1984-11-29

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, November 28, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Riis (p. 694).
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate in support of Bill C-ll. I would first like to commend the Minister for introducing this Bill which will enable us to borrow the most necessary funds to keep the country going. The Government must borrow to meet its financial requirements. We have produced the facts that are necessary for speedy consideration of this Bill.
In his economic statement the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) advised Canadians that adjustments, cuts and new initiatives were needed to support and encourage economic recovery, to create jobs, and to give Canadians the confidence and stability to invest in this great country in order that it will move forward. The Government promised to take control and it is doing just that. The economic situation which we inherited after years of Liberal mismanagement calls for some tough specific actions, but they will be sound. Running the country is exactly like running any business. We all know that when expenses are greater than revenues a deficit is created. The Government was elected to deal with the challenges facing the country and the deficit is one of our greatest challenges.
Canadians have given the Government a strong mandate to embark on the long, complex and painful task of building a lasting economic consensus for our nation. I believe Canadians know that the Government is approaching, and will continue to approach, Canada's problems. Paying the bills is one of our problems. The Government is moving with compassion, commitment and fairness.
To put our own fiscal house in order and to reverse the massive buildup of public debt, we must and will meet our commitments. Many of these commitments were made by the previous government. We are going to honour our commitments. We are honest, sincere and open. The people of Canada want, and shall receive, fair treatment, Mr. Speaker. They voted for a Government that will get the country back on its feet. Through extensive consultation and communication with the provinces, business people, labour and all Canadians, the Government will make fair decisions for all regions of Canada. We will no longer see confrontation and unilateral decisions, for the Government has a responsibility. It is facing reality. We can no longer meet every need. We simply cannot do it all.
My home is Calgary, Mr. Speaker. Calgary was absolutely brought to its knees by the financial mismanagement of this country and the destruction of the oil and gas industry in 1980. The Liberal National Energy Program was a disaster. The previous Government singled out a number one industry and then raped it. Half of the drilling rigs in western Canada have been idled or they have left the country. People left for a more secure and favourable climate. Those who were left behind went belly-up. The only way to make a buck in the drilling industry is to keep that iron turning.
I invite Hon. Members here today to come out west to the producing provinces. Come out and see the rigs. Come on the floor. See the pipe which is made from the steel from Ontario and the wire cable that is made in Mississauga and the Arctic clothing that comes from Quebec. The survival suits in the Beaufort are made in Vancouver.
As one can see, when the resource industry was so hard halted thousands of jobs were lost all across Canada. The previous Government's energy policy is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, billions of investment dollars leaving this country and four wasted years in achieving self-sufficiency for Canada.
A PGRT was applied to gross revenues. That is a petroleum and gas revenue tax, where there were no deductions for spending on new exploration and development and no deductions for royalties paid to the provinces. The previous government then revised the corporate income tax. The old earned depletion deduction was eliminated. It then imposed a natural gas and gas liquids tax. It went on and on. In its greed, the Liberal Government heavily taxed this industry. It based its theory on high world oil prices and increased consumption. However, someone forgot to tell that government that one does not budget on anticipation but on hard facts and figures.
We in the oil and gas business need a tremendous lead time to produce. We need 8 to 12 years for geological surveys, for land acquisition and exploration. We need this in order to get development and production. This industry has to find its raw materials first before it can manufacture the product. These

November 29, 1984
Borrowing Authority
are unique circumstances. The up-front capital is high risk and should be treated as a high-risk investment.
I correspond with some 250 members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and small businessmen in my riding on a regular basis. They are desperate to keep their businesses going, let alone expand their capabilities. This means jobs and we cannot foster tomorrow's increased employment until we meet yesterday's obligations.
This is what Bill C-ll is all about. If my hon. friend, the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), was in the House today, I would ask her to turn back a few pages in history to see what her government did to strangle the resource industry. When that industry turned down, we quit making hole and when we quit making hole we did not need pipe. If we did not need pipe, then we did not need steel from Hamilton. We did not need draw works and we did not need wire cable. In fact, we did not need anything. The unemployment in her riding is directly related to her government.
This Government is committed to giving Canadians a well managed, efficient and productive Government. We promised a major overhaul of planning and budgetary controls and we will produce. There are no easy solutions. Our mandate is huge but we will keep our promises. I want to tell my hon. friends how proud I am to be a member of the House and to have this opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-l 1 today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments?


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, in concluding her remarks, the Hon. Member talked about the promise. Of course, we know that the Government's promise to which she referred was to create tens upon tens of thousands of new jobs in this country as soon as the new Government could be sworn into office.
I am sure that the Hon. Member and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) recall this statement being made. Could she tell us of the Government's progress in keeping this promise? Specifically, how many tens of thousands of jobs have been cut since the Government came to office, rather than created, as it promised?
MS)


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's comments. When we came into office we had no idea what we were facing. The Liberals had 16 years to create this mess and we are going to do our very best to pick up the pieces very slowly and put them in place. We are going to get Canada off its knees and on to its feet and then we are going to run. We are going to give the people of Canada an opportunity to take hold of our resources, be they natural or human resources. We are going to give this country an opportunity to be what it should be.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a further comment. The Hon. Member has just told us that her Government did not know what it was doing when it was sworn into office and did not know what was going on. It just did not know where to start doing its job, nor did it know what the books looked like.
It seems that the Tories are the only people who did not know what was going on. We certainly knew-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: Did I hit a tender nerve on the other side, Mr. Speaker? As I was just about to say before I was so rudely interrupted, we certainly knew that we could not make billions of dollars of promises, but we did not make promises with which we could not live. We chose to promise only those things on which we could deliver.


Mr. Stewart:: That is why you have 40 seats over there.


Don Boudria: That may be why we got 40 seats, but we still have our honour.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: At least when we get back into power we will be able to deliver on those things we promised. We will not disappoint the people of this country, such as this Government has done since it has assumed office. They are right, Mr. Speaker, they did not know what was going on. They still do not know what is going on. They promised tens upon tens of thousands of jobs.
In this book that I have in my hand entitled "Expenditure Review", the Government has cut thousands of jobs from my riding right here in the Ottawa area as well as in the ridings of several Hon. Members. I see the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly). Maybe she could stand up and comment on the thousands of jobs cut in her constituency. None has been created but thousands have been cut. That is the disappointing record of this Government so far. We had enough of a similar government not long ago after nine months. We have had enough of this one after two months.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague-


Don Boudria: You can't ask. I ask.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Let me make a suggestion to my colleague, Mr. Speaker. Did the Hon. Member know he was giving us a $34 billion deficit?


An Hon. Member:: Is that one of the promises?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: It started at $29 billion. I believe it was the finance minister in the previous government who made a miscalculation of maybe $5 billion.
I would like to tell the Hon. Member that we have been given a tremendous mandate. We have been handed a problem. We are very unhappy with our problem but we are going to work slowly and surely and we will get tens of thousands of people back to work. Already the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) is working very closely with the provinces and with the industry on a new national energy
November 29, 1984

program. We will develop that. We are working in the agricultural area. Yes, Mr. Speaker, people will see in the next four years that we will stand by our promises and we will meet them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly), on questions or comments.


Mrs. Mailly:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have a comment on one made by my hon. colleague. He said that in my riding-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: l would remind the Hon. Member that questions and comments are to be addressed to the speech made by the Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) and not to the Hon. Member who made the other comment.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my comments to the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) and congratulate her on her realistic approach and on having had the patience to listen to the nonsense of the Hon. Member sitting nearby, who said we had not created any jobs. Since September 17 of this year, we have created 34,000 jobs in this country. 1 can assure my hon. colleague from Calgary South that she was right when she said we have already created a climate favourable to employment. In my riding, where factories were in great trouble as a result of neglect on the part of the previous administration, thanks to the initiative and imaginative approach of Gatineau workers, we are now reopening factories that had been closed down.
The Hon. Member is correct in saying that out West they are drilling oil wells with Ontario steel and the talents and human resources of Quebec and Gatineau, because 1 know that, as far as my riding is concerned, we have people who are working out West. Many lost their jobs over the last three years, that is true, but fortunately, a number of people are still working in Western Canada.
1 know that thanks to efforts of our Government and the negotiating and conciliatory skills of our Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mrs. Carney), there will very soon be a considerable activity in the West. Canadian oil will be produced by Canadians, consumed by Canadians and used to help develop Canada's resources, and this will be done by Canadian companies, not like what happened in the past, when jobs were exported because they were buying out foreign companies and sending billions of dollars to Belgium and buying oil from other countries because the administration here in Canada did not have the political or moral courage to face up to its responsibilities.
Borrowing Authority


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add some comments which would have unquestionably been made by the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow). Given the constraints on her address, there are other matters which we should introduce into this discussion or into this debate.
The challenge has been made that this Government has not acted on anything. What a facile challenge; what a simple one to respond to! 1 recall the Liberal Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board delaying for two months making payments to the wheat stabilization board, simply because he did not know where he was supposed to sign the cheque. We did that immediately. We froze Seaway tolls immediately. We froze the abandonment of rail lines, which guarantees and ensures that farmers in western Canada have an opportunity to get their wheat on rail. We froze the rail abandonment in my constituency, which is in the forest sector, to ensure that the mills could get their lumber to overseas markets. Those were the kinds of initiatives which were taken immediately. Also we took a very interesting initiative about which I am very happy. It was the initiative to relieve members of the Liberal Party of their seats in the House of Commons.
It is true that the Hon. Member for Calgary South did not have an opportunity to make that suggestion to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). Nevertheless, contingent upon that defeat of these people who had not been serving Canadians the way they wanted to be served was a number of employment opportunities which the Liberals themselves had created. Those opportunities without direct address to the intelligence, the capability and the area of endeavour of individuals have now been terminated. I think that is most appropriate.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, in some ways I experience deja vu entering the debate on the borrowing Bill, the request of the Government to borrow some $23 billion. I have heard these types of debates before. The actors have changed but the lines remain the same. When the Conservatives were in opposition and the Liberals were in government, very often I heard the lines which are being delivered by Conservative members today being delivered by Liberal members. We hear Liberal members today giving the lines that the Conservative members used to deliver. The actors have changed, but the lines surely remain the same.


An Hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Simon Leendert de Jong: The Hon. Member opposite says nonsense. How well I remember the debate in 1982 when the Liberals brought in a borrowing Bill ranging in the billions of dollars. Not only were they wanting to borrow money for the present fiscal year but also for the next fiscal year. At that time the Leader of the Opposition and the Official Opposition were outraged, and rightfully so. Today we hear the same lines and see the same procedures. The names of the actors have changed but again the lines remain the same.

November 29, 1984
Borrowing Authority
It is interesting to see that now the members of the Liberal Party are opposing what the Government is doing, saying it is not parliamentary, it is not right. They are correct. Their objection is valid. However, how soon they have forgotten that only a few years ago they were doing exactly the same when they were in government. The word hypocrisy is a mild word to describe this behaviour. How soon our friends across the way have also forgotten.
I was somewhat disappointed in the speech last night of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). He was one of the most capable critics of the Government and of government borrowing Bills in this House. He was a man of integrity who thought out his arguments well and presented them forcefully. Members like the Hon. Member for Mississauga South and other Opposition members in both the Conservative Party and New Democratic Party succeeded in forcing the previous government to break down its borrowing authority Bill.
Let me warn the Minister and the Government that the very same tactics that the Conservative Party used in 1982 can be used again today against them. The business of this House can be brought to a standstill by the Opposition if the Government insists on breaking the rules and traditions of this House. The page that we will borrow is the page that the Conservative Party wrote in 1982. Let this Government be warned that we will not forget their opposition in the past. We will certainly raise that opposition if it continues to operate in the same manner that the Liberal government of the day acted.
It is somewhat distressing to hear the speeches of Hon. Members of this House, particularly Government members. Their depth of understanding of economic and government issues is very shallow. As I hear their remarks, I am reminded of religious cults like the Moonies. All I hear are simplistic phrases being bandied about, not just by back-benchers but by Ministers as well. They are simply solutions, as far as Government members' are concerned, to the problems facing the economy of Canada and the western world today.
The big bogyman is government-too much government spending which resulted in tremendous deficits, which in turn has yanked up interest rates. This has resulted in a downturn of economic activities. The solution is to bring down the deficit by slashing government spending; down go the interest rates, up goes growth, up goes job creation and hurrah, happy days are here again!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simon Leendert de Jong: I am reminded of the experiments of Dr. Pavlov. When certain stimuli were presented to the dog, the dog started to salivate. Just now, when I uttered certain key buzzwords, all at once Hon. Members of the Conservative Party break out in applause as though there were simplistic solutions to the problems that face our economy. They feel as though the tremendous economic, social and technological changes western civilization is going through can be resolved with just these simple measures.
As with the Moonies and as with all forms of religious cults and thought-control groups, it frightens me. It frightens me how complex and difficult problems can be reduced to simplistic phrases which, when heard by normally intelligent men and women, cause them to break out in this mad applause. The idea that there are simplistic answers to complex issues is, in the end, the essence of totalitarian thinking. It is the essence of communist and fascist mentalities.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, again we hear this rumbling. Obviously a nerve has been touched.
When looking at the evolution of human consciousness and the social history of the human race, one can see that there have been those simplistic solutions to complex issues in times of great social stress. This eventually leads to people trying to fit square pegs into round holes. I am afraid that Hon. Members are so convinced that this is the solution that, when it does not work, they will indeed attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole. That is my fear, Mr. Speaker.
Let us look at this simplistic solution that the Government has offered. The notion is that our deficit is much too high. I agree with that. I do believe that our deficit is much too high.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simon Leendert de Jong: Hon. Members applaud again. Let me educate them a bit. Let me suggest to them that in my home province, the Province of Saskatchewan, the Government has had a balance budget for years and years. When the so-called socialist horde composed of irresponsible spenders and freewheelers inherited the province in 1944, it was a province that was broke, that was in debt, that did not have an electrical system or a roads system. It had a population that was scattered over many, many miles. We were able to electrify that province and build a roads system second to none without incurring tremendous debts. When we were defeated in 1982, the budget of the Government of Saskatchewan had a surplus while the budgets of the Government of Alberta, the Government of B.C. and the Government of Ontario had deficits. Those were well-to-do provinces controlled by Tories.
Let us now take a look at Saskatchewan today. After two years of Tory rule, after two years of cut-backs in social programs, after two years of selling off provincial assets like Crown corporations and highway equipment, Saskatchewan has the highest accumulated deficit in the history of the province. All of the past deficits rolled into one cannot meet what has been done by the Tories in only two years.
Hon. Members are not applauding any longer. Is it a shock for Tories to realize that Tory governments have produced the largest deficit in the history of England, the United States and Saskatchewan? Surely that does not quite make sense in light of the rhetoric we have been hearing here. What is going on? Tories who are philosophically committed to balancing the budget end up in the end with record deficits by using Tory
November 29, 1984

programs. What is going on here? What is the explanation for this?


John B. Stewart: Time.


Simon Leendert de Jong: The Hon. Member says that it takes time. How much time will it take? Will it take two years, four years, eight years? After all, the Hon. Member must realize that when the Government of Saskatchewan was elected in 1982, it was going to create instant jobs and instant prosperity, just like the Tory Party during the 1984 election campaign promised instant jobs and instant prosperity for Canada.


Ms. Mitchell:: Did they do that?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Of course they did not do it. The unemployment rate in Saskatchewan has increased since the Tories were elected. So much for business confidence in the Province of Saskatchewan.
Let us have a look at the situation, Mr. Speaker. Why do Tory times produce massive deficits? They produce massive deficits because they are committed to a philosophy and theory of economics that has been shown not to work. It is the monetarist theory developed by the Chicago School of Economics and Dr. Friedman. I will explain it in a plain and simple way which I think Hon. Members, particularly the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), will understand. The philosophy is that if one feeds a horse a great deal of oats, the sparrow will eventually get some. That is essentially the monetarist philosophy. They believe in giving the corporate sector a great many tax breaks. I say this tongue in cheek to the Hon. Member for Bow River because I know that he is a prairie populist who has as much distrust of the CPR as I have, but they believe in giving tax breaks to the CPR. The essential notion is that if the corporate sector is given a lot of tax breaks, eventually those breaks will filter through the economy and create jobs and prosperity for all. That is a nice simplistic solution except that it does not work. Because the solution does not work, we have a downturn in economic activity. The Government forgoes tremendous revenues. We see this over and over again.
As the critic of the Revenue Department, I have been following the actions of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) with some interest. This is an example of the philosophy at work. In The Globe and Mail of November 28, there appeared an article with the headline: "Ottawa makes it easier for business to avoid tax". It is indicated in that article that the Minister has announced that his Department will help the private sector find tax loopholes in order to determine if setting up a dummy company is legal or not. The third paragraph of the article to which I have referred reads:
An advance ruling would allow a company that is considering, for instance, establishment of a dummy corporation that would reduce its tax bill, to find out whether its proposed strategy is legal.
The Minister went on to say that he thought that business people were spending too much time looking for tax loopholes. He felt they should be spending their time making money and doing normal business things rather than looking for tax
Borrowing Authority
loopholes. Therefore, the Government, at the expense of the people, will find these tax loopholes for them. Is that not sweet of the Government? How much are we going to lose on this? When is the Government going to realize that, in order to reduce the deficit, it should stop looking at the expenditure side and start looking at the revenue side?
Just yesterday we heard from the Economic Council of Canada which stated in its report that the problem with the deficit is not over-expenditure but lack of revenue. A newspaper article of November 28, 1984, reads as follows:
The federal deficit, expected to reach $34.6 billion this year, has not been growing because spending is out of control, the council said. Rather, the Government has failed to keep raising enough taxes to cover its expenditures.
Tax exemptions and loopholes combined with slow economic growth during the past 10 years have cost Ottawa almost $100 billion in tax revenues.
Is the Government concerned with the revenue side? Is the Government concerned with doing those things that create economic activity and therefore tax revenues? Is the Government concerned with doing those things that would stop some of the tax loopholes? No, Mr. Speaker, because in its simplistic solution it is the expenditure side that is the cause of our deficit. As far as the Government is concerned, spending is out of control. Again, simplistic solutions to complex problems will lead to further disaster in Canada today.
It is unfortunate that the Hon. Member for Mississauga South is not present today. I attempted to ask him some questions yesterday when we asked the House to give unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member more time for an exchange after his speech. I understand that every Member of the House was willing to give him more time except a member of the Conservative Party. I found that a bit strange.
The Hon. Member for Mississauga South spent a fair amount of his time explaining how some provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act allow some of his constituents, who worked many hours during the summer and who were involved in the construction business, to be eligible for UI payments and they take advantage of those payments during the winter construction slowdown, even though they are really not in need. However, legally, they are eligible for those benefits. The Hon. Member felt that that was wrong and that the requirements should be tightened. In a scheme such as unemployment insurance there are many different situations. There may be cases of people receiving benefits which perhaps they should not be receiving. In some cases it may be legal, in other cases it may not be legal. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South was very concerned about that. I accept the concern of the Hon. Member, but we should maintain a sense of proportion.
Was the Hon. Member concerned about the tax loopholes which are being provided through the research and development tax credit? He called it a scam, and I certainly agree with him. It was introduced in the Budget which was brought down by Mr. Lalonde. It was only supposed to cost the public treasury $100 million. Now the estimate is that it has cost over $1.5 billion and this scam will cost another $400 million or

November 29, 1984
Borrowing Authority
S500 million. It will produce very few actual research and development dollars. For example, I understand that Imperial Oil bought $500 million worth of the credits and has paid itself a fee for doing the paper transactions of $25 million. I wonder what type of research and development will result.
I congratulate the Government. When it was elected it realized that this was a scam and set about trying to correct it. It corrected it! It imposed a moratorium. However, now we realize that the moratorium had a flaw. It had an escape hatch which is called a grandfather clause. The Minister of National Revenue admitted that under the provisions of the grandfather clause all sorts of new deals are being introduced and that it will cost the public treasury another $400 million or $500 million. When I brought this to the attention of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South he told me to wait a minute, that it could not simply be cut off overnight. Agreements were made. He said that we should not have to tell business folks that this provision was part of the law and that it would be cut off overnight. The Hon. Member was quite concerned about the propriety of cutting off the grandfather provision of the R and D tax credit scheme. It is too bad that he did not have the same concern about cutting off UI benefits to those people who are eligible for them and who are planning their retirement with those benefits in mind. Those people know that his Government will cut out the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. When the Unemployment Insurance Act is changed, there will be no grandfather clause. Those changes will be overnight. There will be no provision for those people who are earning $15,000 or $20,000 a year. But for Imperial Oil there are a lot of grandfather clauses.
That is the difference between that political party and the NDP. That party is concerned with the Imperial Oils of the world. Our concern is with the person who is retiring and who has an income of $25,000, $30,000 or $40,000 a year. That is the difference, and because of that I oppose this borrowing authority Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments?


Mr. Boyer:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) said in his remarks that he was going to educate the Hon. Members of this House, in particular Members on this side, about certain things having to do with the economic policy of the Government. In his remarks he talked about simplicity and lamented the fact that the Government had outlined in a simple and straightforward manner the formula for economic renewal. While he eschews the notion of simplicity, he went on to compare the economic thinking of the Government to the Moonies. Talk about over-simplistic analysis!
In his remarks he also used the word "hypocrisy". Yet he denounced the large size of government deficits and went on to speak critically of a government which has come into office inheriting a record-high deficit and a spending level which is increasing. The Government is taking definite, specific and immediate steps to bring the situation under control. I think the word "hypocrisy" is not appropriate.
He also asked when the Government would begin looking at the revenue side and not only deal with cuts in expenditures. If the Hon. Member is asking when the Government will deal with that, his "education" of Members on this side leaves a great deal to be desired. Where was the Hon. Member when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said that he would close the tax loopholes which involved the research and development tax credit? He lamented that nothing was being done to deal with loopholes. He spoke of the revenue side and the fact there were benefits for some. Where was he when it was announced that there would indeed be a minimum tax on the rich? Where was he when the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) outlined a series of fair and proper measures to ensure that tax revenues owing to the federal Government would be collected? That is concrete and precise action on the revenue side. People who have been avoiding tax will be dealt with in an effective manner, not on the basis of the quota system which was tried by the previous Liberal government.
Where was he when the Minister of Finance, outlined in his economic statement that the way to economic recovery the way to generate funds on the revenue side and the way to get the deficit down is through letting the private sector return to doing what it does best: creating jobs, generating wealth and continuing to be involved in genuine economic activity?
I would say to the Hon. Member for Regina East that if he intends to educate Hon. Members, he should first do his homework.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat amused by the comments of the Hon. Member. I will first deal with his point regarding my charge of hypocrisy. I made that charge because, as I suggested to him and to other Hon. Members, what the Government is doing now-borrowing money for the next fiscal year-is what it opposed when it was in opposition. As well, the government is asking for $2 billion in "pocket money". The Tories opposed that in opposition. They said: "What do you mean, borrow $2 billion in case of emergency?" Those were the speeches I listened to from the Hon. Member for Mississauga South. The Government is now doing exactly what it criticized when it was in opposition, and I call them hypocrites for that. I think I have the right to. Not the Hon. Member, of course.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simon Leendert de Jong: In fact, he was not even here then.
I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member did not listen properly to my remarks about R and D. I congratulated the Government for putting a moratorium on this scam, but then I went on to say that the moratorium is not all that effective because of the grandfather clause which will cost the taxpayers another $400 million to $500 million. This money will be lost. That is why during Question Period yesterday I asked the Minister of National Revenue to put a freeze on the grandfather provision. He did not answer me. I am saying to the Government that it should put a freeze on the grandfather
November 29, 1984	_____________________COMMONS
clause and save those $400 million to $500 million. Because of the deficit we cannot afford to lose that hunk of change for something that everyone, including the Government, recognizes as being so unproductive.
The Hon. Member mentioned the minimum tax. 1 congratulate the Government for acting on this provision. We will have to see what type of minimum tax is introduced, whether it is smoke and mirrors or whether it will be a meaningful tax which will make the system a little bit fairer. That we will have to see.
The Hon. Member talks about tax collection. The Government pointed out in the economic statement that it was going to try and collect some $400 million in taxes that no one disputes are owed to it. In fact, there are some $4.5 billion in uncollected taxes which are beyond dispute. There are almost $400 million which the corporate sector has collected from its employees which they have not transmitted to the Government even though they are legally required to do so at the end of each month. For the Government to enforce just that one provision would bring in almost $400 million, never mind the $1.6 billion the corporate sector owes but has not yet paid.
The Hon. Member ended his remarks by saying that the Government is committed to letting the private sector do its thing and if we could only do that, prosperity is here. I suggest to him that the economic history of this country and its development is one where the private and public sectors have worked together. There is a tremendous role for the public sector to play, and for this Government to destroy that part of the public sector will be disastrous to this country and the private sector as well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments continue. I recognize the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley). I ask Hon. Members to keep their questions and comments short as we have only a 10-minute period.


Mr. Gormley:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond in light of the fact that the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) and I come from the same province. Several of his statements should be clarified for the record, particularly those dealing with the economic comparisons involving Saskatchewan.
The Hon. Member referred to cults and related activities. The hallmark of a cult is the fact that there has to be a great deal of proselytizing going on and I think the people of Canada chose us to do this. We did not have to do much proselytizing to make people understand the deficit had been running out of control and something responsible had to be done about it. The Hon. Member remarked that somehow changing politics had caused some economic problems in Saskatchewan. If one looks at a comparable period in Alberta, in prosperous times that province was able to build up a very handsome surplus; but Saskatchewan had a balanced budget. However, when the new government had a chance to look at the books it realized that, through some very creative bookkeeping involving Crown corporations and government departments, a true accounting of
DEBATES	_______715
Borrowing Authority
the state of the economy had not been given. Given the kind of economics that this Member advocates, then the deficit would be twice as large as it is. I just wanted to comment on the Hon. Member's statement that Saskatchewan's economic difficulties arose because of the change of government. That is not the case.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but the period for questions and comments is now over. I ask again that Hon. Members please try and keep their comments and questions short, as we have three other Members who have not been able to speak, the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart), the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), and the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey). However, I shall give 30 seconds to the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) to answer the comment.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, we could spend some time debating the situation in Saskatchewan, which debates are of course occurring in the provincial legislature. However, the facts are still very simple and clear: Saskatchewan today has a deficit higher than it has ever been in the history of the province. That deficit has been incurred since the Conservatives have been elected in Saskatchewan. For the Hon. Member to say that they did not have a look at the books gives me a feeling of dej'a vu. I do not think the people of Saskatchewan buy that and I do not think the people of Canada are going to buy it either. The people of Canada voted overwhelmingly to put the Conservatives into office because they were tired of the Liberals, not because of any of their programs or policies.Those programs and policies did not exist.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over. I would like to remind Hon. Members of this House that the first two speakers we have had this morning have referred to a specific absence of other Members from the House. I know this was not meant in any critical way but I ask Hon. Members not to refer specifically to the absence of a Member from the House.
We shall now resume debate with the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey).


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) said yesterday, the difficulty we have with this Bill is not so much in and of the Bill itself but that it has come to us all at once. It is hard to assimilate and it takes time to find out exactly what is happening and what the impact of the Throne Speech, the economic statement and now this borrowing Bill is going to be.
We on this side want to take the time to examine it and do two other things. First of all we want to make sure that our people know exactly what government policy is. Then, as their representatives in this House, we want to stand up and say what they would say if they were here. We are their representatives and our job is to say what they would say if they could be here. I want to try and tell the House and you, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
November 29, 1984
Borrowing Authority
Speaker, as well as the Government, what my people would say if they were here. I said some of it yesterday in reply to the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) who made the same point that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) made in his speech. That is, that one of the reasons unemployment insurance has to be cut, among other programs, is that there are people in Canada who really are not trying hard enough to get jobs. There are 176,000 jobs, we are told, going begging in this country and now we have the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) hiring 700 people to go around the country and oversee the people who are unemployed. That is 700 new jobs, but what it will do for the unemployed remains to be seen. I do not think it is going to do very much.
Certainly the track record of the Department of Employment and Immigration in finding jobs for people in this country is not that good so far. But the suggestion was made that there were people who were not looking hard enough. In other words, there were Canadians who were lazy, satisfied and content to be on unemployment insurance. I and others in this House reject that as a cynical indictment of Canadian workers, particularly of workers in our own area. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) made that comment yesterday and I pointed out to him and to the House that in my area people have gone all over Canada looking for jobs and have not been able to find them. I wish someone would show me where those 176,000 jobs are, and show the workers in my area, because they certainly want them.
The Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow), who spoke earlier, talked about the elements in Calgary that come from all over 'the country. I watched her on TV as she spoke about the steel from Ontario and materials from other parts of the country that were being used in Calgary. She said that it was a truly Canadian operation. I accept that. However, she forgot to mention that a lot of the workers there were from the Atlantic provinces. They are there because there are no jobs in the Atlantic provinces. They have had to go elsewhere to look for work.
As I see it, this particular effort is not going to address the needs of the people of Atlantic Canada. I do not see that the effect of this move by the Government will be job creation in the Atlantic provinces, either temporarily or in the long run. If it has a long-run effect, it will be very, very long run.
There are a lot of cuts besides those in unemployment insurance. Eight point five million dollars is being phased out of summer employment for young people. In the Province of Newfoundland 50 per cent of all eligible young people are unemployed. That is staggering. It is a tragedy, Mr. Speaker. I do not think those jobs for young people in the private sector will come overnight or next winter. What do we say to young people in the meantime? Canada student loans as well as other programs will also not be increased. They have depended on Summer Canada but $8.5 million is going to be phased out of that program. Mr. Speaker, if you were a representative of
that province, what would you say to the 50 per cent of young people who are unemployed? How would you explain that?
The Canadian Home Insulation Program is being phased out. I think there is a certain argument to be made in favour of that because that is certainly something that people should do on their own. It was an incentive program to encourage people to insulate and improve their houses at a time when energy was a factor and the housing industry needed a shot in the arm. The housing industry has picked up in some parts of the country but not in all parts. This particular move by the Government is indiscriminate. It treats all areas, groups and peoples alike. There is no consideration given for regional differences. The Canadian Home Insulation Program gave a lot of employment to small businesses, carpenters and electricians. It gave a lot of employment to many little people in the rural areas who depended on that program. What is their alternative?
With regard to the fisheries sector, $ 1.2 million has been cut which was designated for a marine service centre on the Labrador coast. The fishermen in that area are among the most disadvantaged of any in Canada. This will affect Inuit people and fishermen with small boats from small communities in Newfoundland who use those facilities in the summertime. That program was put in place because they need to catch up. It was put in place because the former government believed, as this Party now believes, that our job is to help first those who need it most and to put in place the things which they do not have but need to carry out their occupations. That $1.2 million was slashed indiscriminately with no thought given to what effect it will have on that particular area.
While the fishing industry in the Atlantic is on its knees and struggling for survival, $5 million is cut from the ad campaign attempting to sell fish in the United States. This comes at a time when, because of the strength of the U.S. dollar, the United States is buying a lot of European fish. I do not see how cutting $5 million from the fish promotion program squares with helping the private sector.
Relocation assistance was cut by $2.8 million. Labrador City, in my constituency, produces 50 per cent of all the iron ore in Canada. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will know it well because he was president of the company that operated that particular town. Another town called Schefferville was closed down. I give the Prime Minister his due because he made sure that there were generous benefits made available to the people in Schefferville. I say publicly that that was a magnanimous stroke. Unfortunately, however, the same thing did not happen in Labrador City. There the company was allowed to use contract clauses to renege on severance payments to workers. They were allowed to treat workers as if they were on recall for three years rather than having been laid off. If there had been an upsurge in the iron ore industry in Canada, which everyone knew was not going to happen, at least not overnight, the workers would have been recalled. Therefore, the company was allowed to use that clause to avoid giving severance payments and the generous allowances which were given in Schefferville.
November 29, 1984

The Government of Canada had to step in and use a program called MILAP which was the successor to the Industrial Labour Adjustments Program. It was specifically designed to help workers, particularly in one-industry towns that had no alternative, to find either retraining or relocation. That is what must happen because even though industries may want to look out for the welfare of their employees, there are industries that cannot do it. These are Canadians who deserve, need and demand help. The Government of Canada must be responsible to help them but relocation assistance has been cut by $2.8 million when there are people with no prospects for alternative employment who need that help. I cannot accept that, Mr. Speaker. Separation payments, unemployment insurance and employment pension income is now going to be considered as income before people can start to draw those benefits anyway.
Returning to the housing industry, in Atlantic Canada and rural areas all across the country RRAP was an important program for people who wanted to renovate, rebuild or reconstruct their houses. A lot of senior citizens and people who could not build new houses took advantage of RRAP. A lot of small businesses that could not find alternatives and needed the work were surviving, to a large degree, on the RRAP program. That has now been cut by $29.4 million. I just hope that the private sector takes that up and the housing industry responds. I just hope that thete are job alternatives available for those people so that they will be able to afford it without the help of RRAP. However, I do not see that happening, at least not very quickly.
I would not like to talk about ferry services. I saw the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) here earlier. I know he had to leave but I was hoping he would stay around. If he were here I think he would have to agree with me that to cut ferry services to an island is to cut off a lifeline. The House must understand that. If I did not explain that in the House I would not be doing my job as a representative in this Chamber. There is no other way, except to fly, to get to Prince Edward Island. There are many people who cannot afford to fly, or for some other reason cannot fly in. You cannot fly a tractor into Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland. Ever since we came into confederation in 1949 heavy equipment has been transported by ferry. That ferry service is our trans-Canada highway. It is the only highway we have to that island. The Government, the House and the people who make policy here must understand the effect that policy is going to have on people who live on islands.
I can accept helping the private sector and putting business front and centre. I can accept that in the long run that is the only way we are going to create permanent, lasting jobs in the country. I can accept all that. However, I cannot accept indiscriminate cutting with no thought of the effect it will have, particularly on disadvantaged areas of this country. There are cut-backs of $21.5 million in CN Marine. Airport and marine services are to be reduced and fees are to be increased.
Borrowing Authority
Last week the Canadian Transportation Commission made what I believe to be one of its best reports. It concerned the North. In fact, it was a Conservative Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker, who, in the 1960s, had a vision of the North. If he were in the Chamber today he would be supporting that Canadian Transportation Commission report. He would agree that it would be possible to attract and keep people in the North if the fuel tax and airport fees in the North were eliminated. This would develop the northern area of this country. But if an undue burden is placed on those who already have one of the heaviest burdens to bear in this country, it will decimate and depopulate the North. It will not only be Schefferville that will close down; many other towns in the North besides mining towns will close down. The point I am trying to get across is that the cuts we have seen in those areas of the country will be devastating. I do not see what the alternative will be.
In order to be a good representative of the people I represent, I should point out those measures that I find beneficial in the economic statement. In fact, some of its measures were good. For example, fishermen, loggers, mine operators and farmers may be eligible for a fuel sales tax rebate of three cents per litre beginning in December. That is a good step and I congratulate the Government for it.
Widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64 will become eligible for the spouses' allowance program in the fall of 1985. That is a good move and the Government should be congratulated. The fact that veterans' pensions will be improved is a good step and I also congratulate the Government for that.
Finally, tax relief may be offered for termination benefits for workers in shutdowns of isolated one-industry towns. I bet it was the Prime Minister who put that in. The Government should be congratulated for that as well. Those are four measures that will help my people.
However, by and large, the message I must convey to the House is that these cuts will be devastating. I do not see what the alternatives will be. The suggestion is that private enterprise will in some way take up the slack, although we do not know when.
What is the record of private enterprise? In the fishery, for example, both major fishing companies in the Atlantic area were on their knees and virtually bankrupt. Our Government had to step in. The private sector was asked if it had any money to invest in these companies. No one in the private sector came forward to invest in the companies. Therefore, the Government of Canada invested money.
In the case of Fishery Products International, our government, along with the Government of Newfoundland, invested approximately $150 million. Much more must be invested if that company is to be financially stable. That industry is struggling and the record of private enterprise in that particular industry is anything but excellent.

November 29, 1984
Borrowing Authority
Therefore we must ask if we can have confidence in the private sector in that particular industry. While that confidence may come about in the future, in the meantime I see these cuts putting a burden on fishermen who can least afford to bear that burden. The effect of that invested money has been to help some of the banks perhaps, but it has not helped too many fishermen in any substantial way.
What about forestry? The Government has also helped in forestry. While that industry is in difficulty, it is not as severe as the fishery. When the Government helps an industry in the forestry sector to modernize a mill, for example, it means the addition of new technology. New technology in and of itself does not create new jobs but eliminates jobs. Therefore, as a result of giving health to the forest industry through stability and modernization, some jobs have been eliminated. There is a vacuum in job creation which I do not see being filled by the forestry sector.
What about mining? I have talked about one mining town in particular but I believe it is general knowledge that this industry all across Canada is struggling in a very tough market-place. While some are doing much better than others, there certainly will not be a dramatic growth in the mining industry in the near future. In the meantime, how will those jobs be provided?
We are told that we should not look to those major corporations and multinational firms to create the jobs but that the real vitality in the private sector will be in small business. I support that concept. In this respect I have a great deal of time for the President of the Canadian Federation of Small Business. However, I would ask him to give details of where those 176,000 jobs are that he talks about because I want to get after the firms that have them. While there no longer is a relocation allowance, I want to find a way to send my people there.
I have a lot of time for his organization because I believe that the vitality of the economy will be with small business. However, this revitalization will not occur if the Government takes such action as cutting tourism out of the Industrial Regional Development Program. That program is one of the major tools the Government has now to assist private enterprise. I might say that the tourism industry includes many small businesses and employs many semi-skilled and nonskilled people. I believe that that industry has great potential in this country and it is surely not an incentive for private enterprise if the Government does not allow it to qualify under the IRDP.
I repeat that while the economic statement has some good points, the over-all cuts will have a devastating effect in the Atlantic area and I do not see where the slack will be taken up or how those cuts will be healed by the private sector. I believe the Government must reconsider its policy in this respect, to see how it affects the disadvantaged areas of the country, particularly northern and rural areas. I would ask the Government to do that because, if it does not, it will eventually pay the political price and will not return to this Chamber with the kind of majority it has today.


Mr. Duguay:: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on a question the Hon. Member asked during the course of his speech. He wanted to know what we would say to young people in Canada this summer. He was referring to the Summer Canada cuts.
Let me tell the Hon. Member that as a person who has spent nearly 20 years working with young people, there is one message that I do not want to give them. It is the message that the previous government gave them during the last 20 years, that the solution to the problem of jobs is to mortgage the future, to borrow money that we cannot afford to borrow and to create jobs that do not produce anything in this economy.
There are examples of some of the jobs that were created by this program. For instance, it was a young person's job to post CEIC posters, giving credit for the summer jobs to the Minister.
I am concerned about young people but I want them to learn something about the realities of life; the fact that jobs do not appear out of thin air and that make-work jobs are not necessarily jobs that create work. I want young people to learn that a free lunch is not a birthright.
The previous speaker alluded to the fact that Tory times mean massive deficits-


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought this was a 10 minute period for questions. I would like to ask a question if the Hon. member is not going to take the whole period.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions or comments allows Members to make comments. I would ask, however, that the Hon. Member make his comment within a reasonably short period of time.


Léo Duguay: My comment will be short, Mr. Speaker. The previous speaker alluded to the fact that Tory times mean massive deficits and used the NDP example in Saskatchewan. It seems to me that one look at the Province of Manitoba, the only NDP government in this country, would illustrate what kind of deficit it has created.


Mr. Rossi:: That has nothing to do with jobs.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) made a very thoughtful speech and covered several areas of interest to the Government. Actually he was very complimentary to the Government in several ways. He made reference to devastation that he suggests will come as a result of the belt-tightening that we are doing with the complete mandate of the Canadian people. Could he give us any idea whether or not he feels the devastation that he predicts will be anything comparable to the devastation which his Party suffered on September 4?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to rest safe and assure the seat he has in the security of the Government, he can do that. But there is another election
November 29, 1984

coming. That is what we are fighting. Right here, now, today, we are fighting the next election. My policy, and I have gone through five elections, has always been to fight the next election the day after the last one is over. What we are doing here today is fighting the next election. We will see what is going to happen in four years' time. The people of Canada have chosen. 1 give the Hon. Member credit. We will see what happens in four years' time. I tell the Hon. Member now, as 1 told the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) the other day, that if his Government pursues this policy he will see that he will not be back on that side of the House in four years' time. If the Hon. Member for St. John's West believes that, I say to him again, as I said to him the other day: "Come now, debate with me in my riding. Run against me in four years' time and we will see who wins".


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Member. We hear so frequently from Conservative Members of Parliament about the tremendous advantages of the private sector and we hear criticisms of the public sector. My friend, the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay), just spoke about some of Canada's make-work projects as if that were bad. Would the Hon. Member take a few moments and explain what happened in the fishing industry on the East Coast? My impression is that private sector companies were going bankrupt, that there were so many people working in the industry that governments, not socialist governments but the federal Liberal government, and one or two provincial Conservative governments, had to step in and make it, at least in part, a public enterprise. Maybe the Hon. Member could give us a few details on that.


Bill Rompkey: I alluded to that in my speech, Mr. Speaker. It is a good question. That is virtually what happened. The private sector was in trouble across the board. Some of the smaller companies are doing very well, but the major companies in Atlantic Canada were in real trouble. Most of them, with the exception of National Sea Products, were on the verge of bankruptcy, not because of either a Conservative, Liberal, or NDP government or the fishermen, or the stocks, or anything like that; it was their inability to compete in the marketplace with the Scandinavians and others. The private sector was just not doing the job. Both governments, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland, are in a partnership to try and do that particular job.
I made the point, and the point has been made again, that while I support, by and large, the theory that it has to be the private sector, and particularly small business, which creates long-term jobs, you have to question certain areas, particularly the one which the Hon. Member mentioned. The private sector's track record does not lead us to believe that it is going to do the kind of excellent job that we hope the private sector is going to be able to do.
I would like to take one more minute to speak about the fishermen. The situation for fishermen is even worse in some areas of the country. When the Hon. Member talks about devastation-and I raised this problem with the Minister of
Borrowing Authority
Employment and Immigration-there are in-shore fishermen in Newfoundland this year who will not get any benefits at all. In the community of Griquet, for example, on the northern peninsula of Newfoundland, there are probably 100 such fishermen. Probably the total fishing force of that community will not qualify for un employent insurance because the fish did not come.
This is something you have to appreciate about fishing. It is not quite the same as farming. First, there are not the same safety nets. Second, we are equally vulnerable to the kinds of hazards nature inflicts upon us. This year was a staggering year for the in-shore fishermen. Instead of cutting unemployment insurance, what the Government should be doing is instituting special programs to help those fishermen who are affected.


Mr. Nickerson:: I have a question for the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey). His presentation dealt almost exclusively with decrying the Government for trying to put some realism into the national finances and therefore having to cut back on some expenditures. He exhorted the Government to spend even more money, especially in his particular area. Do I take it that the position of the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador and the Liberal Party of Canada is that $23 billion of new borrowing authority is not enough, that they would prefer perhaps $50 billion of new borrowing authority, money that would then at some point in time have to be repaid with interest?


Bill Rompkey: It is not my job to propose, Mr. Speaker. That is the Government's job. My job as a repesentative is to stand here in the Chamber and to say what effect the policy of the Government is going to have on my people. That is the duty of the Hon. Member as well. I would say to the Hon. Member that the increase in the fuel tax, the increase in airport fees and the other measures to be taken will be just as devastating in the Western Arctic as Labrador. I do not know how he is going to explain that to his people but I would not want to have to explain it to mine.


Mr. Baker:: I have a comment and I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I have to congratulate the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) on talking about the importance of having direct job creation programs, as he said, in rural areas, high unemployment areas. It appears to be a fixation with this Government to treat everybody across the country alike. As the Hon. Member said, they are doing away with direct job-creation programs.
We had an intervention from the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay). The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) "didn't understand it at all. He said the Minister of Employment and Immigration will be developing new programs to provide permanent jobs for our youth. Therefore, the Summer Canada program will as a result be terminated".
How stupid, Mr. Speaker. You do not give a student looking for a job for the summer a permanent job. What he is really referring to is private enterprise. Private enterprise does not

November 29, 1984
Borrowing Authority
exist in the high unemployment areas of the hon. gentleman's province. It does not exist. You must have direct job-creation programs. A community group applies for the program to carry out an activity. For somebody to stand in this House and say that was a waste of money and that the students were not doing anything is to criticize the local community group that applied to the government for the money.
If this Government is sincere about being concerned about students, it will have to turn around next summer and have the same kind of job creation program for students as the former Liberal government had. If it does not, then it can wave good-bye to any credibility which it has in high unemployment areas of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has now expired. We will resume debate.


Mr. Stewart Mclnnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, in viewing the activities in the House I have been aroused and at times interested by the comments from the island of red interspersed with pink. However, I have gained heart and confidence when I have heard utterings from the sea of blue from time to time.
At this particular time I am compelled to recall a certain passage from A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. I should like to quote a passage from that bible and draw attention to the following well-known words:
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way-in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
The Liberals in their new-found station in life on the benches opposite, of course, will recognize that on September 4 Canadians said that it was the worst of times, that it was the age of foolishness, that it was the epoch of incredulity, that it was the age of darkness-and indeed it is for them-and that it was the winter of despair, which again is here for the Liberal party. If this is true, the Liberals will recognize that they were the authors of their own misfortune. Their hollow cries of objection can be nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction. If they paused and reflected, they would fully realize that they have created the mess in which we find ourselves today.
I have reservations about standing to support the massive borrowing Bill before us today, but there is no alternative. However, we on this side of the House believe, as the people of Canada agreed on September 4-and I am persuaded that they will reaffirm their belief in years to come-that this can be the best of times. They recognize that this is now a new age of wisdom, that we are at the commencement of a new epoch of belief, that there is a season of light, that we are on the dawn of a spring of hope and that we have everything before us. There is only one way to go, and that is up. Based upon the formulae, the confidence the Government has instilled in
Canadians and the principles enunciated in the economic statement, that is the path Canada will now take.
I compare the situation in Canada to a dike and the sea. For the past number of years we have had a drip and a drip and a drip, increasing to two drips and three drips, until many holes appeared in the dike on which only band-aids, splashes of cement or chewing gum were applied. They were band-aid measures. There has been such an increase in the holes in the dike that it is in danger of collapse. Now more than temporary mortar or temporary band-aids must be applied to deal with this situation.
What is needed are structural changes in the dike. We have to start all over again because what we have had until now has apparently not worked. We will consult with structural engineers and architects in Canada. We will convene meetings and enter into dialogue with masons, carpenters and all people who are part of the central ingredient of our economy. It takes time to draft a new structure. We cannot build by copying the last structure, the one which failed. We have to return to the drawing-board and start again.
That is the intention of the Government. We also intend to consult with all people who are essential to and form a necessary component or part of the economic structure of Canada. We have set a course of action to speak with the provinces, labour, business and the people. We have spoken with the people. We have touched upon possible solutions. We have given them an indication of where we might go, and they have applauded. However, we have only started. We have only given a hint, a blueprint. Now we must fill in the details. But that can be done only after realizing that we have consulted and listened. We will ensure that the repercussions of our plans will be minimal on any group or any person who feels aggrieved or adversely affected. This is the new process of consultation into which this Government enters.
Indeed, we are prepared to listen to Hon. Members opposite who from time to time have given us some constructive ideas on how we might proceed. The last speaker from Newfoundland indicated that he had no obligation or duty to propose, only to criticize. He contradicted what previous speakers in his Party said only yesterday. They indicated that they had an obligation to enter into the dialogue and to participate. This is what this Government and this Party invite all Hon. Members of the House to do-to be constructive rather than just critical.
As members of the House collectively and individually, we have an obligation to rethink the process. What we have today is what we asked for. We are where we are because that is what the people of Canada asked of us. We have responded to their pleas over the years in endeavouring, particularly at election time, to appease them and console them. Collectively we have failed. I suggest the reason we have collectively failed is that there has been no leadership to indicate the direction we should take. Now we have leadership, tarting with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), down to the Cabinet, down to the Conservative Party and down, I hope, to all Hon. Members of the House. The Prime Minister indicated by way of leadership
November 29, 1984

that he would take a personal salary cut. The members of his Cabinet indicated that they were prepared to accept a cut in salary. Leadership is starting from the very top. It is in the interests of this country to follow. We cannot survive and we will not respond unless we follow. Members of this Party are prepared to follow a new course, a new direction. We are prepared to accept that new attitudes are required in order to change the basic structure and philosophy of this country.
We have an obligation collectively and individually to go back to our ridings, our church halls, judo clubs, all our community enterprises, all those groups which are well merited, well meaning and an integral part of our whole system. We have to tell them that times have changed, that they must be an integral part of the new system, the new attitudes and the new philosophy, that they cannot now make their first approach to government. Everybody must say: "Government is our very last resort".
The philosophy prevailing, the course of action followed year after year, has been built into a habit that is almost irreversible. This has caused the dike to collapse. The attitude that must now be adopted by each one of us is to say: "Government is a matter of last recourse". We recognize there are certain persons in our society who are not able to respond and are not capable of handling their own circumstances. For those people we will provide, guarantee and ensure their stability and all their essential needs.
For all others for which there is an option, our thrust must now be: What can we do for ourselves? In order to ensure that there is some initiative, some stimulus, some new direction, we must ensure that there is this new ingredient, this new understanding, this new willingness, collectively and individually among all of us-you, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, myself and all Members - in order for the welfare of this country to go forward and prosper. We must gather in a united effort and say: "Yes, we are going to try something new".
We have tried all the other means. We tried those remedies that parallel the rescue effort to stem the tide behind the dike. We have heard rumblings of water over here. We threw money. There was a hole on this side of the dike. We threw more money. We have had agitations. We tried more intermediate and shortterm solutions, but never in the last 25 years has a constructive, national effort been made to harmonize and gather together the will of the nation.
Why is it that people in Canada fight for the right not to work more but to work less? Why is it that it is government this, government that, government stimulus, government monies, and pogey? Where did all this come from?
What is it that goes on south of the border that makes people there so different? What is it that compels those people to gather in line-ups outside their cities at 5.30 in the morning, bumper to bumper, to go into the cities for the right and privilege to work? What compels them? What is the initiative? It is the initiative of prosperity. They realize they have the right to gather together and enjoy the fruits of their labour, to
Borrowing Authority
participate and enjoy the profits. That is a joy and a happiness which they have cherished, which they have mastered. There is a national will and a national consensus because there is national leadership. That is what we have lacked for the last number of years, leadership. That is the hope and the new dawn for Canada-new leadership and new attitudes.
What should this Government do? It should not employ any more people. Government payrolls are large. They are exhausted. The Government of Canada does not want to increase the number of employees. We want to let our employees go. Where are they going to go? They are going to go to the new jobs created by the new attitudes, new initiatives and new stimulus that this Government is going to provide.


Mr. Riis:: You sound like Bill Bennett.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Perhaps the other side of the coin is President Mitterrand. Perhaps I should adopt the utterings and the philosophy, the encouragement and the initiatives of my learned friend. I have heard them. President Mitterrand and the French tried it. They are in retreat. They are in retreat faster than Napoleon could ever get out of Russia.
We can derive direction and inspiration. We have the benefit of the experience of Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher is loved by her people, not because she is a woman, not because she is handsome but because she is resolute. She has an idea. She has a purpose. She has confidence. Guess what is happening in Britain for the first time in 25 years? There is a national will. The national will has been reflected in the resolution of the people. Every time they have the opportunity to affirm her in the polls, they do so.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Read a single book about what is going on over there.


Stewart Donald McInnes: I hear the Hon. Member, who was rather effusive in his suggestions during my last remarks, say: "What is the Government doing for small business? How is it helping?"


Nelson Andrew Riis: I said that?


Stewart Donald McInnes: The record will show the Hon. Member said that. Small business, as large business, as individuals now have another chance. I will give an example of how the people of Canada will respond to the new direction and the new initiatives.
In conversation the other day, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) indicated to us that he had received a telephone call from a gentleman 93 years of age. This gentleman had abandoned the economy and the business in which he had been involved. He had thrown up his hands and said: "There is no hope, there is no reason, there is no encouragement and private enterprise has no place in this society". That was some years ago when he was at the ripe old age of 85. He had been wandering, meandering, trying to find a path where he might proceed, the promised land, so to speak.

November 29, 1984
Borrowing Authority
After the economic message was delivered by the Minister of Finance, this 93 year old gentleman purchased a company employing 125 people. He indicated he has plans to add another 50 employees to the payroll of that company within the next six months.
When I hear my friends on repeated occasions asking: "Where are the new jobs coming from? Give us some evidence, some indication that private companies and individuals will respond", I give this as an example of what we can anticipate. There will not be 125 or 200 jobs, but hundreds and thousands of jobs created, because this is a new Canada. We do have new attitudes. Of course, on other occasions our friends have asked: "Where are the jobs? You have been in business for two months". It takes time to build a dike, Mr. Speaker. We must create and build a new dike. We must consult and that is the direction of this Government and Cabinet.
I should like to applaud the leadership of our Party. I ask my friends to enter into the dialogue in which we are involved and return to their constituents to say: "What we tried before obviously did not work. There is new hope. Let us be constructive, let us get together". This is a new era and a new beginning.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Mclnnes) that I was amazed to hear him suggest very clearly that there are all kinds of people in Canada, including those in his area, who are not working because they really do not want to work. If the Hon. Member looks at tomorrows's Hansard, he will see that he did say that. I believe that that just is not true. The City of Halifax has an unemployment rate of over 12 per cent and it is the city that is the best off in Atlantic Canada. To suggest that the people of Atlantic Canada are not working because they do not want to work and would rather collect unemployment insurance benefits is to insult those people in a way which he or any other Member ought not to do.
How can the Hon. Member think that his have-not province can be helped when the Government has reduced the funding for regional economic expansion by $200 million? A substantial part of that funding would have gone to Atlantic Canada. How can the Hon. Member think that his region, a region in which two of the major industries are fishery and forestry, can prosper when the Government has reduced funding to research and development in those two fields by $1.5 million each? How does he think that the fishermen in his province can prosper when the ferry service from Yarmouth to Boston on which fish were transported at pretty low costs has been stopped? How can those fishermen be helped now when the ferry service has been taken away and they will have to travel hundreds of miles to deliver their produce, increasing the price they have to charge and making it more difficult to compete? I
would like the Hon. Member to explain to the House and more particularly to the people of Atlantic Canada how these cutbacks which the Government has implemented will help those people. We believe that those cut-backs will hurt them and will hurt them very seriously.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for bringing up this particular question. It is an area with which I have considerable experience. I have been involved indirectly in the fishing industry for a good number of years. The situation in the industry has been rather chaotic in the past number of years. The plans of this Government relative to the fishing industry will give it a direction instead of hodge-podge, massive regulation and intervention by government.
With respect to economic development, what the Government is going to provide and what the province wants are incentives. The province wants investment. Where will that investment come from? It can come from two sources. It can come from within Canada and from outside our borders. Nova Scotia has benefited dramatically and perhaps more per capita than any other region in Canada from outside investment. As an example of this, I would mention Michelin, the biggest employer in Nova Scotia. I would mention Nova Scotia Forest Industries and Volvo. There are a large number of good foreign corporate citizens in Nova Scotia. Unfortunately, this investment has slowed down because of FIRA and the attitude toward foreign investment of the previous government. It is our intention to change those rules dramatically. Our province looks forward to a new era of prosperity because people from foreign lands are knocking on our doors. They wish to do business in Nova Scotia, a province in which the people want to work and which has the climate for prosperity and making a real profit.


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member spoke about small business. I wonder if he is aware that all of the business associations in the country agree that payroll taxes affect the life of business. The first thing the Government did was increase payroll taxes by increasing UIC premiums. Can the Hon. Member explain how small business can put this Government in a new light?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, it is good of the Hon. Member to remind the House that the situation in which the unemployment insurance fund now finds itself is accountable to the mismanagement of the Party of which he is a member.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stewart Donald McInnes: It is necessary to apply a little medicine. The people of Canada are prepared to accept a little short-term pain with the confidence and understanding that, because of the new initiatives of the Government, it is only for the short term. In the long term, unemployment insurance premiums will not pose the problem they have always posed under his government.
November 29, 1984


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Speaker, when I consider the speech by the Hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Mclnnes), in which he said that they will be providing new stimuli for industry and help for small businesses, I find it very difficult to understand what he means. I think we do not give quite the same meaning to the words we use, especially when we are talking about the tourist industry. In his statement, the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced a number of cutbacks that will have a specific impact on ferry services in the Atlantic provinces, services that are vital to the tourist industry. It is going to cost a lot more to use the ferry. We are increasing admission fees to National Parks, airport taxes and the excise tax on alcoholic beverages Mr. Speaker, when those very same Members were in the opposition last spring they were deploring the fact that the Government was taking such measures. Now, they refer to them as stimuli.
I wish the Hon. Member would explain how these cutbacks could act as a stimulus for the tourist industry.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, that is a very valid and reasonable inquiry. There is prima facie some merit in what the Hon. Member has said. There may be an adverse reaction in the tourism industry. The tourism industry is a very important component of my constituency and is important to all Nova Scotians. However, I have had the benefit of analysis and consultations with people in the tourist trade. They have persuaded me, as I would echo to the Hon. Member, that in order to continue to encourage tourists to come to Canada, and particularly to Nova Scotia, we must build an infrastructure. We must ensure that proper tourist facilities are in place. The quality of our tourist trade has deteriorated in the last few years. There are fewer people coming to Nova Scotia now than there were five years ago. Again, it is a very basic problem.
We need some new money to build up the infrastructure to ensure that we can compete with other countries for the tourist dollar. That is the intention of these new tolls and raises. They again provide short-term pain but we need new funds. We cannot keep grabbing and grabbing from nowhere. There must be something there to grab. That is what it is all about.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) on a short comment or question.


John B. Stewart: Whether Canadians do or do not want to work, in view of the differences of opinions between those on this side of the House and those on the other side of the House, what does the Hon. Member think about the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which identified last year that we paid out some $800 million to voluntary quits?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, it is evident that the presidents of small business organizations and all business organizations across Canada are applauding the economic statement and the new principles of doing business in Canada as enunciated by
the economic statement of the Minister of Finance. I believe the people of Canada, in editorial comment-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. Since it is now one o'clock, I do leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Government of Canada to cancel or revise its decision to do away with the fishing vessel insurance scheme which it announced last week.
This decision will mean the doubling and, in some cases, the tripling of the insurance costs to fishermen, when they go to private insurance companies. Worse than that, it will mean that a great many of the fishermen-I estimate about half of the boat owners in Newfoundland-will not qualify for insurance from private insurance companies. The real problem arises in that the provincial Fisheries Loan Board demands that fishermen must have insurance before they can get loans from provincial government boards. Any insurance policies which are cancelled in the meantime will obviously mean that the loans will become due.
I would strongly suggest that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) should at least consult with the provincial Governments, the processors, the fishermen's unions and the insurance companies, and revise the decision which was made.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on a matter that has concerned the grape farmers of the Niagara Peninsula for some time. I am referring to the grape surplus that has been anticipated by the farming community since last June. The problem has arisen for several reasons, the primary reason being the dumping of subsidized European wines in Canada. These low-priced imports have caused a decreased demand for domestic wines,

November 29, 1984
which is unfortunate, because my constituents and I have known for some time that the Niagara Peninsula contains some of the world's finest wine producing land.
Last July when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) visited the area he assured the farmers that, just as in previous Conservative administrations, their concerns would not be forgotten and the surplus would be taken up. Therefore, I was extremely pleased when this past week the Department of Agriculture began mailing cheques to our grape producers, covering 100 per cent of the surplus at 100 per cent of the cost-again demonstrating this Government's commitment to the agricultural community. Therefore, four years from now, farmers, along with other Canadians, are going to be able to say: "There were promises made, but more important, those promises were kept".



THE HON. STANLEY KNOWLES DISTINGUISHED PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE

Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the forty-second anniversary of the first election to the House of Commons of the Hon. Stanley Knowles.
Mr. Knowles served in this Chamber as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre for almost 38 years. Every time we hear the words "Winnipeg North Centre", we are reminded of Stanley's unrivalled contribution toward ordinary Canadians.
His contribution is being recognized in Toronto tomorrow, which is why he cannot be here with us. So, I want to acknowledge his presence and his distinguished service, today. His mastery of parliamentary procedure enabled him to work effectively for ordinary Canadians, prodding and demanding action from successive Governments, for the elderly, the ill, and the unemployed. All Canadians can feel more secure and less fearful in their retirement years as a result of the work of the former Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Stanley, we salute you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Whereupon the Members rose in tribute.

[ Translation]



EMPLOYMENT


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment and also take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate the Members of this House, especially the women who were elected on September 4.
I want to draw the attention of the House to a situation that is prevalent in Canada Employment Centres. The way public servants who dispense the services of this Department deal with clients is absolutely appalling. I often hear about such things from my constituents, and from conversations I have had with my hon. colleagues, I understand the same is true elsewhere. It is bad enough to be unemployed, but being treated without respect is even worse. For instance, it is impossible to get through to an Employment Centre officer by phone, since the lines are always busy. People have to deal with several officers who fail to provide for follow-up. On top of that there is a lot of waiting in line, and once they get to the counter, people are often told to see another officer. The impression is that courtesy is definitely expendable. 1 therefore think it is absolutely essential the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) be made aware of the way services are offered in Employment Centres, so that the Minister will be able to act without delay to humanize the process in all offices across Canada.
I would like to remind Hon. Members that Parliament and the Administration are supposed to serve the people of this country and not the other way around. This is something that was forgotten by the previous Government.



IMMIGRATION


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Employment and Immigration appeared before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration this week, I was given the assurance that any changes in immigration policy would be made in a spirit that would respect our humanitarian tradition.
To prove this guarantee was genuine, the Minister of Employment and Immigration pointed out past commitments, including the program for sponsoring refugees from IndoChina, started in 1979 when she headed the Department of External Affairs. The program was organized as follows: the Government would sponsor one refugee for each refugee sponsored by a private group. This program is not a very convincing example, because the Minister will recall that five months after the program was introduced, it was terminated by the Progressive Conservative Government which preferred to let the United Nations provide assistance to Cambodia. This decision put private sponsors in a difficult situation, since they then had to take charge of the refugees the Government had promised to sponsor. Therefore, although I certainly do not for a moment doubt the Minister's good faith, I will take her promises with a grain of salt, and I remain convinced that some drastic changes are in the offing with respect to our immigration policy.
November 29, 1984



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, several small rural post offices in Fundy-Royal and throughout Canada have been advised that their hours of operation will be reduced. In some cases the reductions have come in the form of closures all day Saturday and Wednesday afternoon. The announcement has caused considerable concern to the small communities. Postal services are, for many people, a critical and vital part of their personal and business concerns.
The people of Fundy-Royal understand that the Post Office Corporation is committed to providing efficient and effective service while attempting to whittle away its massive debt. Flowever, there is a general fear that rural service is being sacrificed in the effort. In the past few years rural communities have witnessed a steady deterioration of services, most particularly the elimination of Saturday delivery. They do not want to see their service further reduced.
Closure of post offices on Saturday eliminates the only opportunity a great many patrons have for using postal facilities. Reduced hours of operation place additional restrictions on the accessibility of rural residents to this essential service. The post office is the lifeblood of many small and rural communities, and such cut-backs are always sorely and deeply felt.
I urge the Postmaster General and his officials to study carefully the effects of these closures on the affected communities, and recommend that the services and hours of operation previously provided to these patrons be maintained.

[ Translation]



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, last week, the Federation des francophones hors Quebec asked the federal Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) to intervene and ensure that local and regional programming at the CBC French network outside Quebec would not be cut as part of the budgetary cutbacks planned by the Minister of Finance.
I hope the Minister of Communications supports the position taken by the Federation, Mr. Speaker. The CBC French network's radio and television programs are sometimes the only source of information in French for most francophone communities outside Quebec.
It is absolutely vital that the Minister of Communication immediately inform the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that French local and regional programming outside Quebec is an inviolable part of the CBC's mandate.



AGRICULTURE


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: In Quebec today, Mr. Speaker, the Union of Agricultural Producers is celebrating its 60 years of farm activism. I should like to emphasize the untiring efforts of thousands of volunteers who have worked for over half a century to defend our farmers' interests.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the House briefly of a number of claims made by Quebec farmers: a greater involvement of the Farm Credit Corporation in financing; interest rates not exceeding 10 per cent; a long term dairy policy reflecting production costs; programs oriented toward young farmers; a reassessment of the deregulation plan; the renewal of federal-provincial agreements concerning the development of privately-owned forests; an increased support for the marketing of new products such as sheep production.
Mr. Speaker, the farmers' claims have been denied for 15 years. Our government must help farmers to prosper. Only in this way will Right Hon. Brian Mulroney's commitment to make Canada a truly agricultural superpower really come true.



TOURISM


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and, in particular, the Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. McMillan), to change the regressive actions announced in the economic statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). We in this Party were amazed to learn that the minister brought in a reduction of $200 million to the IRDIA Program. In particular, he has savaged the tourism industry by making projects under IRDIA ineligible for tourism. This will have a great effect on a lot of small tourist operators right across the country, in particular in those poorer regions of Canada which have based their small economies on the tourism industry.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that some of this will be taken up by provincial and federal agreements on tourism, but the small operator in Atlantic Canada, in Quebec or western Canada, does not have any access whatsoever to dollars under the IRDIA Program. I urge the Minister of State for Tourism, and in particular the minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, to change these regressive policies and replace them with what existed previously.

November 29, 1984
[ Translation]



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the Abella report deals extensively with the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. I would like to point out to Hon. Members an important aspect of that issue which the group Recherche Action Lotbiniere Inc. brought to light. The results of a survey indicate that 48 per cent of the respondents stated that they have some income from work outside their home, and 80 per cent of those working women are paid less than $15,000 a year. Seamstresses and baby-sitters are paid between 30 cents and $1.50 an hour and 51 per cent of them would like to work outside their home if they could.
Consequently, most women in Lotbiniere, that is 76 per cent, are not financially independent.
In addition, I would like to point out that 87 per cent of the women are working in service industries which are the most affected by technological changes.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the House more sensitive to that important issue before policies on the status of women are developed.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, cheese and butter makers in western Ontario have had to lay off workers and close factories, not because of the economy but because they have been unable to get enough milk to meet the demand for their products. Studies done for processors further indicate that this longstanding problem will get worse unless the supply of industrial milk in Ontario is increased.
It is ironic that, although Ontario has 40 per cent of Canada's population, the province is allowed only 31.3 per cent of Canada's production of industrial milk. The Province of Quebec has 48 per cent of the national quota, which is surplus to its needs. Processors there are selling tons of butter and skim milk powder to the federal dairy commission which exports these products, often at prices below cost. A better and more realistic way would be for the Ontario processors to be given an opportunity to buy the surplus quota from Quebec.
Therefore I call upon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to use his good offices to look into this longstanding problem and come forth with solutions that would assure the continued viability of the cheese and butter industry of Ontario, which is facing a very difficult time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Prime Minister. A report in The Globe and Mail of November 27 suggests that the Prime Minister intervened with the Attorney General of Canada in order to have the Attorney General desist from prosecuting unlicensed cable television operators after he had already given the go-ahead to prosecute. The story says that the word came from the Prime Minister's Office.
I want to outline the importance of the question, Sir. I believe the principle has been established, both in this Parliament and at Westminster, that the discretion to prosecute by an Attorney General is an unfettered one and must not be interfered with or influenced by political considerations, even by his Cabinet colleagues. Sir Harold Macmillan stated the principle clearly when he said: "A tradition long supported by all political parties is that the decision whether any citizen should be prosecuted or whether any prosecution should be discontinued should be a matter for the prosecuting authorities to decide on the merits of the case without political or other pressure."
My question is: Did the Prime Minister or his staff direct that the Attorney General of Canada desist from that prosecution?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: No, not
directly or indirectly did I ever at any time or in any circumstances intervene with the Attorney General of Canada, who is charged with and fulfils the responsibility of making these determinations by himself. He is a man of honour and conscience, and I think he does it extremely well.


NEWSPAPER REPORT OF CAUCUS PRESSURE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the same report indicates that members of the Conservative caucus put pressure on the Attorney General to desist. Can the Prime Minister affirm or deny the fact that pressure was put upon the Attorney General by members of his caucus?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my right hon. friend knows of the unquestioned integrity of the Attorney General. I can speak for myself and indicate that at no time, in any way, did I bring such a suggestion to the Hon. Minister. I believe that if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition were to address the question to the Minister of Justice he would confirm that no other member of the caucus did, as well.
November 29, 1984


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE STATEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Perhaps the Attorney General was simply kidding about this matter yesterday afternoon in the House? Perhaps he might make a full statement on the circumstances related to the fact that the prosecution has been stayed or ended.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. gentleman finally got around to asking me about this question because, if you want an answer, you have to go to the horse's mouth. Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: What does that make the Prime Minister?


Mr. Axworthy:: We went to the other end this time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: In this case, Mr. Speaker, the other end of the horse asked the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as Attorney General I made a decision that certain prosecutions would have to be stayed because I was advised that the Government was reconsidering its policy in the area of communications and in this area.


Ms. Copps:: Who advised you?


John Carnell Crosbie: I was advised by the Government that it was changing its policy-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -and the Minister-what a bunch of juveniles.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I was advised by the Minister of Communications that the Government had agreed with him to review the policy in this case, and it did not seem fair to me to go ahead and prosecute these eight or nine satellite operations in view of the fact that the policy might well be changed in the very near future. That is why the prosecutions are stayed. If there is no change in policy, the prosecutions will be going ahead again.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the assurances which the Prime Minister has just given that he
Oral Questions
did not give direction, which assurances we must accept, I would like to ask the Minister to look at the answer he gave yesterday, which is to the contrary. He said he does accept direction from the Prime Minister in the exercise of his prosecutorial discretion. Would he agree that statements like that bring the administration of justice into disrepute?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I did not say yesterday that I accepted any directions from the Prime Minister, or anyone else, in connection with my duties as Attorney General. If the hon. gentleman got that impression, may I straighten him out today. I do not accept directions from anyone with respect to my duties as Attorney General. I seek advice. I will get the advice of my officials. I will hear representations, and if any Member of the House wants to make a representation to me I will take that representation for whatever it is worth. That is how I intend to proceed. I have never been dictated to by anyone in my life, and I do not intend to start now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I gather the Attorney General of Canada has had a pretty interesting evening between giving yesterday's answers and today's.


ROLE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to a statement which the Minister made yesterday which he must also correct. He said that he is a legal agent for a Department that has brought to his attention the violation of a federal statute. Would the Minister confirm that he is not in a client-legal agent relationship, but that he is in fact the chief law officer of the Crown when it is brought to his attention that a federal statute has been violated? Would he confirm that his prosecutorial authority applies to his behaviour and to the conduct of that proceeding, and that he is not just some mouthpiece or law office acting for a Department? He was wrong about that yesterday as well.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has even asked for my resignation. I did not realize that I had committed such serious offences. However, if I ever do resign, or am asked to resign, I certainly am not going to cry about it, nor stir up any interest group to come to my protection.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: It all depends on the particular case involved. As Attorney General I am responsible for seeing that the laws of Canada are administered properly and obeyed. I also look upon it as a solicitor-client relationship with certain Departments and agencies when they ask the Government to ask for them. In certain cases we act as an agent. We act as an agent for the CRTC or for other government bodies. I am always willing to accept the advice and suggestions of the official critic opposite.

November 29, 1984
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair cannot accept points of order during Question Period.


REDUCTION IN CRUDE OIL EXPORT PRICE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Government has increased the petroleum compensation charge from $4.19 to $6.54 per barrel. At the same time the export charge for Canadian crude oil has been lowered from $6.43 a barrel to $4.68 a barrel and is currently in place at the lower rate. As the Minister well knows, this results in Canadian crude being sold on the U.S. markets at a price cheaper than it can be purchased in Canada by Canadian refineries. Why does the Government permit this to occur?
Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, the issue addressed by the Hon. Member is a good example of why we are moving away from the terribly rigid pricing apparatus which was imposed by the previous administration. The problem that arises is that, in the very competitive oil and gas market which we face today, Chicago prices are below current world prices. That gives us a problem at the border. When we go to world prices, as we have indicated we will, we will be able to avoid this type of problem.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ELIMINATE PETROLEUM COMPENSATION CHARGE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is relatively simple. Why does the Government not move now, in the interests of the Canadian consumers and farmers who have to pay the higher price, to eliminate, once and for all, the petroleum compensation charge?
Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Member asked that question. It gives me an opportunity to explain that the previous administration left us with a $1 billion deficit in that account, because they broke their own agreement and refused to raise prices last year in the middle of their leadership campaign when they should have done so. We have a $1 billion deficit which we must deal with. We are dealing with it in negotiations with the provinces. At this moment we are not in position to remove that charge on the Canadian consumer. We have stated that we are going to world prices. When we go to world prices there will be no need for that charge, and the problem will be avoided.


DOMESTIC PRICE OF OIL
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, given that we are already at 96 per cent of world price, why is it necessary for Canadian consumers to pay more for the products they must have in order to survive in the unusual climate of Canada? Why is it necessary for Canadian consumers to pay more for their own oil than American consumers are required to pay for the same oil?
Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, the answer is because that Party opposite supported the previous Government on the national energy policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: That is not true.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. By the way, when the Minister wants some simple facts about Nicaragua he does not have to send a tape to a radio station in St. Catherines. He has only to come to my office in the East Block and I will tell him.
I would like the Minister to tell us whether it is true that when he made his very important decision not to send an observer to the election in Nicaragua he was not aware that there was an ambassador in Canada for Nicaragua, let alone did not consult him?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): No, Mr. Speaker, that is not correct.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If it is not correct, I think the Minister should send a correction to St. Catherines because that is what the tape was saying.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER VISIT NICARAGUA
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, I would like the Right Hon. Minister for External Affairs to tell me why he does not want to go to Nicaragua during his visit to Mexico, as our Secretary of State for External Affairs did last March, where he could see on the spot that the elections were held perhaps somewhat more democratically than the Americans are saying?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, two days ago, I had the opportunity to have a frank talk with some representatives of Canadian non-governmental organizations in Nicaragua. This conversa-
November 29, 1984

tion was very valuable in my opinion, and I believe that there is an excellent degree of co-operation between the Government and private Canadian citizens who are interested in what is happening in Nicaragua.
What we are considering now is how the Canadian Government could have a positive impact, even though it would probably be a minor one, in bringing about stability and peace in Latin America.


FINANCE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister, and is with regard to some conflicting comments made by the Minister of Finance. The other day the Minister of Finance was speaking to the Canadian Tax Foundation and he indicated that the Government was committed to cutting back on the vast array of tax breaks available to the corporate sector. Later that same day he said that the Government was also considering creating new tax breaks to replace the system of direct grants and subsidies to the corporate sector. Could the Prime Minister explain which of these is the direction of the Government? Is it cutting back on tax breaks to the corporate sector, or is it not?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was any confusion in the statements of the Minister of Finance. I think he was just speaking to the fact that we did inherit a rather confused tax situation that clearly has some injustices. He is looking at a mechanism whereby the tax system can be simplified and clarified. In that process I suppose some of the items to which the Hon. Member refers will be dealt with. I see nothing inconsistent at all. He is trying to bring an element of fairness into the tax system of Canada.


MINISTER'S VISIT TO UNITED STATES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Finance is in Washington where he has indicated he is looking at American plans for their corporate tax system. If they reduce their corporate tax rate or provide more loopholes, Canada would be forced to do the same. Is the Government now not only taking direction from the United States for its interest rate policy but planning to take its corporate tax policy from the United States as well?


Martin Brian Mulroney: As opposed to the previous Government, rather than blame our friends for all of our problems, we consult with them to see if we cannot work them out together.


Ian Deans: Like in Manitoba?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Minister is making an important trip today to visit with Secretary Regan. In the process I suppose he will be updated on some changes that Congress is contemplating in their tax system. It may be that Canada might learn something outside its borders. It is possible.

[ Translation]


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to direct my First question to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), but considering the urgency of the matter and the Minister's temporary absence-I imagine he is quite busy right now-I will have to ask my question to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister of Canada.
This morning, all Canadians, and particularly the artistic community, were quite excited to hear about what appears to be the new policy of the Minister of Communications who is quoted as saying, as reported in a major article by Mr. Hugh Winsor in the Globe and Mail:

-the Conservative Government is questioning the traditional arms-length relationship governments have had with the CBC and other cultural agencies, and is moving rapidly to apply a direct political hand to cultural policy.

Mr. Speaker, would the Right Hon. the Prime Minister tell the House whether that is indeed the new policy statement of the new government under this enlightened guidance? I hope all his colleagues believe so.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I hasten to reply, Mr. Speaker, because I certainly would not want the Hon. Member to be excited. It is extremely important.
I did read that article and I noted that the Minister is seldom quoted, although there is one quotation where the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) states:

My broad interest as Minister here is to be sure that as much money as possible is given to the artists and as little as possible is stuck somewhere in the pipeline by bureaucrats or by administrative costs.

I think that is indeed the Minister's intention, namely give as much funding as possible to the cultural communities with a minimum of intervention by the government.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, in my first supplementary question, I would like to ask the Right Hon. the Prime Minister if he can reconcile-and when I say that we are excited, I think I speak on behalf of nearly 250,000 people who depend directly on cultural activities and over 200,000 others

November 29, 1984
Oral Questions
who, indirectly, are involved in that great cultural industry. In a government policy statement-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have-


Marcel Prud'homme: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I presume the Hon. Member wants to ask a question.


Marcel Prud'homme: A supplementary. Can the Prime Minister reconcile that with this very clear statement of the Progressive Conservative Party:

"We are committed without question to the arms-length principle and regard peer review as the most equitable and consistent mechanism for federal funding to support individual . .et cetera.

How can one reconcile that new tenet of the new Minister of Communications with all the statements made by the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 would suggest that you might take it easy with the Hon. Member, he is learning. He is new at this game. I say that with much respect for my colleague who has put his finger on a vital issue. I am pleased to be able to confirm that the position of the federal government in respect of, for example, the CBC and other groups, will be to stay at arm's length at all times.


Marcel Prud'homme: One last supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: No. The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson).


FINANCE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I wish to direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. It concerns the fuel sales tax rebate to primary producers.
There is potentially a very serious problem in the procedure for handling the rebate. Due to the varying degrees of integration, some bulk fuel dealers have tax-free inventory while others have tax paid inventory. Since those with the tax-free inventory can grant the rebate at the time of sale, the 22-cent per gallon rebate, others must collect it. Is the Minister aware of this problem which can devastate bulk fuel dealers across Canada? Is something being done to remedy the situation?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have a question from across the aisle, if not from across the House. I was beginning to
think that I should turn my desk around to a more appropriate position.
In answer to the Hon. Member, it is a problem about which we are aware and our Department is studying it very closely. As he knows, this tax relief measure was introduced for farmers, fishermen, miners, and loggers. We are very anxious that it work on their behalf as a relief measure. We are looking at the best way to implement this. I will take the Hon. Member's question as notice and will give him a precise answer.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. This morning's Globe and Mail announced that Great Lakes Forest Products Ltd. of Thunder Bay and Dryden will be entering into a partnership with five U.S. newspaper publishers to establish a newsprint mill in Washington State. The Minister will also be aware that this corporation has received upwards of $50 million in provincial and federal moneys over the last few years.
Does the Minister agree that we should not be funding Canadian corporations which are investing outside the country in direct competition with our own industries and workers? Will he move to recover the funds that have been given to this corporation?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Member that that company has invested $416 million in the modernization and upgrading of plants in Dryden and Thunder Bay. I believe the Hon. Member should surely agree that, in a very international world as far as the forestry industry is concerned, it would not behoove the Government to ask companies such as the one to which he refers to restrict their activities if they believe they will become more viable as a result of the type of investment to which the Hon. Member has referred.


COLLECTION OF DEFERRED TAXES
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Given the response by the Minister of Regional Industrial Development and the lack of willingness to bring back the tax dollars, would the Minister of National Revenue agree that the $116 million of deferred taxes owed by Great Lakes Forest Products to the Government should be brought into the public purse as soon as possible?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the provisions of the Income Tax Act preclude my discussing the case of any
November 29, 1984

individual taxpayer. However, I will take the Hon. Member's representations as notice.


METRIC CONVERSION
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last week I asked the Minister to give us the Government's policy on metric. His answer was unclear, indecisive and, in that sense, indefensible. What is the Government's position on metric? Is metric in or out? Consumers want to know, and producers want to know. Would he make the Government's position on metric clear?
(Translation]


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I announced last week that we were in the midst of a period of intensive consultation and study. We are waiting to receive comments from all interested parties that want to air their views on the subject, and I think this Government will want to have all these opinions so that it can prepare recommendations for submission to Cabinet in due course.


REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION OF PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, on the other hand, last week the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary did make a very clear and definite statement that metric was out.


Mr. Dick:: Never.


Bill Rompkey: The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister are both part of the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary is not a member of the Government but he is a part of the Government. If the Parliamentary Secretary is not speaking for the Government, is the Minister going to call upon the Parliamentary Secretary to resign?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, it is customary for the Minister who is responsible for a given department to announce policies after consultation with Cabinet and caucus members, and that is how I intend to proceed.
Oral Questions CULTURAL AFFAIRS


BUDGETARY CUT-BACKS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Why has his Governement decided that our cultural agencies will suffer budgetary cutbacks that are twice as high as cuts made in other federal areas?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, all Government agencies will be subject to budgetary cutbacks, and as far as I know, a general attempt has been made to proceed equitably throughout the Government, perhaps with a few variations. Basically, however, our purpose has been to clean up our public finances, but in a manner that is fair to all. If the Hon. Member would like to indicate some specific examples, perhaps I could look into this with her.


LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to see what is equitable about twice as strong budget cuts. Are they twice as less worthy as other agencies for government support? Would the Prime Minister explain how this can be justified in view of the very specific promises in the course of the election campaign that funding would be maintained at present levels, with cost of living increases? Would he not agree that there has been profound reversal of policy from the time his party was in opposition to coming into government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it would be helpful if I knew the case to which the Hon. Member refers. There has not been any precision at all in her allegations. I can only repeat what I think is widely acknowledged, that while reductions in public expenditures are always difficult and painful, I know that she will agree with the fact that indeed a colossal mess was inherited by us and we had to deal with it fairly and objectively across the board. We have tried to do that.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It relates to the National Energy Program that was introduced by the Liberal Government with the help of our friends, the NDP.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: That is wrong.

November 29, 1984
Oral Questions


Alex Kindy: Some of the provisions in the national energy program, for instance, the petroleum and gas revenue tax, are extremely discriminatory, because it is a tax on revenue, not profit.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a question, please?


Alex Kindy: Would the Minister report on the status of discussions between the petroleum and gas producing provinces and her Ministry? Second, would the Minister also indicate whether there is a deadline to those discussions?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can report favourably on the progress of the negotiations with the western producing provinces. We have had regular meetings. The last one was this week. More will be scheduled. We are also, at the same time, meeting with representatives of the Governments of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. There is a meeting under way today with the officials of Newfoundland on the Atlantic accord.
In terms of a deadline, we have set ourselves a working deadline of January 31 to make progress, and we are confident that we will make progress. We will be proceeding with some of the very important issues as long as it takes to come to an agreement.


EMPLOYMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Can he reconcile the musings of the Minister of Employment and Immigration with the statements of the Minister of Finance? The Prime Minister will know that his Employment Minister has stated that the $1 billion allocation for job creation has been money reallocated from within the Government. The Minister of Finance has stated in the supplementary information, and I quote very briefly, Mr. Speaker:
-it is possible to begin to provide some support for the creation of new employment opportunities . . . Specifically, the Government is providing a special budgetary allocation of $1 million in 1985-86 primarily for this purpose.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is so clear to me that it does not need any further clarification.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SOURCE OF FUNDING
David Charles Dingwall: If it is
new money, Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether the new money will be found by raising the taxes or increasing the deficit? Will he clarify that for Members of this House, because this is an urgent matter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the first thing we will do is look in the closet that Mr. Lalonde opened last summer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We are also going to deal with the question of government expenditures. My right hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, has already referred to billions of dollars in waste. We are looking at that and at the excellent initiatives undertaken by my friend, the Deputy Prime Minister. We are looking to attempt to exercise prudence and frugality in the utilization of public funds. Altogether this is where my hon. friend, the Minister of Employment, will find the money that she requires to be so helpful to the unemployed.


HARBOURS AND PORTS
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank you for identifying me correctly for the first time. I know how tough it is to tell those bearded fellows apart.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edmund Parry: My question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Transport in the sure knowledge that his answers will demonstrate some of the horse sense his colleagues can only talk about. In a recent report prepared for the Ministry it was suggested the Ministry should move to divest itself specifically of two public ports, Kenora and North Bay. Can we have the Minister's assurance that this recommendation will be given the most careful determination before any action is taken?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: I will take the Hon. Member's representations into consideration, Mr. Speaker.


John Edmund Parry: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
May I ask the Hon. Minister whether there will be a series of public consultations before a decision is made?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will take the Hon. Member's suggestion into consideration as well, Mr. Speaker.
November 29, 1984


TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Since the textile industry in Canada, and especially in the riding of Drummond, is an integral part of the economy and a major source of jobs, I would like to quote a few statistics that speak for themselves. In 1980, there were 80,706 jobs in this industry, while in 1983, there were 75,900, representing a loss of 4,806 jobs-


Mr. Speaker:: The Question Period is not for reading information into the record. It is for asking questions.


Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, considering these facts, could the Minister inform the House whether he intends to propose the introduction of global quotas and controls on increases in the volume of imports, so as to create an environment that is more likely to attract investment in this industry, and give the industry a chance to restructure, to adjust and to streamline its operations so that it can continue to survive in a very competitive market?
[DOT] (U50)


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of the Hon. Member for Drummond, I should like to assure him that the situation with respect to the textile industry is one of the higher priorities in our Department. The statement made by the Prime Minister when he was in Sherbrooke on July 26 of this year, setting out 10 points which our Government would follow, is certainly what we are now concentrating on. I can only assure the Hon. Member that we have already met with representatives of the textile industry to work out a long-term plan for that industry. I think all members of the industry, including its workers, will be very pleased with it.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES FOLLOWING VALLEYFIELD BRIDGE MISHAP
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Would he confirm that literally dozens of notices of legal action have been served on the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, totalling millions of dollars, and citing the Authority for negligence and improper maintenance in the breakdown of the Valleyfield Bridge? While he is on his feet would he inform the House what discussions, if any, have taken place with
Oral Questions
Stelco in Hamilton to guarantee an alternate supply of iron ore, in light of the fact that seven shiploads of iron ore are tied up in the St. Lawrence Seaway system at a critical time for Stelco? What is being done to prevent further lay-offs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact that there are intentions by the shipping companies to take legal action. Legal counsel has been appointed. We will be dealing with it in the appropriate manner.
In so far as the other part of the question is concerned, as I indicated yesterday, officials of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and my Department are doing everything possible to restore normal service. The best we can do at this particular time is to try to get the bridge in operation, and that is what we are doing. Some of the other points which the Hon. Member made are somewhat hypothetical. We will try to get the bridge operational as quickly as possible.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is not taken from the Toronto newspaper that has been quoted many times today.
My question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon). The Minister is aware that the solar energy industry, consisting of a number of small Canadian-owned companies, is in a crisis situation as a result of the Government's budgetary cutbacks.
In the days to come, many of these companies will have to decide whether to lay off employees or simply to close down.
Mr. Speaker, my question is quite straightforward: What does the Minister intend to do?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated in the House on previous occasions, the decision to terminate the special program designated to alternate energies does not in any way inhibit the solar energy industry, or any other alternative energy industry, from coming to the federal Government with reasonable applications for support under a number of other available programs.


David Berger: The Minister knows that that is totally impractical for many companies which had approved contracts that have been stalled by the Government.


REQUEST FOR TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENT
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister provide some form of transitional mechanism, a grandfather
734

November 29, 1984
Oral Questions
provision, if you will, so that the industry is not left high and dry like the aeronautic industry when a previous Conservative government decided to shut down the Avro Arrow?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the connection drawn by the Hon. Member is totally specious, as he realizes. Indeed there is money available through the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the National Research Council, and other agencies. If proponents of projects in the solar energy industry would wish to come forward, their application would be considered alongside that of anyone else's. Following 10 years of funding under the existing program, which was already grandfathered for a second five-year period, we are not sufficiently convinced of progress to the extent that special allocated funding should be continued in this area.
 * *


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS TAPING OF MEETING BETWEEN MINISTER OF FINANCE AND MANITOBA MINISTER
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will he now confirm that an official of his Government secretly and deliberately taped the meeting between the federal Finance Minister and the Finance Minister of the Province of Manitoba? Most important, could he explain why it was done?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I understand that a young man on the staff of the Minister of Finance indeed taped, without permission, part of the meeting. It was improper and unacceptable. It was a mistake made by an over-zealous young person. I don't know that you would want to say any more about it than that. The Minister has acknowledged the error and indicated publicly that it will not happen again.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Prime Minister is correct in his answer.


REQUEST FOR GUIDELINES TO PREVENT RECURRENCE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. He started his Government with a promise of honest and open communications. In keeping with that trust, will he confirm or promise that there will be guidelines for political officials so that this never happens again?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't introduce new guidelines to save my soul.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: You shall never see another set of guidelines around here. I may tell my hon. friend, as I think we all recognize, that there was a mistake in judgment by a young person.


Ian Deans: A very serious mistake.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It was serious. I suspect that all of us at 22 or 23 years of age have made mistakes. In fact I know of some people in here who continue to make them, and fortunately we're forgiven.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. Last week he denied in the House that a chair of Japanese studies was being contemplated as compensation for that community. However, he later admitted it in an article in The Toronto Sun. Now I have received reports that a million dollar institute is being created. Given the fact that he promised throughout the campaign that a committee including Japanese-Canadians would monitor all alternatives for compensation, why are these considerations being undertaken in isolation from the Japa-nese-Canadian community?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Hon. Member is getting his information from. Certainly if I were him I would go back and check my sources, because his question was not right. I can only reply to him that the matter is under active consideration by the Government at this time. He will be one of the first people to know about the decision when the Government makes it.


ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is quite correct. Nonetheless, in keeping with those comments, will the Minister tell the House today that he will maintain the promise to establish a committee? Will he give us its terms of reference and its membership, immediately?


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will get the information when the Government has made the decision, and not one minute before that.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, Great Lakes Forest Products has already been brought to the attention of the House today by my colleague from Thunder
November 29, 1984

Bay-Atikokan. The company had acquired, at Dryden, a mill which poisoned the English River system with mercury emissions. The question of compensation for the White Dog Indian Band has been a matter of controversy in northwestern Ontario for years.
In the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, will the Minister of the Environment ensure that Great Lakes Forest Products, which has been holding back on making compensation, will do so forthwith before any of its funds leave the country for investment in the United States?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the Hon. Member's question as noticed I shall reply as soon as possible, after consulting with my colleague who is responsible for Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of two, presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, November 28, 1984 meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
VIA RAIL-SERVICE IN CASSELMAN; VIA RAIL-SERVICE IN GLEN ROBERTSON


Mr. Speaker:: The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose to my distinguished colleague the usual question posed on Thursdays about the business of the House for next week.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, after that comment I am almost prepared to say that anything the Liberals want they can have, but I will not go that far.
We have had the usual amicable discussions between House Leaders. I have indicated to them our intentions with respect to House business of which I would now like to advise the House. There will be a change in the business this afternoon. After Routine Proceedings, we will proceed with the consider-
Business of the House
ation in Committee of the Whole of Bill C-7, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes. If debate on Bill C-7 is concluded, we will then move to the consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff. Should consideration of Bill C-9 be completed, we will then return to consideration at second reading of Bill C-l 1, an Act to provide borrowing authority.
Tomorrow the order of business will be the same, Bill C-7, Bill C-9 and Bill C-l 1 at whatever stage they are then at.
I want on this occasion to designate this coming Monday as the fourth allotted day in the current supply period.
On Tuesday the first order of business, due to a great deal of public demand, will be Bill C-6, an Act to amend the Saltfish Act. It is my understanding that there is agreement among the parties to deal with this Bill at all stages in the House on Tuesday. If the Saltfish Bill is passed before the end of the day, we will return to the consideration of Bills C-7, C-9 and C-l 1, in that order.
On Wednesday the order of business will be the following: Bill C-7, if not previously disposed of, followed by Bill C-9, followed by Bill C-l 1. If the Bills that I have enumerated have been disposed of, the House will at that stage commence consideration of Bill C-l2, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act.
We will observe the progress of the House with respect to the legislation that I have enumerated. It is always subject to a change in the order of business, depending on the progress and circumstances.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader indicated the intention to return to Bill C-ll upon the completion of Bills C-7 and C-9. As the Government House Leader knows, my colleague from Kam-loops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) moved an amendment yesterday. In an effort to expedite the passage of that legislation and other legislation, I would like to ask if it might be possible to arrange for some meetings between my colleague and the appropriate finance personnel to discuss the possibility of reaching a compromise on the amendment that we offered yesterday for the consideration of the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we are very much interested in discussing the matter and seeing what proposals the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has on behalf of his Party, as we will be glad to consult with the appropriate spokesperson for the Official Opposition. We will be prepared to enter into discussions to see whether we can expedite the affairs of the House of Commons at any time.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, in an effort not to hold up the passage of that or any other legislation, would it be possible for the Government House Leader to make an effort to have those discussions take place prior to the calling of the Bill for further second reading debate? It may be possible in the intervening time to come to some understanding and to eliminate a lengthy debate.

November 29, 1984
Tabling of Documents


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best on that. As I indicated, and I do not think the Hon. Member will mind if I mention this publicly, part of the difficulty in having a meeting today is that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is not in Ottawa today. Quite frankly, I have not had the opportunity of discussing the matter since the meeting of House Leaders with my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDou-gall). I can assure him that we will do our best to get these discussions on as soon as possible.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the first report of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services. We have finished our work, and I have the honour of tabling the Committee's report in which we have approved your budget, Mr. Speaker.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator which covers the period June 1, 1982 to May 31, 1983.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the document which has just been tabled by the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay). I note that this document covers the period June 1, 1982 to May 31, 1983. As I understand it, this is an annual report and the requirement is that it be tabled annually. I would like an explanation from the Solicitor General as to why there is such a lengthy delay in tabling this particular document. Surely that kind of delay is not acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to allow a question by unanimous consent. As to whether there is a requirement, I am not sure that that is a point of order. The Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) may want to comment.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, that is a very legitimate question. A similar report will be tabled very soon. It seemed there was no particular virtue in delaying this one. I wanted to table it as soon as it seemed appropriate. If I have been delinquent in tabling it up to this point, I certainly apologize to the House, but I do not think there was any harm done.


PETITION
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to present to the House a petition from the parishioners of Our Lady of the Roman Catholic Church in Larder Lake, Ontario, who have called upon me to thank the House of Commons and the Government of Canada for the recent aid package program to Ethiopia.


CANADA SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches) moves for leave to introduce Bill C-212, an Act to protect and enhance the quality of drinking water in Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Young:: The purpose of this Bill would be to protect and enhance drinking water quality in Canada and provide for an opportunity for public involvement in the making of regulations. It would permit water users to sue to recover damages for contravention of the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works), seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moved for leave to introduce Bill C-13, to amend the Public Works Act and the Public Lands Grants Act.
Mr. Speaker, is it the pleasure of the House to authorize the Minister to introduce the Bill?
Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 29, 1984


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 19.


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology?


Mr. Bernard Valcourt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: There are no lawyers employed by the Ministry nor are there any assigned to the Ministry from the Department of Justice.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 58, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.
House in Committee on Bill C-7, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes-Mrs. McDougall-Mr. Danis in the chair.
Income Tax Act


Marcel Danis: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-7, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes. Shall Clause 1 carry?
Clauses 1 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 16-Idem


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to hold up the progress of this Bill, but it just occurred to me that it might be helpful to the Committee if the Minister would draw to the attention of the Committee any divergences in this Bill from the Bill presented by the previous government. I think it important to have confirmed on the record that the Government finds that the legislation presented by the last Liberal government is the best thing it could come up with at the beginning of its mandate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, as always, I am prepared to join issue on matters raised by my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor West. As the Hon. Member will know, we are very much interested in cleaning up a lot of the legislative items that were not addressed by the previous government. My colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, will point out the details with respect to the specific inquiry made.
We are interested in proceeding with these items at an early date for a very good reason. It has been recognized by the Government, and the Minister of Finance will address this, that after a Budget is brought down there is some uncertainty with respect to the specific legislation that will be passed by Parliament to bring into effect items specified in the Budget. We have brought these matters before the House as a result of the Budget which was brought forward by our predecessor government in February, 1984. We have done this at the earliest possible date with a view to bringing clarity and certainty to the people of Canada regarding the Budget that did pass.
My colleague, of course, will address the specific question. However, I did want to put on record that we are beginning to clean up the matters left hanging by the previous government. There are great and better things to come.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, there are six essential differences in this Bill from the Bill that was presented before. The first change clarifies the timing surrounding the small business tax simplification measures. These measures will be effective for 1985 and subsequent tax years in an effort to provide greater certainty for taxpayers by defining the date precisely.
The second change is that the small corporation test for eligibility for the 35 per cent rate of credit on research and development and for the 40 per cent rate of refundability of the investment tax credit for an extra month to pay any balance of tax is now to be based on taxable income for the preceding rather than the current tax year. This is also a clarification to provide more certainty and more precision in that planning.

November 29, 1984
Income Tax Act
In addition, the special rule to prevent corporations from obtaining the low rate when they are controlled by means of options by public corporations or non-residents is being deferred to apply beginning in 1986 rather than in 1985 so as to provide taxpayers with adequate time to rearrange their affairs.
The exemption from foreign property penalty rules for registered pension plans created for the exclusive benefit of non-residents employed outside Canada is being extended to other plans which, although not created for that purpose, in fact operate for the exclusive benefit of such persons. The proposal of last February to increase from 90 days to 120 days the time to file a notice of objection is not being proceeded with, due to more efficient procedures being introduced at Revenue Canada. As a result, the motion for this measure has been dropped.
There was also a proposal in February which would require the Minister of National Revenue to accept satisfactory security for disputed taxes. That is not being proceeded with in view of the work which is actively under way which will allow for the postponement of payment of such taxes until there has been a court resolution of the matter.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister some questions regarding her last two points. Could she explain to the Committee what are the more efficient procedures that have been introduced by Revenue Canada which will no longer make it necessary to allow taxpayers 180 days to file a notice of objection as proposed by the previous government?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, the efficiencies are being introduced at the time of the assessment and before the assessment so that the procedure can move much more quickly than it has in the past.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, would the Minister be able to tell us what are these procedures and what recourse the taxpayer has if, in spite of these procedures, the taxpayer is unable to get the information together to prepare a sound notice of objection within 90 days?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, I cannot tell the Hon. Member precisely what are the procedures. I know that the taxpayer can then discuss with the Department the next stages. The taxpayer should be in a position, as far as the Minister of National Revenue assures me, to have an answer.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, the Minister indicated that her Government had dropped the proposal of the previous government to allow a taxpayer to give securities satisfactory to the Department, and if that were done payment of taxes could be deferred until an appeal was disposed of or had been dropped. I would like to ask the Minister, what is the exact situation today if the proposal to accept security has been dropped? What is the Department doing at the present
time? Is it insisting on immediate payment once an assessment has been decreed? What is happening exactly?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, the subclause does allow the Minister to accept security should that be necessary.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister a question regarding the provisions of Bill C-7 with respect to taxable capital gains for farmers. Is it exactly as was outlined in the Budget statement of the previous Minister wherein a farmer would be able to transfer $120,000 from taxable capital gains over a 12-year period-and I believe it was from 1971 to 1983-into a registered retirement savings plan, which would effectively be $240,000 of capital gain? Does this Bill implement that provision of the Budget exactly as it was proposed by the previous government?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Yes, it does.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, in the Budget of Mr. Lalonde there was a provision wherein the allowable limits of the registered retirement savings plan would be increased from the $5,500 per year for a self-employed person to, I believe, $15,500 by 1986 or 1987 and that it would be cumulative. That is, if a person who was engaged in farming did not use the allowable limit each year but then subsequently sold his holdings and realized a capital gain, it would be cumulative. Does this Bill provide for that escalation over the period of the next three or four years, and will it be cumulative for taxable capital gains for farmers?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, it does not provide for that. In terms of the changes which relate to RRSPs, some of those are under consideration.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, in the original Budget of the former Minister of Finance, that was only proposed as a procedure, and the actual Budget Bills did not provide for that. Is that correct?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Yes, that is correct.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, is it the view of the Government that it would want to proceed with that proposal, as the legislation becomes necessary, in order for it to be implemented? Is it the intent of the current Government to increase the allowable limit for RRSPs to the proposals in the Budget of Mr. Lalonde, which I believe was to increase it to $15,000 over the next three or four years? On that basis does the Government intend to implement that proposal? Is that the policy of this Government?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance has indicated that he will be reviewing this before the next Budget is brought down.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 34 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 35-
November 29, 1984


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend subclause 35(5). I move:
That the French version of subclause 35(5) of Bill C-7 be amended by striking out line 35 on page 48 and substituting the following:
"de l'avis d'un medecin, la personne"


Marcel Danis: Shall the amendment to subclause 35(5) carry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Marcel Danis: Yes, the Hon. Member for Windsor West on a point of order.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am given to understand that the motion to amend in this way should be moved by another member. If I am wrong, I will gladly withdraw the question, but I wonder if you can advise us on that.


Marcel Danis: The Member is correct.


Barbara Jean McDougall: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that was not our understanding.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: 
Marcel Danis: Shall the amendment carry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could ask the Hon. Minister to put on the record the reason for the amendment.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, the amendment was necessary because in the original version the French and English were not precisely the same. The change was made so that the French version reads the same as the English version.


Marcel Danis: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 35 as amended carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 39 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 40-


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister whether, under the provisions of this clause, it will be permissible for people like doctors, lawyers and accountants, to mention just three, to qualify as small business people and therefore pay taxes at the rate of just 25 per cent?
Income Tax Act


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, this will bring these professionals into line with other professionals who are taxed at the small business rate. I might add that this rate only applies as long as the money stays in the business. If the money is withdrawn, then there is another tax, which means a normal rate would apply.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I do not claim to be an expert in taxation but I do not understand what the Minister is saying. I am asking a very simple question. Will doctors, lawyers, accountants and, I suppose, engineers be able to classify themselves as small business people and therefore pay income tax at the 25 per cent rate rather than, let us say, 35 per cent, 40 per cent or 50 per cent if their income puts them in that classification?


Barbara Jean McDougall: I apologize, I thought I had answered the question. If those people incorporate, then the corporation pays the small business rate of tax so long as the funds remain in the corporation. When the funds are withdrawn so that the professional takes them into income, then they are taxed up to the higher level. It only applies to an incorporated professional when the funds remain inside the corporation.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, here we have a government with a phobia about the deficit. It says to Parliament and the people of Canada that we have to cut various essential services because we cannot afford them. We have this tremendous deficit. Mr. Chairman, a big part of the reason we have these tremendous deficits is that the Income Tax Act is riddled with hundreds of sections which permit special groups to get special consideration so that they pay less than they should be paying. We have the banks, the most profitable corporations of this country, paying a smaller rate of tax than the bank teller pays in income tax. This goes all through the system, and I think it is time that the Government and Parliament faced up to this.
We learned something from a royal commission appointed by an earlier Conservative government under Mr. Diefen-baker, the Carter Commission, which brought down a report which said some very fundamental things about income. A dollar of income is a dollar of income regardless of how you get it. It is just dead wrong to assess people whose income is earned through wages or salaries at one rate, and assess people with income from investments at another rate.
Let me give you one example, that of the child tax credit. A person is permitted to deduct up to $1,000 in child expenses. That is a gift to the rich, because the person with a high income will save $500, a person with a medium income will save $250, and a person with a low income who has the expenses will save virtually nothing. I raise that as just one illustration of what is wrong with the tax system.
I know I speak for all members of my Party when I say I object very strenuously to this clause which will permit doctors, lawyers, accountants and other professionals this tax break. They do very well, better than most Canadians. They are in the highest income brackets in this country, and I object

November 29, 1984
Income Tax Act
very much to a proposal which will permit them to pay tax at a lower rate than others.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, I think 1 have already answered the question. This measure brings these professionals in line with other professionals. They were actually discriminated against before. I will take the Hon. Member's point of view under advisement.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I do not want to delay the proceedings but I want to engage very briefly in the debate and say how delighted I am to hear the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North speak about all these middle-class people who are supposedly receiving an enormous tax benefit from the child tax credit. I think all the tradesmen and labourers at Cominco and various sawmills in my constituency are going to be very interested in that statement, particularly their wives. I think the Hon. Member is out of touch with reality when he raises that point.
I would conclude by saying that I am a professional and I pay my full share of taxes, whether it be 40 per cent or 50 per cent, and I am incorporated. I know a lot of professionals who are in the same boat. I am not afraid of paying my fair share of taxes, and the Hon. Member is not accurate in his assessment on the basis of current facts.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I want the record to be quite clear. I am not objecting to a tax credit for the person working in the forest industry with an income of $20,000 to $30,000, or whatever it is. Until we have a universal daycare system I believe people should have a tax credit. I am objecting to the fact that the people with incomes of $75,000 to $100,000 can get more in the way of tax credits than forest workers, and certainly more than a person working in a hospital in my city. That is what I am objecting to. 1 want fairness, Mr. Chairman. When the Government introduces legislation which provides for fairness in the tax system, we will support it, but not until then.
Clauses 40 to 44 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 45-


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister would explain what this section does.


Barbara Jean McDougall: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I have lost track.


David Orlikow: Is this the clause which refers to share purchase tax credit? If so, what does that mean?


Barbara Jean McDougall: These are essentially technical amendments, Mr. Speaker. It has to do with the fact that the tax credit can be viewed as a benefit conferred on the beneficiary that arises as a result of the existence of the trust. This clarifies the matter by preventing the trust from allocating the credit. It has no revenue implications. It is really a technical amendment.
Clause 45 agreed to.
On clause 46-


David Orlikow: Does this clause refer to the scientific research tax credit?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it does.


David Orlikow: Is this the provision which the former government estimated would cost taxpayers $100 million and which has now given credits of well over $1 billion with another $.5 billion coming through the pipeline?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, this is the basic part of that legislation, but these are simply technical amendments. They do not really change the status.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the Minister should be able to tell us whether this is the section in the Bill which was so miscalculated by the former government, which the then Minister of Finance said would cost $100 million and which has now cost the people of Canada over $1 billion and is still rising. I would like to know from the Minister if this is the section of the Bill which provided for that.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, I answered that. I said that this is the section of the Bill which applies to that. It is the section on which a moratorium has been taken. However, these amendments do not relate to that part of it.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, if this is the section, why can the Government not act to plug the loophole? There have been innumerable reports which indicate that this provision, which was supposed to encourage Canadian companies really to move on research and development, has in fact not brought new money into research and development. It has been used as a tax scam by corporations wheeling and dealing. Instead of the $100 million which the then Minister of Finance indicated it would cost the Treasury, it has cost well over $1 billion. We have been told by the Minister of National Revenue that because so many of these agreements are being processed, he cannot do anything about it and we are probably going to lose another $500 million in the interim period. Why can the Minister and her Department not take steps to stop that kind of raid and theft on the public Treasury?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, there was a moratorium taken on October 10. This is the section. There was action taken by the Minister of Finance to end those parts that were not meeting the intent of the Act. These were debt flips where people were simply exchanging tax credits in a way that was not appropriate. That was stopped on October 10.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, the Minister says that this was stopped on October 10. That sounds very good, but from questions which have been asked in the House and the answers from the Minister of National Revenue we know that it has been stopped except for the fact that those that were already started cannot be stopped. I am saying to the Minister that that is a very expensive situation. According to the reports

November 29, 1984
which we have been able to get we are looking at a loss of a further $400 million to $500 million. The Government is going to tighten the rules on unemployment insurance and tell people who are unemployed, almost all of them through no fault of their own, that they are going to receive substantially less in unemployment insurance benefits. There is something wrong with the scale of values of the Government and its ability to act.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, 1 think that the question part of that statement related to the grandfathering provisions. It is entirely appropriate and certainly with many precedents that arrangements which are substantially in progress, or near conclusion, should be allowed to go through. We cannot ask taxpayers to negate their planning to the extent the Hon. Member is suggesting.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 46 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 46 carried on division.
Clauses 47 to 50 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 51-


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Chairman, I note that, among other things, this clause provides some exclusions from co-operatives being considered as corporate citizens. Would the Minister give us the basic logic or rationale that is used for these exclusions so that we can understand what role is expected for co-operatives? Could she give us some guidelines as to what the rule is within the Bill for these exclusions?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, this clause applies to private Canadian controlled corporations. Co-operatives are not, by their nature, the same thing as private corporations. They are essentially on the same footing in terms of taxation.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I think I may be one or two clauses ahead of myself here. I wonder how the Act views co-operative farms. We have had some difficulty with the National Revenue Department interpreting co-op farms as being very like the small corporately held farms. Yet it seems that the proposal in Clauses 51 and 53 may in fact have the effect of excluding those who choose to form a co-operative farm from the right to roll over their property from one generation to the next.
The Minister will be aware that Revenue Canada says at the moment that when four or five family members form a cooperative, it is virtually impossible to turn the land in that co-operative over to the next generation on a roll-over basis. The Department deems the operators in that case not to be actively involved in the farm.
I want to make certain that co-operative farms operating under those conditions will get the same changes that are proposed in this Bill as are being offered to those who have chosen to set themselves up as small corporations, at which time the shareholders are considered to have been active
Income Tax Act
farmers. Therefore, they have earned the right to turn over their shares in the land to the succeeding generation. I want to make sure that co-operatives are not excluded from that right.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, this section does not deal with the roll-over problem. In another sense, it does bring the two closer together. The co-operative corporations can obtain the benefit of the 35 per cent rate of investment tax credit and can obtain the right to a refund of 40 per cent instead of 20 per cent of any unused investment tax credits.
I would be happy to take the roll-over provisions into consideration. Apparently, it is not easy. It is a point well taken.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 51 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 52 agreed to.
On Clause 53-
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, this is the clause that I believe deals with the capital gains for farmlands. I take it from Clause 5.4(b) at page 78 that the amount that may be transferred to the Registered Retirement Savings Plan of farm capital gains is $10,000 per year for the period from 1971 to the end of 1983.
We are almost at the end of 1984. The scheme is very straightforward if one is dealing with that period. The maximum amount is $120,000. As we move into 1985 and beyond, with respect to the total amount of taxable capital gain that can be transferred to an RRSP, after that 12-year period, do you add the $5,500 as the amount that can be put into an RRSP by any self-employed person? Is that just a window in time that does not extend beyond the end of 1983?
Would the Minister indicate what happens if someone sells his farm at the end of 1984? Is the maximum that can be transferred to an RRSP the taxable capital gain on $120,000 over that period, or is it the $120,000 plus the $5,500 that any self-employed taxpayer can put into an RRSP?


Barbara Jean McDougall: The amount, $120,000 being the maximum, is reduced by the amount of income you would put into an RRSP. As far as ending in 1983, the Minister's intent is to introduce some changes to pension legislation early in 1985 in which this will be taken into consideration and become part of a broader and more comprehensive pension legislation.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I was rather surprised when this tax provision was introduced. According to the economic statement, the whole question of capital gains on farmland was supposed to be referred to a parliamentary committee.
1 just wonder if the Government is adopting the former Liberal government's policy with regard to taxable capital gains on farmland, whether it is being adopted in Bill C-7 and perhaps further amplified on the basis of the report of the parliamentary committee, or is this the Government's position with regard to taxable capital gains on farm property at least

November 29, 1984
Income Tax Act
for the first 12 years following the implementation of the capital gains tax?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, 1 think we should keep it in mind that this will help the farmers. There are other plans under way concerning farms and pensions. These matters are being studied, but they take longer. In the meantime, this is intended to help the farmer until those broader issues are resolved.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I want to be quite clear that when a taxable capital gain is realized under this scheme it would not matter whether the farm property was continuing agricultural production. Is that correct?
As I understood the Conservative campaign literature, the scheme was that capital gains on farm property would only be non-taxable as long as it stayed in agricultural production. I want to be quite clear that if there is a capital gain under this scheme and the farmer takes advantage of it, the land can be sold for urban development or whatever.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, the property can be sold to anyone for whatever purpose and it will apply.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, I have a series of questions on this clause. First, as I understand it, this is not doing away with the capital gains tax which was discussed during the election. This is simply a continuation of the Liberal promise in the previous budget, is it not?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Yes.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Therefore, for a retiring farmer to take advantage of it, he must buy 12 $10,000 RRSPs and bring that back into income in the future. It is not an avoidance of the capital gains tax, it is simply a way of stretching income from that capital gain into future year's income. Is that correct?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, a farmer can buy one or 10 RRSPs. A farmer can buy as many as he likes. The funds will be taxable. It stretches out the tax and gives him or her a steady source of income. Whether he does that in one plan or 40 plans is up to him or her.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make it clear that this was not a way of doing away with tax on capital gains, but simply a way of delaying the capital gains tax into future years.
I want to deal with the definitions on qualified farm property found on page 77 and the full-time farmer definition found on page 78. These are the sections where we get into the problem that I had alluded to earlier with farmers who have chosen to set themselves up under a co-operative structure. I should get clarification from the Minister since she has her experts with her.
Does this description of a taxpayer in a corporation in paragraph (b) on qualified farm property include the type of
co-operative that I was talking about just a few moments ago where the property is either held under a co-operative in fee simple in title or, which is the more likely case, the land is held by individual shareholders in the co-operative and they have chosen instead to operate a farming co-operative. This particular aspect of the Bill deals with qualified farm properties. This would affect those properties where the land is owned by the co-operative. Are those properties also eligible to be rolled over to the next generation through a transfer of shares? Are they eligible for the RRSP benefit, or have they been missed?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, could we have a little time to double-check this? I do not think it qualifies, but if the Hon. Member could give me a minute or two, I could give a better answer.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Yes.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, as this is drafted, we believe it is intended to incorporate definitions in this section all related to a family farm and whatever its definition is. We are checking right now with the Department and we will tell you later in the debate, if that is satisfactory. I know the point the Hon. Member is trying to make and I am doing my best to answer the question. Obviously it is not clear from this.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, I have a few more questions along these lines. Perhaps when we finish with the questioning we could stand the clause and go on with other parts of the Bill. I am curious as to whether the definition of a full-time farmer would include a farmer operating along with a group of farmers in a co-operative. This is the other side of the coin to the first question. Revenue Canada has not done a very good job of addressing this matter and that is partly the reason I am raising it today. I have written letters to Ministers of Finance and I believe to the Secretary of State for Finance as well concerning this issue. What happens is that Revenue people tend to see farmers operating together in a co-op mode as being neither fish nor fowl. They are not able to transfer their property under the roll-over provision because the Department says they must be actively farming the land they are proposing to roll over to their sons, daughters or grandchildren. The requirements of Revenue Canada now are that the land must be farmed for two or three years by the donor or two or three years by the receiver prior to the roll-over provision taking place. Because co-operatives have been omitted from the Act, anybody engaged in that sort of farming is not permitted a roll-over. Consequently, many co-operative farms are having to die after the current generation of farmers reach a retirement age simply because there is no easy way for them to transfer the farm to their children.
Similarly, I want to be quite sure before we pass this Bill that we do not also discriminate against co-operative farmers who want to sell out, whether to their children or to others. I see no reason why they should be discriminated against when they are now permitting people who have structured themselves in a regular corporate manner to have access to these
November 29, 1984

RRSPs and to delay paying capital gains over a period of time that way.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, the question refers essentially to whether that qualifies as a share of the capital stock of a family farm.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It relates to whether they are actually farmers?


Barbara Jean McDougall: It relates to whether they are actually farmers. This is defined in the Act in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 70 which, by some strange coincidence, I happen to have in front of me. Under this section it would appear that, yes, they would qualify under the definition as a full-time farmer. Does the Hon. Member want me to read it to him? Would he like to hear the Act?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I want to hear from the Act. What I have had, though, is a couple of cases where Revenue Canada did not interpret it in such a way that those people were actually farmers. I assume Revenue Canada officials read that section of the Act before they made that interpretation. While we have the Act open, it seems to me that it might be more useful to all concerned if co-operatives were designated quite clearly in this section of the Act. Where we put a corporation we could perhaps say "or a co-operative", and do that same sort of amending all the way through this particular section just so that we make it very clear what Parliament's intention is and what the Minister's intention is. I have not asked that. I assume it would to be fair and equitable to all types of family farm operations whether they had set themselves up as a co-operative or a corporation.


Barbara Jean McDougall: We have discussed the possibility of bringing some further technical amendments to the Income Tax Act. I would be very happy to take that back and consider it at that time.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I have a further question just for clarification.
Under Section 31 of the Income Tax Act farmers who have left their farms to earn other income due to bad crops or a start-up situation are often declared to be not farmers at all or to be part-time farmers. I am wondering who is a full-time farmer as is indicated here. Is there any way of taking into account those people who have had to work off their farms for some of their income during the 12 years with which we are dealing? Will those partial years be recognized, or will the years that a farmer has been designated a part-time farmer be written off and lost to him for the purposes of setting up an RRSP?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, the intent is not to disallow farmers who have been faced with difficulties and forced to try to earn income from other sources. The intent of the definition is to eliminate all those Bay Street lawyers, who
Income Tax Act
seem to be the butt of so many examples in the House, from going out and treating themselves as full-time farmers.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: For the purposes of clarification, for a farmer who decides upon the RRSP option and has been designated by the Department for one or two of those 12 years to have been a part-time farmer, or perhaps he has even received the hobby farm designation, which of those years would be deducted? For which of those years will he be made ineligible to declare an RRSP? Would it be only for the hobby farm designation? Would part-time farmers be able to call it a full year of farming and be fully eligible to apply a $10,000 RRSP for that year?


Barbara Jean McDougall: I think the Act says that a full-time farmer also includes any individual actively engaged in the business of farming. Then it goes on to deal with sections which are not as relevant. The hobby farmer is excluded.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: He would be excluded?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Yes, so it is in a way the reverse of the Hon. Member's definition.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: In order to be more specific, perhaps we could have an interpretation of what is meant at the bottom of page 78 where a restriction seems to be placed on who is a full-time farmer. It indicates that a full-time farmer would be an individual who in that year was actively engaged in the business of farming in Canada. Then subparagraph (iii) continues as follows:
-(other than an individual who in the year had or would, if he had sustained sufficient losses from the business of farming, have had a restricted farm loss for the year).
Does that not exempt people who have had restricted farm losses from using the RRSP option in the year in which they had restricted farm losses?


Barbara Jean McDougall: The answer is yes, and that is directed at the hobby farmer. That is specifically for the hobby farmer.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: As I understand it, there is also an in between designation where restricted losses are permitted for tax purposes. However, I think they would not be considered farmers for the purposes of using the RRSP option in this Act when they sell out. I want to be fairly clear on that so that people in that position know what they are getting into.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I am not making myself very clear on this point. I am really trying to. The definition of restricted farm loss is the restricted farm loss referred to in Section 31. All other farmers are included in this, but that specific term refers to specific farm loss as defined and applied to Section 31.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Only the hobby farm designation?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Yes.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: This will apply only to what is colloquially known as the hobby farm section?

November 29, 1984
Adjournment Motion


Barbara Jean McDougall: Yes.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, could we stand this clause for the Minister to review the question of co-operative production units? Perhaps she would be prepared to move an amendment to make it very clear that those who chose to set themselves up as co-operative farmers would not only have qualified farm property under the first part of this section but would also qualify as full-time farmers. Then we could pick it up at a later stage.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, you are saved by the fact that the answer has just arrived. To the extent that a farm co-operative otherwise qualifies as a family farm corporation, for example, if all the co-op assets are farm assets and if the taxpayer or his spouse or his children were engaged in the business of farming, co-operatives will qualify for both the RRSP treatment and the roll-over. It used to be that they did not qualify if the farm was leased to a co-operative. If that was the only hitch, one would now qualify.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether that comes about simply by a different interpretation within the Department, or whether there is now some change in the law which requires this.


Barbara Jean McDougall: There is a technical change in this Bill which makes a leased farm qualify for the roll-over.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 53 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 53 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It being after four o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to consider the Bill later this day, in order to make a certain announcement regarding adjournment proceedings.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Research- Proposed Toxicology Centre project, (b) Consultation query; The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud)- National Parks-Employment at Kouchibouguac National Park, N.B., (b) Inquiry concerning employment for laid-off
workers; The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)- Children-Sexual abuse-Badgley Commission recommendations, (b) Government position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in Committee of Bill C-7, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes- Mrs. McDougall-Mr. Charest in the chair.
On Clause 54-
Mr. Andre:: Mr. Chairman, with great honour, I present the following motion:
That the French version of clause 54 of Bill C-7 be amended:
(a)	by striking out line 34 on page 81 and substituting the following:
"droit de deduire une somme designee a"
(b)	by striking out line 47 on page 81 and substituting the following:
"1983 tout en ayant re^u, en 1984, a titre de bene-"
(c)	by striking out line 7 on page 82 and substituting the following:
"calcul de la somme designee, etre une"


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall clause 54, as amended, carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 60 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 61-


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, can the Minister explain at what level of income people will now qualify for not having to pay quarterly? The clause states that people whose income is less than $1,000 a year will no longer have to file quarterly returns.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, it depends on the family circumstances and so on who will have less than $1,000 and not have to pay quarterly. It is a relieving measure that affects a large number of senior citizens. It is a relieving measure for them.


David Orlikow: I know, Mr. Chairman. I am sure every Member of Parliament has been approached at one time or another by pensioners in particular who have quite a small
November 29, 1984

income. Their tax is not very much, yet they are required to file quarterly returns and to pay quarterly. Often a very substantial part of their income is interest on Canada Savings Bonds, which they do not receive until November. Many times they are required to file and pay income tax on income they have not yet received. This is a very good proposal. I would like to know at what level of income an individual is not required to file quarterly under this provision.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, essentially the income can be at any level. It depends on the income, the number of exemptions, the number of deductions and what is the ultimate taxable income figure. You can start at any number, depending on your family circumstances, the sources of income and so on. I do not think there is any way of assessing what that would be. It does help 100,000 senior citizens and raises to 350,000 the exemption of seniors from the possibility of having to make instalment payments. Many of those will have incomes at a large variety of levels.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 61 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clauses 62 to 69 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 70-


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I heard the Minister's reply that somehow or other the efficiency of the Department makes it unnecessary to increase the appeal period from 90 days to 180 days, as was proposed in the previous Ways and Means resolution. That answer just does not make sense. An individual taxpayer who has been assessed wants to have 180 days rather than 90 days to file that appeal, consult with an accountant and so on. The efficiency of the taxation branch does not have anything to do with the appeal period. The convenience is for the taxpayer. The taxpayer has more time to review the situation, to consult and to decide whether he or she wants to appeal. I do not see what the efficiency of the tax branch has to do with this appeal period. The provisions in the previous Ways and Means resolution were more helpful to the taxpayer who wanted to appeal than the provision in the Bill before us this afternoon.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, apparently part of the problem with the 90 day objection period in the past was that the notice from the tax branch was either cryptic or inexplicable. The taxpayer took up a good deal of the 90 days trying to find out what the tax branch wanted. There have been better lines of communication with the tax branch. The explanations given initially are more detailed, more reasonable and written in language that people can understand. I am sure that the Minister of National Revenue could go into this in considerably more detail. Those are two or three examples of why he feels this period to be adequate.
Customs Act


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, is that period of 90 days to mean 90 days from the day the assessment is mailed to the taxpayer? Does the taxpayer have 90 days from that time to file an appeal, or does he have 90 days from some other point in time? It seems to me that the clock starts ticking from the moment the notice of assessment is sent out. We do not know how rapidly those notices are received. It does not seem to me that that really matters, but what does matter is the amount of time that the taxpayer has to decide whether or not to make an appeal and to gather sufficient information concerning his tax liability to know whether or not he should appeal.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, the notice of objection is a fairly simple notification and does not require a lot of intricate legal preparation. We are talking about a three-month period, not about a matter of days or even weeks. If the taxpayer gets off to a better start by understanding what his tax assessment is telling him about what the problem is, then there is no reason why he should not be able to have his case ready within a three-month or 90-day period. It is a fairly simple procedure to file a notice of objection.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 70 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clauses 71 to 104 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 58, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.
House in Committee on Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff-Mrs. McDougall-Mr. Charest in the chair.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff.
Clauses 1 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules I to III inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
November 29, 1984
Borrowing Authority

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-11, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Riis (p. 694).
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words about the amendment which was proposed by the New Democratic Party and about the borrowing authority Bill. 1 would like to refer to a policy statement which was made by the Government regarding Canadian fishermen, in which it proclaimed:
-Canadian fishermen and companies must be encouraged and assisted to modernize their boats ... A Progressive Conservative Government will promote the orderly development of a middle-distance fleet and the present 65-foot upper limit on longliners will be removed.
At various times, prior to the Government coming into power, the Progressive Conservative Party stated its intention to deal fairly and, certainly as it has stated, in a better way, with fishermen than did the previous government.
In looking at the policies which were outlined by the Government, one wonders when they will be instituted. Certainly, they will cost a lot of money. There have been various actions announced by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser), as well as the various actions which were contained in the Economic Statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
For example, fishermen will now be charged for the maps they obtain from the federal government which show the coastline. There was a statement by the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) which indicated that persons would be required to pay for their calls to the weather office. Then the Minister of the Environment clarified that by saying that fishermen would be excluded. In other words, there would be certain occupational groups-because they need weather forecasting information, sometimes on an urgent basis due to ever-changing weather patterns-who would not be charged for the telephone call. It is another policy to the detriment of the fishermen, because they will hesitate before contacting the weather office in their area.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans also announced that berthage fees would be doubled. Not only that, but as I understand it after checking with the Department of Fisheries, in areas where the berthage fee was not previously charged it will now be charged on an equal basis right across Canada.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) announced that there would be no special program for fishermen who had a bad fishery this year. Those fishermen went out day after day looking for fish but they could not find the fish. Eventually, when the fishermen realized that the Government was not going to have a special program, such as the one that the previous government had last fall, they kept
going out day after day until they had obtained enough fish to get low unemployment insurance stamps. A great many of them will live throughout the winter receiving welfare along with low unemployment insurance.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans then announced that the vessel insurance plan would be discontinued. Sometimes cuts are justified in government Departments. We certainly need more policies from the Department of Fisheries, which are to the advantage of Fishermen. However, certain cuts are announced and decided by someone who looks down from on high and who thinks that an insurance shceme which is run by the government should really be run by private enterprise. Many arguments cannot be put against that philosophy. However, if we examined why the policy was implemented in the mid-fifties, we would discover that it was brought in for one reason. That reason is that there are certain types of fishermen in Canada who do not qualify for private insurance schemes. I suppose that anyone could qualify if they were willing to pay the money. It depends on how high the rate is. But a fisherman with a small boat which is tied to a wharf on the northern peninsula in Newfoundland will not qualify through a private insurance company.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Finance have to realize that they should have consulted with the provincial governments, provincial loan boards, processors, the fishermen's union of Newfoundland, fishermen and the insurance companies before they decided to cancel this scheme. The reason is quite simple. The reason is that fishermen who have insurance policies through the federally-run vessel insurance plan, must have those insurance policies before they can obtain loans through provincial loan boards. That insurance must be in place. The money must come out of the fisherman's pocket. It is not a part of the loan which is granted by the local loan board.
The effect of this measure, which was ill-conceived and implemented without consultation with the people involved in the fishery or the insurance companies, will be that over the next couple of weeks each provincial loan board will have to decide what it will do when the insurance is cancelled, because a condition of the loan was that the fishermen involved must have that insurance policy.
The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would be well-advised to have that consultation now and to adjust the program to meet the needs of the fishermen. There are a great many problems in the fisheries. If the solution to those problems is to get rid of the fishermen, then this is a great way to do it.
There has been much discussion in the House since the debate began on borrowing authority concerning social programs and the actions of the Minister of Employment and Immigration as they relate to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. There has been much discussion regarding the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and its claim that it has identified 170,000 jobs which people in Canada could fill. One has to look at the people who draw unemploy-
November 29, 1984

ment insurance and understand their problems before initiating a policy which will drastically affect them, Mr. Speaker.
Of all the jobs available to people drawing unemployment insurance, there is only one sure thing available right now, the 700 investigators' jobs announced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration to try to take people off unemployment insurance. These being the only available jobs that I know of, I suggest that everyone on unemployment insurance write to the Minister and apply for one of those jobs. Surely the Minister would look favourably upon some of these applications because someone doing that kind of investigation should have experienced being on uenmployment insurance.
There are various reasons for the attitude on the part of the Government and a great many Canadians that people drawing unemployment insurance are ripping off the system. That is the attitude of a great many people, including some Members in this Chamber.
I suppose that if you look at the Auditor General's reports you will find some reason to justify that opinion. For example, a Member said this morning that there were several hundred thousand people who had quit their jobs and then drew unemployment insurance. In the Auditor General's report, where most of these figures are found, you see reference to this enormous number of people who had received overpayments or to the UIC paying out X number of millions of dollars when it should not have. You have to realize, Mr. Speaker, that included in that group is a very large number of people who received unemployment insurance because the UIC made a mistake. It is the law in this country that if the UIC makes the mistake, the person has to pay the money back. If the employer made the mistake, the person who received the money must pay it back. If you leave your home community and go some place looking for work and the UIC was not notified, and you are found out, you also have to pay back your benefits for that period of time. Included in that group of people who received unemployment insurance and should not have were those who had helped someone build their house or, if it is a fisherman, who had built a boat during the winter. That person was found out by one of the UIC investigators and he had to pay back all the benefits he received during the entire winter. So, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the figures you have to realize what these cases are, how these overpayments were created, and why that person owed the money to the UIC.
We have seen countless thousands of cases over the last few years of people who received benefits but were then declared not entitled to them by the Commission or its investigators. These people then go before a board of reference and they have the right of appeal to a deputy minister, or to the federal Court of Canada if it is a determination of a question by Revenue Canada, or to an umpire who is also a federal judge.
When you go over some of these cases, Mr. Speaker, you will discover extreme hardship cases. There are people with absolutely no income, and now they owe the federal Government a large amount of money. Those people are included in
Borrowing Authority
the figures tossed about by politicians, the business community and advocates of cutting back unemployment insurance. There are countless cases involving people who, through no fault of their own, have to pay money back to the UIC after receiving it for several years. If there is any humanitarianism in the system at all, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister has any sympathy for these people at all, there is a section in the Act which says that in cases of hardship the Commission can give the money owed to it. It would do far more for the Canadian people if the Minister were to examine that option rather than announcing that she is going to cut $200 million from unemployment insurance and hire 700 people to Find low paying jobs for the unemployed.
Another question comes to mind, Mr. Speaker. These low-paying jobs that I referred to are just that. They have to be low paying because the Federation of Independent Businesses claims that people on unemployment insurance are too comfortable, that they will not accept jobs that pay less than unemployment insurance. Well, you get 60 per cent of your earnings while drawing unemployment insurance. An Hon. Member referred the other day to the fact that the average pay-out to a person on unemployment insurance is $155 a week. He was wrong because it is $155.88 a week. That 88 cents means an awful lot to a poor person sitting in a high unemployment area, and that is all the income he or she gets. The average period of time that someone receives unemployment insurance in Canada, as any Hon. Member knows, is 24 weeks, not a year as was intimated in the statement by the business community the other day. What I am getting at is this. If you are going to put these people into the low paying jobs the Federation is talking about, then you are discriminating against the younger person who has no income at all. You are discriminating against the person who is looking for work and not collecting unemployment insurance. The Minister could turn around and say: "Oh, no, we are really going to be trying to put these people as well into those jobs". Well, if so, the Government is not going to save the $200 million that the Minister talked about. She cannot have it both ways. It is one way or the other.


David Orlikow: But she is going to try.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, if it were not so tragic, it would be humorous that the Government of Canada is trying to do two things with its job creation program. The Minister is going to have more people than ever before working on what I call "Section 38s". She will have more people than ever before doing this at the same time that these very poor people are being discriminated against.


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

November 29, 1984
Maximum Security Prison



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["Order. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.\nAdjournment Debate"]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all orders and items preceding No. 153 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a maximum security prison in a remote region of the Northwest Territories or on an island off the Coast of Canada, for those sentenced to life imprisonment and who are deemed to be an ongoing risk to society.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I shall not waste the time of the House by re-reading this private Member motion. One never ceases to be amazed at the surprises one gets in the House. We had a draw a couple of weeks ago and I was the one hundred and fifty-third person on that draw. Lo and behold, by last night my turn had come up. I was rather pleased because the subject matter of this motion of mine today is very germane to the public concerns regarding the state of our criminal justice system in Canada. 1 am very pleased that we are able to discuss this motion for an hour tonight. I hope that Opposition and government members will see fit to allow this motion to pass.
I would like to discuss this subject under four main headings. The first will be the background to the motion. Second, I will deal with the two principal objectives that such a maximum security prison would serve. Third, I will discuss the justification and feasibility behind this proposal. Fourth, I will discuss why I feel the Government should allow this to be approved and passed today.
I will first discuss the background behind todays private Members' motion. Members of the House who have been here for approximately 10 years will recall that back in 1976-77 and prior to that there was a lot of unrest in our prison system. As a result, the government of the day set up a special subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to study the penitentiary system in Canada. That committee had 13 members. If Members here are interested in the average life expectancy of a Member in the House of Commons, of those 13 Members only two are left; the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) and myself.
We presented that report in 1977 to the Solicitor General who had commissioned it. It dealt in some detail with the problem of the criminal justice system in Canada and changes that should be made. The committee made 65 recommendations, which were subsequently studied by the officials and the Minister. This report was unusually well received across the country and abroad. We have had requests from outside the country for copies of this report. I feel it had a very enlightened approach to the subject of prison reform. Some of the recommendations were far-reaching. In fact, they were too far-reaching for the officials in the correctional service of Canada at that time. I might add that they are still too far-reaching for the present thinking of many of the officials in the CSC.
I will read recommendation No. 63 which is germane to our discussions today. It stated the following:
The Canadian penitentiary service should carry out an in-depth study of the feasibility and viability of penal communities in reasonably inaccessible areas as an alternative to confinement in conventional institutions for inmates serving long sentences without eligibility for parole.
This recommendation, along with the other 64, was studied from time to time by the various governments since 1977.
Between 1977 and 1981 no less than seven progress reports were issued. I have copies here of five of the progress reports and summaries of the others. It is curious to read these in retrospect because each one says almost the same thing as the last one. They are going to do a study. They are going to do more research. They are going to consult with this body or this country. It is an ongoing litany of what looks, in retrospect, to be attempts to put off a decision in this particular area.
It has become so ludicrous, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to read from two of them. I will first refer to the progress report dated November 1, 1979 made by the Solicitor General of the day, now the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumber-land (Mr. Lawrence). It reads as follows:
Research into this concept has been conducted and the major difficulties faced are the still relatively small numbers of inmates serving long sentences without eligibility for parole-
Parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, that may well have been true then. I dare say it was, but it certainly is not true now. Times have changed since 1979. The report goes on:
-coupled with the unknown factor of public acceptance of the concept itself.
I will address that in my remarks as I go on. The report continues:
In the meantime, individual programs are designed for and with each such long term offender. This will provide us with experience and knowledge upon which a viable program could be presented with the hope of obtaining widespread public support for its implementation.
I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that public support has now arrived. I will now quote from the final progress report on the implementation of the parliamentary sub-committee on the penitentiary system in Canada prepared for the former Solicitor General. It is dated June 5, 1981. I would like to read again under the heading "Recommendation 63". It reads as follows:
At the same time, the Service has co-operated in the formation of a Ministry Committee whose task it will be to direct and co-ordinate research and information-gathering on the various aspects of long term incarceration. This committee will give consideration to the advisability of conducting further research into the concept of penal communities.
November 29, 1984

In 1981, after having the original report for over four years, they are still saying that they are going to conduct further research into the concept of penal communities. They may well have been conducting further research, but I can assure you that we are not seeing the products of it at the present time. That suggests to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have a problem in the House of Commons. Indeed, we have more than one problem with the way this place runs, but during the existence of this report from the special sub-committee we have had no less than five Solicitors General in a seven year period. That is not even one and one-half years per Solicitor General. We wonder why we are not coming to grips with the prison system in this country. The current Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) has only had a couple of months in office and I do not expect he will have been able to get a handle on the matter. Even so, imagine having four Solicitors General in a period of seven years and still not being able to finalize the research! They were talking about research at the beginning of this whole thing and were still talking about it in 1981 when we got the last report. We do not know what has become of that to this date.
On the subject of the background, we have recently had a rash of murders in the country, especially murders of policemen. We have had six or seven murders in the last two or three months. Unfortunately, one of those murders was in my constituency of Oxford in the City of Woodstock. It was in consequence of a similar murder one or two nights before in Montreal allegedly by the same suspects. There is a great deal of feeling, not only in my riding but across the country, about what we are going to do with the kinds of offenders who are in the mood, from time to time, to murder other law-abiding citizens, whether they be policemen, prison guards or whatever. Something needs to be done.
In an attempt to assess the problem in my constituency, I discovered that many people like myself do not support capital punishment, although a great majority of them are in favour of it. I also talked to Ruth Ross, who is the widow of OPP Constable Jack Ross who was shot in Woodstock. While she is sympathetic to the possible need for capital punishment, she is also very sympathetic to changing our criminal justice system in this country.
Recently she was interviewed by the Woodstock Sentinel-Review, which is the daily paper in our constituency. It was a rather lengthy interview which was conducted only two weeks ago, on November 15. I have been attempting to arrange a meeting between Mrs. Ross and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) so that she could relate some of her feelings as a widow. As a matter of fact, the Primer of Ontario is also trying to arrange such an appointment for Mrs. Ross here in Ottawa.
The article states:
Mrs. Ross said she would attempt to bring to Mulroney's attention an immediate need to tighten the country's parole system.
Maximum Security Prison
It goes on to quote Mrs. Ross as follows:
"Nobody gives a thought about the victims (of serious crimes)", she said. "Serious crimes are happening every day".
Finally, it states:
Mrs. Ross said she strongly believes hard-core criminals in Canada's penal system: "Will never be rehabilitated".
Nowhere in that article is there any mention of capital punishment. While she had some sympathy for those who want capital punishment when I talked to her, she saw no reason to raise it in this interview. This suggests to me that many Canadians are looking for alternatives to capital punishment. I suggest that the motion before the House today offers that kind of alternative. Let me outline the two objectives behind the establishment of such a maximum security prison. The primary objective, I suggest, would be the protection of society.
I believe that incarceration institutions in our society serve three main purposes. The first is to protect society. The second is to serve as a form of punishment, and the third, but not necessarily the last, is, hopefully, to assist in rehabilitating an inmate to become a good citizen in our society.
Let me deal with the first objective of protecting society. I briefly described the incident in Woodstock which has put the need for protection for society into perspective for people in my area. At the present time there are hardened criminals serving time in our institutions alongside those who are less inclined to have a criminal type of personality. However, due to the overcrowded conditions, they are exposed to hard-core prisoners when this should not be the case. The time has come for us to relieve the pressure of overcrowding in prisons while establishing a type of prison for habitual criminals or those sentenced to life that is located in a remote area, such as this motion provides for.
The second objective of this motion reflects the need to improve the criminal justice system in this country. Members are aware that we are currently unable to keep certain prisoners incarcerated once they have served their sentence. While there may be a good reason for that, the inadequacy of our present laws allows people to leave prison when we know they may commit further and usually more serious crime than the first offence.
The overcrowding also leads to unrest and an increased level of violence in the prisons. This is a deterrent to those prisoners who want to be rehabilitated, and we must find a better way than these special handling units for segregating these people. There should be another mechanism for segregating hardened criminals from those who want to learn to help themselves while at the same time providing the degree of protection that Canadians are seeking.
In the time I have remaining let me say a few words about the justification and feasibility of the concept behind this motion. I have suggested there is an urgent need to deal with this issue as a result of the unrest in our prisons and in our society owing to the number of homicides that we are witnessing today. There is also a need to show people that we are

November 29, 1984
Maximum Security Prison
concerned about what is happening. This concern could be expressed by the establishment of such an institution in a remote area, whether in the Northwest Territories or on a remote island. The reason for putting a prison in such an area is that the environment itself would act as a perimeter control. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) could attest to the fact that if anyone escaped from a prison in the Northwest Territories he would either freeze to death in the winter or be eaten by bugs in the summer. If the prison is situated on a remote island, the same environmental control would exist by its very nature. Such a prison would allow us to segregate hardened criminals from those who are hoping to establish themselves back within society.
Another consideration for such a prison is its cost effectiveness. The amount of security required would be much less in a remote area than at Millhaven or prisons in other highly populated areas.
Another compelling argument is its humaneness. 1 doubt that there are five Members here who have gone inside a special handling unit in one of our maximum security prisons. Our committee examined the prisons of this country. A special handling unit is a cell that does not have a window and may have one light. There is not even a window in the door. It is a desperate situation for a human to be in.
Studies have shown that that sort of inhumane treatment can be avoided in these special type of prisons. Those prisoners have more opportunity to move freely. In fact, there are some cases in which there are colonies where families can live with these prisoners. At the same time society is protected from those who will be desperate if they get out again.
Let me close by dealing with something which I, as a private Member, believe to be almost even more important than the subject matter of this motion. It concerns the reason why I believe the Government should accept this motion today.
There are basically three reasons. Without a doubt, I think that all of us in the House, including the Government, agree that our criminal justice system is inadequate. I think this has been expressed by the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General. While they may have different approaches to the subject, they have acknowledged the need to study the criminal justice system.
We are now getting increased pressure from the public to make such a review. This is evident in my constituency and it is evident in the House from a number of private Members' Bills calling for a return to capital punishment.
I think it is time that Parliament did something to indicate our concern about what is happening in the criminal justice system and recognized the need to tighten certain aspects of it.
The second point I want to make, which I believe was alluded to by the Leaders of all Parties during the election, is the need for greater authority and recognition to be given to private Members in the House. It is time that private Members were listened to more often.
I can see no harm in allowing an innocuous motion like this that only calls for the study of the feasibility of doing something. It does not permit the Government to do anything except study something. If that kind of motion cannot be accepted, then I am concerned about the role of the private Member in this House.
Finally, if I may have half a minute more, let me say that in this motion we have an opportunity for this House and the Government, if it will accept and pass it, to study some alternatives to capital punishment, for example, the establishment of an institution in some remote area where the public of Canada will be protected.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate but I am somewhat concerned about the resolution. I recognize that the Hon. Member in his proposal is very sincere and that what he is advocating, in his own words, is only a study and there is no harm in doing a study. I am nevertheless worried about the signals put out by this kind of study which may result in the construction of something which is a crossbreed between Alcatraz and Siberia. It is something that frightens me as a Member. It signals that we are losing faith that we can ever rehabilitate prisoners. I am frankly very worried about that thought.
Another question comes to mind, and I see the Hon. Member for the Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) here in the House and he must be worried: Does this mean that if someone is undesirable to one section of the country, we can send him off to another part thus indicating that that part of the country is less worthy? Does this mean that if we choose an island, say in the riding of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), Belle Isle or some other place, that that would indicate the same message for that part of the country or any other island or remote area? I am worried about doing anything that would be that kind of signal.
We have to think why we incarcerate people. Is it solely to punish them? If the answer is yes, then surely our penal system would look different from what it is today, not that it is the greatest right now, but I would suggest that if to incarcerate people is only to punish them, we would probably still be whipping prisoners, cutting off arms, and carrying out capital punishment. We have decided as a society that that is not what we want to do with human beings. We have decided that we do not want to put people away forever and throw away the key. Even contemplating such an idea would indicate that we are abandoning the hope of rehabilitating people and that we have decided life has no value for certain human beings. In my view and belief, that is very wrong.
One could say that I am a soft touch or that I have a bleeding heart, but I am of the view that there is no life not worth saving. There is value in each and every one of us. If there is such a value, as I believe there is, then we need not think any further whether or not this scheme is feasible or whether we should study it any further.
November 29, 1984

I say no to capital punishment. I say no to throwing away the key. I say no to any kinds of schemes with similar results. I say yes to reform of our penal system. I say there is a better way. But the ultimate objective of that better way is surely not to dispose of human beings, it is to make them more worthwhile. It is to make things more meaningful for them and eventually for all of society.
That is the extent of my remarks. They are brief but they are heartfelt. 1 do wish that all Members of this House would consider the signal and the objective of a resolution such as this.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), I want first to pay tribute to the Hon. Member for the outstanding record he has in this area. I have had the privilege of working with the Member as a member of the Justice Committee for the last five years. I know that before that time, my colleague, the former Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, the former justice critic for my Party, Stuart Leggatt, worked very closely with the Hon. Member for Oxford and always spoke very highly of him.
In his capacity as justice critic, Mr. Leggatt had an opportunity to serve on the subcommittee on penitentiaries, which has already been referred to by the Hon. Member for Oxford. I think it is important in addressing the substance of the motion today that we examine the content of that subcommittee report and also look at what has happened to the report since it was tabled in 1977.
That report arose from the work of the unanimous and non-partisan work of a group of Members of Parliament who were appointed to look into conditions in the Canadian penitentiary system because of some very serious incidents of violence in the system. These incidents occurred in a variety of areas whether Kingston, Laval or other areas. The subcommittee found that the penitentiary system was in a state of crisis at the time they reported. The sub-committee said that unless its recommendations were acted upon and acted upon urgently, that state of crisis would continue.
1 think the Member for Oxford has clearly documented the fact that unfortunately a succession of Solicitors General did not act upon those fundamental recommendations. I will mention Attorneys General as well. I refer to Attorneys General because surely one of the most fundamental recommendations made by that subcommittee was a recommendation that first and foremost in the Canadian criminal justice system we must look at alternatives to imprisonment. That recommendation has been shown to be so very true. The recommendation which that committee made six or seven years ago has been clearly brought out by the experience we have seen since that time. I deeply regret that governments, and I must say governments both Liberal and Conservative, have failed to respond to that very fundamental recommendation.
If we are going to be serious about reform of the criminal justice system and reform of the penal system, we must recognize that our prisons are far too crowded. There are
Maximum Security Prison
literally thousands of people in the Canadian prison system. Instead of serving time behind walls, they should be repaying their debt to society in other non-custodial ways. There are many reasons for that. One can look solely at it from an economic perspective and note that last year the statistics show that in the most recent year for which there were comprehensive statistics, that is 1980 to 1981, governments collectively spent some S845 million on the delivery of adult correctional services.
What is the comparative cost of imprisonment as opposed to non-custodial forms of supervision, community supervision, for example? The per capita cost to Canadians was nine times as high for imprisonment as it was for non-custodial forms of supervision. These alternatives to imprisonment could include fine options, fines geared to income, and community work service. Instead of the community being required to pay some $40,000 to $50,000 per year to incarcerate an individual, he is repaying his debt to society. It can include restitution to the victim of the crime.
There are a variety of other options to imprisonment. We have seen in the country partly as a result of the mandatory 25-year provisions, the compromise made at the time of the debate on capital punishment, prisons which are rapidly becoming overcrowded institutions; indeed, they already are far too crowded. We will have to come to grips with the reality that 25-year minimum sentences will have to be re-examined. If they are not, I predict that we will see serious problems in the very near future.
Overcrowding has a devastating impact on the prison system. We have already looked at the implications of double-bunking within the prison system. We have seen a dramatic rise in violence within the prison system over the last couple of years, whether it be suicides, violence by prisoner against prisoner or indeed violence by prisoner against guard. We have seen the tragedy of Archambault where a number of guards were killed. The level of that violence will surely increase unless we in this Parliament come to grips with the fact that the prison system in Canada has failed.
In the future, in 10 or 20 or 30 years, Canadians will look back on the prison system as one of the most dramatic failures in the criminal justice system. We will ask ourselves as citizens how it was that we could possibly tolerate a system which so demonstrably failed to meet its objectives. We know all too well that there is no serious attempt to rehabilitate in many institutions.
Another critical recommendation of the subcommittee was that there should be meaningful opportunities for work in institutions. I believe a national prison industries program was suggested. That recommendation has not been implemented by a succession of governments. Instead of incarcerating people for lengthy terms without any possibility of rehabilitation, we should be looking at the opportunity for meaningful and effective work for people who are in fact imprisoned.

November 29, 1984
Maximum Security Prison
The motion before the House arises as a result of the recommendations of the subcommittee on penitentiaries in 1977. Indeed it is similar to-although it is not in the same terms-recommendation 63 of the subcommittee. I have listened with great interest to the comments of the Hon. Member for Oxford and of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on this motion. I think a number of very important concerns were raised. In proposing the adoption of this motion, I believe the Hon. Member for Oxford said that there were two primary motives. One was the protection of society, and the second was the need to improve the criminal justice ssytem. I do not think any Member of the House would disagree with those being fundamental objectives of the criminal justice system and the penal system in the country.
We have to ask ourselves carefully whether the implementation of this motion would achieve those objectives and, if so, what would be the other implications of the motion. One of the concerns I would raise with respect to the motion and the way in which it is framed-and I know the Hon. Member is aware of this-is that in many instances prisoners sentenced to terms of life imprisonment are in fact the least disruptive or the best prisoners, in a sense, within institutions. I have consistently heard from guards, wardens and indeed other prisoners that lifers recognize that they have a term of life imprisonment. Life means life. There are many misconceptions about that. It means that after a certain term of years one is eligible for parole. That is all it means-eligible for parole. In most cases these people simply want to do their time quietly and without causing disruption in the institution. It is some of the other elements in prison-at Kent Institution, for example, the elements they call the bikers, the punks and people serving terms of shorter duration for break and enter and crimes of that nature-who have tended to be more involved in violent and disruptive acts within institutions.
To suggest that those people who are sentenced to life imprisonment might pose a greater threat to society-I do not accept that the evidence bears that out. If we are talking about the protection of society, I believe those people are serving their terms within maximum security institutions. I do not think that moving lifers to another part of the country, whether it is the Northwest Territories-and I am sure we will hear a word or two on that suggestion from the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson)-or another area, will result in enhanced security to the community. By and large they are not the people who would pose a threat to the community in the institutions in which they are presently located.
What about the second objective, the need to improve the criminal justice system? Will this in fact achieve that objective? I have some serious concerns about that. In effect, we are banishing these individuals to a term of imprisonment in a remote area. Having said that, I recognize the intent of the Hon. Member's motion. I think the intent is worthwhile. I believe it is that in that kind of environment the opportunity would be greater for the individual not to have such a restrictive environment.
The Hon. Member asked how many Members of the House have actually been inside a cell in a special handling unit. I have certainly visited special handling units. They are inhumane and degrading institutions which I do not think play any part in a civilized criminal justice system. The motive of the Hon. Member in seeking to replace those institutions, those wings or those special handling units, with another type of institution is good. I share the concern which he has expressed with respect to those institutions. However, 1 wonder whether we are in fact adopting the correct approach by substituting banishment to a remote area for those admittedly defective institutions.
As well, I wonder about the implications in terms of support networks for prisoners. Even though they may be serving terms of life imprisonment, there is an opportunity for some of them-and we do not know how many-to be released on parole at some point. If they are to be released, surely the kind of support networks which are essential for release must be present. They must have a network which is not literally thousands of miles away but which is closer, whether it be family, friends or an opportunity for half-way houses. I suppose the Hon. Member might argue that individuals in that category could presumably be transferred closer to their families and closer to the communities in which they would ultimately live. I would certainly want to see that element studied carefully before such a proposal were to be adopted.
Ultimately, I believe that what the Hon. Member is seeking is not unreasonable. He is seeking an assurance that in dealing with the small number of prisoners within the federal system who are presumably designated by institutions-and in some cases presumably voluntarily-as people who will likely be serving lengthy sentences, those sentences should be served in the most humane manner possible. I remind Hon. Members of the House that the sentence is to deprivation of liberty. So often we forget that that is the sentence, that we should not be going beyond that and depriving prisoners of their other human rights as well.
Let me say in closing that the motion calls upon the Government to study this question. That is very much in keeping with the suggestion of the subcommittee on penitentiaries in 1977. As long as it is clearly understood that what we are seeking is a study and that many of the questions which have been raised with respect to this proposal will be addressed, I certainly think that such a study would be appropriate. I do not belive that it should in any way be construed as the first and most important priority in the criminal justice system, but in so far as it attempts to deal with the problem, which is a serious problem, it is worthy of support.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with this opportunity to speak to the motion, but first of all, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) for drawing the attention of the House to the problem of prison inmates with long-term sentences, including
November 29, 1984

those sentenced to life imprisonment. My government is aware that this particular group of inmates, whose numbers are growing, is becoming a difficult issue for Canada's Correctional Service and for the penal system in general. Although the problems are complex, they are not always clearly defined, and as a result, they will not be as easy to solve as the motion may lead us to believe.
Of course, long-term offenders and those sentenced to life imprisonment have always been a part of prison populations, in Canada and the rest of the world. However, since they were incarcerated, they have never been deemed to be a specific risk or particularly dangerous. On the contrary, Correctional Service authorities have found that in their experience, "lifers", as they are commonly referred to, are among the most settled and stable elements of the prison population. In fact, it is often said they have a stabilizing effect on younger and less mature inmates.
Mr. Speaker, exhaustive studies conducted both in Canada and abroad have regularly demonstrated that the conditional release of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment involves very little risk. Recently, the National Parole Board published the results of a study which followed the progress of 308 paroled lifers for twelve years, from 1970 to 1981.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Burnaby, on a point of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the Hon. Member but I would like some clarification. I realize the Hon. Member is new to the House, but nevertheless I believe there are rules about reading speeches. I know we are allowed to use notes, but I think this should be pointed out, Mr. Speaker. I do realize the Hon. Member is new-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate the fact that the Hon. Member is a new Member. She is looking at some notes to get her speech in order.
[ Translation]


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the study showed that out of 308 lifers given full parole for the first time, only 20 per cent were incarcerated again for committing new offences, none of which involved any loss of life. The failure rate was only 6.5 per cent, less than half the average rate of 15 per cent.
These conclusions do not diminish the seriousness of the crimes of which these individuals were convicted, nor do they question the appropriateness of the severe sentences they were given. However, they do indicate it may not be advisable to earmark what would probably be very considerable sums of money for the construction of maximum security penitentiaries in remote areas, specifically for this group of inmates.
Maximum Security Prison
With respect to the small minority in that group of exceptionally dangerous inmates, the Correctional Service has very appropriate means to control their behaviour. Canada's maximum security institutions are second to none in the world. Using modern technology, the Correctional Service has improved or will soon improve security around the main institutions. In addition, the establishment of special detention units is one more way to isolate and control the more violent inmates in an institution.
Even though it is not urgent at this time to take special security measures concerning lifers and other inmates serving long sentences, the Solicitor General's department remains concerned about their particular needs and the problems they cause.
The question of long jail sentences was the focus of attention in 1976 after the adoption of Criminal code amendments and the introduction of the concept of first- and second-degree murder.
As Hon. Members surely know, first degree murder now results in a mandatory life sentence, with the possibility of parole after 25 years.
As to second-degree murder, it also calls for a life sentence, but in that case the inmate may be paroled after a minimum of ten years, although the courts can raise that minimum to 25 years.
Mr. Speaker, such lengthy jail sentences have given a new dimension to the correctional system. Before that, an inmate would seldom serve that much time behind bars. It seems that those sentences might have a new impact on both the inmate population and the correctional system.
Some people have been wondering whether long sentences might not make inmates desperate and more dangerous since they would conclude that since they have nothing to lose, they can resort to violence in the institution or even attempt to escape. Fortunately, I can say with confidence that, so far, nothing has given currency to that belief.
On the other hand, some people fear that such harsh sentences, whether they are served by lifers or by inmates with long sentences of limited duration, might have demoralizing consequences on prisoners on the psychological, social and even physical levels. That issue has been under consideration and research is continuing, although the findings so far are equivocal: although they do not dismiss the possibility of demoralizing consequences, they do not confirm that they are inevitable, nor do they predict their exact nature.
We are therefore faced with many important questions which still remain answered about the nature of the problems these inmates will have to face in the prison system. These questions will become increasingly relevant as the number of prisoners, especially lifers, increases as it certainly will. Since it is inevitable that the number of lifers will increase, our

November 29, 1984
Maximum Security Prison
prisons should house at least 2,000 murderers in the first degree by the year 2000.
The Government, and especially the Solicitor General, is considering these issues actively as well as some initiatives which would solve problems before they occur. Special establishments with limited access and high security or simply specialized correctional facilities, are among the options available. We shall continue to examine schemes such as those mentioned in the motion, but for the moment, we are far from being in agreement about the merit of such an approach.
The Department of the Solicitor General has created a departmental committee on lengthy incarceration made up of representatives of the Correctional Service Canada, the National Parole Board, as well as the Research and Corrections Policy Divisions of the Ministry Secretariat. This committee must consider every operational alternative. In addition, it coordinates the extremely varied activities of the Department with a view to studying the problems facing this group of inmates and to take the necessary action to prevent and solve these problems. The committee will publish, in the very near future in fact, its first working paper which for the first time will give out information on this group of inmates and which will be used to develop the necessary guidelines and programs. 1 also wish to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the October 1984 issue of the Canadian Criminology Review. That special issue deals exclusively with present research on longterm imprisonment. It reflects the interest generated by the review the Solicitor General initiated. The articles and studies in that periodical provide useful information on that very important matter and remind us that we have still much to learn.
In the Department of the Solicitor General, research is made on various important points, namely the adjustment of prisoners to long sentences, their behaviour in jail, the problems they face, the difficulties met by institutions which must make proper programs available to lifers and possible housing alternatives within institutions and special facilities.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of those efforts, steps will be taken to continue to protect the public, and the staff and prisoners in Canadian penitentiaries. If special facilities such as those mentioned in the motion or any other kind of institution are felt to be necessary, action will be taken in due time, but that time has not come yet.
I suggest that this interesting proposal put forward by the Hon. Member be considered as an alternative by the government. Considering the research and the high costs involved by such a proposal, it should not be considered offhand as the only alternative available.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief because I understand that a gentleman from the other side of the House also wishes to speak on this issue. I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) for bringing this very interesting idea forward once again. As he said in his introduction, it is not something new.
I think the difficulty that we have in putting something like this into operation is that it entails a radical change in thinking. The traditional Canadian point of view was expressed very well by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Had we in Canada the same type of penal traditions as exist for instance in the U.S.S.R., our attitude might be different and we would not have these half-studies that recommend that the thing be put on the back burner for a while.
Apart from that mind-set, there are some other difficulties with this idea. One of those difficulties is the issue of costs. There is a very small local jail in Frobisher Bay. 1 believe it costs something like $150 a day to keep someone in that minimum security facility. There are many transportation costs involved in taking prisoners and staff back and forth. There is the cost of heating to be borne if we are to keep prisoners in the manner to which they have become accustomed in southern Canada. Another difficulty that is encountered is the matter of staff. If there were to be a facility in a very remote location, presumably we would have to take staff in for a week and then back out for a week.
Whenever a penitentiary is proposed for a certain location, whether it be in southern or northern Canada, the natural reaction of the local population is to say: 'No, we do not want all these guys in our community1. The initial reaction to this idea in the Territories is not in any way any different from the reactions in southern Canada. When some thought is given to the matter in a little more detail, as has happened in a couple of communities, the attitude changes somewhat. What I would really like to do is to put on the record the requests made by a couple of communities in my constituency that are actively looking at the idea of soliciting a federal penitentiary for their areas.
The first such town is Fort Smith in which there already is a territorial jail for females and a facility for young offenders. The people of Fort Smith have the support base in that there is a college there and the area is semi-remote. They do have a daily jet service and there is a road that goes to Fort Smith, so we are not faced with the difficulties of a very remote location. If the population could be assured that such a facility would be a secure facility, they would likely welcome the idea. As I said before, they are accustomed to penal institutions and there is a very small economic base in the community. They would like to encourage that type of thing.
The second location that has expressed an interest in having a federal penitentiary is the Town of Pine Point. The Chamber of Commerce, under the presidency of a gentleman by the name of Mr. Ward Lynds, to whom I was speaking only a few days ago, is actively pursuing the idea and would like it to be discussed by the municipal authorities so that it will eventually have the support of the entire community. That is another location which is what might be called semi-remote. The local
November 29, 1984

Chamber of Commerce presents a very good argument as to why a federal penitentiary should be built in that location.
In order to allow my friend on the opposite side to make a few concluding remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will thank you for the opportunity to make my views known and will resume my seat.


Mr. John V. Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will begin by applauding the Hon. Member who moved the motion for his position on capital punishment. I appreciate that the intent behind his motion is to find an alternative to capital punishment. I would like to state for the record that I am unequivocally opposed to capital punishment and I share my friend's concerns with respect to the inevitability of the return of capital punishment if the matter is brought before this House again. In fact, I fear that if the matter were voted upon in this House, the motion would carry. Accordingly, I think we ought to do everything possible to find some alternative to capital punishment.
There is no question in my mind that it will be a very sad day indeed for this nation if capital punishment is returned to the law books of the country. It will set our country back and will indicate to the world that we are returning to the law of the jungle and that this country is uncivilized, indecent and inhumane. I certainly urge Hon. Members to give it some very lengthy thought before they speak quickly and advocate the return of capital punishment.
The Hon. Member is suggesting that a penal institution be established in a remote area of the country. I have some serious difficulties with respect to the Hon. Member's logic, although I do not for one moment question his sincerity. On the one hand, he speaks of the protection of society and the rehabilitation of inmates. I cannot imagine how a penal colony in some remote portion of the country will assist in the rehabilitation of an inmate who is serving a lengthy sentence of life imprisonment. I agree whole heartedly with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), who says that life is sacred. Human life is sacred, and to banish semone to a penal colony would eliminate any hope that that person might have of some day resuming his or her law-abiding life.
I do not quarrel with the spirit of the Hon. Member's motion but, once again, I have very serious difficulties with respect to its logic. The Government ought first to determine what is the purpose of incarceration. It seems to me that the paramount purpose of incarceration is the protection of society. The second purpose of incarceration is the rehabilitation of the inmate.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that the time has expired. I would urge Hon. Members not to support the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, on November 26 I put a question to the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) concerning the decision of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), announced in his Economic Statement, to cancel the construction of the Toxicology Centre at the University of Guelph and the University of Toronto. I asked the Minister why the centre, which is so important to the development of new information, research in toxicology and to the training of people in Canada would be cancelled by the Government.
This centre has been in the making for some ten years. A sub-committee of the National Research Council and an associated committee on toxicology have been working for ten years to put together an independent centre which was to be jointly sponsored by the federal Government, the provincial Government and industry.
In responding to my question, the Minister indicated that the cost of the centre had gone from $32 million to $50 million. She suggested that it was a capital cost, and that it was the federal Government's cost. In fact, those figures are not correct. The cost to the federal Government was to be $16 million, $10 million for capital and $6 million for operational costs, and the same cost would apply to the Province. Private industry was to provide $3 million for capital cost and $5 million over a five-year period. The actual capital costs are estimated to be between $20 million and $23 million. Those figures have remained fairly constant. It was to be a centre of excellence for toxicology research and training. It was associated with two universities in order that post-graduate degrees in toxicology could be provided.
There is massive concern in the population with respect to toxicology and toxins associated with cancer. Dr. Emmanual Farber, Chairman of the Board at the University of Toronto Toxicology Centre, is a pathologist in cancer research. When we turn on our television sets we are informed about concern with insecticides and with toxic chemicals in the Niagara River. The Government had a chance to spend $10 million in capital and $6 million in operating costs over a five-year period and, together with industry, the province and two universities, would have made a world-class facility. It is simply criminal that the Government took this decision.
The most disturbing part is that the Minister obviously had not read her briefing notes and had no idea about the whole project. The figures she used were erroneous. If the figures are

November 29, 1984
Adjournment Debate
not right, then we can question whether the Minister really tried to fight for the institution. It was not only a federal decision, it involved the Province, universities and the private sector. The Government talks blithely about involving the private sector. The private sector was willing to provide substantial funds for this project. We must wonder whether the Minister knew about the project.
We note daily on our television sets concerns regarding toxins in health, consumer products, industry and manufacturing. The Minister suggested that $700,000 was being spent on research into toxicology. The people I talked to at the University of Guelph said that they would be surprised if there was even 10 per cent of that amount. There may be $700,000 in research but certainly not $700,000 a year for research into toxicology.
This Government blithely talks about consultation. I defy the Minister to say there was consultation with the University of Guelph, the University of Toronto, the Province of Ontario or private industry before the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stood in his place and cancelled this institution. There simply was no consultation.
When we combine the cut-backs in the Canadian Wildlife Service and the cut-backs in monitoring of toxins in Lake Ontario and other places, Mr. Speaker, we see a government which is not dedicated to preserving the environment. Certainly it is not interested in the development of the University of Guelph or the University of Toronto in that regard. It is certainly not a friend of those universities or the City of Guelph in this whole matter because there were some 160 jobs involved in this project over the long haul. I just hope the Minister will reconsider this action and re-establish this institution.


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity of responding to the Hon. Member opposite. I stand by the figures I have indicated to this House these last few days, and here are additional data that certainly should be of interest to my hon. colleague.
In its 1982 study of federal programs on toxic chemicals, the Treasury Board made known the following facts: During the fiscal year 1981-82, more than 2,600 person-years and $143 million were committed, of which 450 person-years and $20 million were for research purposes.
Twenty four government departments have undertaken research work on toxic chemicals in compliance with 58 acts of Parliament.
One item that was criticized by the study was the lack of an overall, consistent program in that area. There was concern among other things about work duplication, and apparently no overall policy or priority had been developed in that respect.
Major recommendations were made in that study, namely the need for a consistent, coordinated and efficient harmonization of efforts, through the establishment of a Canadian inter-departmental committee on toxic chemicals.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this Government has absolutely no intention of withdrawing from or relinquishing its important role in the area of studies and research on toxic chemicals.
But again let me say that the $16 million the Canadian Government would have invested in the building of the Guelph Centre were indeed millions of dollars that would have been going into construction work rather than into actual research activities.
Therefore, it is false to suggest that Canadian research and expertise on toxic chemicals are reduced by such a cut. Quite the opposite, we are still increasing our funding for the building of such expert research facilities, and we are committed to increasing that research expertise on toxic chemicals, despite the difficulties resulting from the current economic situation.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, there should be an end to all that ideological nonsense with respect to that matter, and there should also be an end to the efforts to scare Canadians into believing this is being curtailed.


NATIONAL PARKS-EMPLOYMENT AT KOUCHIBOUGUAC NATIONAL PARK, N.B. (B) INQUIRY CONCERNING EMPLOYMENT FOR LAID-OFF WORKERS
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, my question on November 16 of this year was directed to the Hon. Minister of the Environment and concerned employment at Kouchibouguac National Park.
The Park's history goes back several years, when, in order to create the park, it was necessary to expropriate some 200 families, and subsequently force them to move. Mr. Speaker, this was not a very happy time in our history. Of course, compensation was received for loss of property and for moving expenses, but more important, promises were made and especially a commitment that things would improve. Commitment is the key word here. A commitment was made to create jobs for these people who had been forced to move out. Since then we have been able to employ about 200 people every year, and I am referring to seasonal workers, not to the government employees responsible for park administration. Seasonal employees are mostly engaged in various construction projects such as walkways to the beaches, nature paths, camping and picnic areas, ski huts, and so forth.
Much remains to be done. Work on park facilities is still going on. In fact, we could employ about 200 seasonal workers for several years more, and seasonal jobs are very much in demand. Kouchibouguac National Park is the main employer in this area and has been for some time.
November 29, 1984

Since work on the park was started, some 200 families have depended on this seasonal work. But now, all of a sudden, the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is announcing cutbacks that will affect the work on facilities in national parks.
When I asked the Hon. Minister of the Environment how these cutbacks would affect the people in my riding, I was told that not only will seasonal workers be affected but also that her Department intends to cut 305 person-years in the Department itself. I was also told that seven people in my riding will be losing their jobs, and I am referring to people working for the Canadian Wildlife Service in Sackville, but I will get back to that later. I must say the people in my riding are getting a pretty rough deal!
To get back to the jobs in the National Park, I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply. If the Government persists in cutting these jobs, it will be putting these families in a very difficult, not to say untenable situation, but it will also mean failure to meet commitments made to these people, commitments we have met since the Park's inception. No other sector in our economy can provide jobs for these people if they are not rehired. Even if the Hon. Minister claims that her Department's prime objective is not to create jobs, I would urge the Minister to review her position on cutbacks in national parks.
The commitment made by the Government to the people of Kouchibouguac, a commitment to maintain employment levels, must be met. Mr. Speaker, in doing so, the Hon. Minister would be keeping a promise made during the election campaign, which was to create thousands of jobs.


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: In answer to my colleague, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the first election promise we must keep is to reduce the huge deficit we are carrying and which will weigh heavily on our children and all future generations. We are going to have to tighten our belts to balance the budget and everybody will feel the pinch. I am sure that some people in the riding of my colleague will also have to suffer.
As far as the Kouchibouguac Park is concerned, we have actually spent more than $25 million to develop, maintain and operate the park since it was first opened 15 years ago. At this point in time, most of the development projects have been completed. Sure enough, lots of jobs were available last year at Kouchibouguac, but they did not have anything to do with environment programs. For instance, they were created under Unemployment Insurance Act Section 38, the Environment 2000 program-a pilot project which has now ended-Canada Works and the summer employment program.
My department now expects to open up 73 jobs in the Kouchibouguac Park next summer, 56 fewer than last year. But other jobs will be available under job creation programs as they are announced. My colleague the Minister of Employ-
Adjournment Debate
ment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has already announced that funds have been set aside for job creation, and I am sure that some of that money will be spent in the riding of the Hon. Member.


CHILDREN-SEXUAL ABUSE-BADGLEY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS. (B) GOVERNMENT POSITION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this occasion to follow up on questions I raised with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on November 8 with respect to the implementation of the recommendations of the Badgley Report on the sexual abuse of children.
The Badgley Commission was appointed in December of 1980. The report which was released in August of 1984, after over three years of study, documented what was unquestionably a national tragedy. Unfortunately, it is a national tragedy in which the victims are too often silent and traumatized.
The terms of reference of the Badgley Commission were to document the extend of child sexual abuse and recommend how young victims could be better protected; to consider how juvenile prostitution could be prevented and to determine the extent of the making of child pornography. After very extensive research, the committee came up with some very disturbing findings. I would like to take a couple of minutes to document the most serious of those findings.
For example, the committee found that at some time during their lives, about one in two females and one in three males have been victims of one or more unwanted sexual acts. These acts included being exposed to, being sexually threatened, being touched on a sexual part of the body and attempts to assault or being sexually assaulted. About four in five of these unwanted sexual acts have been first committed against these persons when they were children or youths. Four in 100 young females have been raped. Two in 100 young persons have experienced attempts or actual acts on unwanted anal penetration by a penis or by means of objects or fingers.
Acts of exposure constituted the largest single category of sexual offences committed against children. Cases were documented where such acts were followed by sexual assault.
The other major findings included the fact that three in five sexually abused children had also been threatened or physically coerced by their assailants. Young victims are as likely to be threatened or forced to engage in sexual acts by persons relatively close in age as by older persons.
A few young victims were physically injured but substantially more suffered emotional harm or trauma. About one in four of the assailants was a family member or a person in a position of trust. About half were friends or acquaintances and about one in six was a stranger. Virtually all of the assailants were males while one in 100 were female.
The final major report was that over two in five of all sexual assault homocides are committed against children 15 and younger. Children are the victims of three in four convicted

November 29, 1984
Adjournment Debate
sexual offenders found to be dangerous on sentencing by the courts.
This is a shocking report in the extent to which it documents child and sexual abuse in Canada. It is a 1,300 page indictment of governments, both provincial and federal, for having failed to respond to what is clearly a national tragedy.
It is particularly appropriate as we approach the international year of youth that this government be called upon to make a commitment, a commitment to Canada's young people, that this problem, this crisis of child sexual abuse will be dealt with, and dealt with in a serious and responsible way. The extent and scope of the problem has been clearly and eloquently documented by the Badgley Commission. They have made a number of recommendations which touch on both provincial and federal jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker.
I was most disappointed to note that the Throne Speech made no reference whatsoever to the report of the Badgley Commission on Child Sexual Abuse. I can only hope that the rather more general commitment in the Throne Speech to assistance to victims of family violence will also include immediate attention to the victims of child sexual abuse.
One of the most urgent recommendations of the Badgley Commission Report is the establishment of the office of a special commissioner who would report directly to the Prime Minister. Similar offices have been created in response to concerns in the areas of human rights and the status of women. The Government of Canada has established special bodies to respond to concerns in that area. The Badgley Commission Report recommended that the Government of Canada should establish an office of the commissioner reporting directly to the office of the Prime Minister which could be assigned the authority to review the many recommendations of the Badgley Commission Report, and basically serve as an agency which would initiate and co-ordinate the reforms which are called for at the federal level, and also ensure that both provincial governments and municipal governments respond as is appropriate.
In response to my question, the Minister of Justice indicating that he would be meeting with his colleagues at the provincial level in St. John's, I believe, on November 23, and meet they did. Arising from that meeting with his colleagues there was no reference whatever in the communique, certainly no public reference, to the very serious problems which were documented by the report of the Badgley Commission.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Speyer) will rise and give the House some indication of what the response will be of the Government both to these recommendations and the urgent recommendation with respect to the establishment of an office of the commissioner to co-ordinate the Government's response at the federal level.
This report cries out for action, and action now. There are no children in the House of Commons, but we have a special
trust and a special obligation to speak on their behalf, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Chris Speyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children carried out a great deal of work in preparing its report which, as the Hon. Member indicated, was published on August 22, 1984. The committee was chaired by Dr. Badgley of Toronto. In fulfilling its mandate it met with concerned groups and received over 250 written submissions, as well as conducting a research program which included national surveys on sexual child abuse. I do not think the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) overstates the case when he says the report is highly disturbing to anybody with any sensitivity.
Given the multi-faced dimensions of its terms of reference, this inquiry required contributions and co-operation with the provinces, with the municipalities in the legal and social fields.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby asked what we are going to do; what this Government plans to do about the problem and the recommendations submitted to the Committee? The answer is relatively simple. The Government is going to take steps to deal with the problem and to make Canada a safer country for children. But effective changes involving many disciplines and requiring close co-operation of the three levels of government cannot take place overnight, as desirable as that may be.
For example, consider the total number of recommendations made by the committee. There are a total of 52 recommendations, of which at least 30 call for a potential federal legislative response. Changes to the Criminal Code and to the Canada Evidence Act are the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. Before these can be acted upon, it will be necessary to review each proposed change with the provinces, the Crown prosecutors' office, the defence bar and the police community. Action will be forthcoming. It will be forthcoming promptly.
Several recommendations call for the strengthening of services to children. While most of these require provincial leadership, in the case of victim compensation there is a clear overlap into federal jurisdiction. It is imperative to recognize that implementation of these recommendations is a complex undertaking. With this fact in mind, a number of steps have already been undertaken in relation to the committee's findings.
The Departments of Justice and National Health and Welfare, the Ministries of the Solicitor General and Secretary of State, and Status of Women of Canada have formed an interdepartmental committee to co-ordinate the federal work. Officials of my Department consulted with the Canadian Council on Children and Youth in August, and a national consultation day in association with the Fifth International Congress on Child Abuse was held in Montreal in September. The response of non-governmental child care organizations in
November 29, 1984

the provinces is being followed up by officials in the Department of Justice. Many other actions are being taken.
Essentially the Member's point is correct. Badgley and his recommendations deserve to be treated swiftly. It is an incredibly disturbing report, and I recommend that all Members do read it.
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.26 the House adjourned.

Friday, November 30, 1984