officers are women; 71 per cent of tier two officers are women; 63 per cent of claimant services officers are women; 87 per cent of reception and information clerks are women; 64 per cent of supervisors in Canada Employment Centres are women. Together with the training these women have received, this is one more guarantee for individuals who have suffered sexual or other harassment that they can expect to be treated fairly, to the extent that the circumstances of this harassment are recognized as a valid reason for quitting and for receiving unemployment insurance benefits.
Canadians are constantly asking us to put our financial house in order. They no longer want us to mortgage the
future of our children and subsequent generations. The government has made a firm commitment in this respect and we intend to meet that commitment.
Canadians also want us to make manpower training and retraining one of our priorities. The unemployed want more than just an unemployment insurance cheque when they lose their job. They want to be given a reasonable chance to get back into the labour market. Thanks to this bill and our previous legislation we will be in a better position to meet their expectations because amounts spent on training will be increased to nearly $3.5 billion annually. This is an important point.
I have seen a lot of people in my riding lose their jobs. They do not want an unemployment insurance cheque. They want to find another job but often must face the fact they lack training and skills. They are willing to take the time and make the effort to acquire those skills provided we give them the tools to help them do what it takes to re-enter the labour market as quickly and effectively as possible. That is one of the positive aspects of our unemployment insurance policy.
Canadians will no longer let their future and the prosperity of Canada be jeopardized. They no longer want the interests of Canadians to be subordinated to partisan considerations, something the opposition has failed to understand, which is why it will remain the opposition for a long time.
Since I have some time left, perhaps I will quote the list of reasons that constitute just cause for quitting one's job: sexual or other harassment, you can quit your job and receive unemployment insurance benefits; obligation to accompany a spouse or dependent child to another residence; discrimination on a prohibited ground of discrimination within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act-another just cause for voluntary quitting; working conditions that constitute a danger to health or safety, just cause; obligation to care for a child or member of the immediate family, just cause.
The following reasons were added to the existing eight: reasonable assurance of another employment in the immediate future, just cause; significant changes to
March 24, 1993

the terms and conditions respecting wages or salary, just cause; excessive overtime work or refusal to pay for overtime work-the employer is at fault and the employee refuses to tolerate the situation-just cause; significant changes in work duties, a reason recognized as just cause; antagonistic relations between an employee and a supervisor for which the employee is not primarily responsible, a reason recognized as just cause in case of voluntary quitting; practices of an employer that are contrary to law, just cause; discrimination with regard to employment because of membership in any association, organization or union of workers, a reason recognized as just cause in case of voluntary quitting; undue pressure by an employer on employees to leave their employment, just cause; such other reasonable circumstances as are prescribed. That is the thirteenth reason, the one that allows us, on the basis of current and future jurisprudence, to identify new, valid reasons without having to go back to Parliament and introduce new legislation.
Employment and Immigration Canada will be able to adopt regulations relating to the concept of just cause for voluntary quitting to maximize fairness to claimants.
The benefit of the doubt is a genuine consideration and Employment and Immigration Canada will give claimants the benefit of the doubt. Usually the people who make the decisions are able to draw sensible conclusions from circumstances, evidence and other relevant factors in favour of one of the parties. Considering that we have a system that has been in existence for 40 years and considering the experience of the people who work at Employment and Immigration Canada, I think there can be no doubt about their competence in this respect.
Claimants will be given the benefit of the doubt in cases when contradictory or equivalent evidence is submitted and, as a result, the evidence does not support one party rather than the other. In such case the benefit of the doubt will go to the claimant. In other words, the decision will be in the claimant's favour. This means that when the unemployment insurance officer, as prescribed by law, receives the employee's and employer's version of the facts and is unable to make a decision on the basis
Government Orders
of these statements, the benefit of the doubt will go to the claimant.
In conlusion, I must say that Bill C-113 and all similar bills are never a matter of rejoicing for the government. However, with a debt of $400 billion, a deficit of $34.5 billion and an anticipated deficit of $8.5 billion in the unemployment insurance account we must act now, the government must make certain decisions and act responsibly, which is what Canadians want us to do. That is what this government is doing and has done since it came into office. That is what we will keep on doing as long as we have a mandate from the people of this country. I am sure Canadians will appreciate our responsible attitude and our sense of fairness, all of which is in the best interests of the people of this country.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-113, the bill we are discussing today, arrives at the third reading stage after an exceptionally rocky ride.
We all remember the angry reactions of Canadians when they first heard of these changes in the government's economic statement last year. We all remember the protesters who invaded the riding offices of government members from Quebec and threw the furniture from those offices into the street. Despite this anger the government has demonstrated insensitivity and arrogance in its attempt to sell these changes to Canadians.
Who can forget the employment minister saying that it was time the government had-I will not use the words that he used because they are unparliamentary-to face facts and get tough with people who quit their jobs to freeload off the UI system? There was also a suggestion that UI recipients should be proud to sacrifice some of their benefits in order to help control the deficit. Who will ever forget such ludicrous ideas as the 1-800 UI snitch hotline, the UI police squad or the claim that the February 7 demonstration in Montreal was a separatist set-up?
The government paid for its incompetent handling of this issue. The former deputy minister of employment and immigration was demoted and transferred to the Department of Supply and Services. The government had to deal with a revolt in its Quebec caucus. Finally, the minister backed down and introduced a new bill, Bill C-113, in an effort to disguise the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act that attracted so much scorn across the country.

March 24, 1993
Government Orders
Of course Bill C-113 fooled some people. It fooled all but two of those Conservative members who have spoken out against Bill C-105. Those two remaining hold-outs eventually voted with their constituents instead of voting with their party.
However, Bill C-113 did not fool the people of Canada. The opposition to the new bill has been just as widespread and just as angry as that which confronted the government's first bill.
When the legislative committee on Bill C-113 started holding hearings, hundreds of groups and individuals opposed to the bill requested the opportunity to make a presentation to the committee. The opposition to Bill C-113 shows no sign of diminishing. I still receive letters and faxes from opponents of the bill who wish to present a brief to the legislative committee. I have petitions here with signatures of more than 5,000 Canadians who want this bill withdrawn.
The popular opposition to Bill C-113 was evident two weeks ago in Toronto when 3,000 angry demonstrators marched through the streets of the city protesting these changes.
What I am simply outlining here is the fact that the government has become extremely distant from the people of this country. That opposition was evident last week in Montreal when opponents of this proposed legislation broke down two doors at the Queen Elizabeth hotel where the Minister of Finance was scheduled to make a speech. Those protesters had to be restrained by the police. This is the type of anger that is being vented against this bill, which is extremely unfair and unjust to Canadians.
Bill C-113 is the cause of such anger. The changes to the UI act contained in this bill are absolute, arbitrary and unfair. They are going to cause pain for some Canadians and they are going to push some into desperate situations.
The employment minister and the Minister of Finance do not seem willing to accept this. They do not seem to believe that the changes they are proposing are going to cause economic suffering. It is easy for them to deny it since they do not come into daily contact with unemployed Canadians.
However, the civil servants who work in Canada Employment Centres know better. Many of them understand that this bill is just not right. They fear for their lives and are worried about how some UI claimants might react when they learn that they are not eligible for benefits. The government has acknowledged that the potential for violent reactions in CECs as a result of these changes is a possibility. At the legislative committee the deputy minister admitted that his department is going to be improving security at CECs.
If this bill is so fair and just and if these changes are needed and are morally, socially and economically acceptable, then why would Canadians, perhaps the most tolerant people on earth, react in the manner in which they have?
Already the threat of violence hangs in the air. Last week in Montreal a CEC had to be evacuated after it received a bomb threat. It turns out that there was a bomb but the detonator was defective. As a representative of the employees stated: "They were able to evacuate this time but next time, who knows?"
The people who work in CECs, who live that reality every day, have taken matters into their own hands. This week they started distributing a booklet entitled "For a Just Cause" that is designed to help UI claimants get around the obstacles that this government is throwing in their way.
Naturally the government is cracking down on the distribution of this booklet thereby contributing to the atmosphere of distrust and resentment which surrounds Bill C-113.
Why has this happened? How did the relationship between the government and the people of Canada deteriorate to the point where we have to seriously consider beefing up security in government offices?
Reaction has been so strong because the changes to the unemployment insurance program contained in Bill C-113 threaten every Canadian who has a job.
By reducing the benefit rate from 60 per cent to 57 per cent of insurable earnings, the government is going to be taking money out of the pockets of some families. It may only be $80 a month, but for some households that represents the hydro and phone bills or a weekly order of groceries. For the vast majority of Canadians who live pay cheque to pay cheque, losing an extra $80 a month can be a major set-back.
March 24, 1993

Bill C-113 will also deny benefits to people who leave their jobs without a government-defined just cause or who were said to have been fired for misconduct. It is the frightening possibility of total disqualification which has provoked the most resistance. This measure contains an implicit threat. It says to Canadians in a difficult or unfair work position: "You had better be able to take it, because if you quit or if your boss fires you, you are going to have to prove you deserve unemployment insurance and that can take a long time".
Bill C-113 contains a reverse onus. Instead of assuming that all unemployed Canadians deserve the support of UI, it assumes that only those who can prove they were wronged deserve it. In a sense, UI claimants will be guilty until proven innocent.
We have heard the example of women who are victims of sexual harassment in the work place. While I am glad the employment officers who hear such cases will be instructed to give such women the benefit of the doubt when they apply for UI, I am nonetheless worried that some women are going to fall through the cracks.
Sometimes the deck can be stacked against employees in these situations. It can be extremely difficult to prove sexual harassment. It can occur without witnesses being present and the guilty party can sometimes marshal other employees to contradict the testimony of the victim. Clearly the benefit of the doubt is not sufficient protection.
People are fired and forced to quit for other reasons than sexual harassment, lake the example of a member of a given minority group. If he is the victim of racial or religious discrimination in the work place he may have no recourse but to quit. If he complains too loudly, he risks being fired or forced to quit. Of course his boss will give another reason for his dismissal. Consequently that person may have serious difficulty proving he was not fired for misconduct but was the victim of discrimination.
The government may dismiss these hypothetical examples, but I am certain the members opposite have heard from their constituents and know just as well as we do that people are going to suffer economically as a result of these changes.
Government Orders
I was recently given a copy of a letter one of my colleagues received from a constituent. The letter was addressed to the minister of employment with a copy to my colleague. The letter was from an expectant mother who was distressed to learn that UI benefits she will receive during maternity leave are also going to be reduced from 60 per cent to 57 per cent. This woman spoke of the difficulty this will cause. She mentioned innumerable expenses such as diapers, clothes, baby food and others that arise with the arrival of a baby. She said something that really touched me. Addressing the minister of employment she said: "Maybe you think 3 per cent is small but let me tell you that most people do not have an expense account and our end of month is not as rich as yours". She is right, of course.
As I have said before, in the real world people have to fight to make ends meet. In the real world people fall through the cracks of the UI system. Despite a civil servant's best intentions, a person who deserves UI sometimes fails to prove his or her eligibility.
I have a very interesting example here. The claimant was a pipe fitter who was called out by his union hiring hall for a short-term job. The claimant always took jobs when he was called out by his union even though in this case the rate of pay was approximately $6 an hour less than his normal rate. The man travelled to where the job was. He found a place to live and worked for one day. He approached his new employer for an advance in order to pay for his lodgings. He was told that the employer did not follow the standard industry practice and would not pay the advance. The claimant advised his union which after discussing the situation with the employer, told the man no advance would be paid. As the claimant had no credit cards or money he was forced to quit and return home.
The commission decided this was a case of voluntary quitting and disqualified the man for 12 weeks. That decision was upheld by the board of referees. The man took his case to the umpire who reversed the decision and restored the benefits he had lost. It took 22 months before this man's benefits were restored by the umpire.
Under Bill C-113 he would not receive any benefits whatsoever until after the umpire's decision. Where is the justice in that? Is it any wonder that people are opposed to Bill C-113 if the changes it contains are going

March 24, 1993
Government Orders
to mean that some people have to wait two years to get their benefits?
Why does the government persevere with a bill that is obviously going to create so much inequity and economic hardship? The government, especially the Minister of Employment and Immigration is sending out confused signals about why the country needs this bill.
On the one hand the minister says the bill is designed to merely help the government control its costs. As he said before the legislative committee: "I have always said this is not UI reform, this is a fiscal measure". However, in the next breath the minister seems to contradict himself and says: "There is a fiscal thing but there is also something else here. There is an incentive in the act, an incentive for workers to say well I am going to put in my 10 weeks and then I am going to go and sit at home and do nothing and I am going to get my neighbour to pay for me. The incentive is there".
That is what the minister believes. Sometimes Bill C-113 is a fiscal measure. Sometimes it is a remedy to the perceived problem of free-loaders in the UI system. I would like to address both points and show how the bill fails on both counts and then comment briefly on how the Minister of Employment and Immigration has allowed his personal bias to colour this debate.
First, there is the issue of Bill C-113's deficit-fighting mission. Before looking at what the changes in the bill are supposed to accomplish, I think it would be useful to put them in context by looking at the present state of the UI fund.
In 1990 the government decided that general revenues would no longer contribute to the UI fund. Since that time the fund has been financed solely by UI premiums paid by employees and employers. These premiums have been raised twice since 1990: first by 24 per cent in July 1991 and then by 7.1 per cent in January 1992. Revenues collected from these premiums totalled $17.9 billion in 1992-93.
Despite such revenues the cost of the program has climbed $7 billion since 1990 due in large part to an unemployment rate which went from 8.1 per cent in 1990 to 10.3 per cent in 1991 and to 11.3 per cent in 1992.
Because of steadily rising UI costs, the UI fund is in a deficit position. The cumulative deficit is presently $4.7 billion. 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 $2.45 billion over two years.
Normally one might expect that if the government hopes to save such a large amount of money the sum will reduce or at least contain the deficit in the UI fund. Unfortunately that is not the case with these changes, even though the government is going to inflict economic hardship on millions of Canadians with these UI changes. The deficit in the UI fund is expected to rise to $7.6 billion by the end of 1993 from $4.7 billion at present. It is clear, therefore, that from a deficit-fighting standpoint the changes in Bill C-113 are a failure.
I am not saying, as some have suggested, $2.45 billion is a negligible amount. It is not. What I am saying is that if the government is willing to introduce measures which are going to hurt millions of Canadians, then it owes it to Canadians to make sure those measures accomplish what they were designed to accomplish.
If the deficit in the UI fund is going to continue to sky-rocket despite these changes, then it is right to say that the government has failed.
There is also the question of the bill's social engineering side. It is supposed to cure all the free-loaders who now live off the system of their dependency on handouts, to use one of the minister's expressions. The minister is quite insistent on the importance of hunting down these people who he says are hurting the system. He is convinced that this is a serious problem, but numbers from his own department seem to indicate otherwise.
During the legislative committee's study of this bill we were given a briefing by officials from the Department of Employment and Immigration. In their presentation one chart in particular stood out. It is entitled "The Pattern of Job Separation and the UI Program, 1991". At the top of the chart is a large rectangle representing total job separation. In 1991, 6.9 million Canadians left jobs for one reason or another. Below that first large rectangle is a smaller one called "Used to Establish UI Claim". There were 3.6 million UI claims in 1991.
March 24. 1993

The next rectangle represents UI claims for that year: three million. When that figure is broken down we are given two smaller rectangles. One represents people who applied for UI who did not quit their jobs. In 1991 there were 2.35 million who made claims under those circumstances.
People who did quit their jobs totalled 650,000. That number is broken down even further. Of the 650,000 Canadians who made UI claims after quitting their jobs, 460,000 were found to have quit their jobs with good reason. The total number of people who quit their jobs without good reason was 190,000 out of a total of three million, a mere sliver on the departmental chart.
While I agree that even 190,000 free-loaders, if they are free-loaders, are 190,000 too many, I would suggest to the minister, to the government and to Canadians watching today that this is not the problem the government is making it out to be. The problem is termination and lay-offs not voluntary quitters. The Conservative economic agenda has been the failure and as a result we must pay as a society with the economic hardships that Bill C-113 will create.
I know that the minister of employment disagrees vehemently with what I have just said. It has become clear in this debate that he views social programs and their important function in a completely different way than most Canadians. While most people think of the social safety net as something that catches us and saves us when we fall off the high wire of life the minister has referred to it as a fishing net that traps those in the net in a cycle of dependency.
When he appeared before the legislative committee on Bill C-113 the minister of employment told us an anecdote about people in his riding who work in a sawmill and would quit to go hunting. These people coerced the mill owner to write false records of employment because they knew that he needed them more than they needed him. The minister's disgust and frustration with these people was apparent.
It is clear that those are the kinds of people who fuel his pursuit against voluntary quitters, people who laugh at the system because they know that when push comes to shove they can survive in the underground economy selling firewood, working under the table, or living off
Government Orders
what they hunt during the winter. That is not the reality of most Canadians. Most people are completely dependent on their salaries, and if they lose their job it is not a question of making a slight adjustment in life-style, they are completely devastated.
The minister is indifferent to that larger reality. All he sees is those people who thumb their noses at the system, and it makes his blood boil. Later in his presentation to the legislative committee the minister made a very revealing admission. We were talking about how these changes really just tinkered with the system, tinkered on the sidelines. The minister admitted that it is just tinkering. Then he said that if it were only him, and he stopped for a second as if catching himself, and then went on to say it would be much more comprehensive UI reform that would be undertaken because we need it.
It is a shame that the minister held back because I would have been interested in knowing what he would like to do with the UI program. I have often urged this government to present a plan to Canadians because we desperately need a vision to lead us into the next century.
I think that as a society we must re-evaluate old beliefs and find new ways to cope with the new reality. We see that the debt and the deficit are beginning to interest Canadians and I think this is a very positive development.
I am anxious to see how the government tries to explain its lackluster performance in these two areas and possibly the UI system is another area which deserves to be re-examined.
The minister seems to believe so, even though he hesitates about what changes he might like to make.
I say to the minister that if he has a plan for comprehensive UI reform, then he should present it to the House because the bill now before this House is a dismal failure. If the UI act needs to be reformed, then that is a debate which should take place immediately. Canadians need help in preparing for the new world economy and if UI reform is to be part of that help then let the government put a reform proposal before the Canadian people so they can judge whether or not the proposal is worth while.

March 24, 1993
Government Orders
Bill C-113 certainly does not fit the bill. The minister has admitted that this bill is only tinkering and that amateurism shows. Bill C-113 does not address the problems of the 1.5 million unemployed Canadians. It does not address the sad state of the 2.2 million Canadians on welfare. It does not address the skills shortage that keeps so many Canadians from being able to fill the hundreds of thousands of good jobs available in this country.
I said earlier that among the three million new UI claims that were filed in 1991, 2,350,000 were filed by people who did not quit their jobs. Instead of voluntary quitters, the minister should focus on these people. Instead of cutting benefits, the government should be helping Canadians get back to work.
As I have said before, for each one percentage point drop in the unemployment rate, the UI fund deficit drops by close to $2 billion. If the government would attack unemployment as single-mindedly as it fought inflation and managed to get the unemployment rate to the 1990 level of 8.1 per cent, it would cut $4 billion from the UI fund deficit. The government has consistently shown that it is unwilling to take on the problem of unemployment. It is for that reason that we now find ourselves with a $4.7 billion deficit in the fund.
In closing I would like to underline a few important points regarding this piece of legislation. Yesterday the member for Athabasca got up and addressed the House in the debate during report stage on this bill. The member spoke a lot about fairness and I agree with him that the question of fairness plays a very large role in this debate.
Although I look at it from the opposite perspective, the changes to the UI act contained in Bill C-113 are unfair. Of course many things in life are unfair and we have to adapt as best we can but I think it is fundamentally wrong for a government to introduce legislation that it knows will hurt people.
The minister says that the bill is necessary in order to stop the abuse of the system. I have already indicated that the so-called abuse by voluntary quitters is relatively minor but something that is equally important to remember is that safeguards already exist to limit the number of free-loaders who abuse the system.
The minister may enjoy talking about all the UI free-loaders enjoying Florida. In reality a person must be available for work in order to collect UI. You cannot just sit around at home watching TV all day if there is work available. That is a myth.
More important, there now exists a penalty period of seven to twelve weeks which officers who handle UI claims can give to people who either quit without just cause or are fired for misconduct. The legislative committee on Bill C-113 was told that the average penalty is 8.5 weeks. The EIC official said and I quote: "A very small percentage get the full 12 weeks". It is clear that abuse is not really the problem. What does that mean? If voluntary quitters were the problem, as the minister suggests they are, would not more people get the full 12-week penalty? Of course they would.
I asked the EIC official why go to a total exclusion, as in Bill C-113, if the full 12-week penalty is seldom given? Her answer was: "The decision was made on the basis of financial reasons". It was not abuse, it was merely a political choice that this government made. That is heartless. The government needs to save money, so instead of cancelling or scaling back a $5.8 billion helicopter package it is going to exclude needy people from the UI system.


An hon. member:: Well said.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Canadians will not forget such inequities. A solid majority oppose the changes in Bill C-113 because they understand that the bill will affect everyone. The anger and the bitterness that has resulted from this bill are sad testimony to this government's ability in the dying days of its mandate. At a time when everyone, business, labour, government and individual Canadians, should be working together to design a new society, the government is pitting Canadians against each other in a new class struggle. Canadians deserve better.
The government owes it to the people to withdraw this bill and go back to the drawing board. If we need UI reform then let the government offer Canadians an honest reform package. I know, and deep down everyone here knows, that Bill C-113 will do much more harm than good. For this reason, and for the reasons I have outlined today, I strongly and sincerely hope that all members will defeat this bill.
March 24, 1993


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Madam
Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-113. I regret that the member who is the unemployment critic of my caucus was unable to speak because he had to go to his riding for his nomination. We had asked the government to co-operate and delay the vote until tomorrow but that was not possible.
I am rising in his place and I wanted to begin my remarks about Bill C-113 by saying that it is interesting that not every employer in this country applauds the government's position in introducing this legislation. I would like to refer to The Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, January 22, 1992. That is over a year ago.
Matthew Barrett, the chairman and chief executive officer of the Bank of Montreal gave a speech at his firm's annual general meeting. In his speech he said: "There is a dark side to an economy in transition. Building a new economy will be a painful process for many Canadians. Most of that pain will be borne by the thousands of Canadians whose jobs disappear. We now have 1.5 million unemployed. That is a human tragedy of enormous proportions. It brings grief and division to the jobless and their families, and it is unjust. A blameless minority are paying the cost of a restructuring that will ultimately benefit all Canadians".
He went on to say: "We cannot treat the unemployed as the cannon fodder in our economic battles. That would be callous and it would also be wasteful since every unemployed Canadian is an unrealized asset".
What did the government do subsequent to January 1992? It immediately set out to use the unemployed as cannon fodder for the failed Tory and Liberal policies.
A number of people asked me when I was home in my riding whether Bill C-113 is really as bad as I am saying it is. I sat down with them and talked to them about what is in this bill, and we have heard that discussed in this House today.
Anti-poverty groups are saying that Bill C-113 will drive more Canadians below the poverty line, and it is just magic that at the same time the hon. member for Don Valley North, who is the chair of the poverty subcommittee, wants to lower the poverty line in this country.
Bill C-113 further erodes Canadian labour standards, that is from the unions in Canada. Bill C-113 will
Government Orders
increase discrimination, that is from human rights groups in this country. Bill C-113 will allow more employers to get away with sexual harassment, that is from women's groups in this country.
Bill C-113 passes the social programs back to the provinces, that is from provincial governments. Bill C-113 will increase the cost of transporting grain and hurt Canadian farmers, that is from farming groups. Bill C-113 threatens occupational health and safety, that is from a number of health and safety committees. Bill C-113 wipes out free collective bargaining for federal workers, that is from public sector workers in the federal government.
In response to those who have asked me about Bill C-113 I have tried to point out that if there was no danger for Canadian workers in Bill C-113 there would not have been protests across this country. There would not have been 50,000, 40,000, or however many thousand, people on a bitterly cold sub-Arctic day in Montreal demonstrating their disapproval of this legislation to this government.
We got back into the House of Commons and this government withdrew Bill C-105, rewrote it and introduced it as Bill C-113. Aside from some cosmetic changes in the UI section, adding to the just cause list, providing more privacy for victims of sexual abuse and a clause for evidence for fired claimants, the bill is still the same.
Public Service wages are still frozen in total disregard to due process of collective bargaining. Grain transportation costs still go up at a time when most farmers are already struggling. Bill C-113 actually adds in the Atlantic Freight Assistance Act.
UI benefits are still reduced from 60 to 57 per cent of former income. People who are fired for misconduct or who quit without just cause still will be totally cut off from UI benefits.
The bill is overkill on a problem that is more perceived than real. The government has turned the safety net of UI into a drift-net that will gather up thousands of innocent victims of economic policies that have been perpetrated by this government and the Liberal government before it. It will gather them in along with a few abusers. Every Canadian who is required to quit his or her job and every person who is fired becomes the victim of this bill and has to prove to the government that he or she should be eligible for unemployment insurance.

March 24, 1993
Government Orders
The government will argue that it will be saving money by introducing this bill. Judy Rebick says that by the government's own figures it is going to save $900 million through the cut in voluntary quits and firings. Of that, $400 million will go to businesses for the government to pay their premiums for new hires. We are now talking about $500 million, and out of the $500 million-I know a little bit about security, of what new security systems cost in every UI office-we could estimate that we are talking about several million-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, I have to interrupt the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam. She will have the time remaining for her speech as soon as the Speaker has addressed the House.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: First of all, I thank the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam for her courtesy in allowing me to interrupt her on a matter which I wish I did not have to address but which I do.
Earlier today I made a remark with respect to an exchange that was taking place in the House, a remark which I was wrong in making, in which I asked the question whether or not the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Yukon, was supporting the position of our colleague who was involved in the dispute.
I want to say to my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon and the leader of the New Democratic Party, that I was absolutely wrong in saying that. I knew I was wrong as soon as 1 said it. That is why I did not say anything further about it.
I hope my colleague will accept my apologies and I hope her colleagues will accept my apology. I am conscious of the statement made in the Chamber by our colleague and long-time friend of mine, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona. I hope he will feel that this apology is adequate and satisfactory.
I sometimes have to ask members to apologize and it is probably fitting that once in a while a Speaker has to do the same thing.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you very much for that. Of course I accept your words and your apology.
I think all of us understand that from time to time there are things we might change in what we have said, but I think it is with great honour to your office that you have on this occasion clarified the record. I appreciate it very much and I thank you.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will be resuming debate. There are 13 minutes left for the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-113, an act to provide for government expenditure restraint, be read the third time and passed.
Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, I was in the process of quoting remarks made by Judy Rebick from the NAC in appearing before the committee on Bill C-113. I was outlining the costs she saw under this bill: "There will be an additional 200 appeal workers and estimates are that it will be more than that because of the increase that happened when the penalties were placed. There was a huge increase in appeals, from a few a week to constant every day appeals. We are now going to have even more under this new legislation because people are being thrown off UI altogether.
How much money is really being saved? Very little. We do not believe this is a deficit reduction, member. We believe it is a political attack on unemployed people, on women and an attempt to bring our UI system into harmony with the American UI system".
I would like to introduce something into my remarks and read it into the record for the benefit of those unemployment help centres across the country that are advocacy centres and for those who just might be watching and want to know what their rights are under this bill. I would like to read into the record a few instructions that are proposed in a booklet called "For a Just Cause". It is a UI handbook produced for workers by workers. It is printed by the Public Service Alliance of Canada and it is from UI workers whose wages, I might add, were frozen at zero for the next two years by this bill.

March 24. 1993
Those UI workers are very concerned about what the impact of this bill is going to be on those Canadians who are facing unemployment. In particular, I want to address my remarks to the just cause for quitting a job section and being fired for cause.
The question in the booklet is: "What are just causes for quitting a job?" The response, and I again point out this is from unemployment insurance workers who are the front line workers: "Just cause is defined in the UI act as having no reasonable alternative to immediately leaving the employment. You will not be disqualified from UI benefits if you have just cause for quitting your job: you quit because of a hostile attitude toward you created by your employer or supervisor; you quit because your employer is breaking the law, for example, you were not being paid and you reported the employer to the provincial or territorial authorities; you quit because your employer is harassing you for your union activities; you quit because your boss forced you to quit or be fired, forced early retirement or buy-out package.
Just cause is not limited to these reasons. For example, just cause might exist if: you quit because you had been working away from home for a long time and it is causing family problems; you quit because you were working away from home and had to return because of an illness in the family. However you may be disentitled for not being available for work".
There is an example listed.
"Suppose, before the changes to UI, you were being sexually harassed at work. You did not tell the person harassing you to stop; you did not go to the union steward or to the employer. You just wanted to get out of there so you quit. You probably would not have shown just cause and you would have been disqualified for seven to twelve weeks because you did not do everything possible to avoid quitting. The changes to UI mean that you will not receive UI benefits at all because you did not do everything possible to avoid quitting".
Government Orders
In other words, as a woman who is being sexually harassed you must confront your harasser and your employer before you are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
The question then becomes: What does misconduct mean? Misconduct means you have been fired from your job because you have done something improper or unacceptable for an employee to do. It can be either criminal or non-criminal.
That brings me to another matter that is under discussion or that would draw a nice analysis between this bill and the justice system in Canada. What is the difference between a UI claimant in Canada and an accused criminal in Canada? Under the criminal justice system the onus of proof is on the system. For a UI claimant the onus of proof is on the claimant.
Under the criminal justice system the person is innocent until proven guilty. Under the unemployment insurance system the claimant is guilty until proven innocent.
Under the criminal justice system criminal justice is guided by laws that must be changed by statute. It is a rigorous process. UI is guided by directives that can be changed by the commission at any time and that can be interpreted loosely or severely.
Under the criminal justice system all witnesses are treated equally before the law. Under UI, employers have more power through the separation slip and through the approach recommended by the UI directives than does the claimant.
Under the criminal justice system decisions are made first by police for information gathering, then by the Crown attorney's decision to proceed with charges and then by judges and/or juries. Under the UI system the UI agent is a police officer, lawyer and judge usually with the responsibility for making the decision all alone.
I could go on. There is a whole page full of these analogies but I think I have made my point on that.

March 24, 1993
Government Orders
I would like to suggest to all those people who are interested in UI and who want to know what their rights are under this act that they should contact their local Public Service Alliance of Canada office or the office of their member of Parliament to ask for the document "For a Just Cause".
I would like to say that the minister in committee told an anecdote about workers in his riding and I have a short anecdote too to close my remarks. A young man was out on the town in his home town. This is an anecdote by the way that was told to me in Fredericton, New Brunswick. He went across the line to have a few drinks on his motorcycle. He came back to town and had a bit of an accident on his motorcycle. He fell off his bike, injured his eye and had to miss some work. Let us say that man's boss had penalized him and fired him for not attending work because he had had an accident that the boss may have felt was self-inflicted. Would that young man have been eligible for unemployment insurance? The group of people who were discussing this, among them people who work in UI offices, said: "No, absolutely not".
What happened to that young man who was from New Brunswick who would not have been eligible for UI? That young man got two weeks at the Prime Minister's summer home for his troubles.


Mr. Merrithew:: Small stuff.


Joy Langan: The hon. member across the way thinks that was a cheap shot. I have to say that the unemployed in this country think that this government's policies are cheap shots at a time when there is double-digit unemployment in this country and it is taking away their benefits. It is inexcusable. There is nothing cheap about that shot except that this government has got to change its ways or be gone.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I have listened to most of my colleague's comments to the House on Bill C-113. First of all, I should say that I started listening with interest to her anecdote about the young man from New Brunswick, but I thought that the last comments about that young man were quite inappropriate for this kind of debate. It is unfortunate that
comments of that kind are used in the House when trying to make an argument, but we have heard it.
My question to the hon. member is in line with the fact that Bill C-113 will stop paying UI benefits to people who quit their job without just cause or because they are fired for disciplinary measures. Here is my question to her. Is this fair for people working and remaining at their jobs to make a living to sustain their family? I refer here to women manning the cash registers in grocery stores or in drug stores, going to their jobs every day and having to put their children in another home so that they can go to work. These people stay on the job. These women have to work on a daily basis. Is it fair that they have to pay unemployment insurance in order for people who quit their jobs without just cause to be able to draw on unemployment insurance benefits?


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, the question that comes from the hon. member is an indication of the lack of understanding of what this bill does to women in particular in this country.
"Is it fair for women who have to 'man'." The word nowadays is "staff" a cash register in a department store or other work place. Is it fair that she has to work and put her children in child care? That is if she can get child care. If she cannot, she will be cut off unemployment insurance if she has to quit her job unless she can prove in the regulations that were tabled in this House the other day and out of a document that came from the department that she has tried to get her spouse to take care of the child, that she has gone to her employer and asked for a change of shift, that she has asked the employer for the ability to have work sharing or that she has asked her boss for unpaid leave. If she has not done all of those things and asked for unpaid leave, then she is not eligible for unemployment insurance.


Charles A. Langlois: No, no. Wrong. Answer my question. You're wrong.


Joy Langan: Not wrong. It is right in your own document.
The other point that the hon. member made is that he thought my anecdote was inappropriate in this House. Well, my goodness, it was the truth and I thought that the truth was in fact appropriate in this House. We have had some discussions about that from time to time lately.
March 24, 1993

The other point that the hon. member made is that it is not fair for people who are working-and here we come into the mentality of this government-to pay UI premiums for those who quit without cause.
If we are talking about the .01 per cent who are in fact found to be abusing the system-.01 per cent is the government's own figure-then we could talk about the 2 per cent, this caused the big debate in committee recently, of members of the opposite side of the House who had been found guilty in the courts.
I think that the hon. member probably should get up and apologize to Canadian women for his total lack of understanding for the kinds of difficulties that Canadian women are facing in this country and their need for unemployment insurance.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: I would like to ask my hon. colleague who has spoken so eloquently on this bill and particularly on the lack of justice for women, particularly women who suffer from sexual harassment in the workplace, what she thinks is the reason for having a section in this bill where such women who have suffered from harassment in the workplace could be excluded from their own hearings on this? They could be excluded from giving testimony on their own behalf.
Why is this included in the bill? Does she think that this is just?


Joy Langan: Hon. Speaker, I wish I could have the opportunity to ask somebody, one person on the other side of the House, that same question.
I think it is important that this question is raised and I thank the hon. member for her question.
Of course it is not just. Have we any courts in this country? I outlined in my speech some of the analogies between a court of law and the UI system where criminals get fairer treatment in a court of law than if one is somebody in this country who is thrown out of work.
Now we have women in this country who have been sexually harassed who do not have the right to appear on their own behalf in a hearing on their sexual harassment.
Government Orders
It is absolutely bereft of justice. This government does not even pretend to be a just government when it comes to women in this country.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Political fraud.


Joy Langan: My colleague has said "political fraud'' and I think that probably is a good way of putting it. It is absolutely unjust, unfair and unqualified harassment of the Canadian unemployed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think at this stage if the hon. member did say something that was unparliamentary I wish she would get up and apologize.
I believe I heard something that was unparliamentary.


Joy Langan: I do not think what I said is unparliamentary but certainly if I did say something that was unparliamentary I am terribly sorry.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity today to comment on Bill C-113. I hope that my comments will clarify the debate and help some groups and individuals who have concerns and questions, to better understand the objectives and the thrust of Bill C-113 which we are debating in third reading today in the House of Commons.
We have to go back to December 1992 and read once again the statement that the Minister of Finance, made in this House concerning Canada's fiscal situation. We must examine in particular the measures which that economic statement would put in place in order to correct the situation. The minister's economic statement had essentially two objectives: first, to put in place measures which would help reduce and control government spending, and second, to introduce incentives for economic renewal and job creation.
The incentives put in place by the economic and fiscal statement of the Minister of Finance were designed specifically to aid and support small and medium-sized businesses in Canada and to allow them to create additional jobs, to diversify their activities and to have access to new markets in order to confirm the already existing jobs and to hire new employees.

March 24, 1993
Government Orders
We all know veiy well that for many years now the small business sector has been the one creating the most jobs in Canada. Therefore, in December the Minister of Finance announced that by exempting small businesses and new employees from paying UI premiums for a certain period of time, he would facilitate the creation of new jobs and that is what we are witnessing now.
As I said earlier today, the second part of the economic and fiscal statement was aimed at the reduction and the control of government expenditures since it was realized that federal revenues had been much less than what was expected at the time of the 1992 spring budget.
The finance minister then announced a series of measures including a salary freeze for public servants, a two-year extension of the existing collective agreements and a salary freeze for everyone working here in this House, elected and non-elected, ministers, senators and even the Supreme Court judges.
In his economic statement the minister mentioned also that transportation subsidies, both in the Maritimes and in western Canada, would be reviewed and eventually cut, that tax transfers would be reviewed and that workers who quit their job without just cause or who are dismissed for misconduct would lose their UI benefits.
The second important measure regarding unemployment insurance is the cut in UI benefits whereby the percentage of insurable earnings is brought back to 57 per cent from 60 per cent. It is without a doubt the element of the minister's economic statement which drew the most comments and questions.
In December 1992 the minister introduced Bill C-105 to enact the measures he had announced in his economic statement. It immediately triggered concerns and comments regarding in particular those two measures concerning the unemployment insurance scheme.
I can tell you that after looking at the proposed changes to the unemployment insurance system contained in Bill C-105, members on this side of the House-the group of parliamentarians I belong to-realized that indeed the implementation of the legislation as drafted could have caused problems and led to
potentially unfair and unjust situations and could have been a problem for groups in need of UI but who were not targeted by the economic measure.
So, with a group of Conservative MPs who are members of the Quebec caucus, we started working in late January and we reviewed Bill C-105. We held several meetings with officials of the department and with the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Finally, we submitted to the government a series of recommendations for safeguards to protect those who must rely on the unemployment insurance program but for whom Bill C-105 did not provide full protection.
The government listened to our representations and on February 17, 1993 Bill C-113 was tabled in this House while Bill C-105 died on the Order Paper.
The objective of Bill C-113 is essentially the one stated in the economic statement made by the Minister of Finance. However with respect to the UI changes, this legislation provides safeguards for those who rely on unemployment insurance, as I just said.
Therefore the main proposals included in Bill C-113 concern the Unemployment Insurance Act, and I will list a few of those. An important change is that people who quit their job without justification or are dismissed for misconduct will no longer be eligible for UI benefits. This is the basic objective of Bill C-113.
Second, the rate of the unemployment insurance benefits will go from 60 per cent down to 57 per cent of the average insurable earnings for the two years following the coming into force of the legislation.
The Unemployment Insurance Act includes a list of reasons which justify and support quitting one's job. Bill C-113 specifies in more detail these valid reasons, which have gone from five to thirteen, and which may justify a decision to leave a job. These reasons are now listed in the act. They are visible and include some 40 frequent circumstances which will be used by unemployment insurance officers to decide when quitting is justified and when the person who leaves a job and claims UI benefits is indeed entitled to them.
March 24, 1993

This was one of the concerns we heard when Bill C-105 was introduced so we corrected the situation with Bill C-113. This bill now offers more protection and safeguards to those who will claim UI benefits.
Earlier I was listening to the comments made by the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam, who referred to the case of a person forced to leave her job to look after her child. This is a just cause. The act clearly states that a person, man or woman, who must leave an employment to look after his or her child is automatically eligible for UI benefits. It is spelled out in the legislation. If you do not see that you just do not want to see reality. This person has a valid reason, and so does a person who is forced to leave a job to look after a family member who is sick and requires care at home.
A person who leaves a job because he or she has to accompany a spouse who takes a job in another city also has a valid reason.
There are a whole series of valid reasons now covering 40 different scenarios and giving added protection to those who must rely on the UI program in these circumstances.
A lot has been said about sexual harassment. From the time that Bill C-113 is passed by this House and receives royal assent, after consideration by the Senate, anyone who goes to an unemployment insurance office and says that they had to quit because of sexual harassment will automatically be eligible for UI benefits. The person who fills this statement and claims UI benefits gets the benefit of the doubt. That is how the law works. That is how Bill C-113 protects workers who are forced to quit their job because of sexual or any other harassment, whether it has to do with the colour of their skin, their religion or whatever. Much better protection is afforded to claimants under Bill C-113 than the present program.
Now regarding those who have to claim UI because they have been fired, where the ground for dismissal given by the employer is "disciplinary action"-it can cover a whole range of reasons, but let us stick to "disciplinary action" for the sake of argument-again, the person who reports to an unemployment insurance officer to claim UI benefits after his or her employment was terminated by disciplinary action gets the benefit of the doubt. With Bill C-113 the unemployment insurance officer is now required to ask the employer to prove that the grounds for dismissal are valid, justified and that there was just cause for dismissal. Where the employer fails to provide such evidence, the claimant is indeed
Government Orders
entitled to UI benefits. This is an additional protection provided in Bill C-113 to prevent the kind of abuse we talked about when I met with groups of construction workers.
Several days ip a row, unemployed construction workers from Sept-iles showed up at my office. I had the pleasure to meet with them, chat with them and listen to their concerns and apprehensions. I was told it was common practice in the construction business to terminate construction workers' employment on the grounds of "lack of productivity".
At present there is very little construction workers can do because a 7 to 12 week penalty applies under the present program. Workers tend to take the 7 to 12 week penalty, after which time they receive benefits at a 50 per cent rate, that is to say half of what they would get under other circumstances. With Bill C-113 however, the same worker can go to the unemployment office, state the reason why he or she was dismissed and when it happened, and the Unemployment Insurance Commission officer then has to ask the employer to prove they did so for cause. Otherwise, the claimant immediately gets UI benefits at the rate of 57 per cent. This is one way the program was improved by Bill C-113.
Construction workers told me that employers in the construction business were regularly making that type of lay-off. They said they were worried that after the employee had taken his case to the board of referees and had had to wait for three or four months, finally the employer would not appear before the board to testify about the lay-off. The claimant would be eligible, retroactively, of course, to his unemployment benefits, but he had to go three to four months without an income.
Construction workers asked me if the legislation could not provide some form of penalty to prevent and stop that and also to force employers to appear and testify and to think carefully before issuing a lay-off notice for lack of productivity or whatever.
We looked into that concern and even if that change is not included in Bill C-113, which is a fiscal measure that does not deal exclusively with changes to the unemployment insurance system, I can tell you that representations have been made to the minister himself and people who work with him and people from the department. We are examining the possibility of including in the Unemployment Insurance Act a provision or a change which would force the employer to prove that the lay-off was justified and to penalize him if he does not appear. We are looking at that and we are certainly going to pursue that issue very diligently.

March 24, 1993
Government Orders
The other alternative the government had, instead of bringing those changes to the unemployment insurance program in order to disqualify from receiving benefits people who voluntarily leave their job or are fired because of disciplinary measures and to reduce benefits from 60 to 57 percent, was to raise UI premiums paid by employers and workers.
Credible studies have shown that every time UI premiums are increased by 1 percent or 20 cents, Canada looses 20,000 jobs the next morning. Consequently, that alternative was immediately rejected because UI premiums had been considerably raised not so long ago, last year if I remember correctly. It would have been unreasonable and disastrous for the economy to raise UI premiums paid by employers and workers to enable those who voluntarily leave their employment without just cause and who are constantly fired to receive UI benefits, to take advantage of a system which is truly an insurance program, a program which will help people who are looking for a job or are temporarily laid off for different reasons. It was more equitable, in my opinion, to proceed this way instead of raising premiums one more time.
Another point which was raised, and it is important to mention it, has to do with the case where a firm is forced to streamline its operations and offers early retirement to its employees. If we apply today's UI rules, it would be difficult for these employees to receive UI benefits. Bill C-113 corrects this situation because it now provides that if a firm has to streamline operations, to take downsizing action, to lay off its workers because of a work shortage, the employees affected are automatically entitled to UI benefits. It was recognized and agreed that when older workers accepted the pre-retirement package offered by the employer the benefits attached to it were agreed upon at the lime of their employment. When the benefits run out these people can say they are available for work and claim UI benefits. They will be eligible for benefits.
This is another major provision that was included in Bill C-113. Again it is providing better protection for the workers who must avail themselves of the unemployment insurance program, these people who through no fault of their own have to rely on this insurance plan.
These were the comments I wanted to make on Bill C-113. While Bill C-113 puts financial constraints on many citizens of this country, it is nevertheless necessary. This important bill is also fair to those it applies to.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what was said by the hon. member for Manicouagan. I would like to ask him a question about the unemployment insurance system.
Our ridings both have a very high unemployment rate, and I am sure he shares my concerns in this respect. He is of course aware that the present system penalizes workers who quit without just cause. He is aware that with Bill C-21 the penalty was increased from seven to twelve weeks. He is also aware that with Bill C-113, in a region with a very high unemployment rate, there is a choice to be made by the employer faced with the decision to terminate an employee and by the member of the board of referees. He either has to agree there is just cause after a lengthy appeal process or uphold the decision of the unemployment insurance officer.
I want to ask the hon. member to try and explain or justify his government's policy which aims to change the unemployment insurance system and already provides very severe penalties for persons who quit their jobs without a valid reason.
In this case I am not referring to any of the circumstances listed in the bill, which were put there thanks to pressure from his colleagues, the unions and other people across this country. However, considering that we already have fairly severe penalties, could he explain the government's decision to give these officers a choice, as indicated in the legislation, of a range of options that reflect far more specifically all the circumstances that may influence a person's decision to either keep a job or quit, and in many cases are a necessary evil since a mobile labour force may be desirable to keep the economy and the labour market running smoothly? Often jobs and people are mismatched. Some people are really not suited to certain jobs. However, in the legislation it is all or nothing for the employer who is faced with the decision he has to make and all or nothing as well for the person who may be unemployed and does not want to accept a job because-
March 24, 1993


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Will the hon. member now put the question.


Francis G. LeBlanc: I am
asking the question, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member knows the question. I am asking him to explain the change his government has put in that provision on voluntary quits.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the present Unemployment Insurance Act provides five cases-and it is right in the law-which are considered valid reasons for quitting one's job. As I just said, they are: being required to move somewhere else; going to live in another place with one's spouse; looking after a child or someone in need; and sexual, racial or other kinds of harassment.
In our discussions we learned that unemployment insurance managers referred to 40 other cases available to them which arose from arbitration or court decisions. Managers used them at will to honestly say that so-and-so was justified in leaving his or her job.
Bill C-113 includes these 40 cases under 13 reasons. The law gives additional protection which is visible and requires managers to refer to it when the time comes to decide whether someone quit or left a job for a valid reason. In all honesty, to respond to the apprehensions of the member for Restigouche-Chaleur, I must say that Bill C-113 improves the system from what exists now. It requires UI managers and people who study claims to consider these points because they are now in the act.
The thirteenth point reads "any other cause to be determined" or something like that. Of course this makes it possible to add other reasons which come from the decisions of tribunals or arbitration boards.
I find Bill C-113 a tremendous improvement. If someone cannot show that he left his job for a valid reason, using one of those 40 points, then he had no valid reason for quitting. The penalty provided in Bill C-113 will a apply and that person will not collect benefits.
Government Orders
Remember one thing. That person is not banned for life from UI. If he finds another job and works 20 weeks he can be eligible for unemployment insurance after completing 20 weeks in another job. In that way, I think that the system is flexible and gives people access to unemployment insurance in case they need it because their job ends. In that case, the reasons for applying for UI are clear, especially if the job ended.
Therefore, to answer the question of my hon. friend from Restigouche-Chaleur, Bill C-113 gives additional protection, especially in regions like ours, to people who have seasonal jobs. Knowing how industry works in our regions, I think that Bill C-113 adds more protection for people who must use unemployment insurance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have two minutes left.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I have two very brief questions to ask the hon. member. First of all, I would like to ask if he believes that it is right or fair that a woman who has been sexually harassed be excluded from her hearings. The hon. member for Terrebonne said that there was precedent. The precedent happens to be the military, which has the worst record with the Human Rights Commission. I ask the hon. member, is that the kind of precedent we want to use and is it fair to exclude women from their hearings?
He has outlined the cost savings in his view to the government. Could he outline the staggering social costs to all taxpayers excluding people who are legitimately unemployed from the unemployment rolls? What will this cost?


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the first question put by the member for Mission-Coquitlam refers to a woman who has been harassed, sexually or otherwise, being excluded from the hearing. I have to tell her very honestly that as far as unemployment insurance is concerned, I do not think that is the case. I may be completely wrong.

March 24, 1993
Government Orders
If a person goes to the unemployment insurance office to apply for unemployment insurance and she gives sexual harassment as the reason for quitting her previous job, she simply fills out the form and she is referred. She is even able to have her case heard by a person of her choice in the unemployment insurance office. She fills out the form and then automatically has the benefit of the doubt.
.(1735)
It is up to the employer and the employer may be called, but in the case of sexual harassment it is quite clear that the person has the benefit of the doubt.


An hon. member:: No.


Charles A. Langlois: Yes, she has.
As for the other question she put about social cuts, I have to tell her that the unemployment insurance system is an insurance system. It is not a social benefit system. It is an insurance system to which the employers and employees contribute to make sure there is money available when people lose their jobs and need to apply to the unemployment insurance system. It is not a social benefit program. It is an insurance system and should be treated as such.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas.
I would also like to say a few words about this legislation, an act to provide for government expenditure restraint. I want to focus my remarks on the features of this legislation that bear upon the unemployment insurance program, specifically those that would cut the rate of UI benefits from 60 per cent to 57 per cent and those that would deny benefits to those claimants who, in the words of the UI act, quit their work without just cause.
To begin, I want to say that I am not any more impressed with this legislation than I was with its ill-fated predecessor. I am not going to focus, as others have done, on the definitions of just cause and the problems of litigation that will befall the unemployed person who seeks to be considered under one of the 14 categories of exception provided for in clause 18 of the bill. That does not mean that I do not consider these issues to be important. I do. However, in the short time available to me I would like to address other ways in which I believe this legislation is misguided.
I noted that these changes in the UI act are being introduced by the Minister of Finance as measures to contain the deficit and maintain an environment that supports economic growth and increased employment.
Once again the Tories have chosen to ask those that are the main victims of the recession, the unemployed, to bear the burden of expenditure restraint, while at the same time they enact other measures that allow the wealthy to continue to escape paying their fair share of taxation and contributing to deficit reduction.
My problem with Bill C-113, as well as with Bill C-21 of two years ago and the other changes that this government has made to the UI program and related legislation, concerns the government's failure to address the fundamental changes that need to be made to this program and to other programs in order to enable Canadians to adjust to the free trade environment in which we now find ourselves and to make our economy and its most precious asset, namely our people, more competitive in the next decade.
I want to talk about not what this government does with Bill C-113 but what it fails to do. These points are important to make in this debate as this legislation comes from the Minister of Finance and flows from his mini budget of last December.
The pain of this recession and the many human tragedies it has exacted has been exacerbated by the failure of this government to put in place, as the Prime Minister promised during the last election campaign, a comprehensive and coherent program of adjustment policies to deal with the fall-out of the FTA and to prepare Canadians for the future.
This is one of the great failures in the economic policy of this government. Its human costs are incalculable and will be felt and borne by millions of Canadian families for years and generations to come.
These costs are every bit as important and are quite linked to the cost of the growing and worrisome Canadian debt. If the Canadian economy does not respond to the profound changes that have taken place around the world, in order to be more flexible and be able to respond, we will fall further behind. We will deal with the problem of higher than acceptable unemployment dor years and years to come.
March 24, 1993

As many studies have shown over the last five years, there are many aspects of the Canadian income security system and economic policies that inhibit the flexibility of the Canadian economy. These policies have contributed to a slow-down in productivity, which has contributed to a slow-down in the adjustment of labour, markets and businesses from low value-added to high value-added industries. It has made it more difficult for Canadians to respond to the new challenges created by the more globalized trading system, by the shift, in terms of what used to be the comparative advantage of Canada, from resource industries into more knowledge-based and high-tech industries.
The failure of Canadian policies to prepare Canadians for that is what will really force us to pay in the future a much higher price of unemployment than we needed to.
Central to these programs of adjustment policies is a proper reform of the unemployment insurance system and the companion set of policies that are needed to support Canadians to adjust out of declining industries and employment opportunities and into the emerging and growing opportunities that will be there in the future.
Like many other Canadians, including many in Atlantic Canada, I believe that a proper reform of the UI system in the context of a comprehensive labour force adjustment strategy is long overdue.
We watched with great interest the refreshing debates that took place south of the border during the midst of the last presidential election campaign and some of the new ideas that have been brought forward by President Clinton, the new American President.
What has been most refreshing in this debate is the new President's grasp and understanding of some of the new concepts and the need for the appropriate incentives, I mean carrots as well as sticks, as a means of encouraging and empowering individuals to use their talents, their skills and their economic resources in the most productive manner.
Government Orders
The notion of appropriate incentives underlies many of the ideas that President Clinton and Vice-President Gore brought forward and are now putting into legislation in the United States as they seek to bring their economy back into recovery. It underlies such concepts that have been discussed as work-fare and leam-fare as opposed to welfare and some of the other more stagnant forms of social assistance programs.
This notion of appropriate incentives to empower individuals is something that is missing in this legislation in what it does to the UI program and in other legislations that this government has introduced. In fact it has failed to understand these important lessons of empowerment and incentives in the design of its programs.
I want to use the example of the measures regarding voluntary quits just to make my point. The government talks about abuse and says that it has to root out abuse and that those who quit their jobs without just cause are abusing the program and must be denied benefits.
A distinction has to be made between abuse and disincentives as these terms concern the UI program. This government thinks the problem with UI is that it is being abused by individuals such as those who leave their work without just cause. In other words it is the individuals who abuse the program, and sure there is abuse. In a program that is of the size and complexity of the UI program there are going to be instances of abuse, but the program has rules and systems to deal with that.
I will have to terminate more quickly than I expected. Let me just come to my conclusion. The problem with the UI system, which is missed in this bill, is that it is not the abusers who are costly to the Canadian economy. It is the wrong incentives already embedded in the program which are leading Canadian businesses and individuals into choices they would not make if the program was properly designed.
This is a subject that I will return to. I think it is an important one which has been missed in this debate. I would now like to turn over my time to my colleague, the member for Stormont-Dundas.

March 24, 1993
Government Orders


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont - Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate today on Bill C-113, an act to provide for government expenditure restraint.
The objective of the omnibus bill is to implement the various expenditure restraint provisions which were outlined in the economic statement of the Minister of Finance on December 2, 1992. Included in these measures are several controversial changes to the unemployment insurance program.
I would like to concentrate my remarks on part VI of this bill as it is this section that deals with the proposed changes to the UI program.
Like its predecessor Bill C-21, part VI of Bill C-113 continues the government's attack on UI and unemployed Canadians. Instead of concentrating on the root problems which have led to 1.6 million Canadians being out of work, the government has opted to intensify its assault on the UI program.
As a result of the government's own economic mismanagement, Canadians are witnessing high unemployment rates, plant closures, bankruptcies, lay-offs and downsizing on a scale never before seen since the Great Depression.
Contrary to what the government would like us to believe, Canada is still not out of the grips of the recession. Yet instead of addressing the economic problems of the country, the government is promoting its right wing, Reform Party-driven agenda by attacking UI.
Mr. .Speaker, 2.6 million Canadians are on welfare, 3.8 million live below the poverty line and over 2 million rely on food banks. Yet in an almost frenzied state to correct its failure to address the deficit, this government has turned its back on these Canadians and has set its sights on the unemployment insurance program.
The proposed changes to the UI Act contained in Bill C-113 have serious implications for many Canadians. In clause 17 of this bill the UI benefit rate is reduced from 60 per cent to 57 per cent. In addition, clause 18 provides for the disqualification of those who quit their jobs without just cause or are fired due to their own misconduct. Unfortunately there is no clause in Bill C-113 that will do anything to help unemployed Canadians find work.
The city of Cornwall in my riding of Stormont-Dundas has an unemployment rate of over 20 per cent. The plant closures, lay-offs, business bankruptcies and increases to the welfare rolls have become almost commonplace.
The lack of economic leadership from the federal government, the impact from the recession, the previous high interest rate-high dollar policy of the government and the fall-out from excessive taxation including the GST have contributed to the economic disintegration of this border community.
I would like the government to go into Cornwall and tell the people there that the recession is over, that the more than 2,000 jobs lost over the last 20 months will be returning and that while they are waiting they can rely on unemployment insurance to see them through.
Under Bill C-21 workers who lost their jobs obtained less benefit coverage even though they were made to pay more in UI premiums. With Bill C-113 UI benefits will be reduced 3 per cent. Thus we can see the continuation of this government's attack on the UI program, a continuation of the pay more for less Conservative approach to unemployment insurance.
It was not enough for the government to withdraw from contributing to the UI fund while at the same time reducing the benefit period and raising UI premiums. The government now wants to reduce the percentage of benefit unemployed Canadians will receive.
How much further will the Conservatives go? Perhaps they would like to eliminate the UI program altogether.
The government justification for implementing these changes to the UI program are not defendable. The government says that changes are necessaiy to stop those lazy shiftless Canadians who quit their jobs and expect to be supported by hard-working responsible Canadians.
In listening to the government, you would think every Canadian on UI was on it because they quit their job or were cheating the system and taking it for a free ride. The truth is the government's own estimates indicate that only 6 per cent of UI recipients actually left their jobs without just cause or were fired for misconduct.

March 24, 1993
While no one condones cheating or unnecessary quitting, the changes in this bill are designed to catch 6 per cent while 94 per cent of UI claimants end up with reduced UI benefits. Moreover, those who quit their jobs run the risk of losing their benefits entirely if they cannot satisfy officials that they had just cause. It is clear that in reducing benefits the government is cutting the UI program simply for the sake of it.
There is no all-encompassing vision in Bill C-113 of what the UI program should be doing, nor is there an effort being made in this bill to truly reform the UI program so it can better meet the needs of the unemployed.
In 1990 when the Conservatives introduced Bill C-21, thousands of Canadians were thrown into poverty and on the welfare rolls. The percentage of unemployed workers covered by the UI program dropped from 70 per cent to 58 per cent. If the proposed changes in Bill C-113 become law, unemployed Canadians who are not eligible for UI will also be left with little choice but to turn to an already overburdened welfare system.
The opposition against Bill C-113 and its short-lived predecessor, Bill C-105, indicates that Canadians do not support the government's assault on the UI program. Many Canadians feel the proposed changes are obstacles to people who may be forced to quit their jobs because of harassment or are fired for arbitrary reasons.
Bill C-113 fails to correct the flaws in Bill C-105 with respect to just cause for quitting one's job. While definitions of what constitutes just cause are enumerated in the bill, Canadians will still have to prove that they were justified in quitting their jobs. This process will not only be time consuming, it may also be difficult to endure, especially in cases where people quit their job due to sexual harassment.
Furthermore, individuals who claim they left their jobs due to sexual harassment may find that proving such harassment took place to be quite an undertaking. Many individuals, rather than pursue their case, may choose instead to work under harassment rather than quit. Even worse, they may decide to leave their job and be denied UI benefits entirely.
Government Orders
Bill C-113 does not improve the UI program. It forces claimants to prove that their quitting or firing was either justified or not due to their own misconduct before they can receive UI benefits. Claimants will be considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent.
The restrictive nature of the proposed changes will cause numerous appeals which in turn will create a backlog in cases and, consequently, delays in processing UI benefits. This is hardly an example of UI reform. Moreover, there will be cases where legitimate claims will be rejected and individuals who were fired without appropriate reasons will end up without any benefits.
Rather than be preoccupied with the UI program, the government should be addressing why Canadians require UI in the first place. Canadians do not want to be on UI. They want to work. Job creation, skills development, investment in education, research and development is what Canadians want to see their government take action on.
In conclusion, I urge members of this House to reject Bill C-113. Hopefully the government will then reassess its priorities with an aim toward getting Canada and Canadians working again as my colleagues and I in the Liberal Party are committed to doing.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in this debate on the third reading of Bill C-113, an act to provide for government expenditure restraint.
This bill seeks to implement a number of restraint measures that were announced by the economic and fiscal statement tabled by the Minister of Finance in this House last December. Let me make it clear that the measures in his legislation were not introduced without careful consideration of their impact. We have put them forward because we are determined to strengthen the economic recovery now under way in Canada.
.(1755 )
We are not cutting for the mere sake of cutting. We are taking these steps because deficit control is essential. It is the very foundation for Canadian investment, competitiveness and job creation. Let me remind the House that Canada is making progress in these areas. Even though too many Canadians are still unemployed, we are encouraged by the positive signs of the recovery that are visible in almost all sectors of the economy. However, the economic recovery we are experiencing here in Canada has been hampered by a very difficult global environment in which we find ourselves.

March 24, 1993
Government Orders
Economic activity in major industrial countries worldwide has been held back by corporate restructuring, trade uncertainties and certainly high levels of debt. The weaker than expected economic growth that we have seen in Canada has resulted in the revenues that the government has anticipated being less than they would otherwise have been. This in turn has led to severe pressure on our deficit. As a consequence we must take some very strong measures to keep our fiscal situation under control. Sound fiscal policies are essential if we are to maintain economic growth that secures existing jobs but, more important, creates new ones.
In that December economic statement, the Minister of Finance outlined many steps the government is taking to assist the economic recovery now under way and to foster even stronger growth. Some of those included measures to stimulate job creation, especially by the small business sector; enhanced support for research and development, enriching what is already one of the most generous programs in the world; continued action to encourage exports through improved access to foreign markets and measures to improve Canada's competitiveness internationally; increased funding for worker training, coupled with measures to foster joint efforts by government, business and labour to make learning and skills upgrading a lifelong priority for all Canadians; and of course additional support for strategic investments in Canada's infrastructure.
We cannot make these important investments in our economy if the costs involved cause the debt to grow out of control. We cannot simply say "charge it" as we would hear from members opposite and make no provision to pay for the actions that we are taking. As the events of recent weeks have shown and certainly with some recent budgets in provincial capitals, governments across Canada are starting to realize and are aware of the debts that they hold and the problems that those debts cause and, more important, that the deficits fuelling those debts must be brought in line. They are a continuing burden to the economic growth and job creation.
For our part, the federal government has worked to put this country's finances back in order ever since we came to office. Certainly in the four and a half years I
have been here we have been very involved in a number of steps to try to do that. We have taken some very difficult steps. We have curbed the growth of program spending. We have privatized Crown corporations. We have passed the Spending Control Act and implemented the debt servicing and reduction account, making fiscal responsibility part of federal law. During our hearings across Canada on the GST, certainly that is what Canadians said: put in place a spending control act. We did that.
Given the impact that our declining revenues are causing at the moment and the weaker than expected growth experienced both here and around the world because of the recession, we must do more to restrain and reduce the deficit. There are two clear reasons why we have to take action to limit our fiscal shortfall.
First of all, higher deficits will damage prospects for sustained recovery. Growing deficits compete with productive private sector initiatives for the limited investment funds available in this country. This puts upward pressure on domestic interest rates and forces domestic borrowers to seek funds abroad, thus increasing the nation's indebtedness to foreigners. As a consequence, the country is left more vulnerable to exchange rates and interest rate volatility. We have certainly experienced some of that over the last year.
Second, if we fail to act now we will have to deal with even greater deficits in years to come. Bringing the fiscal situation back into balance will exact an even more painful price from Canadians at that time. That price could be higher taxes reducing our competitiveness and our ability to create jobs. The alternative to spending restraint, the imposition of higher taxes is not, and I have to repeat, is not a solution. Clearly then the most responsible avenue of action is to further constrain government spending.
The measures we have included, including those implemented by this bill, will reduce spending allocations by some $8 billion over the three-year fiscal period ending in 1994-95. This will bring about a significant reduction to the structural component of the deficit.
March 24, 1993

I would like very quickly to run through some of the things in this bill that make it worthy of support by myself and my colleagues on this side of the House and should in fact be supported by colleagues on the other side of the House.
There has been a lot said about this bill as it relates to unemployment insurance. Let me talk about some other things in the bill that are very important. Part of the bill deals with implementing wage restraint. Certainly, as is happening with this bill, the salaries of members of Parliament and salaries of senators are being frozen for three years. The salaries of judges and employees in non-commercial corporations are being frozen for two years.
The salaries of the Prime Minister, the cabinet, the Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Governor General, and lieutenant-governors across the country are being frozen and I think most appropriately.
Public Service salaries will be frozen for two years. Those who are under contract will simply have the contract extended. If they have signed one last year which goes for three years the contract will be five years in length. The government has said that if there are non-monetary issues that can be agreed upon by the parties involved, namely the union and the people it represents, the government will be happy to amend the various contracts to deal with non-monetary issues.
Within this bill are serious steps on wage restraint. Why do I support wage restraint across that sector? It is really quite simple. I have 200,000 constituents and very few of them got a raise last year. Very few of them expect to get a raise this year and very few of them expect to get a raise next year. It seems to us, when my constituents cannot afford to pay more taxes, there is no reason they should have to pay more taxes because we have given raises to people who are not operating in the private sector. We will be imposing upon ourselves the very thing that my constituents are having imposed upon them because of the situation within the economy.
Another step we are proposing which I certainly have no hesitation in supporting is the transportation subsidy cut. We provide assistance through the Western Grain Transportation Act for grain shipments. That will be reduced by 10 per cent a year for two years. The Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Program will be cut by 10 per
Government Orders
cent and the Maritime Freight Rates Act will be cut by 10 per cent.
During the committee process that dealt with this bill we were advised there was another way to amend the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Program. I am happy to see the government was able to meet with the people affected and bring forward in this House through Committee of the Whole some amendments to the legislation which accomplished what the government was trying to accomplish in the way of a 10 per cent reduction in over-all expenditure. It was more acceptable the way it was done than the way it was originally proposed by the government. We were able to take input and change the legislation appropriately.
Another reduction that appears in this bill is the public utilities income tax transfer. This is a transfer from the federal government to the provinces for utilities such as electricity and gas transportation across Canada. In a sense it is from the income tax received from those public utilities. We will be reducing our transfers to the provinces by some 10 per cent per year. Again I think that is very appropriate. We cannot simply hand out money all the time. It is time we started reducing some of these handouts on a very consistent basis.
The final part of this bill deals with the unemployment insurance. There have been lots of comments by members opposite about what is in this bill. I would like to comment very briefly on some of the reasons I have no hesitation in supporting this bill. Much the same as I said before about the fact that we were freezing the salaries of many people involved in the public sector by this particular piece of legislation, we are freezing the unemployment insurance benefits received by those after April 1 of this year. The reason we are freezing the benefits is the same logic as I gave before. None of my constituents is going to get an automatic raise early in April. I would question why those on unemployment insurance should expect an automatic raise in April. This takes away the automatic 3 per cent raise they were to get and freezes their benefits. I do not have a problem doing that at all. I would love to be able to give a raise to those who are on unemployment insurance, but the economic circumstances of the country say that we cannot give them a raise. The reason for that is that the taxpayers of my constituency cannot afford to pay any more. That is very important.

March 24, 1993
Government Orders
Tied to a freezing of benefits is a freezing of the premiums paid by my constituents personally or by the employer for their benefits. Not only are we freezing the amount of money we are paying out at last year's rate or at the 1992 rate, we are freezing the amount of money we collect from the employees at the 1992 rate.
If I ask my constituents whether they are willing to pay more in unemployment insurance premiums so that those on unemployment insurance get greater benefits, there is no hesitation in my mind what they will say: "No, I am not prepared to pay more. I didn't get a raise. There is no reason they should get one". That is also part of this particular piece of legislation.
There is some additional encouragement for job creation in this legislation. The premium holiday for small business is a very important step. A small business hiring more people does not have to pay any more premiums in the first year than it paid last year for that increase in employment. It is a small benefit, but it is an extra lift for employers in a position to hire more people. If one is creating a new small business one does not have to pay any unemployment insurance premiums in the first year.
Is that not a positive step to encourage job creation? Of course members opposite are opposed to this legislation and these ideas. I guess they can account for why they are.
There are a few extras in the legislation I would like to talk about. It happens that there are people on unemployment insurance receiving benefits. To help those people get back into the work force the government has announced a $260 million increase in training funds for those on unemployment insurance. That is a significant increase and takes the total for UI claimants up to $2.21 billion for the coming year. We add to that another $1.6 billion the government pays out to those who are unemployed but not receiving UI benefits.
This shows that the Government of Canada has come to the taxpayers of Canada-the government does not have any money; its source of money is the people who are out there listening to me speak today or working on a continual basis-for $3.8 billion in training funds. I do
not have any hesitation in saying the training funds will get people back into the work force much more quickly.
The item that received an awful lot of comment was the one related to benefits for voluntary quitters. During the committee process in which I was involved it was brought to our attention some 225,000 voluntary quitters a year will be affected by this legislation.
In the circumstance of unemployment in the country over the last few years there are 225,000 people who quit their jobs for no reason and expect-and the opposition would give it to those people-unemployment insurance benefits. Why? It is beyond me. What did that cost us last year? One billion dollars for the year. Where did we get that $1 billion? We borrowed it or we increased premiums from those people who are working.
We have heard terrible examples of how some person may be forced to quit a job and have just cause for doing so. I believe the legislation adequately protects people who have just cause for quitting, but can we imagine the circumstance the opposition has been supporting? An employee shows up for work in the morning. He decides he has had a miserable night the night before and, to make up for it, smashes all the computers in the office. The employer shows up and says: "My goodness, isn't this an awful thing you have done? You have destroyed all the equipment in our office. You are fired".
The opposition wants to pay those people unemployment insurance. The employer says that the employee is fired for cause and there are no benefits; that is exactly what he deserves. However those people opposite are happy to say there should be a penalty because he was fired and instead of giving him 60 per cent of the benefits he should only get 50 per cent of them. The employer says the employee who got fired because he justly deserved to get fired should get zip from the unemployment insurance account and zip from the taxpayers of the country.
I am happy to say the legislation ensures that those who voluntarily quit their jobs or those who were fired because they deserved to be fired will not get benefits under the program. Do we have to do that?
March 24. 1993

In closing I would refer to an article in The Montreal Gazette of February 23. It is headlined Canada faces ruin if UI deficit not limited. That is a statement by Mr. Forget. I would just like to read three paragraphs of it if I have the time to do so.
"Canada might have to go to the brink of economic ruin before its leaders make the hard choices needed to rein in the growing unemployment insurance deficit", a Quebec economist said yesterday. "The government's proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act amount to little more than tinkering on the margins" -
That is certainly not what we would think the opposition would say we were doing:
- said Claude Forget, a former Quebec cabinet minister who headed a 1986 federal inquiry into unemployment insurance.
This country is at most maybe three years away from a major financial crisis. It may well be that the sort of thing that we would need to do to avert a crisis is look at UI in a fundamentally new way, said Forget. Forget said taxpayers might have been lulled into a false sense of security by borrowing binges at all levels of government and don't see a need to force politicians to reinvent the UI system. There is no belief among the public at large that this is an urgent issue. We presumably will wait until it is too late.
I am here and I am glad to say we are not waiting. We are acting because that is exactly what we should be doing.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: I have a question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the member watched the CTV program W-5 on New Zealand. Figures were provided in the program indicating that when New Zealand went into basic collapse in 1984 its all-government deficit was 7 per cent of its gross domestic product. Its accumulated government debt was 62.7 per cent of the New Zealand gross domestic product and its net public, private and foreign debt was 47 per cent of its gross domestic product.
Today, after eight years of talk about the deficit and the debt from those opposite, including the member, the budget deficits of all levels of government in Canada- and the federal government cannot be responsible for provincial governments debts-last year was 8.5 per cent of our gross domestic product. Our accumulated all-government debt, which is about $650 billion, was 44 per cent of gross domestic product. Yet the spendthrifts opposite want to spend $6 billion buying the Rolls-Royce of submarine chasing helicopters.
Government Orders
Will the member attempt to justify to anybody who might be watching this debate how he can talk about trying to cut back on spending? They have run up the spend and borrow philosophy like Ronald Reagan in the States. The debt managed to increase over his period in office and Mr. Bush's period in office by $3 trillion.
Will the member tell us in terms of actions rather than very cheap talk in this place where the actions and the words have been in the same direction from this grossly irresponsible government? Does it have no sense of responsibility to our children and grandchildren? Or can its members only get up as they have in the past nine years and speak about how we are going to fight the deficit and the debt next year but never this year.


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, I did see the show the member is talking about and was appalled at the problems New Zealand had. He was absolutely right in saying that in New Zealand the percentage of deficit and debt as they relate to their gross national product was increasing.
I am happy to say that in the eight years we have had a Conservative government in Ottawa our share of that debt, as a percentage of the gross national product, if he accepts that provincial debt and municipal debt is not the responsibility of the federal government, has in fact dropped from about 8.2 per cent to about 6.1 per cent. We have been doing exactly what we should be doing.
The member failed to mention that New Zealand, in order to help solve its problems, made some tax changes and brought in a value-added tax. I might point out we brought in a similar tax and this member walked away from the party that was taking very responsible action because he did not have the guts to take the actions that were necessary.
He asks what actions have we taken to cut spending. Let me ask that member what spending restraint measure, what cut that this government has made in eight years has that party opposite supported? Has it ever agreed with any of the cuts? Has any of its members stood in this House and said once that it is a good cut, it is one they can support?

March 24, 1993
Government Orders
I challenge the Liberal Party and in fact the NDP to indicate just one program of restraint they have supported. I think the member will find that these people opposite cannot do that.
We have cut defence spending, the very thing the member is asking about. If he checks the actual spending estimates for this year he will see there are savings in those estimates. Part of the reason we are able to save is because we are pulling back our obligations in Europe which is a very constructive thing to do. We are also cutting back in some areas so that we can say to all our armed forces personnel that this is their budget, this is how much money they have to spend, and if they want modern equipment, then they will have to show where they can save money in order to spend money.
The member opposite would say to those people that they have been shown where money can be saved but their opportunity to have modern equipment will be cancelled. Our men and women, those who serve you and I and all Canadians, will be forced to work with 40 and 50-year old, ancient equipment which in its own right is not safe.
That is the view of the Liberal Party. That has been the view of the Liberal Party from the day that Pierre Trudeau took over through to today. From 1967 through to 1984 they decimated the equipment that our Armed Forces have. The Liberal Party of today would carry on that decimation until there would be no longer an Armed Forces that could do a darned thing for this country.


David Kilgour: The member seems to forget, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Calgary Northeast and I were expelled from the party. We did not walk away. Our chairs were virtually moved across the Chamber.
Perhaps the member will explain the New Zealand tax system to his colleagues sitting nearby. I suspect I know more about the New Zealand tax system than he does. Will he tell us how the income tax and the sales tax were implemented? Does he think they were done identically in Canada and New Zealand? Has he talked to Roger Douglas about it? I know he was on the committee. I know he came to Edmonton, Mr. Speaker, your city and mine, and would not let a lot of very thoughtful people even speak to the committee.
I know the member's caucus quite well and I do not think there was any intelligent discussion on what the
GST would do to Canada at this time in our economy, what it would do to the small business community, what it would do to the member's constituents. I do not think any of them, or very few of them, understood it from the beginning. They just went along like so many robots following their genius, the former Minister of Finance. With respect, I do not think he understood it at the time nor does he understand it today or the havoc it is wreaking from one end of the country to the other.


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, the member is right, he was expelled and deservedly so. The reason deservedly so is because he did comment about the fact that there was lack of intelligent debate on the matter. As someone who was on the committee for the entire year and a half dealing with this matter, I must admit I do not recall him appearing and providing that intelligent input that he thought was appropriate.
I can comfortably say that the reason we implemented the GST was many fold, but certainly one of them was because we had a regressive sales tax regime in place that penalized the manufacturers in my constituency and other constituencies in Canada. We said that if we got rid of this old federal sales tax we would make our manufacturing sector more competitive. We would be able to assist them, because of that competitiveness, in exporting more product out of Canada.
Is it not interesting that we are now setting records month in and month out. Our exports are record. What are they record in? In manufactured goods.
If the member says that this was terrible implementation of a tax, of course from his philosophy any positive steps are terrible implementations. From our side of the House, assisting manufacturing so that they can export more out of this country or be more competitive with imports is a very positive thing to do. We did that.
I am happy to say that this party will take the tough decisions that that party over there has run away from for all the years that it has existed since 1967.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I must say I have listened to the member for Ontario with great interest. I do not think he has proven very much of anything with all his comments about how the government is taking tough decisions.
March 24, 1993

It would seem to me that if the government was taking tough decisions it would not be taking them against the unemployed. It would be taking them against a theoretical thing like the helicopter project. The cold war is over. We do not need the same kind of armaments and equipment that was needed during the cold war, yet here is a single project where the cost has jumped by $1.4 billion. The government is not cutting back on that. As a matter of fact the government is hanging tough. It has just moved the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore from his parliamentary secretaryship because he came out opposing it. Likewise many of the leadership candidates are coming out opposing it.
I think that when the member for Ontario asks for suggestions for cutbacks, there is a shining example: $5.8 billion that could be saved.
The hon. member for Ontario reminds me of the emperor who was parading down the street and suddenly a child said: "But he has no clothes on". Clearly in this case the hon. member for Ontario really has been stripped of any credibility when he is trying to explain why we are taking $2.5 billion away from the unemployed but we have $5.8 billion to buy military helicopters that will probably never fight in any war. They will probably only do search and rescue work which could more adequately be done by other less expensive equipment.
We look at the government restraint and the cutting back of $2.5 billion from the unemployed at a time when the government has passed through the greatest growth period in the history of the nation from 1984 to 1990. It has imposed 35 new taxes, including the GST.
They talk about spending restraint and saving money. It reminds me of Ronald Reagan. What a disaster. He talked about all these things but spent billions. The Prime Minister flies off to the Pacific Rim or to the United States and transports extra equipment, limousines and whatever he wants but the government deficit piles up.
When this government came to power the debt was $169 billion, this year it will surpass $450 billion. Are these people really good managers? Could anybody ever have believed that during the longest sustained period of
Government Orders
growth in our history, with the imposition of 35 new taxes, the GST and still the debt has more than doubled in those few years.
What is the government's solution after creating the worst economic recession since the 1930s? It brought in three actions. Three actions are really what did it. It brought in the free trade deal which wiped out all kinds of manufacturing and processing industries. It brought in the GST which was supposed to help those manufacturing and processing industries. In fact that along with the free trade deal has cost some 400,000 manufacturing jobs.
Then to put the real hammer down it imposed extremely high interest rates. During the period 1986 to 1990 it kept the interest rates about four or five points above those in the United States which drove up the value of the dollar from what it was in 1986 so the manufacturing and processing industries got a double whammy.
First of all they were competing with American industries which had 7 or 8 per cent interest rates when our industry had rates of 13 or 14 per cent. They had a dollar catapulting up from the mid or low 70 cent mark to 85 cents, 86 cents or 87 cents.
The pressure of the fiscal and monetary policies was incredible and the most regressive and harmful in history piled on top of these 35 tax increases. Practically every one of those tax increases was a regressive tax. It was an excise tax on gasoline or a sales tax on something else.
Now that the Tories have driven 1.6 million people out of work-there is probably at least two million, 400,000 have just given up looking so they do not count in the estimates-and now in December they say: "Okay, we have put you out of work and now we are going to cut your benefits". Many individuals will face a chop of $80 or so a month which is pretty painful for a single parent or a family where only one member is working and there are three or four children.
I know about this because in my constituency of Algoma, in the uranium mining town of Elliot Lake during the last two and a half years we have seen some 3,400 highly paid production mining jobs wiped out. With that another 1,500 or more secondary service industry jobs were wiped out.

March 24, 1993
Government Orders
Those people are not only facing the chop of some $70 or $80 a month but very restrictive, tough measures. If you quit your job without just cause you are gone.
There are all kinds of reasons why people quit their jobs that are justified. They pay a very severe penalty already, some 12 weeks' waiting and so on.
I was just looking at the figures of the number of people who quit their jobs. In September 1988, at the height of the economic cycle, more than 31,000 Canadians quit their jobs. In September 1990 this number had fallen to 26,000 and in September 1992 only 16,700 had quit their jobs.
We are talking about a work force of 11 million or 12 million people. There are all kinds of family situations, health problems or work activity problems that cause people to quit, and it does not seem to be a very large number of people. Yet it puts employers in an incredibly strong position. They are able to say to individuals: "Buddy, maybe I am working the butt off you, but if you do not like it, if you quit the job you are not going to get any UI".
There must be a certain civility about how we operate the unemployment insurance program. It is the largest program in the country, $22 billion. This could surely be operated without putting the hammer in the hands of the employer. There must be a balance so that if the individual quits his job, whether it is because of situations at home, situations in the work place or whatever, then he pays a penalty. However, under this arrangement all the power is given to the employer, and that is the unfair part of Bill C-113.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to say a few words for the record on this particular piece of legislation.
First, I want to address the over-all situation. The government is continuing to do what it has been doing on a number of other issues, and that is trying to fool Canadians.
It is doing two snow jobs here, trying to fool two groups ol people, Canadians generally and the workers. I will explain that to the House.
During the constitutional crisis the government decided to try to frighten people into saying yes. During the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement debate it used the same kind of tactic. It has not learned a lesson from those experiences.
What is it doing now? Why do I say that it is doing a snow job on Canadians? I say so because it is preying on the fears of Canadians that some people are taking advantage of the current system, and it is true, but they are very, very few in number. It is preying on the sense of fairness that Canadians have, because Canadians do not want people to take advantage of the system. That is what the government is doing.
It is trying to pretend that there are scads of people who are really taking advantage of the situation and costing Canadians millions of dollars of their hard earned money, but we know that is not true.
We also know, by virtue of this bill, that this government has not learned anything during the last eight plus years that it has been in power.

It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker. It is very, very unfortunate. This approach or tactic, which was used in other circumstances, is meant to exploit the fears and feelings of Canadians. It will not work.

I will explain why it will not work. Let us look at what some people have said. Alain Dubuc of La Presse, in an editorial on January 25, commented on this piece of legislation and damned it because it does not take into account any grey areas. He said: "The bill in its present form is inhuman".
People will argue that it has been changed, but it has not been changed sufficiently so that it now is considered acceptable. Let it be clear that we on this side of the House want those who do not want to work to have to face the music. We do not want to go easy on them. We want them to contribute their fair share to society but we do not believe that this is the way to do it.
Let me quote another individual. 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 political credibility". That is what Mr. Forget has said about this bill. This is not Ron Duhamel, member of Parliament for St. Boniface. This is not the Liberal Party. This is what Mr. Forget has said: "a political miscalculation and economically just an empty gesture-a waste of time and political credibility". Not even the Conservative's ideological soulmates are with them on these measures.
March 24, 1993

That is not all. Remember that I said initially this government was taking advantage of the sentiment of Canadians because clearly we are fair people. We do not want people to cheat. Let us see what the Economic Council of Canada has said about unemployed workers. A 1991 Economic Council of Canada report on people who quit their jobs said that they are not-and I want to repeat-not a drain on the unemployment insurance fund. That is what the Economic Council of Canada said. Of course we know what has happened to them. When one gives good and honest advice, then one could become a victim.
An analysis of the 1986 employment figures showed that half of all job quitters went to another job immediately. I know you know that, Mr. Speaker, but your colleagues on the government side did not know that. I want to point out that not only did half go to another job immediately but another 43 per cent found new jobs within 10 weeks. By contrast, only one in five persons who lost their jobs found work immediately and another 50 per cent had found work within 10 weeks. It is quite clear when you look at this particular credible study that this will do nothing for those who decide to quit because it is not the issue. This is not the issue.
Supposedly the government wants to go after the cheaters. We have already demonstrated that fewer than 1 per cent cheat. We have already demonstrated that out of some $20 billion in expenditures, it is about $200 million that is probably not being used appropriately. That is a lot of money, but proportionate to the approximately $20 billion it is very, very little.
It is very interesting when we look at Canada in comparison to the G-7 countries. We like to talk about our involvement with the G-7. At present, Canada is in the majority. Most G-7 countries pay unemployment insurance benefits to voluntary leavers. Why is the government doing this? Why? Why? It says it is to get to the cheaters, but we find out the cheaters are very, very small and they cost very, very little. We find that. We find that the people who voluntarily leave their jobs find jobs very, very quickly. We also know that very few people leave their jobs during a recession.
Why in the world would it want to do this? I think I know why and I think I would like to share it with you,
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, and with my colleagues. I said initially that they are exploiting the fears of Canadians the fear of a very tough economic situation. Money is sparse. Anyone who is cheating is hurting everyone very, very badly. I believe that and I think all Canadians believe that, but it is exaggerating that.
Second, there is our sense of fairness as Canadians because we do not want people to cheat. It is exploiting that as well. It is not attacking the problem. It is not at all attacking the problem. It is known that this unemployment insurance fund is funded by employees and workers. The government still makes a sizeable contribution, but in relationship to workers and to employers it is very, very little.
It is known that these changes could, according to government estimates-we know how good government estimates have been; those have been off time and time again-save $2.45 billion in two years on the backs of the unemployed though. However, we also know that this fund is already almost $5 billion in deficit and in another year or so it will be almost $7 billion. If it is really trying to do something, this is obviously the wrong thing to do.
You remember this, do you not, Mr. Speaker, that it tried to redefine what poverty was. Why? It was because it was alarmed at the figures. It could not solve the problem so it said poverty is no longer what it used to be. It is now a new definition. It cut out the poor from the statistics.
This is what the government is trying to do now. It is trying to redefine what it is to be unemployed. That is what it is trying to do because it does not know how to grapple with the problems. Change the rules. Make it look as if people are cheating or exploiting the system so it can look good, it can look tough, that it can look as if it is doing the right thing. At the same time it is trying to snow its electorate.

Mr. Speaker, I find it deplorable, truly deplorable. I would really have liked to see this government, for the first time in two terms, listen just a little bit to opposition members and accept some of the amendments which we had proposed.

March 24, 1993
Government Orders

Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do that workers will be vulnerable with this. How can a woman with confidence go forward and complain about sexual harassment? Can one envisage an employer saying to his employees: "Things are tough. The wages are going to be cut back and if you don't like it you know what awaits you". Can one imagine that? I can.

This is not a step forward: it is a step backward, a giant step backward.

I find it deplorable that this House may indeed go forward and endorse this particular piece of legislation.

As I said earlier, and I will repeat it, I find it deplorable.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, there have been about eight or nine speakers this afternoon on this bill. The two major aspects of this bill are UI and the Western Grain Transportation Act. All of the speeches have been on UI and I have five minutes left on the Western Grain Transportation Act.
The government proposes with its so-called restraint to take $74 million away from the amount it pays to the railroads under the WGTA, which means that the grain producers will have to pay it. The grain producers in western Canada will have to pay it and their wheat prices are down to $110 a tonne on export grain.
Instead of the government giving $729 million under the WGTA it gave $653 million. Out of that $653 million, it will propose paying that to the farmers, instead of to the railroads, but it will be less rail line related costs, remaining subsidies to the railroads, adjustment funds and any funds associated with pooling charges. Even then, the farmers will not get the amount of money that the government is cutting from the WGTA.
The National Transportation Agency Review Commission did a report. Here it is. It was done by Mr. Gilles Rivard. It is garbage. He is the new guy who is going to
be the head of the National Transportation Agency. If there was ever a case of putting a coyote in charge of the chicken coop, this is a dandy.
The government has been paying $28 per tonne to the railroads and paying the grain producers $14 per tonne. The government proposes to cut its share. It means that the producers will now be paying more than three times as much for freight costs as they did in 1984. The Tories who were in opposition in 1984 fought the Liberals, as well as myself and my colleagues, by opposing this legislation and today they are doing exactly the same thing. They are adding insult to injury. In their errors of omission and commission they have compounded what the Liberals did.
We are losing farmers by the thousands who are losing their land that has been in their families for three or four generations. This government's solution for them is to make them pay another $74 million share of the cost of moving grain.
Consider what the Canadian Pacific Railway got from the people of Canada: 25 million acres, $25 million and coal lands as the result of the Crow's Nest Pass Agreement. The government allowed the railway to siphon those off into separate companies. It should be making the CPR take some of the profits that the CPR got from the lands, forests and coal fields that we the people gave them and make them pay their own damn costs of moving grain to live up to the agreement of 1897.
I do not understand why the Conservative government that opposed this in the first place back in 1983-84 are now doing exactly what the Liberals did.


Ron J. Duhamel: Not so.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes it is. Compare the speeches of Tories in those years in opposition with what they are doing now. The Liberals abolished the Crows Nest Pass Agreement and it is a different story now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to an order made Tbesday, March 23, 1993 and in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
March 24, 1993

Government Orders
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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):: Call in the members.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the	motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Were he allowed to be present the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca would have voted with his party.


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur) moved: that Bill C-241, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (national flag of Canada), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be here this evening and to speak about my Bill C-241 at second reading. I am sure you have read the bill. It is a very short bill but it has a lot of meaning.
This bill calls for the displaying of the Canadian flag in all Canada Post outlets. The intent is much more, as I said before, than just the bill itself.
During the last few years the services offered by Canada Post have changed drastically. With its policy aimed at closing rural post offices, Canada Post is abolishing the only federal presence in those communities. This bill wants to re-establish those symbols in the communities.

Our national flag is an important symbol of our nation. It is a symbol that allows all Canadians from coast to coast to coast to identify together as Canadians. Canada is a vast land of diversity, embracing vast differences within its borders and among its people.
Traditionally the flag has provided connections across the great expanses of space and time and has been a source of unity and pride.

Canadians are proud of their symbols. They reflect the history of our nation, its people, its environment and its cultures. Here, as in many other cities throughout the country, there are numerous symbols such as museums and other historical sites which remind citizens of their national identity. However, in rural communities such symbols are rare. Oftentimes the post office is the only one.

For someone living in an urban centre such as Ottawa, Montreal or Vancouver, it might seem strange to refer to a post office as a national symbol. However in rural communities this would often be the only federal presence in the community. For these communities these post offices were a source of pride, a sign that the federal government acknowledged the existence and the importance of their community.
I would like to quote from a letter I received from one of my constituents in which that person discusses the importance of the post office in their community.

Let me quote that letter: "We were bom in Pointe-Verte and we saw, at least partly, the history of our post office in the making. We remember more particularly that small wooden building near the school. In those days, people were talking about the possibility of building a post office. When it finally happened, the population in our community was very, very proud since, for us, it was normal to have a post office".
This shows how much people consider their rural post offices as symbols. Now the government wants to take away those symbols. Even though Canada Post received numerous letters asking that these post offices be maintained it still continues to implement its disastrous policy. As I mentioned earlier, more than 3,000 rural
March 24, 1993

communities have lost their post offices and therefore, an important national symbol.
With this bill I propose to give their national symbol back to those rural communities. While I support reopening those post offices, I am quite aware that my view is opposite to the philosophy and the agenda of this government. Taking this into account, I propose we require that a Canadian flag be flown over every Canada Post facility thereby giving them back the status of national symbol which our federal government seems to have forgotten.

Recently Bill C-73 was introduced in the House of Commons and we debated Canada Post and the attempt at its privatization. At that time if we were to review Hansard we would see the important role as a national symbol that post offices play in every community across Canada.
Quite often in these small communities the post office is the only federal government presence. It is the only place where the federal flag flies. The importance of Canada Post and rural post offices as a national symbol and federal presence in communities has been recognized by all parties and MPs in this House.
The new aspect of the Canada Post philosophy regarding new commercial outlets is to get away from the post office as a national symbol. It is getting away from the use of the national flag.
We as Canadians must preserve these national symbols right across Canada. The new Canada Post logo has what some refer to as pigeon wings. That is the flag that many of them are using, along with the Canadian flag. They are using both. But what is the next step? The Canadian flag is good enough. It is meaningful and that is what we should have. We should have the Canadian flag at every post office and every post office outlet.
Private Members' Business
I know we started a little late, so even though I am allowed 20 minutes I am going to cut it short because I know there are a number of other MPs in the House who have expressed the desire to speak. I will allow them some extra time by cutting my speech a little short. I was hoping to be able to refer to the Canada Post philosophy of closing down small rural post offices because it is inter-related.
I was hoping to speak about Pointe-Verte and the closure of its post office; the reduction of hours at the Dalhousie post office, Saturday service; the sorting centre in Campbellton; the reduction of hours in Nash Creek; and the requirement for extra boxes in Saint-Quentin and Kedgwick.

These points must be made. However other members want to speak and I know that we started late because of the vote. Therefore I will give them this opportunity and shorten my speech.

I would only hope that other MPs will support me in the move to have the Canadian flag fly at every post office outlet in Canada.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on the proposal to change the Canada Post Corporation Act with regard to the use of our national flag.
I believe that the hon. member is presenting us with a complicated solution to a problem which for the most part does not exist. I do not believe the hon. member has been able to demonstrate that there is really a need for this legislation. I do not think that it deserves the support of this House.
It does not merit our support for several reasons. There is the cost which would be incurred should this legislation become law, but this is not the reason for my objection.
The hon. member's bill ultimately proposes that the flag be displayed in every business in this country that provides postal service, some 14,000 sites. I would hope that the hon. member is not suggesting that Canada Post is not proudly displaying the Canadian flag because that is simply contrary to the facts.
Canada Post has an official policy to guide its employees in the proper manner for display of the Canadian flag. This policy ensures that all Canadian flags that are displayed in corporate facilities across Canada are done so in a fashion that demonstrates pride and respect.

March 24, 1993
Private Members' Business
There are approximately 19,000 locations at which postal products and services are available across this country. Of those, only about 3,600 are corporate post offices. It is Canada Post Corporation's practice to display the Canadian flag at its corporate buildings and sites, but the vast majority of postal outlets are franchise operations that are primarily located in retail stores owned and operated by private individuals.
The hon. member will agree that we should continue to respect the independence of those individuals who run private outlets and rely on their good sense and judgment on this question.
Some of these franchise operations are in small quarters. I believe it is up to the individual retail store owner, whether they have a postal service or not, to decide whether they want to display the Canadian flag.
Canada Post is doing an excellent job of providing official postal service to all Canadians. When the former government presented legislation in 1981 to convert the old post office department into a self-sufficient Crown corporation it did so with the intention of removing the postal service from political interference. Even the CUPW president at the time, Jean-Claude Parrot, welcomed the move and encouraged Parliament to let the managers of Canada Post manage. All parties in this House agreed to the change because it was a very sensible solution to a nearly impossible situation.
In my view the results have been very positive. As many members want to speak, I do not want to use my full allotted time. I think the management of the new Canada Post is one of the most important elements in making this organization work to the benefit of all Canadians.
I cannot fault the hon. member wanting to encourage a display of the Canadian flag, and I doubt that any Canadian would find fault with his suggestion. However, I believe this bill misrepresents Canada Post's commitment to the promotion of Canada's distinct identity.
Every year Canada Post produces 250 million Canadian flag stamp definitives. Canada Post is proud to encourage Canadians to use it year after year. Since the introduction of these stamps many attractive designs of the Canadian flag have been featured. I am happy to say
that often I use these designed stamps on my own correspondence and I urge all fellow Canadians when they are buying stamps to request that particular stamp.
Canada Post's commitment to national heritage does not stop there. Canada Post is a contributor to a series of TV vignettes seeking to make Canadians aware of their special heritage. Each one-minute spot highlights a particular facet of Canadian history or an outstanding Canadian. I am sure many members have seen these on television.
I want to congratulate Canada Post for its continued contribution, not only in its commercial capacity but perhaps even more so as an agent of Canadian identity.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and put a few comments on the record on Bill C-241, presented by the member for Restigouche-Chaleur, with respect to the Canada Post Corporation and the national flag of Canada.
The member has made some very valid points in pointing out the reasoning behind putting this bill before Parliament to change the Canada Post Corporation Act to ensure that flags are flown over all Canada Post outlets.
If we think back to the establishment of not only Canada but the postal service we realize what it has meant to our various communities, as the member has pointed out and those of us from rural Canada understand perfectly, and how important our postal outlets were prior to privatization and, in some cases, still are to our small communities.
It is a gathering point. Back in the old days it was a place where the local people came in and congregated. That was a tradition that continues in some communities today. Unfortunately as we go across Canada more and more small postal offices in our small rural communities are being closed and so are some of the post offices in some of our larger communities.
In my own riding Penticton, with a population of 27,000, had its post office closed last year in spite of that community rallying behind its post office and the fact that I presented petitions with the names of well over half of the population of Penticton protesting the closure of the post office.
March 24, 1993

In the rural areas around Penticton the community of Naramata just recently had its post office closed. Rock Creek, a small community in the boundary country, had a post office until last year that was over 100 years old, almost 125 years old. Yet Canada Post does not care for history. Canada Post apparently does not care for service and Canada Post has not indicated that it cares very much for patriotism.
The member is on the right track in that he is trying to ensure we are at least keeping a little bit of our heritage, our culture and our patriotism in our small communities by saying that if people have a Canada Post outlet they should at least identify themselves as part of the Canadian mosaic, the Canadian culture, the string that keeps Canada together. I agree with that proposition.
Let me digress a little bit. We are saying that all postal outlets should be identified as Canada Post and Canadian outlets by the reason of the flag.
Let us go back to exactly what is happening. I recall when I was in business approximately eight years ago that across Canada we were assured of one-day service from major centre to major centre. I live in the small community of Osoyoos, British Columbia. I am a lawyer, and in sending our land registry documents to Kamloops we would put them in the mail at 2.30 in the afternoon. They would be delivered and we would have registration phoned back to us by eleven o'clock the following morning.
In the last year the people in my constituency have been keeping track of how long it takes to get mail from one community to the other. Just yesterday I received a letter from a constituent enclosing an envelope and his stamp received date on it from Kelowna to Penticton, 40 miles. It took eight days to deliver that piece of mail 40 miles.
That is not the only one. I had a phone call a few days ago telling of a letter that was sent from Summerland to Okanagan Falls, approximately 25 miles. It took 11 days to deliver that piece of mail the 25 miles. I just received some correspondence that was mailed six weeks ago in Vancouver, intercepted and re-sent by Canada Post to Ottawa. On a regular basis it takes from my office in Ottawa to my office in Penticton, British Columbia, 8 to 14 days to have mail delivered.
Private Members' Business
I look at it and say: What has Canada Post done? How is its service improved with the privatization of our small postal outlets?
We have not even taken baby steps forward. We have taken giant steps backward. We are worse off, I would suggest, than we were back in the pony express days. Speaking of pony express, we have gone back in my riding. The centre of Princeton, British Columbia has twinned with a community in the United States called Tonasket. Each year they have a pony express ride where they take letters from one community to the other. By horseback they get those letters between the two communities, some 150 to 180 miles, in approximately six hours. They are doing a lot better than Canada Post is with all of its modernization.
Canada Post has not done much for my constituents. It has closed post offices. It has taken away the identity of small communities. It has privatized areas, and I get complaints about that. There are some good retail outlets. I do not argue with the fact that often those retail outlets are kept open longer hours, but unfortunately those people are not bonded. Unfortunately those people often are not trained adequately to handle the mail.
There are 19,000 locations that should be covered. Perhaps flying the flag over one of these retail outlets would give the workers more pride in the work they do. They may already have three or four other jobs to do in a retail outlet. Perhaps it would give them extra incentive in getting the mail to people. Perhaps it would show Canada Post that we in Canada still care about Canadian culture, Canadian unity and that Canada Post is the bottom line entity in getting our mail from east to west.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have 22 minutes left and I have the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, and the hon. member for Mont Royal. Use discretion, please.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott -Russell):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin my remarks by congratulating the member for Restigouche-Chaleur for his initiative this afternoon to ensure that the flag of Canada is displayed in post offices and in agencies providing postal services in Canada.

March 24, 1993
Private Members' Business
I heard the remarks of the hon. member for Cambridge. In the beginning he invoked cost as a reason not to do this and then said he did not really mean cost, he just said it as an aside. I am paraphrasing here.
The member for Cambridge should be aware if he has read the bill-and the bill is only about 20 lines long- that under the bill the size of the flag and the material is to be designed by regulation to be promulgated by his government. Therefore there is nothing that stops us in a retail postal outlet operated by the private sector to have a flag which would be in the form of a decal, for instance, to be affixed to the counter, not at a cost of $150, but at a cost perhaps of a few cents. That is what we are talking about in the case of a privatized outlet. Needless to say, if it were a Canada Post structure, owned by the corporation, we would expect an outdoor flag of the kind that is customary.
I remember two years ago getting a phone call from an irate constituent in Navan, Ontario in my riding, complaining about the fact that the flag on the post office was all ripped and that it looked terrible.


An hon. member:: Faded.


Don Boudria: Not faded. Faded would have been the least of her worries. I phoned Canada Post. After a month of trying I finally gave a flag to the constituent to take to the postmaster because no one had had the smarts to replace it in spite of my requests and those of my constituent. Is that acceptable for a federal government structure? I say not and my constituents say not.
Furthermore, let us remember what is in the Canada Post Corporation Act, the law of the land as it is today.

Section 5(2)(e) of the Canada Post Corporation Act stipulates that, and I quote:
While maintaining basic customary postal service, the
corporation, in carrying out its objects, shall have regard to-
-listen to this-
(e) the need to maintain a corporate identity program approved
by the Governor in Council that reflects the role of the corporation
as an institution of the Government of Canada.
Therefore the Canada Post Corporation now must identify itself as an agency of the Government of Canada. Have you seen recently the Canada coat of arms on a post office? The Canada Post Corporation abolished it. When have you last seen the traditional flag design on the logo of the Canada Post Corporation? The corporation abolished it in contravention of the existing law. The hon. member for Cambridge and others who think likewise approve of that kind of behaviour. I do not nor does the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur.

In April 1990 the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations published a report called "Moving The Mail". I have a copy of it here. In the dissenting report, if you want to call it that, there were additional recommendations or additional clauses proposed by the Liberal Party. I authored many of these clauses and in particular this one. Liberal recommendation No. 40, which is part of Liberal policy as we speak now and has been approved by our leader, is that Canada Post restore its corporate identity program to reflect the role of the corporation as an institution of the Government of Canada. Anyone at Canada Post listening right now better take heed because that is what we want. That is what we want and that is what Canadians want.

Most of the time in rural Canada, as my friend from Restigouche-Chaleur said so well, the post office is the only federal building. That is where we get passport forms, birth certificate forms, old age pension forms, et cetera. In many villages, only the postmaster can certify a passport. It is an important position. Maybe that does not mean anything to some hon. members on the other side or even to officials of the Canada Post Corporation, but to many of us in rural Canada the postmaster and the post office are very important. They represent the federal government.
When we founded this country, one of the reasons we did it was to defend our borders, have a universal currency within our boundaries, and deliver the mail. Those three reasons are still there and they are still valid.
March 24, 1993

I am sorry to say it but I do not accept the reasons invoked by the member for Cambridge earlier tonight that we cannot afford this, or that it is undesirable, or that this is a Crown corporation. If it is a Crown corporation the least it could do is to live within the act that exists now, but it does not even do that.
No, Mr. Speaker, I do not accept those arguments and neither do my colleagues. Canada Post can bloody well learn to live within the law and behave like a Crown corporation, a corporation of the Government of Canada. This is not Purolator, this is not a company that manufactures hockey pucks. This is a corporation of the government. This is Canada Post. That is how I want it, that is how my colleagues want it and, more important, that is what Canadians expect us to do.

I congratulate my colleague.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, since other members wish to speak as well, I will be brief and I simply want to say that the bill introduced this evening by the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur is undoubtedly well-intentioned. I heard the hon. member's presentation on his bill to the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business, and I must say his argument was very convincing.
However the hon. member must realize that Canada Post offers its services through a network of more than 19,000 sales outlets, of which only 3,600 belong to the Canada Post Corporation. The corporation has always given our national flag pride of place in its establishments.
It is the corporation's policy to ensure that its employees know the proper way to display the Canadian flag. The Canada Post Corporation ensures the flag is displayed proudly and with respect.
However the vast majority of postal counters in this country are located in retail sales outlets owned by private interests. Most of them are in drugstores, retail stores, variety stores, service stations and shopping malls.
Since private sector entrepreneurs make up the majority of sales outlets of Canada Post, I think it is up to them to decide what they wish to display in their own establishments.
Private Members' Business
First of all, I want to point out that in corporate sales outlets where it is possible to do so the Canadian flag is prominently displayed by the corporation.
Second, this bill totally ignores Canada Post's commitment to promote the Canadian flag. The corporation is already involved in promoting the image of the Canadian flag in its philatelic program. Every year Canada Post produces 250 million stamps showing the Canadian flag-more than 10 stamps for every man, woman and child in this country-and the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur will admit that as far as promoting the Canadian flag is concerned this is a tremendous program.
Incidentally, in philatelic language these stamps are commonly referred to as definitives, in other words, stamps that are reprinted year after year. This government is proud of the fact that year after year the Canada Post Corporation promotes the Canadian flag through its philatelic program.
Despite their differences, Canadians are proud of their country and thanks to Canada Post they can express that pride by using these stamps that bear the image of our flag. I hope that all members will encourage Canadians to use these splendid stamps on their correspondence.
Eleven years ago, when Canada Post was established as a Crown corporation with the support of all political parties, the postal system was going through a very difficult period. Service was deteriorating, labour relations were in disarray and the deficit was nearing $1 billion.
Changes had to be made to provide the postal service to which Canadians were entitled. In particular, it was necessary to eliminate political interference in postal affairs. It was time to let the experts on mail delivery work without worrying about the political meddling that was customary before 1984.
I believe that Canada Post is doing a very good job and that it has considerably improved the postal service, thanks to the cooperation of local businesses and establishments which provide Canadians with increased access to postal products and services. Today stamps and other postal products and services are sold wherever the demand exists, especially in food stores and shops and various other types of business.

March 24, 1993
Private Members' Business
I think it is essential, and I am sure that the great majority of our fellow citizens agree, that we can obtain postal services right where we shop. Franchises are an additional asset. They help lower the cost of operating the postal service, which results in moderate rates and good service for all Canadians.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to rise and support my colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur and his private members' bill, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, which would ensure that the national flag of Canada is displayed in the manner prescribed by the regulations inside each post office and on every building in which a post office is located and of which the Government of Canada is the owner or the main tenant.
I cannot believe what I have been hearing from the government in the last 20 minutes. National programs and national symbols are how we create national will in this country. It is from national will, national symbols and the symbol of our flag that we develop a sense of patriotism in this country.
Over the last nine years Canadians have experienced national institutions and national programs being dismantled year after year after year.
Now we have a situation where the post office is no longer flying the Canadian flag. This is wrong. The federal presence has always been integral to holding this country together. There are regions in this country where the post office is the only federal presence. Just think, by comparison, of what happens in the United States. One could not find a United States government building or truck without the American flag on it.
I cannot understand when the member from Cambridge talks about franchises, that he wants to give them their own independence. When one gives a franchise one sets standards. One of the standards should be the federal presence. In the province of Quebec there is not going to be any mad rush to display the Canadian flag. Oh yes, there are thousands of buildings in the province of Quebec that are owned by the Government of Canada and the federal flag is not flying. Now, under the name of privatization and franchises, the government is saying: Oh, we will not tell them what to do. That should be a
condition of the franchise, that the Canadian flag is flying.
I think this government is taking the idea of federal presence too lightly. I know that when I first came to this town in 1980 it was during that period that we developed the Canada word mark, which is the word Canada with the flag over the letter a.
I remember one time we were working with Spar Aerospace and there was a group that did not want to put the Canada word mark on the Spar Aerospace space arm because it was a private sector company. We said that there is $130 million worth of taxpayers' money that went into that space arm and so we insisted that the Canada word mark go on the space arm.
When that space arm opened in outer space for the first time and everyone in the world saw that space arm and we could all see the Canada word mark there was a great sense of pride in the technology and the people that put that technology together. It was a great symbol of our contribution to the space project.
As far as I am concerned that Canadian flag should be on every federal building, prison and post office. Every piece of Government of Canada property should always display the Canadian flag because it works at galvanizing the will of this nation, and when the will of this nation is galvanized the economy flourishes because it affects the spirit and everything else.
More than ever this country needs to be galvanized because for the last nine years we have been dismantling national institutions and programs to the point where Canadians have lost their identity to a great extent.
I stand proudly behind my colleague today from Restigouche-Chaleur in insisting on this. We have an act here which enshrines the Canadian flag at every post office in this nation. Whether it is a government-operated post office, a Crown-operated post office or a franchise it should be part of the package.
March 24, 1993


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion that has taken place here this afternoon and I want to take this opportunity first to thank our colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur for having brought forward the whole question of national symbols and national identity, the Canadian flag and the whole sense of Canadian persona.
I want to say to anyone who is interested in this issue that the remarks of my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell were very revealing and the warmth, dimension and depth of feeling that was expressed by my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood-as well as from my colleagues from across the floor and on both sides of this House-were very meaningful.
I find it absolutely abhorrent in today's country that, after we have gone through the Spicer commission and all the agony and sometimes ecstasy of the constitutional discussions when Canadians have said that they love Canada: "I love Canada; let us show the flag". We can have differences of opinion as to what that flag means in terms of the Constitution of the country, but we have no difference of opinion with respect to our pride of belonging, our pride of heritage.
The concern that I want to express-I ask everyone to read the other speeches that were brought to our attention because they were worth while-is that if there is one thing that we need it is the tie that binds. The tie that binds has been cut and cut by this government.
Look at the post offices in many places in the small, rural sectors; the railroad lines; the privatization of Air Canada; the cutting of the air routes; the CBC in small parts of this country and the cutting of our cultural programs throughout this country that develop the sense of who we are as a people. There is no sense of pride in the way this government has picked its priorities.
One of the simplest ways to establish one's priority and to establish who one is across the nation is to put a flag
Private Members' Business
up. It is at the back of the store, the front of the store and behind the teller. Whoever is serving us in that post office is the link. That is the Canadian voice that is going out or coming in as the case may be.
I really have a strong sense that our patriotism is being diminished by this government's lack of foresight. So we have 19,000 locations, so we have 3,600 corporate offices and sites. The member for Cambridge stood up and talked about the fact that we should not interfere with individual rights because they took a franchise. With a franchise people buy logos, responsibilities, and obligations. The obligation in this case should be to fly the Canadian flag. If the space is too small then put on a Canadian sticker. They do not get it for nothing. They have an obligation to use the rights and privileges to distribute the mail for Canadians across this land.
Canada was founded on a number of principles. One principle was the ties that bind with respect to defending our own borders, common sense and courtesy, and delivering the mail.
With you people it does not matter who delivers the mail as long as they have the right to negotiate, as long as they have the right to forget that they are Canadians and they have an obligation to demonstrate that to people across this country and in Quebec, as my colleague said, and anywhere else across this land.
I would like to support this particular motion and thank the hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being eight o'clock p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


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