1984-11-08

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to indicate before we proceed with this legislation that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) is just coming from Cabinet where we have been discussing matters; he will be here in a moment. I believe he is coming in now, so I guess we can get on with the business.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-3, an Act to amend various Acts as a consequence of the reconstitution of the courts in Ontario and Manitoba, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is very good of you to be so patient and understanding at such an early stage in what I am sure will be your most eminent career as Speaker.
The legislation before us is necessary because of initiatives taken by two provinces, Ontario and Manitoba. It has to do with the reorganization of the courts in those two provinces. In putting forward this legislation, we are responding to requests from those two provinces to bring our laws into conformity with their legislation.
In the case of Ontario, they are reconstituting the County and District Courts into a single District Court of Ontario. In the case of Manitoba, this reflects the merger of the County Courts in Manitoba with the Court of Queen's Bench which was effective on July 1, 1984.
These amendments, as anybody who has read the Bill will agree, are largely technical in nature. Their purpose is to delete obsolete references in federal legislation to courts and judicial officers in those two provinces. The amendments, you will also note, are contained in the schedule to the Bill. With respect to Ontario, they have a new Courts of Justice Act there, as I say, which provides for a province-wide District Court. There are two amendments that might require a little further explanation.
There is an amendment to Section 34 of the Judges Act which preserves the present requirement that judges reside within the county or district to which they are appointed or assigned, subject to a discretion in the Governor-in-Council to permit residence elsewhere of the judges of the District Court. It is preferable for a judge to reside within his own county or district.
I see the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is back in the House. It is a bit of a surprise to see him back here. Nevertheless, I welcome him back. I note with some interest that he is not the justice critic. The justice critic is a colleague of his from the lower mainland. I hope the lower mainland will not be any lower than it was in the last Parliament.


Mr. Deans:: Unlike the Tories, we wanted someone who knew what they were talking about.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am glad to see that he has been re-elevated to the justice level after his experience with the issue of prostitution.


Ian Deans: Tell us about the economic statement tonight.


John Carnell Crosbie: I would sooner discuss what I am discussing because this is what I am supposed to discuss. I am a member of the silent service. I am going to keep strictly within my own area of jurisdiction.
This is a matter of tremendous national importance. It is important that a judge reside in his own county or district. Please don't try to divert me.
Another very significant part of this legislation is that we are amending the Railway Act because the Province of Ontario has abolished the office of clerk of the peace and has requested the transfer of the record-keeping functions presently exercised by that officer under the Railway Act to the office of the Crown Attorney. If you understand that, you are far ahead of me.
With respect to Manitoba, all references to the former County Courts are deleted and now the references are to the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba. One thing that might be noted as well in the amendments is the repeal of paragraph 21 (5) (d) of the Judges Act which presently prohibits the payment of travelling allowances to a judge of the Court of Queen's Bench for attendance at the City of Winnipeg. Since these courts have merged, a number of judges are required to reside in judicial centres other than Winnipeg, so we are repealing that provision to permit the payment of validly incurred travelling expenses by judges of the court for their attendance at the capital.

November 8, 1984
Courts Amendment Act
All of these amendments are deemed to have come into effect in Manitoba on July 1, 1984. This will permit the filing of all legal documents and so on without any confusion in the court process. That is the purpose of this Bill.
I would like on this first occasion on which I am speaking to the House as Minister of Justice to make a few general points as to the way I hope to approach the responsibilities of this office.


Ian Deans: Did you clear this with Erik?


John Carnell Crosbie: I clear everything I do with Erik. However, I am not saying what Erik that is. I have an Erik in my office. As a matter of fact, the Hon. House Leader for the New Democratic Party often gives me an earache.


Ian Deans: The ache you give me isn't in my ear.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am not going to comment on what happens to other parts of the gentleman's anatomy. They are all unmentionable.
This is my first occasion to address the House as Minister of Justice. I want all Hon. Members to know that I am following in a tremendous tradition. Sir John A. Macdonald was our first Minister of Justice. I do not say this to make any other Members of the House nervous; it just happens to be a fact that Sir John A. Macdonald was the first Minister of Justice of this country. The Hon. House Leader for the NDP would be interested in the fact that one of that Minister's first accomplishments was legalizing trade unions in the country. He brought in the legislation that made it possible for trade unions to function in this country.
We are a caring Party. We are a Party that is responsible for the legitimization of the entire trade union movement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: One hundred years before the poor House Leader for the NDP appeared on the scene, we legalized trade unions in this country. He would not be here today if we had not done so.


Ian Deans: I beg your pardon? What has that to do with anything?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my predecessor, Sir John A.-I am Sir John C., he was Sir John A.-was responsible as well for the formation of the Northwest Mounted Police. These were two of his accomplishments while he was Minister of Justice.
It was a Conservative Minister of Justice, Sir John Thompson, who, from 1885 to 1892, codified the Canadian criminal law. The Criminal Code was brought in under his tenure as Minister of Justice. Of course, he became Prime Minister as well if only for a few hours or a few days.
It was a Conservative Minister of Justice, Davie Fulton, who of course is still a distinguished member of the Canadian
community living in British Columbia, who brought in the first Bill of Rights for Canada in 1960. It was a Conservative Minister of Justice, Senator Jacques Flynn, a member of the other House, who initiated the criminal law review in 1979. The Hon. House Leader of the NDP will be interested in the fact that that was the first fundamental review of the Criminal Code undertaken since the Criminal Code came into effect in 1893. That review is still under way. The Law Reform Commission of Canada has had much to do with the Criminal Code review that is under way and with the changes that were introduced in the House some months ago. Many of these changes will be reintroduced.
If it is permissible, Mr. Speaker, I might just outline some of the things to which I hope the House will attend while I am Minister of Justice over the period of the next three or four years.


Mr. Waddell:: Conservative Ministers of Justice also hanged Louis Riel.


John Carnell Crosbie: I knew someone from the other side would bring that up. I believe this year is the 100th anniversary of that sad occasion.
Shortly, Mr. Speaker, I will be introducing some changes to the Criminal Code which I hope the House will find possible to pass quickly. These will be non-controversial changes and many of them will be procedural changes to the Criminal Code which are long overdue.
After the Christmas break, we will be introducing other amendments to the Criminal Code in more controversial areas. For example, the area of soliciting and the problem of prostitution will have to be dealt with by legislation brought before this House within the next few months. We are now waiting for the report of the committee of Mr. Paul Fraser which was appointed some months ago to investigate and report in connection with the fields of prostitution and pornography.
We have received a report from Professor Badgley on child abuse which is another area of concern, of course, to Canadians. If any Member would like a copy of that 1,300-page report, we can supply that Member with a copy. We will have to deal with that area.
The area of hate propaganda will be dealt with and those amendments will come after Christmas as well. Provisions or new suggestions with respect to impaired and drunken driving will be introduced to the House. These are all issues that will hopefully be dealt with by Hon. Members of this House in the next six months, and I hope that we will make progress during the next year. Other amendments to the Criminal Code will be brought in after that. Hopefully, if the plan works, we will have a completely revised Criminal Code in place in Canada at the end of the next three or four years. This will require much attention and work from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
November 8, 1984

[DOT] (UI5)
In addition to these areas, as Minister of Justice I hope to be introducing to the House, within the next several months, suggested amendments to the Divorce Act. Particular attention will be given to improving the law with respect to the enforcement of maintenance orders. This will ensure that people who are awarded maintenance, and who badly need to be supported, can receive that support in a more effective manner, or can enforce the orders for maintenance and support that they obtain. We also hope to improve the mediation process in connection with the whole area of divorce. In addition to the legislation in that area, I hope to keep the NDP critic busy.
We will be bringing in legislation immediately after Christmas which will deal with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was enacted as part of our Constitution in 1982. That legislation will amend many of the statutes of Canada because of inconsistencies with the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In addition, there are areas of great importance in which it is not clear whether particular provisions of the present Canadian legal system are in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will be asking the House to consider those areas and to give advice on areas of great difficulty and subtlety. It should be an extremely interesting and important subject of discussion in committee, as well as in the House. As I have said, there will be legislation introduced in the House as soon as possible after the Christmas break.
I am also charged with the responsibility of suggesting to the Government policies and positions with respect to the issue of the constitutional conference, which must be held by April 17 of next year, on aboriginal issues. I am currently involved in becoming properly briefed and understanding what the issues are, in order to prepare for that conference. My colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) and myself have already met. As well, we will be meeting with the provinces and representatives of aboriginal groups to prepare for that most important constitutional conference.
How do I want to approach the justice area? As I see it, it is largely an area which is non-partisan. That is the way in which I intend to approach it. In other words, if anyone has suggestions, no matter who they might be-they might even be a member of the NDP, not to say the Liberal Party-the suggestions will be treated on their merits. Of course, I would be surprised if their suggestions have any merits, but it will all be dealt with in a non-partisan manner. If there are any suggestions from the Conservative caucus, of course, they will be treated in the same manner.
Seriously speaking, I view most of this area as being one which is not very partisan, and I would want to approach it in that sense. I would be amenable to changes which are introduced if they appear to be sensible and reasonable. Nothing could be more sensible and reasonable than that. I am prepared to listen to critics of both the NDP and Liberal Parties, and if their suggestions are worth-while, I would certainly be prepared to make changes in accordance therewith. I am
Courts Amendment Act
interested in seeing the law reformed and changed, but only after it has been given sufficient thought.
I do not want to rush at things or endanger individual rights because there is a certain evil present in society. I do not want to change the law too rapidly in order to try to eradicate that particular anti-social behaviour and in so doing endanger everyone's individual rights. We must be extremely careful of what we do in the areas of pornography, child abuse, hate propaganda, soliciting and the like, in order to ensure that we take a balanced approach and act with concern and compassion, that we do not panic in our desire to improve society and to do away with the social evil. I want to be careful in this regard as I am a believer, Mr. Speaker, in individual rights, particularly in these areas.
I will be asking the House of Commons standing committee for its views and opinions on matters which go before it or on matters to which it might be referred.
With respect to judges, Mr. Speaker, I will be introducing amendments to the Judges Act as well later on. I am now considering the question of salaries and the emoluments of judges. There was a report made by Mr. Otto Lang in committee about a year and a half ago, I believe, with respect to statutory provisions concerning compensation for judges and what should be done. No action was taken in connection with that report. Therefore, the issue of compensation for our judges who are appointed by the Government of Canada to the provincial Superior Courts, District and County Courts, as well as our own Federal Court, is a matter which must be dealt with by the House in the next few months as well.
I have to act, Mr. Speaker, as spokesman for our judges who are not in the position to act publicly, in any event, with respect to their own interests and concerns. They are appointed to the bench and cannot involve themselves in public debate or controversy. The position of the Minister of Justice, therefore, is that he must act as their representative and I intend to do so. If I feel that their needs are clear and that certain actions should be taken which are fair and equitable, even if they might be controversial and not popular with the public, I will put forward their case and ask the House to be sympathetic in its decision as to what should be done in connection with salaries and other provisions relating to the judges of this country, who have an extremely difficult task, Mr. Speaker, a task which has become of tremendously increased significance since we adopted the Constitution in 1982 and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our judges have been given by the people of this country, or their representatives, tremendous powers to decide whether legislation is valid or invalid, whether or not it is in order and whether or not it corresponds with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We need, therefore, a first-class bench. We need first-class men and women appointed to the judiciary of this country who will act as our judges, and the events of the last several years have given that need even greater importance.

November 8, 1984
Courts Amendment Act
With respect to the appointment of judges, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am interested in appointing nothing but first-class, qualified men and women as judges across this country. Everyone will be considered no matter what their beliefs might be. I intend to consult the provincial Attorneys General during the process of appointment of judges. They will not be ignored, as in some cases they were in the past. There will be a definite process of consultation with the provincial Attorneys General and Ministers of Justice before judicial appointments are made. There will be consultation, of course, with the Chief Justices of the courts and other colleagues, as well as Hon. Members of this House, in order to have their views as to people they think should be considered for judicial appointment. We will be happy to receive any suggestions, which we will look into and ensure that consideration is given.
Of course, we will continue the practice of referring those under consideration for judicial appointment to a committee of the Canadian Bar Association for review and evaluation. To date we have not made any judicial appointments but there will be some coming up in the immediate future, including an appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada which, of course, is very important.
Mr. Justice Ritchie has had to retire due to ill health. He would have retired by next June in any event, having reached the statutory age of 75, but because of the state of his health he has retired a few months earlier. I would like to congratulate him on his long judicial career in the Supreme Court of Canada. He was appointed by Prime Minister Diefenbaker and his Government in, I think, 1959 and has had a most distinguished judicial career. I well remember him as the federal counsel to the royal commission which investigated the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada. I hope that Mr. Justice Ritchie's health will improve as he retires from the bench, and that he will have a long and healthy retirement having performed a great service to his fellow Canadians in his position on the Supreme Court of Canada in recent years.
In ending these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure Members of the House that I am fully cognizant of the responsibility imposed on us to ensure the proper functioning of the judicial system. The courts are now the forum in which we are trying to define our contemporary social goals. They are there to arbitrate conflicting points of view which will be put forward on fundamental issues involving everyone in this country. They have a very difficult task and I will do what I can to assist them in the time that I am here as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. We are stressing co-operation with the provinces and I intend to see that there is co-operation and consultation with the provinces. I believe that the unpleasant situation which arose in Saskatchewan in recent years concerning the number of judges is about to be terminated. It should be resolved within the next several weeks, I am glad to say.
I just wanted to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to outline some of the matters that will be coming before Members of the House in the justice area and the way that I will approach my task, non-partisan, fair and objective as ever. As any of the Members who have been here before will know, I always try to act objectively and in a non-partisan manner. I am sorry to see there is only a rump left on the other side who, of course, can testify to that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Short-term pain for long-term gain.


John Carnell Crosbie: When I see that short-term rump opposite me, 40 on the left and 30 on the right, I must say it was much easier in this House when I was on the other side because I did not have to look at the NDP. We could ignore the fact that they were there. Now I am struck with the brutal reality of having to face them every day.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It beats Joey Smallwood.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is certainly a daunting task to see the spurious indignation gather on their brows as they rise to ask a question. But I have no doubt that our colleagues opposite in the Liberal ranks will quickly develop the same amount of spurious indignation and vainglorious air that the NDP have. But they will keep us on our toes.
I want to congratulate the former Solicitor General on his new position as justice critic. The hon. gentleman, who is now the financial critic for the Opposition, is not here today, but it was just several months ago that he became Minister of Justice. Early in June he was appointed by the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) as Minister of Justice. As I said at his roast a week or two ago, lo and behold, within three months justice had triumphed! Now he is the finance critic and I am the Minister of Justice. This is the reward you get for all your hard work, Mr. Speaker!
So now, justice having triumphed, we are here and I look forward in the next three or four years to the Opposition keeping us on our toes. The more effective they can be, the better it will be for us. I invite them to ask me the toughest, meanest, dirtiest kinds of questions they can, and I will respond in my usual statesman-like fashion. I move second reading of the Bill.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in taking the floor for the first time as justice critic I would like to respond to the warm good wishes of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and extend my own warm good wishes to him. I know he does not have the job that he wanted. At least, I understand that he does not have the job that he wanted. However, I gathered from his expose of his priorities that he is moving forward into what I have certainly always considered a job of vital importance to Canada and to all Canadians.
I would like to address for a moment the menu that he laid out of his plans for the coming parliamentary session. I look forward to dealing with all the issues which he raised. I must
November 8, 1984

express disappointment that some of them will be delayed even as long as to the beginning of next year, as he indicated. For example, the Minister talked about righteous indignation from this side. However, it actually happened that there was righteous indignation from the other side when we indicated that the problems of street prostitution and pornography would be referred to the Fraser Commission. Tories asked why it should be referred to a commission when we all know what should be done, or at least the Conservatives know what should be done. Wherever I went during the election campaign I heard the Tory solution for dealing with street prostitution. Now I learn from the Minister, in his first intervention in the House, that they are waiting for the Fraser Commission which was set up by the former Government to deal with street prostitution. That is unbelievable. I wonder what the Tories from the West Coast will be telling their constituents has led the Government to lose the sense of purpose which it had to deal with that subject.
I hope the Minister will address that issue sooner. I agree with the public protest on the subject. I think it is a subject which does need action and I am disappointed, as I know all of the supporters of the Government must be, that the new Government will be waiting for the Fraser Commission to report.
With regard to the other aspect, the subject of pornography, it has become even more urgent as a result of the decision last week, on which the Minister of Justice must surely have been briefed by his officials. Stores in the Province of Ontario which were formerly under municipal regulation as to the exposing of sexually explicit material are now no longer subject to regulations. Sexually explicit material in Ontario can again be put lawfully within reach and view of the entire community, including children and the areas of public schools.
This was an issue in which my own municipality and the other municipalities in my region had acted by putting forward by-laws which worked well but which have now been found to be invalid. So the pornography issue, even more than the prostitution issue, is an urgent issue for action. This Government, with the tremendous mandate it has, is waiting for the Fraser Commission to report on subjects about which they knew all the answers during the election. Now we find we must wait.
In his remarks the Minister spoke about bringing forward the divorce legislation and bringing forward some parts of the omnibus Criminal Code which had been brought forward by Mr. MacGuigan when he was Minister of Justice. The Minister spoke on a number of other subjects and I look forward to having them brought forward quickly. I would like to indicate that my menu will be a responsive one, not a list of things that we will be introducing. Being in the Opposition our role is to respond. I want to tell the Minister that we will not copy the practice of the former Opposition of opposing everything for the sake of opposing it.
Courts Amendment Act
[ Translation]
We would do what my leader ... The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said yesterday that we in the opposition are prepared to approve and help expedite any proposed legislation we can agree with, if it is good legislation. I can assure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) that he will have my full co-operation and that of my Party. I may say that the same policy will apply to the legislation before the House today. [English]
Bill C-3 is a small piece of the former legislation, Bill C-55. I do not know why the Minister has not addressed judicial salaries in this legislation. I do not know why he has left out some of the other pieces which were contained in Bill C-55. As he indicated, the judicial salary issue is a very important one on which he will have received representations, as I have, from the Canadian Bar Association. He will have read the report of a former Minister of Justice, Otto Lang, on that subject. If the Minister wants to bring matters forward even more quickly than he indicated, he will not find this Opposition, like the former Opposition, wanting to force the House into long periods of eventually meaningless debate before anything could get past the fabulous present Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen).
I want to deal with one other subject on the Minister's menu, and that is his offer to provide the Attorneys General of the provinces with full consultation about the appointment of federal judges. I think that is a sensible policy. I know it was the purpose of the former Government and former Ministers of Justice always to consult with Attorneys General about appointments being made in the provinces, or to seek to do so. However, I do not think that should be a one-way street. Justice, in one aspect and in another, is a shared area of jurisdiction. The Attorneys General of the provinces have their responsibilities and the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Justice has his. I believe that if full consultation is to take place with the provincial governments with regard to federal appointments, there should also be consultation by the provincial governments with the federal Minister with regard to appointments which they propose to make within the system of justice.
I have discussed that with some provincial Attorneys General and found total unwillingness to have any form of consultation at all about the appointments within their areas of jurisdiction. Now we have a Government with the same political colour as the governments in most of the provinces of our country. Perhaps that will assist the present Minister in a proper kind of co-operative relationship. If consultation is to take place with the provinces on federal appointments, I do not see any reason why, in the public interest and in the interest of an effective system of justice, there should not be consultation by provincial Attorneys General about appointments within their responsibility with the federal Minister. In the interests of an effective federal system the Minister of Justice should be willing to encourage the provinces to come forward and to have that type of consultation.

November 8, 1984
Courts Amendment Act
Before turning briefly to the Bill I would also like to recognize the tremendous contribution to Canada of Mr. Justice Ritchie who, in this past week, has retired because of ill health nearly a year before the expiration of his term. He is a brilliant man from a very distinguished family who has done a tremendous job in that court. On behalf of my Party I also want to send him our good wishes that the decision he has made to withdraw from the heavy responsibility of being a Supreme Court judge will assist him in his recovery and that he will indeed enjoy many years of happy and productive retirement.
I had the good fortune to have Ken McFarlane as an excutive assistant for a few months. He is an individual who worked as Mr. Justice Ritchies' law clerk. I could see, from Ken's approach to the law, the type of integrity, vigour, discipline and endless hours of work that Mr. Justice Ritchie applied to the Public Service on the highest bench in our land. Again, I wish him a speedy recovery and many years of good health.
Starting with this Bill, as I have indicated, I want to begin the practice that I hope to be able to follow of not objecting just for the sake of objecting. One great reason to commend this Bill is that in respect of virtually all of its provisions it is identical to good Liberal legislation which was already on the Order Paper when the election was called.
I have nothing further to say about it except that I look forward to briefs being submitted before the committee by interested groups. I close as I began by wishing the Minister well but not too well in his term as Minister of Justice.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, 1 too commence my remarks today by congratulating the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) on his appointment to that very important portfolio. I think all Members of the House are aware of the unbridled enthusiasm with which he has approached that important responsibility so far. We will be looking with great interest at the initiatives he will be taking in the near future as outlined in the Speech from the Throne as well as in the remarks he has made today.
I was somewhat surprised that the Minister was able to be as expansive as he was on a Bill which I had initially regarded as being somewhat technical in nature. Of course, given the Minister's history, I suppose that is not particularly surprising.
Of course, I should also thank the Minister because he honoured my constituents and I with his presence in Burnaby on a number of occasions. In fact, prior to 1978 he came to Burnaby and was invited to support the local candidate. At that time I won very narrowly. In 1980 he was invited back twice. Following that, the majority doubled. I want to particularly thank the Minister on this occasion because in the last election it was decided that the heavy hitter would be brought in. When the heavy hitter, the present Minister of Justice, was brought in on several occasions to do battle with the forces of darkness in Burnaby, of course the majority tripled. Therefore
I want to extend a cordial invitation to the Minister of Justice to visit Burnaby on many, many occasions in the future in order that that trend might continue.


John Carnell Crosbie: They will come to their senses.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I also want to congratulate the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) on his appointment as spokesperson for the Liberal Party on justice. I certainly hope that the sensitivity to civil liberties which he displayed so clearly in his term as Solicitor General will continue in his new capacity as critic of the Ministry of Justice.
While I will not go on at great length with respect to this particular Bill, I believe that the Minister might want to enlighten us about subsection (3), subsection (a) and subsection (ii). We can wait for that enlightenment in due course.
I look forward to co-operating with the Government when it introduces good legislation on those rare occasions; and of course, on behalf of my caucus and joined by my caucus colleagues, to oppose vigorously legislation which is bad.
The Minister stated that there is an appointment forthcoming to the Supreme Court of Canada. I join with the Minister and the Hon. Member for York Centre in wishing Mr. Justice Ritchie well in the future. He has made an outstanding contribution to justice in this country. I urge the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to very seriously consider sending an early signal of the Government's recognition of the importance of the equality of women in this country by the appointment of a second woman to the Supreme Court of Canada. I certainly hope that the Minister and the Prime Minister will seriously consider the appointment of one of the outstanding women who are active in the judiciary and law in the Maritimes.
At the same time I believe we must seriously consider the method of appointment. We must look very seriously at ways of reforming the method of judicial appointment in this country, such as the possibility of involving Parliament. The Prime Minister has indicated on a number of occasions that he believes it is important that Parliament play a role in the nomination of important positions in our society, particularly at a time when the Charter of Rights involves some very significant, social and indeed economic questions. I believe it is appropriate that the mechanism for the appointment of judges be re-examined.
I note with interest that the old Liberal patronage and appointment of Crown agents appears to be alive and well. The Minister of Justice has already issued an early edict which states that the Liberals are to be disbanded and that he will be appointing his Tory cronies to take their place. It is interesting to note that a Government that has expressed its outcry about patronage is already placing its friends in those little plum positions right across the country.
There will be many opportunities in the course of this Parliament to speak at greater length about some of the important questions of legislation that the Minister has addressed, but I want to indicate at this time that we certainly
November 8, 1984

share the Minister's commitment to very fundamental change in the area of divorce law. We hope that this will be an early initiative. We will also look at the whole question of enforcement of maintenance orders.
In addition, the Criminal Code must be overhauled. There are many areas in which this change is long overdue. I certainly pledge my co-operation and that of my Party in moving toward progressive changes to the Criminal Code. The community has very serious concerns about other issues on which the Minister has indicated the Government will be taking action, such as the question of soliciting and pornography. I would caution the Minister to proceed with great care, particularly in the area of soliciting, because I believe we must be aware of the fact that a simplistic knee-jerk response by amending the Criminal Code and in many cases further victimizing women who are already victims would be a most unwise policy. We must look very carefully at the causes of prostitution, whether they be economic or social, while also recognizing the interest of the community in having a safe environment in which people are not harassed and in which women are not harassed by potential clients.
It is also important for the Government to examine and implement the important recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for changes to human rights legislation. These recommendations have sat idle for far too long. Year after year the Liberal Government refused to listen to the recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to expand protection of minorities in this country to include sexual orientation and political belief, for example, as prohibited grounds of discrimination. I hope this Government will be prepared to move where the previous Government stood silent.
Reference has also been made to the Badgley Commission. I was certainly disappointed to note the silence in the Speech from the Throne on the very important recommendations of that commission. The commission documented, in effect, a national crisis-the serious and widespread problem of sexual abuse of children. Although there was no reference to that question in the Speech from the Throne, I hope the Government would be prepared to move very early, for example, in establishing the office of Commissioner reporting directly to the Prime Minister, as was recommended by the Badgley Commission.
As well, we have seen evidence of another great inequity in our law. It was clearly documented in the courts of Toronto over the last few days and weeks. I am referring to the inequity in Canada's laws with respect to abortion. Certainly I believe it is essential to recognize that the evidence produced in the courtroom in Toronto, evidence indicating that many Canadian women are denied access to safe therapeutic abortions, particularly poor women and women in rural areas, cries out for response by this Parliament. We must not only look at a repeal of those provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with abortion and recognize that this is fundamentally a decision
Courts Amendment Act
which must be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor. At the same time we must look at far greater resources for prevention, resources in the areas of sex education, birth control and further research on safe and effective birth control methods.
Reference has been made to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I remind Hon. Members of the House that this Charter was fought by Members of the Tory caucus. It contains an override provision which can effectively nullify the most basic rights contained in that Charter. At the time that Section 15 on equality rights comes into effect, certainly we will be seeking the assurance of the Government that it will in fact bring all federal legislation, as well as other areas within federal jurisdiction, into conformity with those provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
On the legislation before the House, certainly we support the Bill. I note that the enlightened administration in the Province of Manitoba is moving forward to consolidate the courts. I hope the Government will be prepared to take its future direction on the administration of justice from that government, which has certainly made a number of very progressive changes in the field of judicial reform and law reform.
We support this Bill. I certainly look forward to co-operating with the Government in areas where legislative change is overdue and to vigorously resisting the moves of the dinosaur wing in the Conservative Party which would take legislative change and law reform backward in the country.


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions after the first three speakers today. However, it can be done by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: In view of there being in excess of 60,000 abortions per year, why does the Hon. Member think the present law provides an inadequate opportunity to the women of Canada seeking abortions?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I invite the Hon. Member to review the evidence presented to the court in Toronto and to review the report of the Badgley Commission which contained very clear and eloquent evidence and documentation of the fact that access to safe therapeutic abortion is not a reality for thousands of Canadian women. I would be pleased to provide that material to the Hon. Member.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to participate in this debate until the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) mentioned dinosaurs. It happens that dinosaurs are in my riding. There are hundreds of them under the hills there. They are there because they were unable to adjust to changing conditions. I suggest that will be the same case with the New Democratic Party. It refuses to adjust to

November 8, 1984
Sports Pool Corporation
changing conditions. The Progressive Conservative Party is out to change things in the country.
I will always be on the side of the unborn child. I do not think anyone has the right to take the life of an unborn child or a born child.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Crosbie, seconded by Mr. Fraser, moves that Bill C-3, an Act to amend various Acts as a consequence of the reconstitution of the courts in Ontario and Manitoba, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill C-2, an Act respecting the winding up of the Canada Sports Pool Corporation and Loto Canada Incorporated, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you in assuming the high office which you have taken on behalf of all of us in the House of Commons.
The legislation before us today marks the culmination of a four-year debate on whether the federal Government ought to have re-entered the lotteries field and the end to the very controversial Canada Sports Pool Corporation. After consideration of the debate, first on the proposal and then on the enactment of the federal sports pool lottery, we as a government have concluded that sole jurisdiction for lotteries must be restored to the provinces. It is for that reason the Bill is before us today.
As Hon. Members of the House will know, the purpose of this Bill is to wind up the previous government's Loto Canada and Canada Sports Pool Corporation, making good our Party's long-standing policy to keep the federal Government out of the lottery or gaming business.
On the surface of it, the Bill would appear to be very straightforward and uncontentious, compared with other legislative initiatives announced in the Speech from the Throne by Her Excellency the Governor General on Monday. This particular legislation may be viewed by some as a rather mundane
initiative, an initiative which may lead observers to ask why it has received such early and prompt attention by the new Government. I want to explain that today.
There are good reasons for the Government giving the Bill an early priority. First, by introducing the Bill we are making good on a long-standing belief that the federal Government has no business in the gaming and lottery field. Hence, by introducing this Bill early in the life of the new Parliament, we are demonstrating to the House and to Canadians that the Government is committed to keeping its word on long-standing policy positions and campaign commitments. If that is not patently obvious after hearing the Speech from the Throne, it will become obvious as the House begins to consider this and other pieces of legislation brought before it in the weeks and months ahead.
Second, and possibly more important than the first reason, is the fact that this Bill stands as a symbol. As all Hon. Members of the House will know, federal involvement in the lottery field has been and continues to be a major irritant in the area of federal-provincial relations. The manner of linking the sports pool proposal funding to the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary, the use of an Order in Council to alter the terms of legislation passed by this House and the enormous administrative problems of the corporation since it was formed have convinced us further that, quite apart from the issue of jurisdiction, the Canada Sports Pool Corporation must be brought to an end.

I want to say in terms of the negotiations with the provinces, reflecting specifically on the issue of the Calgary Olympics to be held in 1988-and I am sure all Members join with me in wishing the organizers, the City of Calgary, and the residents of Alberta well in the preparations for the Olympics-that my colleague the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) will be entering this debate later today to explain that position as well. Over the course of the previous government's life, countless measures of shared responsibility have been thrust on to the national agenda. In fact, it almost became one of the watchwords day by day in the House-that is, the difficulties, the controversies, or the confrontation that existed between the former government and the various provincial governments.
These measures have run the range from essentially housekeeping and administrative matters to those of split jurisdiction. That has gone all the way from minor legislation to the manner in which the patriation of our Constitution took place. While our recent history of federal-provincial negotiations has touched a wide range of unrelated issues, those negotiations have at the same time been characterized by one common denominator. That denominator we want to remove. Almost without exception these relationships have too often been acrimonious, confrontational and divisive. Through that process, Canadians have not been well served.
During the recent election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and all members of our Party made a com-
November 8, 1984

mitment to the people of Canada that, if elected, we would endeavour to embark upon a new era of federal-provincial relations. This new approach will be based on a solid foundation of trust, respect and understanding and will, of necessity, be born of the realization that our political system, its institutions, this very House of Commons, our geography, diversity and history, have all conspired to create a climate in which interdependence between the federal and provincial governments is a simple fact of our political life. Yet sadly, more often than not this fact has not been recognized.
In Monday's Speech from the Throne, repeated references were made to the Government's firm conviction that it is time to renew our relations with the provinces. It is time to reconcile long-standing differences. It is time to work together in a genuine atmosphere of co-operation, trust, and respect. It is time, quite simply, for a fresh start. This legislation, as I said earlier, became a symbol of that irritation between the provinces and the federal Government. That is why it has received such early priority from our Government.
That being the case and the reason for the legislation, let us turn to the specifics of this legislation which, if Members have read Bill C-2, they will see is very brief and straightforward. I would like to take a short look at the history of the sports pool and Loto Canada which, with the passage of this legislation, will become history.
As all Members are aware, the federal Government created Loto Canada for the purpose of raising money to help defray the cost of the 1976 Montreal Olympics. I remember as a new Member in 1972 that the first parliamentary committee I served on was the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. As a new Member, I did not know what miscellaneous estimates was all about. I found very quickly that the first piece of legislation put before us was the Loto Canada Bill. That was the coin legislation which allowed the Government to strike specific coins to help defray the cost of the Montreal Olympics.
At that time we had various representatives come before the committee. When we asked them how this legislation would help defray costs, we were always assured that there would be no overrun, that there would be no deficit. The then Mayor of the City of Montreal appeared before the committee and made the famous statement about certain abilities that he thought he would have. Of course, none of us has yet seen that happen. We will leave that also to the matter of history.
The point was made that the Loto Canada Bill should be put into place for a period of time and for a specific purpose. The period of time was to help defray the costs from Montreal. That was its specific purpose. It was not to be an opportunity for the federal Government suddenly to see a voluntary tax approach taken beyond the Olympic requirement or objective. History has proven since then that once the federal Government saw that it had an opportunity to get that kind of money, it wanted to stay in that field.
I recall debating with the then Postmaster General whether that was really the way to go. I asked whether we should not be straightforward with the Canadian people and say that the
Sports Pool Corporation
Olympic cause, the Olympic movement, the hosting of the Olympics, was important for all Canadians, whether it was in Montreal in 1976 or in Calgary in 1988, and tell Canadians "This is our cost. This is what we are going to put before the Canadian people. We are going to raise the money by a legitimate means because it is for a legitimate purpose, rather then go into the whole matter of lotteries". We know the history.
It was also said at that time that the Olympics would be self-financing. I will not go through that history. All of us are aware of it. What is important is that in 1979 my colleague who has been elevated to the position of joining you, Mr. Speaker, and others in the Chair, the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski), had responsibilities in the Government for Loto Canada and he acted decisively with the intention of getting the federal Government out of the lottery field. He took the guideline of proper federal-provincial relations, met with the provinces and made a commitment on behalf of the Government. The commitment was straightforward: the federal Government would get out of the lottery field. The provinces, having exclusive operational rights within that field would in reciprocity give the federal Government for its purposes, primarily for fitness and amateur sport, a sum of money, then established at an amount of $25 million annualized, to be increased through a calculation based on the inflation rate. That money would come to the federal Government coffers for the specific purpose of fitness and amateur sport. The federal Government would be getting out of that field.
An agreement was signed. At that time it was $25 million per year. That figure is now in the order of approximately $35 million. We as a federal Government signed that agreement in good faith and the provinces signed that agreement in good faith.
After the 1980 election campaign, the then Leader of the Opposition pledged that he would restore the federal Government's power to conduct lotteries. I know that Liberals opposite have been saying throughout those four years that a bad deal had been struck. They might even be saying that today.


Mr. Boudria:: A rotten deal.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They even call it a rotten deal. I want to tell the House and Canadians how rotten a deal it was that the Liberals had. I do not know of any other government getting into the lottery field and in fact losing money, but it did that. Not only did it get back into the lottery field, but it lost money.


Don Boudria: It is not a lottery, it is a pool.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Well, if $46 million does not mean much to the Hon. Member, he can explain that. That being the case in 1980, the Government took very specific steps to try and get back into the lottery field or gaming business. There were no negotiations with the provinces. It simply said it was coming back in.

November 8, 1984
Sports Pool Corporation
What it has done will become more evident not only as this debate unfolds but as the days unfold. There were some very interesting means taken to get back in. While today I do not have the liberty to expose that, the method that was used by the former government to circumvent Parliament, and to circumvent federal-provincial agreements, in order to get back into a field that it saw to be lucrative will become evident. The manner in which that government did it was wrong, Mr. Speaker. I say to Hon. Members opposite that the reason it failed was because they began with the wrong premise, quite apart from whether we agree on lotteries or not.
I suggest that Hon. Members be very careful when they take a look at what was done. Suffice it to say that the federal Government got back into the lottery gaming field by saying that it was not a lottery. However, we find it very interesting to note that it was not to be seen as a lottery but was to have the same effect as a lottery. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, that is not a method that is acceptable to us.
Another controversy developed during that period of time. The question came up as to whether or not the $200 million commitment that was made to the organizing committee for the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics would still be in place if the Government got out of the sports pool or if the pool did not make any money. The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport will go into this in greater detail today, but the Prime Minister has said that that commitment stands. That commitment will be honoured by the Government of Canada because it was made on the same basis as the commitment that was made in 1972 to the Montreal Olympics. An Olympic committee cannot go before the International Olympic Committee without a letter of approval from the Government of the proposed host country, so that project was a legitimate project and a commitment was made. We were not going to use the success or failure of the lottery as a criterion upon which that $200 million commitment would stand.
I could go into further detail about the steps that the former government took. Suffice it to say that the proposal of the former government has met with absolute failure. We opposed that proposal. However, how deep is that failure?
Some Hon. Members might wonder why the Minister of National Health and Welfare is proposing this Bill today. As a Private Member, I took a very strong position against the lottery. Perhaps some Hon. Members are wondering whether or not it is a personal matter. The reason it is being put forward by me is that under the terms of the Financial Administration Act, that is the legal means by which it must be done.
What has happened to the Sports Pool Corporation? I have already said that the Sports Pool Corporation lost money. It was losing money at an average of $1 million to $1.5 million per week during the time of its existence. Once the accounts are settled, we will see that it has lost about $46 million.
The argument was made that proceeds from the pool would be used for amateur sport. To legitimize the proposal, it was
even said that the proceeds from the sports pool would be used for medical research. As a Private Member, I had the opportunity to ask the chairman of the Medical Research Council when he last appeared before the standing committee how much money his people had received from the Sports Pool Corporation for medical research. Do you know what his answer was, Mr. Speaker? It was zero, nothing. I asked him another question. Because medical research funding requires long-term projections, I asked him how much he had budgeted over the next five years or so for moneys that he was to receive from the Sports Pool Corporation. Do you know what he said, Mr. Speaker? He said "Nothing". I asked him if he ever expected to receive any money from the Sports Pool Corporation for medical research, because that provision was in the legislation that we passed and was one of its objectives. From the look on his face, I simply did not need an answer at all.
To date, the Sports Pool Corporation has lost an average of between $1 million and $1.5 million per week. It spent $10.5 million for start-up funding. It received a loan of $20 million from the federal Government to keep it solvent. That money is gone. The corporation has lawsuits pending against it and provincial governments are in strong opposition to it. I say to Hon. Members opposite that its objectives were to fund medical research, to help our amateur athletes who need help and to help fund, in part or in whole, the $200 million commitment to the Calgary Olympic organizing committee. Those commitments still exist and need to be met. As well, what could we have done with that $46 million to help those three causes? The point is that we are $46 million further behind than we would have been if we had never seen the Sports Pool Corporation. That is the reason this legislation is before us.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that Loto Canada was to be wound up. In fact, Mr. Speaker, as a Minister of the Crown in 1979 you had done so. We now find out that, through Orders in Council, it has not been done. That is why this legislation is more than just an attempt to end the Sports Pool Corporation. It is more than an attempt to end Loto Canada. It is a symbol made by our Government to the people of Canada that we do not feel that the federal Government should be in the gaming business, that the federal Government should not be in the lottery business and that when we sign agreements with the provinces, those agreements must be maintained, respected and honoured.
If projects are proposed which are legitimate, worth-while and supported by the Canadian people, we will fund those projects through the proper means here on the floor of the House of Commons rather than through lottery legislation which the Liberal Government tried twice to put through. The Liberal Government tried by some magic to colour the vision of Canadians so that they would see that the lottery business is painless, that it does not affect them and that it is simply a matter of doing business. We are debating a symbol today, Mr. Speaker.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all Members of the House that the timing of this legislation is obvious. Its purpose is
November 8, 1984

clear. I commend it to all Members of the House for speedy passage.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sergio Marchi: Thank you for the great round of applause. It gives me great pleasure to rise in this Chamber to participate for the very first time in a debate in the Thirty-third Parliament of Canada. In addition to being critic for multicultural-ism, I am also pleased to rise as the official critic for the Ministry of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport.
I address myself to the Bill that is before us today. Consequently, I will have to reserve my traditional maiden speech, which offers me an opportunity to outline the values, traditions and aspirations of my riding, for a later date. Nonetheless, I wish to take this opportunity to thank sincerely the constituents of York West for their confidence and support. I can assure them that that trust and faith which they have placed in me will be fully and enthusiastically reciprocated.
In the time allotted to me, I would like to place this Bill that is before us today and its implications in proper perspective. The present Government administration has opted to dismantle the Sports Pool Corporation. However, I believe that before analysing the merits of this Bill, it is necessary to examine what mechanism was put in place and why it was established in the first place.
The athletic events pools were set up to generate funds over the long term, in order to encourage and assist amateur sports, the arts, medical research and, perhaps most importantly, the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympic Games. Of special note are the much talked about Olympic Games to which the previous government made a financial commitment of $200 million. The sports pool, among other revenues, was specifically designed to assist in that financial commitment.
It should be made very clear from the outset that this sports pool was not a lottery. I say that because the previous government had no intention of invading the lottery business, a field which is currently held by the provinces. I believe that that intention is clearly defended and demonstrated by the present Bill. The Bill makes absolutely no reference to the word or to the concept of a lottery, something very different indeed from the time when Government members were in opposition.
In terms of the definition, in a lottery a number is taken at random and there is a chance of winning. A sports pool is primarily a test of a person's intelligence and that individual's knowledge of sports, all of which must be used in determining who the winner or loser will be. It is a system which has been adopted particularly in Europe, as well as by many other countries in the world.
I reiterate that the long-term concept of this strategy was a noble one. It was one which addressed itself to the very real needs of the Olympic organizing committee, Canadian athletes, coaches and officials. It was a recognition that in 1988
Sports Pool Corporation
the eyes of the international community would be upon us. It was felt that it was our national obligation to stage a truly first-rate national and international event.
However, unlike the government of the day, I do not wish to dwell on the past or to study endlessly the decisions and initiatives taken in the past. Nor do I wish to provide slogans in place of concrete measures of action. It is on an action plan and on the future that Canadians voted on September 4, and I would like to discuss this Bill on those terms.
Towards this end, a central concern in the winding down of a sports pool mechanism infers that there will be, and needs to be, an alternative to take its place; the winding up of another action plan. It is quite debatable whether this Bill, on its own, is right or wrong, effective or inneffective, appropriate or inappropriate. Yet I would respectfully submit that the debate would be fruitless and unproductive for Canadian interests if it was not complemented by specifically defined and iron-clad measures which would replace the goals and objectives of the previous structure in an effective and responsible manner. However, I fear that this is exactly what we have. To date, as far as I can recollect, the House has not been told by the Government, nor by the Minister, of any such system.
On the one hand, the present Government is committed to a contribution of $200 million for the Winter Olympic Games in Calgary. On the other hand, it has decided to dismantle a mechanism which was to aid in this effort. However, I have not heard, nor has the House heard, in any detail the precise measures on how those moneys will be raised. It is all very fine to promise $200 million. It makes wonderful and popular headlines to support the Olympics and our athletes. Yet the Government must deliver on those promises, for the expectations of the Canadian people, Canadian athletes, coaches and officials, the Olympic organizing committee, the Province of Alberta and the City of Calgary are great, and rightfully so. The Government cannot afford to play political, partisan games with such a national and international event, for the risks are too great.
Consequently, the real issue vis-a-vis this Bill is: From where are the revenues going to come? It has been some two months since the Minister made the commitment, yet we are still unclear as to from where, how and when these moneys will come. I would like to know, and I am sure the House would like to know, if the Minister himself knows. On September 18 the Minister was quoted in The Citizen of Ottawa as follows:
A different form of gaming operation could, and I emphasize the word could, continue after that because clearly we have to keep our commitment to the Calgary Olympics and we will.
The Minister went on to say:
-the question is how we're going to do that.
Those remarks have two very serious implications. First, they suggest that after all the howling that was done by the previous Opposition members on the sports pool concept, the Minister has thrown out the possibility that he will simply replace the sports pool with another similar strategy. The statements which have been given by the Minister and his Party in the House on the sports pool concept not only run

November 8, 1984
Sports Pool Corporation
counter to what was consistently stated in the House and across the country, but also give a new definition to the word "hypocrisy".
Second, if the Minister does not choose to take this route- and according to his reported comments in The Citizen, this is by no means sure-it suggests that he and the Government are at a loss as to how to keep this very fundamental and significant promise.
In The Calgary Herald of September 20, the Minister announced, in relation to the sports pool program, that:
Coming up with a different funding system will be a priority.
My question is: Where is that system and where is the priority attached to that system? There was absolutely no mention made of such a priority in the Throne Speech. It leaves one to wonder if this commitment was merely another of the Government's slogans.
Canadians are also asking themselves if the Government will dip into the federal treasury to come up with the necessary funds. Will it come from general revenues, will it come from the private sector, or will it come from donations? What about the provinces?
We have heard a great deal about the co-operation and mutual respect which exists between the new federal Government and the provincial governments. It would make you believe that anything could be achieved overnight. Well, with respect to this and many other issues of the day, let me say that that night has indeed been very long and very painful. To date, there has been no public agreement that the provinces would help contribute to the federal Government's financial commitment. To date, we have not seen co-operation, consensus, or mutual respect. Great slogans but no action. In fact, it is my understanding that both the Province of British Columbia and the Province of Alberta have refused to participate as partners in the financing of the $200 million. Is this the climate of co-operation that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) and his Government have lectured on tirelessly for the last several months?
In addition, the federal Government has not worked out a financial compensation arrangement with the provinces in return for the decision to dismantle the sports pool program. According to the Tory provincial governments, it was perceived as an obstacle to competition. The Government had a golden opportunity to negotiate a financial agreement with the provinces which would have erased many of the worries and financial tensions that the Olympic Games certainly face today. Even during the ill-fated government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) in 1979, the administration negotiated a deal with the provinces which provided that, in return for $35 million annually, the federal Government would remove itself from the lottery business and allow that field to be taken up exclusively by the provincial governments. While the financial aspects of the settlement were absolutely lacking in fundamental, arithmetical logic, since the projected lottery-generated revenues were in the neighbourhood of $200 million annually-and it has been said that it has been very
easy to trade in your Cadillac to get a Volkswagen-it nevertheless demonstrated, at the very least, a concern for the national will.
This Government led by the Prime Minister, in its great desire to please the provinces, has forgotten that it has a national mandate and responsibility. It has not recognized, I believe, that Canadians respect and demand a government which protects, encourages and fosters a national will and purpose. Even the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski), the former Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sports under the Clark Government, agrees that a negotiated settlement would have been fundamentally correct and necessary. In Hansard of March 27, 1984, as reported at page 2472, the Hon. Member for Edmonton North asked the then Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport:
But I would like to ask the present Minister, who is at least a golfer, why has he not sat down with his provincial counterparts to reach a compromise as far as the sports lottery is concerned-
Such a compromise to date, to my recollection, has not been attained and neither, perhaps, pursued. As everyone well recognizes, Mr. Speaker, negotiations are accomplished successfully from a point of strength, not weakness, as has been demonstrated so ably by this present administration.
As I outlined at the beginning of my remarks, the eyes of the world will be upon us in 1988. This event is made all the more important because of the successful staging of the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles organizing committee raised approximately $469 million and showed a profit of $150 million. The president of that committee, Mr. Peter Ueberroth, declared: "After Los Angeles, any city in the world should be able to survive an Olympics". Calgary and, in general, Canada must live up to that challenge. We must meet that challenge head on and I feel we should strive to surpass it, setting challenges for other countries to meet.
I would like to assure Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side have always been firmly committed as a government to amateur sports and to the pursuit of athletic exellence by Canadians of all backgrounds and from all walks of life. Our last Liberal government gave the strongest guarantee ever offered so that Calgary would play host to the Olympic Games in 1988. To complement this initiative, the Canadian Olympic Association publicly endorsed the creation of a sports pool program as one intiative to be used to raise the necessary funds and to focus attention on the Winter Olympic Games. At the same time that Canadian Olympic Association censured the Opposition for its attempts to discredit the sports pool program.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, we need to be reminded that it was a Liberal government that helped amateur sports throughout Canada, that paid the lion's share in order to send our athletes to Los Angeles where they made Canada extremely proud and honoured by their athletic abilities. We as Liberals support the participation of Canada in the Commonwealth Games, in the Canada Games, in the PanAmerican Games and in the Olym-
November 8, 1984

pic Games. However, we as Canadians recognize that we must have money to enable us to ensure that our participation is a responsible and successful one and that our athletes receive the necessary training and resources they require in order to perform well on the international stage of athletics. We need programs and strategies, Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure that those moneys will be generated. Canadians want and deserve to know what will be replacing that which is being removed. How will it be replaced and when? These are the fundamental questions to which Canadians want immediate answers.
When we debate and discuss the Olympic Games and amateur sports in general, we are also talking, to a large degree, about Canada's youth and their great appetite for adventure and achievement. Our future may lie beyond their vision but I would submit that it is not beyond our control. It is the will of our Government and of all Canadians which will determine, in part, their destiny. It is my every hope, Mr. Speaker, a hope which I believe is shared by all the citizens of our country, that as the years pass the efforts of our Government in encouraging athletic excellence in amateur sports and the Olympic Games will be judged as positive and constructive. I endorse the motion of the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp). It is the other Mr. Epp; I thought it was the Minister getting up again!


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for solving the interesting question of how to deal with certain similarities of name, if little else, although in speaking this morning to the Bill to dissolve the sports pool, we will have occasion to see a similarity of view.
I am very pleased to be able to speak this early in the Thirty-third Parliament on an important measure. I believe I will have an opportunity during the debate on the Throne Speech to speak as well and consequently my comments to my constituents and relating to the past election can be held over. Today I would particularly like to address the matter before us.
Before I do so, I would like to congratulate my friend of similar name on his responsibility as Minister of National Health and Welfare. I hope he will have a good time. I wish him well in the great responsibility he faces in maintaining the social security system of our country.
I was also pleased to see the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) on his feet speaking to this measure. We have been waiting with bated breath for our friends in the Liberal caucus to name their spokesman for fitness and amateur sport, given that the list announced earlier did not include any such person. Since the Hon. Member is also responsible for mul-ticulturalism, as I am, we clearly will become acquainted.
The Bill before us deals with a measure passed in the last Parliament which was designed to create a sports pool in order to raise money, not just for the Olympics in 1988 but for various other objectives. It was designed to raise money for fitness and amateur sport generally, for the support of arts and culture, including, although not necessarily restricted to, capi-
Sports Pool Corporation
tal projects in that area. It was also, as has been recognized earlier today, designed to raise money for the purposes of supporting medical and health research.
All of these things are, of course, very important matters to the people of Canada. They are matters which deserve substantial support. However, the preceding government intended to support these important activities not from the general revenues of the country but by the method of gambling on the federal as well as the provincial level. It was clearly a matter of supporting excellent ends by the use of highly dubious means.
There have not been many comments in the debate to this point on the questionable nature of those means so I would like to give my own observations. In fact there is a large area of agreement between myself and my colleagues in the last Parliament, going back to the 1970s, the views of the present Minister of National Health and Welfare and, for that matter, those of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek), who I regret not seeing here today.
I would like to put on record the views stated by various members of our Party in years past in order to have an indication of the importance of these matters. The House will pardon the historian particularly enjoying documents while he is in the process of adding to the documentation. In 1976 the then Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. Knowles, spoke as follows in the debate on Loto Canada:
It is because we believe that physical fitness, amateur sport and recreation are important aspects of Canadian life that we think they should be financed out of general taxation and, therefore, paid for on the basis of the ability to pay.
We do not believe that aspects of life as important as physical fitness, amateur sport and recreation should be financed by gambling, which calls on the poor to pay for it, instead of taxation which is levied according to ability to pay.
Although I will not say much about the importance of fitness and amateur sport to all of us, let me say that those sentiments clearly state my position and that of my colleagues. In debate on the legislation which established what we are today concluding, the sports pool itself, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) spoke as follows on November 18, 1982:
It is clear that if we believe the health and well-being of the people is important, then we must be prepared to make a financial commitment to that end.
He added:
The intent of the legislation is quite clear; it will introduce an attitude in the country that gambling is an acceptable way for government to raise money. It is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker.
Later he said:
But when we in Canada make a commitment to health care, health services and provision of adequate facilities for health, whether it be in the sense of providing immediate care or research, we believe in doing it out of tax revenues. Also we believe that it should be funded in a way to allow the people charged with the responsibility of ensuring the continuation of the health care service to do some reasonable fiscal planning, to budget and to commit dollars for years down the road in order to complete the projects which they have undertaken.
Those are fascinating comments given what the Hon. Minister has indicated about some questions he put to the head of

November 8, 1984
Sports Pool Corporation
the Medical Research Council. In further debate the then Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake, Mr. Sargeant, on April 19, 1983, made this observation of the impact of organizations such as this sports pool:
What is the nature of the Minister's voluntary taxation-his non-tax source of revenue? For one thing, it is a form of taxation that takes proportionately more from the poor than it does from the rich.
When one thinks about it, it is not really surprising that it is the poor and not the rich who fall for other Government betting schemes. Lotteries, this sports pool and other government-run gambling are turning millions of Canadians into gamblers. The rags to riches, easy money outlook bred by lottery advertising is naturally appealing to poorer Canadians.
He added some observations about the people who tend to buy lottery tickets and presumably participate in the sports pools:
A 1977 profile commissioned by Loto Canada found that 54 per cent of the buyers of lottery tickets earned less than $20,000 a year. A similar study conducted by Gallup found that 73 per cent of people who earned less than $6,000 a year took part in Wintario.
That in my province of Ontario is another dimension of the cause for concern that we feel in our caucus about the proposal which the previous government put on the law books and the pool it created.
Let me quote one more member of my caucus, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), as follows:
i always considered support for arts and culture and support for medical and health research to be a responsibility in the best interest of Canadians as a whole and certainly Canada as a society. I considered this to be a responsibility of all Canadians not just those people at the low end of the income scale who may be tempted because of the economic conditions in which they find themselves as a result of government policy to try to find a way out of those difficulties by buying dreams through the kinds of programs about which the Government is talking. That is what the Government is doing. It is selling dreams. The chances or the odds of an individual who participates in that kind of activity, these lotteries or sports pools, actually coming out a winner are decidedly low.
The debate in the last Parliament was fascinating on that point as Members considered the likelihood with which one might be struck by lightning; it is twice as likely as winning a lottery. That does not prevent the organizers of lotteries from spotlighting every successful winner in order to encourage people, particularly the unfortunate, to take part in these lotteries.
What I found fascinating was the fact that members of the then Conservative Opposition felt the same way about these matters. You will understand, Mr. Speaker, why I look particularly at the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and the Hon. Member for Halton in making these comments. There really is some fascinating material here which I rather regret was not put on the record at any length this morning. The Hon. Minister referred to strong views but he did not really give us the depth and strength of those views while speaking to the Bill presently before us. When he spoke on November 18, 1982 as an opposition member, the Minister said:
We are being asked today by this Government to accept a Bill which allows the federal Government to get back into the gaming industry. What we are debating here today is action which in 1970 was illegal. In 1970 it was prohibited by virtue of the Canadian Criminal Code. Suddenly after ten or 12 years we not only have had legalized gambling, government-sponsored-in fact governments being beneficiaries of that gambling-but gambling has become a part of the
Canadian pattern. Today we seem to say that we have to increase this new source of revenue, not because we want to justify that new source, but because the Government needs it for valid programs. It is based on this theory that the ends justify the means.
I did not at the outset mean to parrot him, but I do not think I could have said it any better concerning my own repugnance at what has happened in Canadian society since these amendments to the Criminal Code. I am sorry that the proposal before us this morning is only the abolition of one of those bodies. The Minister, then simply the Hon. Member for Provencher, went on to say:
The carrot is put forward to the people, Mr. Speaker, that they might somehow get out of the economic difficulties in which they find themselves by buying one chance, one hope which somehow might extricate them from the daily living that is faced by most Canadians. It is a fantasy based on advertising, glib, glossy advertising, the kind that, if corporations used it, many of us in this House would get up and argue borders very closely on false advertising, if in fact it is not false advertising. But because governments do it, somehow there is legitimacy. I suggest that is wrong.
I heartily agree. I do not think it could have been said better by a member of our caucus.


Ian Deans: Oh, maybe marginally.


Abram Ernest Epp: Marginally. The Hon. Minister would always be welcome over here, perhaps, Mr. House Leader.


Ian Deans: For a visit.


Abram Ernest Epp: For a visit. Well, there may be something to extract from that a little later. The Hon. Member for Halton also had some fascinating observations to make:
At the outset, I would like to say that this sports pool is nothing more than an indirect taxation by devious ways and means. It is an underhanded way of collecting money from the Canadian public because the Government has failed in its responsibility time and time again to collect it by normal means.
That is a splendid statement, one which I do not intend to allow the Hon. Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport to forget in this Parliament. It is one we might inscribe in an appropriate place and keep constantly spotlighted, as is done in a stadium when the great athletes are performing, in order to be sure we do not forget it.
He went on to comment on the proposal before the House on this day in late June of 1983 by saying the following:
As a former athlete I support anything which can be done to help amateur athletes in this country. But certainly not by establishing the phony, sleazy programs the Government is talking about which would be taking advantage primarily of the poor people of this nation, and then misleading them with false and misleading advertising.
That was splendidly spoken. With those comments on the record from both of the Opposition Parties in preceding Parliaments, I regretted this morning that the Minister's observations did not in fact extend to these considerations. I was disappointed to see him focusing particularly on the federal-provincial ramifications of all of this. He is concerned about the pursuit of the policy which the government of 1979
November 8, 1984

followed in turning the field over to the provinces. That is virtuous at the federal level presumably, a vice lift to the provinces. We might remind ourselves immediately, of course, that the Parliament of Canada declares what is illegal in this country, if it does not in fact define all the vice that exists. To leave our provincial colleagues in their governments responsible for this behaviour if in fact it is immoral, if it has vicious consequences and if the social ends are as evil as the Member for Provencher and the Member for Halton suggested in 1982 and 1983, seems to me highly regrettable. We should in fact be giving the sort of consideration to this whole question which the then opposition member for Provencher did in fact propose.
If I might take one more selection from the parliamentary record of years past, I find on November 18, 1982 the then representative from Provencher declared, in words which I convey to him strongly and powerfully this afternoon:
I suggest to the Minister that he seriously consider setting up an all-party committee to study the subject of lotteries and what they mean to the Canadian public, both in the immediate and long term, before this Bill is passed.
I daresay it is not appropriate to propose a motion in that direction. As a new Member I am open to instruction on these matters. I see that the opposition member in that Parliament did not in fact move a motion either, but he proferred advice to the Minister as I now do. I think this is really quite a serious matter. Both of us have provincial colleagues who have taken action which we must regret. I am candid in recognizing that the New Democratic Government of Manitoba was into the field very early, about 1970. I regret that. I think it was a wrong action. I regret equally that the Government of Ontario has been in the lottery field so largely with the Wintario program in particular. It has in fact used that extensively for the very purposes for which the late Government planned to use the sports pool.
Surely, given more than a decade of experience with gaming it would be appropriate at this point to take a good look at it. While as a new Member I may hesitate to add to the number of committees we will have in the House, this is one of the important moral and social matters which certainly deserves consideration and I commend it to the Minister.
In connection with the Wintario grants, the impression I have in northern Ontario is that the largesse which comes from Queen's Park and makes possible the establishment of sports facilities of various sorts can be the sort of gift which some of us occasionally experience. Initially everything seems splendid. In this case with the capital grants fully in the ground and above it with buildings erected, local communities find themselves suddenly having to support the operation of facilities they did not have before. The consequence can be a heavier burden of taxation than those people have known before. That surely is another of the consequences of gambling revenue because it seems to be such cheap money. There is no reason why a small community should not have facilities given that this money is in provincial hands ready to be disbursed wherever it may be.
Sports Pool Corporation
There is, of course, concern about the financing of the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary and other activities in fitness and amateur sports. I share the concern of the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) to know how the Government plans to do this. I took care to obtain the governing Party's campaign handbook last night and also to get some sense of what the policy might be in order to have marks by which we might judge at an early point.
I note in the campaign handbook a statement that the PC Government would explore tax incentives for corporate support for sports and fitness programs. I note that the policy statement given to sports organizations saying that the PCs are committed to maintaining the highest level of federal support for amateur sport in Canada is very likely to be contradicted beginning this evening. We have had an indication in one area and another that all Canadians are going to have to suffer cuts in the expenditures of the Government, so it seems highly unlikely that that particular statement given to sports groups across the country during the last election will in fact be maintained and that they will in fact maintain the highest level of federal support. It looks as if some trimming in the funding made available in that area is inevitable. We will be watching with great concern.
This same section goes on to comment on a commitment to develop a charitable donations tax credit. That brings me to my concluding observations and expression of concern about the way in which all of this may unfold. The Canadian fiscal structure is presently shot full of one tax break and another, whether for individuals or for corporations. I found it very interesting when talking to a Thunder Bay accountant a few weeks ago to hear him say: "When you get to the House of Commons, do your best to simplify that tax structure. Stop trying to achieve social aims through the fiscal system because it becomes more and more complex as each of these is carried through".
My personal opinion about the tax breaks is that we ought to be really rigorous in reviewing all of them. I am intensely suspicious about the use of every one of these. Perhaps the greatest concern I feel about the proposal that there be more such incentives is the concern that all Members of Parliament share, I am sure. That is a concern that we have genuine responsible government in this country. The great problem with using arrangements of this sort is that they inevitably become veiled in the confidentiality which applies to fiscal dealings of government with individuals and corporations. When they are so veiled it becomes quite impossible for Parliament to have any close contact with what is happening. We need a rigorous reconsideration of all of them.
On this day on which the Government plans to put forward an economic statement we need a recognition that one of the factors in the deficit that bothers the Government so deeply is in fact an incredible level of tax expenditures of one break and another. In fact, I suspect that the deficit is largely matched by the breaks to individuals and corporations. It would be good to have all the detail we can possibly have on that. The proposal that we have in addition to it as a means of financing
62

November 8, 1984
fitness and amateur sport, Mr. Speaker, seems to me not much less dubious for other reasons than was the proposal to establish the sports pool in 1982-1983.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me applaud the measure which was put forward by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, subject only to my concern about a proper provision for the employees of the sports pool. I would like to call on the Government to be principled in its entire rejection of gambling in Canada. An all-Party committee to review this seems to me quite essential. We ought to think about the possibility of amending the Criminal Code.
Finally, I would like to say that I await with concern the statement on funding for amateur sport, whenever it is made, and question the intention to use more tax incentives in this area. Thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), speaking about the Peace Camp on Parliament Hill, was quoted recently as having said: "I think they made their point. It's been amply made, it's been well made. It's really a question of how much more you want to make a point."
How can the Prime Minister say that these young people have made their point when, last year, countries of the world spent over $700 billion on arms, when $100 billion of that was spent on nuclear weapons, when we now have in the world 50,000 nuclear weapons which have one million times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb, when there is a new nuclear test taking place in the world every week which is really a rehearsal for nuclear war? The nuclear weapons that exist now can destroy 800 million lives in less than one day. Despite that, the Prime Minister has said that these young people have made their point.
I would ask the Prime Minister to agree that this important vigil, that this important reminder stay on Parliament Hill
until the nations of the world ban nuclear madness from the face of the earth.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, strong downward pressures have appeared on interest rate markets both here and in the United States. Clearly, new, strong, conservative Governments with effective mandates for business oriented policies are largely responsible for the increase in confidence that has led to falling interest rates.
In the United States, three-month Treasury bills were auctioned on November 5 for 8.82 per cent. Today our three-month Treasury bills were auctioned to yield 11.2 per cent, which is a drop of 22 basis points from last week.
Traders have indicated to me that they feel that our interest rates could drop much more rapidly if the Bank of Canada would discontinue its practice of relating exchange rates to interest rates.
May I suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that, in view of the fact that interest rates, while dropping here are dropping much more rapidly in the United States, he instruct the Bank of Canada to stop influencing interest rate markets in Canada and let rates drop as low as they can. This will save the country substantial costs in financing the national debt, and more than anything else will stimulate new business activity and the consequent result of increasing new job opportunities.



INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the House and the people of Canada should know that the Government of Canda appears to have instructed an Environment Canada official in Madrid to urge fellow members of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature to reject Greenpeace International's application to join this respected international organization.
Greenpeace is an internationally recognized Canadian conservation group, with operations in over 15 countries and official status at the United Nations. It is ridiculous that the Canadian Government would be so petty as to even consider opposing Greenpeace's entry into the IUCN, and it is clearly inappropriate for any Government in an organization that is comprised mostly of N.G.O's. I have already notified the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) of my Party's objection to this, but I want the House to know that New Democrats are not alone.
November 8, 1984

I have a telegram that was sent to the President of the IUCN in which 20 of the largest non government members of the IUCN, including the World Wildlife Federation, state that the efforts by the Government of Canada to block Greenpeace's entry into the IUCN risk "opening the door to unnecessary dissension and discord that will detract from and hinder the important work that we are all committed to accomplishing under the world conservation banner".
Obviously, Environment Canada's actions in Madrid are misguided and unpopular, and I call on the Minister of the Environment to make a statement, preferably in the House, to the effect that both passive and active opposition to Greenpeace's entry into the IUCN will cease.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS GOVERNMENT'S ATTITUDE

Mr. Bill Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, three days ago the agenda of the new Government was presented to the Canadian people. However, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has criticized the Throne Speech, saying that the expectations of Canadians were not fulfilled.
Let us look at the area of federal-provincial relations.
Are Canadians disappointed that both levels of government, including Quebec, have embarked on a new path of co-operation and not confrontation? No.
Are Canadians disappointed that the federal Government has invited labour, business, and government to an economic summit to work out new strategies based on consensus? Absolutely not.
Will Canadians be disappointed that all 11 leaders in Canada will sit down to plan for our future? No.
I do not believe that the expectations of the people in my region, in my province, have been unfulfilled. In fact, they are relieved.
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will want to applaud this new atittude once he understands that it is absolutely necessary if we are to develop a sound future for our next generation. As an Albertan I feel confident that the concerns of my province will finally be heard and understood.



ENTRY OF CANADIAN STEEL PRODUCTS TO UNITED STATES

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to express my extreme regret about the Government's handling of the United States Trade and Tariff Act 1984. You will be aware that as of next week legislation in the United States Congress will be passed which will adversely affect Canada's steel industry by requiring identification of Canadian pipe entering the United States.
I rise on behalf of the people of Hamilton and all those who are concerned about the steel industry, particularly in view of the Government's alleged positive relationship with the President of the United States. It seems to me that it would have been appropriate for the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) at the very least to go to the United States directly to lobby, to ensure that Canadians would be exempted from the trade and tariff changes that will adversely affect our industry as of November 13.
In view of the new spirit of co-operation that has been developed between the Canadian and American Governments, I would suggest that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) exercise his influence with the President of the United States with a little more than a tea party at the Rose Garden, by ensuring that the Congressional Act which will become effective on November 13 will exempt Canadian steel from the labelling provisions.



TOURISM


Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. McMillan) is aware of the proposal for a tourism-hospitality industry resource centre at Georgian College in my riding. The project will provide employment and improve the quality of tourism at a time when this important industry is facing a number of difficult challenges.
Under the former Liberal Government, Simcoe South was generally overlooked in the area of tourism. Georgian College had 800 applications for the 280 places in its tourism management program this year. Although it is the third largest co-op college in Ontario, it has, in the past, received very little federal assistance.
Georgian College's proposal is estimated to cost $3.5 million, a modest price tag for a project that will deliver over 600 training places in tourism management by 1986. The proposal has the endorsement of TIAC, Tourism Ontario, and a commitment of financial assistance from the Ontario Government. In addition, in his speech in Barrie on August 11 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) expressed his keen interest in this project.
Georgian College offers a first rate tourism management program. The proposed resource centre will be a valuable additon to the existing program.
The new P.C. Government has recognized the importance of tourism by establishing a Ministry of State for Tourism, and by appointing a capable Minister to head it. I urge him to look seriously at this urgently needed project.

November 8, 1984



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign a special debate was held in Toronto on women's issues. The commitments of the Tory Party now in Government would, in hindsight, appear to be public relations window dressing, given the emptiness of the Speech from the Throne.
Canadian women deserve the respect held out to them in the Speech from the Throne, as do all Canadians. Canadian women also deserve action with programs, policies, and legislation to bring them into the mainstream of Canadian economic life.
What the women of Canada have been given by the Tory Government is a study. Some place, somewhere in this city must be a warehouse full of studies regarding women and the economy.


An Hon. Member:: They are all yours.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Right, use them.
The Tory Government must act now to implement the shelter allowance program for single parents advocated by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) during the election campaign. The Tory Government must act now to begin negotiations with the provinces for the implementation of a national daycare system which will provide women with greater access to jobs and training.
The Speech from the Throne has been called a motherhood speech. It is nothing but empty promises. Unfortunately for single and working mothers the Speech from the Throne is empty, and fails to recognize that in difficult economic times there is more to motherhood than being all things to all people. This Speech from the Throne is a disaster.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to express the concern of my constituents and my Party and also of 300,000 members of the Public Service about rumours and leaks according to which 15,000 Public Service jobs are to disappear tonight, as part of Mr. Wilson's statement. These rumours seem to be part of a deliberate campaign aimed at getting the public to anticipate changes that will cost jobs instead of creating them.

People voted for change in my riding of Ottawa Centre and across Canada, but in my opinion very few voted to make the Public Service a scapegoat in order to appease the business
community. There are real challenges for the Public Service to be met, but under the Liberal Government the Public Service was overmanaged, and its morale suffered from repeated six and five freezes and other such steps. I would not like to see the same thing continued under the new Government.
To give an example, the new Government has let 200 contract employees in Canada Employment and Immigration go, despite the fact that unemployment is at record levels and that jobs counsellors in CEIC cannot do the job adequately now because there are too few of them.
As Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised during the election campaign that, while the Government supported a need for restraint in government spending, "we are not in favour of this goal being achieved on the backs of public servants". I call upon the Government to live up to this commitment and not make public employees sacrificial victims in its budgetary policy.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, sloth and wastefulness, arrogance and corruption, these were the characteristics of a Liberal-Socialist alliance too long in power. Their pigeons came home to roost on September 4. On the other hand, sound financial management and prudence in the handling of the public purse will be the hallmarks of the new Government.
Since September 17 the Cabinet, and in particular the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), have been diligently working on an economic statement which will show the true state of Canada's national finances and will set us on the road to economic recovery. Controlling the deficit, that legacy of the Trudeau years which hangs around the necks of Canadians like a stone, will have to be uppermost in the mind of the Minister.
I urge all parliamentarians and all Canadians to listen carefully this evening at 6.30 when the Minister of Finance will pull the switch, thereby putting Canada back on the track toward a bright and prosperous future.



AGRICULTURE


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) when he was a member of the Liberal Government, along with his Liberal colleagues procrastinated for some 15 months before bringing in amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act. He and the Liberal Minister of Agriculture dilly-dallied while some 400 farmers went bankrupt. Progressive Conserva-
November 8, 1984

tive members pleaded, argued, entreated, and even prayed for a pay-out so farmers could plant their crops last spring. But the Liberals refused, and finally in the dying days of the last Parliament they brought in the Bill. They promised a pay-out of $300 million.
However, yesterday the same Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry shed crocodile tears and talked about a pay-out of $500 million. What gall! What hypocrisy! This PC Government lost no time in completing the pay-out, and because of the excellent attitude of the Ministers of Transport, of Agriculture, and of the Wheat Board, hundreds of farmers are now rethinking about opting out. PCs will change the Act in order to trigger a pay-out when a pay-out is needed. The Liberals talk. The PCs act.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It was inconceivable to those of us on this side of the House that there was no mention of post-secondary education in the Throne Speech. On behalf of the students of the University of British Columbia and other universities across the country, does the Prime Minister intend to make it his personal priority when he meets the Premiers at the upcoming summit to place post-secondary education on the agenda? If so, would he consult the students of the country so that they may help set the agenda for the national economic summit?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, indeed it is our intention to discuss it with the Premiers next week. This is one of the reasons why it was not mentioned in any specifics a little earlier this week. Notwithstanding the observation yesterday of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that he thought we were indulging in perhaps too much consultation, I would be delighted to take his suggestion and consult further with the students.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I am sure the university students of the country would welcome any opportunity to give the right hon. gentleman some advice.


USE OF TAX MONEY BY PROVINCES
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
the House whether he would favour attaching some conditions or setting some sort of guidelines so that we in the House can be assured that money of the taxpayers of Canada destined to post-secondary education is used by the provinces of Canada for the purpose of education?
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the manner in which the question is set out indicates the fundamental difference between our two Parties. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition appears to presuppose that if we make an agreement with the provinces they will do something improper. We believe the contrary, that if we strike a deal with the provinces, they are honourable people and they will follow through.


John Napier Turner: Before meeting the Premiers, I think the right hon. gentleman ought to look at the facts to see how that money is actually being spent by the provinces.


NATIONAL OBJECTIVES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, could the Right Hon. Prime Minister inform the House and students across the country whether he is in favour of setting national objectives, with the agreement of the provinces, in the field of post-secondary education?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Leader of the Opposition is right in bringing up an issue that is absolutely vital, and on which I would say an unprecedented amount of consultation and co-operation will be necessary. In fact, this has been the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition, and rightly so, throughout his public life, and I can assure him that it will be ours as well, especially in an area as vitally important as this one.
Starting next Tuesday, we shall be consulting not only on the principle but also on implementation procedures.


MINISTER'S AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Youth. However, with your indulgence and, through you, I should like to offer my congratulations to the Minister on her appointment to such a sensitive post at this time of crisis for our youth.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in approaching the Premiers, in discussing the question of post-secondary education, and in negotiating agreements with them next March, would the Prime Minister tell
Will the Minister enlighten this House and the youth of Canada on the areas of her responsibilities with respect to legislative procedure and programs, as well as the criteria for the allocation of grants? For example, will she comment on her

November 8, 1984
Oral Questions
input to the decision which cut direct job training for youth to a mere $27 million, as announced by her colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her words of congratulations. I think that in the coming months, she will be able to appreciate what I intend to accomplish in the Department for which the Right Hon. Prime Minister has made me responsible.
As for the Hon. Member's question about future legislation, I may remind her that, through no fault of my own, I am the third Minister in seven months to head this Department. With my departmental officials, we are first trying to clean house. We shall be consulting young people themselves, but not through studies of statistics and statistics on studies, of which we have had more than enough from my predecessors.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Andrée  Champagne: As for the grant funding to which you referred, we will know after this evening. It is not for me to say now what amounts will be allocated for youth.

Finally, the Hon. Member referred to the announcement made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. This is not my responsibility right now, even though we have conferred. This is a pilot project. I will be delighted to work along with her to develop new ones.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESS STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that, while cleaning house, she had to cut out one-third of the budget for our youth. However, the question was not related to the dollars in the grant. It was related to criteria. Perhaps we can come back to that.
In particular, I am concerned about an interview which the Minister had with Mr. Bernard Descoteaux of Le Devoir, in which she stated:
[ Translation]
She would like to suggest that people look at the 85 per cent who are doing well.

I am really concerned that young people in difficulty, les decrocheurs, have to turn elsewhere. Will young Canadians have to turn to these other 85 per cent, according to our Minister, for help, or will they get some help, those who are in need, those who are contemplating suicide, and those who have not done well, drop-outs, and students? Are they going to turn elsewhere or to you, Mrs. Minister?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may point out that at the time of the interview, 85 per cent of young Canadians were able to function normally, despite difficult economic conditions. I also said, if I am being quoted correctly, that of course we were going to take care of people in difficulty. I feel, however, that it is also up to young Canadians and I am thinking of those who are able to function with everybody's help to do their share. In this Government, Mr. Speaker, everyone will have to do his share, and that includes Canada's youth.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
During the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised that his Government would make changes in the Liberals' policies. More specifically, he promised Canadian women a number of policies on economic equality. He said that Canadian corporations seeking federal government contracts would have to provide affirmative action programs and equal pay for work of equal value. In the Throne Speech, the Government made a complete turnabout. Why?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think my hon. friend, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, is mistaken. In fact, there was a great deal in the Throne Speech about the status of women in Canada, including the particular issue he is raising. I can say that at this very moment, we have programs that are being quickly examined by Cabinet and my office so as not to delay implementation of the principle in question.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is giving the House the same old answers that we used to hear from the Liberal Government when he sat on this side of the House. When the Prime Minister made the promise during the election campaign-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Well, we don't want to bring back the other people who used to break their promises, to go back on that side. One is as bad as the other. They are a little sensitive, these guys to my right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Oshawa on a supplementary question.

November 8, 1984


John Edward Broadbent: Another 30 years in opposition will do you a lot of good, fellows.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Axworthy:: You should know, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: Just look at Nova Scotia.
The Prime Minister knows what is in the Throne Speech. He also knows that there is no commitment to implement these specific promises he made. He promised Canadian women concrete action, that as Prime Minister he would insist that all companies doing business with the Government have programs such as affirmative action, equal pay for work of equal value, in place. Why is he not now giving that to the people of Canada, the women, instead of studying it again for the future?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, when I see the spectacle that is going on in front of me, I should remind all of the people over there that one thing the Canadian people cannot stand is a lovers' quarrel in public.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: You have got along all these years; don't spoil it now.
Our commitment, the pursuit of equality for women, is at the top of our legislative and governmental priorities. I can assure the Hon. Member that we shall be acting on many fronts to satisfy the very legitimate request of all Canadian women that fairness and equality of opportunity be theirs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMPLEMENTATION OF ELECTION PROMISE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has spent most of the period since September 4 reading the former Prime Minister's answers to questions. I warn him, because he saw what happened to the guy on my right, and to his predecessor, that he will not be around for nearly the same period of time unless he changes his approach.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this question because he is both Prime Minister and a lawyer of considerable reputation. He knows that Section 19 of the Human Rights Act will permit the Government of Canada, without making a study and without bringing legislation before the House, actually to implement the promises made in regard to equality for women. If he believes, as he said in the NAC debate, as he said in British Columbia, and as he said in Toronto during the summer of 1984, that his Government will act on equality, why does he not use the Human Rights Act, consider the unequal state in which Canadian women have been living for decades, and implement now the promises he made? We do not need more studies.
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in fairness I think the Hon. Member would acknowledge that the House has only been in session for some three days and that there will be an economic statement tonight which, of necessity, requires priority treatment. The priority we plan to give to equality in the status of women in a number of important areas is, I can assure the Hon. Member, at the top of our list, and there shall be effective action in those areas.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRIME MINISTER OF FRANCE
Mr. Speaker:: Given the very special relationship that exists between our countries-

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Prime Minister of France, His Excellency Mr. Laurent Fabius, who is accompanied by a parliamentary delegation from France.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence, may I remind the House that the purpose of Question Period is short answers and short questions.


EDUCATION
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Hon. Secretary of State. First, I would like to congratulate him not only on his re-election but on his appointment to his important portfolio.
The Minister well knows that for years one of the ongoing concerns of the previous Government, and of all students and all members of faculties of institutions across the country, has been that funds transferred by the Government of Canada to the provinces for post-secondary education might have been partially, or even largely, diverted to other areas and purposes. Does the Secretary of State intend to implement the law which requires him to determine what each province actually spends in the area of post-secondary education, and report this to the House? Does the Secretary of State intend to ferret out the truth and find out where the provinces are actually spending the money given them by the federal Government which was intended to be devoted exclusively to the benefit of postsecondary education?

November 8, 1984
Oral Questions


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the good wishes of the Hon. Member and in turn offer my congratulations to him.
The Hon. Member will recall that it was the amendment put forward by the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration during debate on Bill C-12 dealing with post-secondary funding which called for the responsible action in reporting of which the Hon. Member speaks.


Roland de Corneille: The Minister, by pointing out this fact, which I would have wanted to have mentioned if there were time-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: No. The Hon. Member knows full well that his opportunity now is to place a supplementary question.


PRIME MINISTERS' POSITION
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is in fact addressed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I am sure he has been listening well to the very point the Secretary of State just mentioned. How does the Prime Minister square the views of the Secretary of State with his own when, in Chicoutimi, Quebec, in the heat of the election campaign, he said that he found repugnant the provisions of this amendment which was in fact moved by his own Minister of Employment and Immigration? He said that he found this amendment repugnant in that it required the provinces to be brought to give an account of how they spend federal funds earmarked for higher education. [Translation]
"It is a dimension of the Act which I find repugnant-"

The Prime Minister said that he wanted it changed.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it was the attitude of the former Government that I found repugnant. That was made very clear.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and relates to one of the few employment projects that she has announced to date, the Canada Works Program. I would like to know why the Minister is following the Liberal practice of denying funding to women's crisis centres under the Canada Works Program? That is a program which is very necessary for many people right across the country, and the Minister's program and guidelines specifically disallow funding to women's crisis centres.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows when he refers to the Canada Works Program which I announced that it will indeed create some 70,000 new jobs and many of those jobs, I trust, will be allocated to women, as I have encouraged all Members of Parliament to see to it. This is so that women will indeed receive a larger number of jobs than they did last year under the program as it was being managed at that time. I would urge the Hon. Member to put forward good and viable proposals which will all be considered.


FUNDING OF WOMEN'S CRISIS CENTRES
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I presume that the Minister is now reversing her regulations and guidelines and is now saying to us that crisis centres will be eligible for funding. Is that what she is saying to us? If she is not saying that to us, could she be very specific in explaining why those groups will not be eligible for funding?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that I again instituted the establishment of constituency advisory boards in order to bring to the attention of Members and of the Minister those projects which should be funded. I would urge the Hon. Member to attend to his constituency advisory board, to appoint one if he has not yet done so, and to ask it to bring forward its recommendations.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. First let me congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well in his deliberations.
As the Minister knows, a fire destroyed the Number 26 colliery in Glace Bay in April, 1984, taking the life of one man and displacing 1,200 workers. Recently the regional Minister for Nova Scotia announced that that coal mine would be sealed and that certain moneys would be allocated for the development of another coal mine. Unfortunately, that Minister did not make known in his announcement its dollar value, the number of jobs that would be created by the coal mine, or the duration of those jobs. Is the Minister prepared to provide the details of that announcement? Furthermore, is he prepared to give a firm commitment to a new coal development in the Town of Glace Bay?
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial
Expansion): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I would indicate that we too are most concerned about the situation to which he refers. As far as the IB expenditure is concerned, the Hon. Member will be pleased to
November 8, 1984

learn that we have agreed to the employment of over a hundred people for 10 weeks to go ahead with the clean-up operation that is necessary in the IB situation. That is in anticipation of taking a fresh look at the feasibility of opening IB itself. As far as the total amount to be expended is concerned, I was speaking with Joseph Shannon this morning and he is still unable to identify the exact amount, but I can assure the Hon. Member that I will provide that detail when it is available.


PLIGHT OF OLDER MINERS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Although we have not got a very strong commitment from the Minister, I would point out to him that in the briefs submitted by the Mayor of Glace Bay and the President of the United Mine Workers of America, a number of factors were raised, with all of which I agree. However, there was one glaring omission, a pre-retirement package for older miners at the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
Would the Minister issue a directive, pursuant to Section 99 of the new Financial Administration Act, suggesting that the Corporation President enter into negotiations with the UMW and/or invoke the provisions of the Labour Adjustment Program, thereby enabling miners who are 55 years of age and older to avail themselves of a pre-retirement plan, thus creating new jobs for younger Canadians in that area?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, who has referred to my meeting with Jake Campbell and His Worship, the Mayor of Glace Bay, I am sure he will be very pleased to learn that Jake Campbell has sent a telex to me, as a result of this Government's fast action, to say that the people of Glace Bay smile once again.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EDUCATION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I am sure that the delegates from the Canadian Federation of Students who are in the galleries will be interested in the Prime Minister's response to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition when he indicated that the complete omission from the Throne Speech of any reference whatsoever to post-secondary education actually reflects a very high priority on the part of the Government.
Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to engage in consultations with the university community, and most particularly students, with respect to defining goals and priorities for universities, and as well to ensure that adequate funding
Oral Questions
will be provided from both the federal and provincial Governments?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the comment of the Hon. Member about students, I do not think that I could improve by an adjective on a statement in regard to that important element of our society which was made by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition during the leadership campaign when he said to students, "Your generation is going to be strangled if Ottawa continues to go into debt at the current pace". He made that statement on April 3 of last year. I agree with that statement. Students require economic growth, and economic growth requires dealing with a Government's expenditures which are out of control, and dealing with the deficit, to create co-operation with the provinces and the private sector, and to create a climate which will allow for the creation of jobs so that our young people can go back to work.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the Prime Minister believes that it is more advantageous for students to go into debt than it is for the Government to go into slight debt in order to ensure not only that there will be educational opportunity but also the prospect of real economic growth.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I will pursue my supplementary question to the Prime Minister along these lines. Will the Government consider a new post-secondary education act, as proposed by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, which is supported by the Canadian Federation of Students, to provide the following: one, a national tripartite, independent post-secondary education advisory council involving the federal and provincial Governments and the post-secondary education community; two, a House of Commons standing committee on science, research and post-secondary education to provide a periodic review of government initiatives in regard to post-secondary initiatives; and, three-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With great respect, I will allow the question as it has been asked to remain and be answered, but I feel that I should advise the new Member, in order to help all new Members, that the questions were put in reverse order. The first question may be a long and detailed question, but the second question must, by tradition, be a short and supplementary question. Therefore, I will let the question stand as it has been put so far.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the suggestions made by my hon. friend were worthy of active consideration. Pursuant to meetings which began this morning between the Secretary of State in regard to post-secondary education, I thank him for those suggestions and the Government will take them into active consideration.

November 8, 1984
Oral Questions AUDITOR GENERAL


COST OF LITIGATION INVOLVING PETRO-CANADA
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board and is in connection with a lawsuit being brought by the Auditor General against Petro-Canada and Petrofina. With respect to that transaction the President of the Treasury Board will know that we are paying the lawyers for the Auditor General through one budget, we are paying the judges through another budget, and we are paying for the defalcations of Petro-Canada in one way or another, which is all costing the taxpayers a lot of money. I would ask the President of the Treasury Board if he would step in to ensure that interdepartmental rivalries get cleaned up in a hurry so that they will not cost the country a lot of money for this nonsense?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that I am well aware of the case.


Mr. Chretien:: You are lucky to have him.


Robert René de Cotret: Sure, we are lucky to have all of our colleagues here with us.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We are nicer to you than they are.


Robert René de Cotret: Ask questions. I have been waiting for them.
The question is one of which I am well aware. There is a suit which has been brought by the Auditor General, and I have had a number of discussions with him. We want the courts to decide on that matter, and we are following it very closely.


AUDITOR'S ACCESS TO CROWN CORPORATIONS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: My question is supplementary, and is directed to the Minister of Justice, who should take some responsibility for the case which is now before the courts. After campaigning so actively with all Members opposite on a program that would allow the Auditor General to be given complete access to the ways in which all taxpayers' money is being spent, including Crown corporations, how can the Government now claim that this is a matter which it should study, when it promised the Canadian people that the Auditor General would be given access to all such corporations?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which refers to the confidences of the previous administration. We are trying to save their hides, for some reason.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: It just shows how impartial we are in the carrying out of our duties. There are important constitutional issues involved.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Wait until I have answered the question. Then you can howl, yowl, jowl and do what you like.
There is a lot of information which can be given to the Auditor General other than confidences of the Privy Council. Perhaps that will be found to be sufficient before the matter is concluded.


NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I will begin by congratulating him on being named to a post which is among the most interesting and challenging of any portfolio in government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: Recently the Minister was visiting communities north of sixty, and while he was in the community of Faro in Yukon he held out a very good measure of hope to the people there concerning the long-term future of the Cyprus Anvil mine which is presently not in production. I wonder whether the Minister at this time would be prepared to tell the House what plans he has, or what he is considering to do-of course, in consultation with the Hon. Member for Yukon-to get this mine back into production. Once it is back into production, what will he do to assure the people of Faro that that operation is going to continue as long as there is ore there to be mined?
I am asking this question quite apart from the current labour dispute, and the lock-out which is happening there. I am thinking of the long-term future of that important economic development project in Yukon.


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, please allow me to thank the Hon. Member for his kind thoughts, and also to congratulate him on his critic portfolio. I welcome him back to the field in which he has long experience and, indeed, in which he is considered an expert.
With respect to the Hon. Member's question, let me say, Mr. Speaker, it is true, as he indicated, that I met on October 24 with a number of people in Faro in order to deal with the question of the closing of the mine. At that time I was asked if I would do my best, along with other parties, to see if we could get the mine opened. In particular, I was asked if I would seek a private sector solution, to engage in discussions with those parties who could assist, and to do that as soon as I could. Since that time I have been doing so.
I have concluded the first round of discussions. There are many parties with whom to discuss and there are many complex issues which must be dealt with. I am now engaged in a second round of negotiations and discussions which are more
November 8, 1984

focused, and I hope I will be able to report good progress as soon as possible.


CROWN CORPORATION PROPOSAL
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior): Mr. Speaker, specifically, has the Minister given consideration to the creation of a new Crown corporation-
Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


B. Keith Penner: -a new Crown corporation involving the White Pass and Yukon route railway and the Northern Canada Power Commission, a Crown corporation which could assist Cyprus Anvil with its transportation and power needs? I raise this, Mr. Speaker, because it was a proposal which was put forward by the Hon. Member for Yukon during the recent election campaign.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I think it goes without saying that I am always willing to listen to the entreaties of the Hon. Member for Yukon.


Lloyd Axworthy: You do not have a choice.


David Edward Crombie: Let me say, Mr. Speaker, specifically on the question of White Pass, there is no question but that the role of White Pass in the Yukon with respect to the transportation component is extremely important. The role of the NCPC with respect to energy costs is extremely important to any future opportunities for the opening of the mine. However, I can say to the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, that there has been absolutely no suggestion other than today by the Hon. Member, certainly not by any person who has been involved in Faro, any person I spoke to, nor, indeed, by any party to the matter, in relation to a Crown corporation.
If it be that the Hon. Member for Yukon would like to pursue that matter, my door is always open.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CHILDREN
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice on this momentous and happy day for justice in Canada. In August the Badgley Commission issued a very comprehensive report documenting the shocking national tragedy of sexual abuse of children. Incredibly the Speech from the Throne was totally silent on this very serious problem. What specific early action does the
Oral Questions
Minister intend to take in response to the very important recommendations of the Badgley Commission?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member no doubt knows because he does his homework-I believe he has that reputation-


John Edward Broadbent: Right!


Mr. Riis:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: -although he was demoted by the Hon. Leader of his Party.


Rodney Edward Murphy: So were you.


John Edward Broadbent: What is your position, John?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lloyd Axworthy: You have something in common with him. John.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is a very raucous reception, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for them. No, I regard myself as having been elevated to the universe.


John Edward Broadbent: You were supposed to feel that way.


Lloyd Axworthy: Elevated right out of finance into justice.


John Carnell Crosbie: The only penalty I am suffering is now having to watch the honourable gentlemen opposite face on.
The report, as the hon. le gentleman knows, Mr. Speaker, makes recommendations which involve both federal and provincial jurisdiction. Our officials are in consultation with provincial officials now. There will be a meeting of Ministers of Justice and Attorneys General on November 22 and November 23 in which the report will be discussed among other matters. Certainly action will be taken, but in taking action we must be careful that we do not injure or damage the rights of individuals as well. There has to be a fine balance. This matter is very much on our minds, and action will be taken.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Svend Johannes Robinson: My supplementary is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
The Badgley Commission was unanimous in its recommendation that the Government immediately establish an office of commissioners reporting directly to the Prime Minister's office, to fight the sexual abuse of children.

November 8, 1984
Oral Questions
When does the Prime Minister intend to set up this office, which is of vital importance to Canadian children?


Martin Brian Mulroney: As the
Minister said earlier, we must first wait for the results of talks with his provincial counterparts, which will take place within the next few days.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and concerns the labelling of irradiated foods. The Department has been studying this issue for some time, in conjunction with the Department of National Health and Welfare in order to determine the best label to use to identify foods which have been treated with gamma rays. Would the Minister advise the House what decision, if any, has been made on the selection of a label which will assist consumers in identifying which foods have been subjected to irradiation?
[ Translation]


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, a communique on the labelling of these foods was issued by my department in July 1983 and sent to the various manufacturers and associations concerned. Replies received until April 1984 are now being analyzed and consultations with the World Health Organization are taking place. We shall be communicating the different data within the next few months.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, you will recall, I am sure, in the last Parliament that the present Minister of Employment and Immigration claimed she was vitally concerned about the problems of those Canadians in the age group of 55 years to 65 years who could neither find employment nor qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. What does the Minister propose to do about that problem now?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member that this is still very much a grave concern of mine. He will be hearing later today about the steps that will be taken with regard to the unemployment insurance account.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, regardless of what might happen with the unemployment insurance account, is the Minister prepared to assure those individuals one of two things: that this Government will produce jobs for them as the Prime Minister said he would; or they will be given unemployment insurance until such time as the jobs are available?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I understand the very real concern of the Hon. Member, but I ask him at least to contain that concern for a few hours when he will know that there will be certain steps taken.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) on Wednesday, November 7, 1984 meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on Wednesday, November 7, 1984 does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, it is customary at this point to allow me, as House Leader for the Official Opposition, to pose a question to my colleague, the Government House Leader, as to his plans for the business of the House for the coming week. With your permission I would like to do so at this time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tradition established with respect to the practice of having a discussion on Thursdays outlining the business of the House, not only for Members of this Chamber but for the general public. Before I get into that, I want first to extend to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) my congratulations on his appointment to that very important task which I had the honour of performing for some few months, that of Opposition House Leader. I also extend my congratulations to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) who has been reappointed by his caucus as the House Leader.


An Hon. Member:: Elected.
November 8, 1984


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He was elected, as I was elected by popular vote in our caucus. I want to assure my two colleagues and Members of the House that we have been busy in a variety of meetings and consultations to the point that we hope to carry on the business of this House in an amicable and orderly fashion on the basis of consultation.
With respect to the business of the House, as Your Honour will know, today we are dealing with Government business as an accommodation to the NDP with respect to their Opposition Day vote which we anticipate will take place next Tuesday. After we complete this legislation it is my intention that we proceed with the Speech from the Throne debate, not only tomorrow but during the course of next week. You will understand, of course, that I always reserve the right to change the order of business depending on circumstances. I have informed my opposite numbers that I will be monitoring the progress of legislation today and hopefully we will be able to make some progress and pass some legislation. If we do and there is the prospect of further progress being made on the legislative program of this Government, I may be in a position to stand up later today and change the order of business for tomorrow. At the present time we anticipate carrying on with the debate on the Speech from the Throne and hopefully into next week, subject to further discussions and consultations concerning alternatives.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in two or three matters with regard to the business of the House but I think I might postpone asking those until we meet privately and allow my colleague from Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) to ask a question with regard to House business that she is particularly concerned about.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East, although this is a departure from practice.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader if he would consider the establishment of a parliamentary committee on the status of women, which would be a tripartite committee composed equally of Members from all Parties with access to women's groups. This request was made in the last Parliament and it was not approved by the Liberals. However, I know the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) strongly supported it.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the seriousness of the request and of the issue, but I think we had better establish at this point, if we may, that matters which have not been tabled or matters which are not under discussion in any committee that we know of really should not be raised as matters under business of the House. They should be raised during Question Period. I say that with full knowledge of the importance of the issue. However, I have a feeling that if I allow this question today it will create a precedent for other critics and other Members to ask similar kinds of questions during this period of time, and I will have no way of saying no later if I do not say no now. It is
Canada Post Corporation
for that reason and that reason alone that I say no to that question now.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have also been consultations between the House Leaders with respect to the proceedings tomorrow. You will understand that Remembrance Day this year falls on this coming Sunday. Accordingly, we thought it appropriate in the traditions of the House to make some arrangement concerning the making of statements by representatives of each of the Parties, leading off with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees). I would like to propose that, starting at eleven o'clock tomorrow morning, after prayers, we will proceed with a statement by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, followed by statements from a representative of each of the Opposition Parties. We ask that Your Honour in effect adjust the timing of the statements by Members and Question Period to accommodate the giving of those statements so that we have the same amount of time as we would on any normal day. If it meets with the approval of the House, I would make that proposal for your consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Hon. Government House Leader. It requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in the House in both official languages the Annual Report of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, during the CTV program Question Period, shown on Sunday afternoon, October 14, I neglected to say that the $622 a day which was to be paid to Judge Marin, chairman of the special committee to study procedures under the Pension Act, was to be paid to the Canada Post Corporation to compensate the corporation for the absence of Judge Marin while serving as chairman of this investigative committee.

November 8, 1984
House of Commons
Judge Marin was personally to receive no compensation for his work as chairman of the special committee.
I regret very much that this oversight occurred, and I apologize most sincerely to Judge Marin for any embarrassment this oversight may have caused him.


PETITIONS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of submitting a petition from 2,000 young people who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to initiate a dialogue on post-secondary education with the purpose of defining goals and objectives for the Canadian postsecondary educational system.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from a number of constituents of Kamloops-Shuswap who ask that the Parliament of Canada act to refuse the testing of the cruise missile in Canada, and to reject research, production, testing and transport of any nuclear weapons, their delivery systems or components in Canada.


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House two petitions from 179 of my constituents who feel that the present Canadian telephone system is fair and cost efficient and that proposed changes through inter-exchange competition would undermine the system. They therefore oppose deregulation related to long distance service and call upon the House to do the same.


Jennifer Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present to this House a petition from 2,297 residents of the Town of Prescott and surrounding area on the issue of capital punishment. They ask the House to introduce legislation to reinstate capital punishment for first degree murder.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, again there have been consultations with my opposite members with respect to the business for next week. You will recall that I made reference, notwithstanding the provisional rules under which we now operate, to the fact that we would be carrying on with business next week. That is the case. The provisional rules do normally require us to adjourn for the week during which Remembrance Day falls. Under the circumstances it was felt appropriate that we not adjourn for that week. If Your Honour will receive this draft order I think you will find that there will be unanimous consent to this proposition:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, when the House adjourns on Friday, November 9, 1984, it shall stand adjourned until 11 a.m., Tuesday, November 13, 1984.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the proposition. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me, but a moment ago I tabled the Annual Report of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology. I would like to ask that that report be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates for consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that we will now revert to Tabling of Documents for a moment. Is that agreeable to the House? Is there unanimous consent to revert?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: That being so, I have a motion from the Minister of State for Science and Technology to refer his Annual Report to the appropriate standing committee. The House has heard the suggestion. Is there agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 8, 1984



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-2, an Act respecting the winding-up of the Canada Sports Pool Corporation and Loto Canada Incorporated, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this Bill for the winding up of the Canada Sports Pool Corporation and the Loto Canada Corporation.
In the debate which we had in this Chamber earlier this morning the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) set out succinctly and persuasively the reasons which justify this Bill at this time. We also heard from the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) who had the thankless task of trying to outline, on behalf of the Liberal Party, some of the concerns which they have about it. We heard as well from the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp). In a moment or two I would like to join debate arising out of those comments, particularly the comments of the Member for York West.
The speech of the Minister drew the attention of the House to the fact that this legislation, apart from winding up the sports pool and the lottery corporation, is symbolic in two senses. First, it conveys very clearly the intention of the Government to have a co-operative working relationship with the provinces. That is why the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) is now negotiating with the provinces to work out the continuing arrangements for lotteries at the provincial level. Second, the Minister also said that this symbolizes the intent of our new Government to get out of the lottery business. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I speak to this Bill.
There is nothing which could give me greater satisfaction than rising to speak my first words in this very special Chamber in support of a measure that will not only be doing away with part of the old order, but also symbolically will be saying to Canadians from coast to coast-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Patrick Boyer: It will be conveying a message to Canadians from coast to coast that the Government has more and better things to do than to be fostering gambling.

Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret that the governments of our country, at the federal and, especially, at the provincial level, ever started these lotteries. In my opinion, state lotteries are not a true function of the public administration of this country. Today, we are unfortunately blest with this culture, attitude or
Sports Pool Corporation
practice because of state lotteries that tell Canadians they have a chance to win. That is the unfortunate state of affairs we have today.
I realize it is not easy to go back to what the situation was in Canada before governments got involved in lotteries. However, we must start somewhere, and that is why I am supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, lotteries sponsored by governments give Canadians false hopes. They are built upon a message of false dreams. They have created an appetite for gambling where none existed before.
In 1970 I worked at Queen's Park as the executive assistant to the Attorney General of that province. At that time we received submissions from people who wanted to start large scale, province-wide lotteries in Ontario. One of the arguments advanced in support of such province-wide lotteries was that annually $4.5 million to $5 million was going out of the Province of Ontario to buy Irish Sweepstake tickets. The great argument was that if we had our own lottery in the Province of Ontario the $5 million would stay in the province and would be a marvellous thing for the balance of payments.
At that time, and correctly in my view, the Government of Ontario rejected that notion. The lotteries permitted in the province were only those at the local level to support service clubs and sports teams, and so on, trying to raise a little money for an immediate and clearly identified local purpose. Times changed, and in the development of this lottery culture that we now have around us on all fronts in Canada, even the Government of Ontario succumbed. Today that $4.5 million to $5 million, which was the concern in those times, is but the advertising budget for the Ontario Lottery Corporation for several months. The provincial Government of Ontario has joined, as have provincial governments across the country, in an act of delusion, and in the creation of false hopes. In many respects it is something like the practice in Roman times of giving bread and circuses to the people to distract them from other things which the government might more properly be doing, or found it could not do.
In fact, the insidious new attitude has permeated so deeply, Mr. Speaker, that when people now begin a project at the local level for community benefit the first question is almost always, "Where do we apply for a Wintario grant?". They no longer wonder how they can be self-reliant, stand on their own feet and do these things in and of themselves. Instead they wonder how they can get a little more money out of the Government through this special fund. Indeed, it is inimical to the patterns of public finance in this country that funds should be so raised and kept in a segregated fund for purposes that are unrelated to the general priorities of government, all of which must come out of the consolidated Revenue Fund.
The Hon. Member for York West, in speaking to this Bill this morning, referred to lotteries as "noble". I find them to be absolutely undermining the traditional values that have built

November 8, 1984
Sports Pool Corporation
this country. The Hon. Member asked the House where the money would come from if the Government suspends the operations of the Sports Pool Corporation. As Hon. Members know, there is no money currently coming in through this device. Indeed, it is losing money. It is the taxpayers of Canada who are currently footing the bill.
I submit that it is rather typical of the economic fiscal thinking of the Party opposite, on whose behalf the Member for York West was speaking, that that kind of deficit approach to financing is one that he would still want to see maintained. It is similar to a compulsive gambler who just keeps on hoping.
The Hon. Member also talked about the national mandate given our Government. He asked how the national purpose and national will was being fulfilled in Canada at this time by cancelling something like the sports pool and the Loto Canada Corporation. Our mandate as a new Conservative Government is to foster those values and to see a restoration in this country of those values that have built this country and made it strong. I submit that the state-supported lotteries are just the opposite of that.
I think of a statement made last year by a new Canadian of Italian background in Toronto who had just won a substantial amount of money in a lottery. He stated that he knew before coming to Canada that it was the land of hope and promise. It was the land where new Canadians could come and find a great new life. We have always believed that about Canada and indeed about the new world. However, traditionally the way of building a new life on the North American continent came from hard work, the opportunities which this rich land affords, and from a little bit of luck that is inherent in life. To think now that one has achieved the promise of the new world by winning a big cash prize in a lottery tells us how far and devastating this attitude has become in our country, where we turn to the wheel of fortune, rather than put our shoulder to the wheel, to make this country work.
We also heard this morning from the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon who spoke on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I can say with confidence that his position and mine are virtually identical. He said that we are dealing with something which is a moral and social issue. He referred to speeches made in this Chamber by members of his Party and members of our Party over the years who have taken exception to the practice of governments getting into the gambling business.
Gambling is not an appropriate way to raise government revenues. It is regressive in nature because, as the Hon. Member pointed out, studies have indicated that it is the poor who buy lottery tickets. In my view it is a sham for people to say that it should simply be treated as a voluntary tax. It is government advertising that has created this demand where no demand existed before.
We now have an opportunity to send a very clear message to the country that a new day has arrived in Ottawa. When we talk about peace, order and good government as being the cornerstones of our Constitution, we truly mean good government. We know that there are some things that the Government can, must and should do, and others which the Government should never do, no matter how much could be raised for the public coffers. Just because lotteries raise money is no reason that the Government should be into the act.
Indeed, to this very day the Criminal Code of Canada contains provisions that make gambling illegal. That law used to apply to all Canadians. Governments then decided to get into the gambling business and introduced special legislation to legitimize that which had been illegal according to the traditions and the values of this country. Not only were special laws created for the Government, but at the same time that the Government promoted gambling through the state-run lotteries, the law officers of the Crown continued to prosecute other Canadians for gambling according to those offences that were still in the Criminal Code. That is the kind of double standard that is unacceptable in this country and it understandably gives rise to an attitude of cynicism on the part of citizens of this country.
As a result of striking down that kind of provision today, we are taking a step in the right direction to get this country back on the right track. That, too, is why I support this Bill. Winding up lotteries in any way possible, on every front possible, is desirable and in the public interest.
This being 1984, we cannot close this debate without noting, as the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon would have done had he not exhausted his time, a relevant Orwellian passage. He pointed out that Orwell wrote in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.
The Lottery, with its weekly pay-out of enormous prizes, was the one public event to which the proles paid serious attention. It was probable that there were some millions of proles for whom the Lottery was the principal if not the only reason for remaining alive.
We know that what Orwell was trying to describe in his novel was life under the oppressive state. It was the state that knew better than its citizens how everything should and could be done. Although we have reached calendar year 1984, fortunately we have not reached the Orwellian 1984.
This Bill, short as it may be, speaks eloquently of our determination to turn back that tide. This is but a beginning, because the provinces are still in this game to an unacceptable degree. However, we are turning back that tide and we must continue in the House and elsewhere in the country to champion any measure which will restore a proper sense of the role of government.
I support the Bill before the House that will wind up the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation and the Loto Canada Corporation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Questions and
comments.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien).


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Hon. Member and congratulate him on being elected? Does he
November 8, 1984

intend to put pressure on his Government? I listened carefully to the Hon. Member's speech, and I would like to know whether, if he wants to ensure that the moral values he applies at the federal level are also applied at the provincial level, in other words, that the provincial lotteries, which were in fact authorized by an amendment to the Criminal Code, are withdrawn is the Hon. Member suggesting that we amend the Criminal Code in such a way that there will be no more lotteries in Canada and that we, in doing so, would come to terms with the Hon. Member's moral objections to lotteries?


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I share the sentiments of the Hon. Member and former Minister on this issue. In the debate in the House this morning, the same idea was expressed by the Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp). In my opinion it is indeed absolutely necessary to bring about complete and fundamental changes in order to develop a plan that would deal consistently at each level with the methods and functions that are appropriate to government, referring to the Criminal Code within specific statutes. Under the Constitution we have a division of powers which defines the provincial government's function in this area, but above all, we have the Criminal Code which regulates what may be done within those functions. I would like to discuss with departmental officials the concept I expressed earlier in my first speech, to improve the situation along these lines.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a supplementary question for the purpose of clarification. There is no constitutional authority for the provinces in that regard. Lotteries were not in existence in Canada because they were against the Criminal Code. I know the Hon. Member is a very learned lawyer. He will recognize constitutionally that it was because of the federal will that the provinces started lotteries.
If the Hon. Member is logical in what he has said to the House, is he intending to follow his conscience and vote against this government Bill?


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to defer to the Hon. Member, whose considerable experience in the House, including a lengthy and distinguished period as Minister of Justice, would normally lead him to have complete knowledge of the matters of which he speaks. However, when he talks about the fact that the provinces have no jurisdiction with respect to lotteries, I invite him to examine the statutes of the Province of Ontario, for example, which in the mid-1960s under an understanding with the federal Government provided for them,


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Gave them the permission.


Patrick Boyer: C'est (a.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We had the power to say yes or no.
Sports Pool Corporation


Patrick Boyer: That was in the days of co-operative federalism, in the mid-1960s.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We were the ones who said yes.


Patrick Boyer: That is right. That was when Mr. Pearson was leading the Liberal Party and there was co-operation between the provinces and the federal Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: How will you vote?


Patrick Boyer: That is why I will not be voting against this Bill. Logic requires that I support it and continue the cause further.
However, I point out for the record that there were provisions in Ontario under provincial legislation permitting lotteries of a local nature and of a regional nature. In each case special permits had to be obtained from the provincial government. We even had a director of the lotteries branch in the provincial government. That was in the days when this lotteries business was still under control.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to take part in this debate involving the winding down of the Canadian sports pool and part of the gambling business in Canada.
I congratulate the Government for taking the initiative to make certain that the second piece of legislation debated in this Parliament would be one which takes care of the gambling issue on the federal scene. Also I congratulate the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) on the speech which he just made and his ringing defence of the natural position of the work ethic, competitive spirit and the role of the market-place, invoking those principles for which Canadians have hungered for entire generations. I am glad he planted his flag very firmly. These are the principles which we intend to enunciate throughout the next four years. Canadians will appreciate it as health returns to the economy as a result of this particular emphasis.
I should like to point out at the outset that the path taken by the previous Government in instituting the sports pool was not the normal way in which it operated. It began a new company. In previous years that Government would normally take over a thriving industry and run it into the ground. It was the old story of how one started a small business in Canada-one bought a big one and let the government do its work and it would become a small one. Normally the Liberal Government would not have started a new business as it did on that occasion. It started a new corporation and in this case the market-place dictated what ought to happen to it in the first place. It died a natural death financially, it died a natural death. I wish it would have followed its normal pattern and taken over the gambling industry in places like Atlantic City and Vegas. If it had done so, Atlantic City and Vegas would be out of business by now. As the saying goes, if it were to nationalize the Sahara desert, it would run out of sand. It broke its normal pattern, but I am glad to say that the law of

November 8, 1984
Sports Pool Corporation
supply and demand has done its work on this particular corporation.
It is sad to say that the losses this corporation experienced are reason enough to wind it down. These losses tend to overshadow the real reason for doing so. When the corporation can lose $46 million in a few months and require another $16 million or $18 million to wind down and satisfy all existing contracts, it ought to die. People might be led to believe that this is the only reason we are shutting it down. However, the real reason we are shutting it down is because it is wrong.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You do not believe in gambling.


Benno Friesen: That is right, except at election time, except when Tories run. Then it is not a gamble. It is a sure thing and there is nothing wrong with it.
It is wrong for the Government to engage in this kind of business. There are two, three or perhaps more specific reasons, but I want to deal with at least two of them. The first reason is because of what it does to our people, the debilitating effect on people. It might be worth noting that becoming involved in the gambling business on the part of any government is a good symptom that something is wrong with the economy. We should take a look around the world at what countries institute a gambling business on behalf of the government. We will find that almost, if not entirely without exception, they are countries with failing economies.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Like British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario.


Benno Friesen: Like those provinces.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They are all in the gambling business.


Benno Friesen: They are in the gambling business. I think it ought to be wound down, but if the Hon. Member wants to look at a real example, he should take a look at Mexico where people walk the streets with boards, two feet by four feet, with rows of lottery tickets and on which they flash the results of lotteries. In that country lottery is a big business. If the Hon. Member thinks that lotteries in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario are a big business, he should go to Mexico where there is no unemployment insurance and a high unemployment rate. He will see what the lottery business has done to that country. As bad as the lottery business on the provincial scene is, it is nothing compared with what it is in some underdeveloped countries. I hope the Hon. Member will agree with me. Therefore, it is wrong because of what it does to our people. First, it creates a world of illusion. Somehow it creates a dream in the minds of the people engaged in it that they can get wealthy suddenly, that overnight they can solve all of their financial problems.
It is almost impossible for that to happen. If you look at the odds of gambling, it is almost impossible for people to succeed. For them to be given the dream that overnight they will be wealthy is a cruel hoax. In fact, the odds are written in such a way as to make sure they do not succeed. It is impossible for
them. Therefore, the world of illusion is a cruel hoax that we play on them.
The second related reason it is wrong is that it gives people the impression that sudden wealth is great, that it is healthy, that it will be a solution to their problems. That does not happen. There are very few people who can handle sudden wealth.


Dave Nickerson: I would sure like to try it.


Benno Friesen: I would not mind trying. I would take the risk. However, the fact is it does not happen very often that people can handle it. If you look at the record of those who have become suddenly wealthy after winning a lottery, it is not a very good history of what that industry has done to people. People just cannot handle that kind of sudden wealth. As my friend, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) says, we would like to give it a chance, but usually it does not work.
The ads shown on television, the million dollar lottery ads, show people who have just won a million. They are on their yacht. They will be getting their Rolls Royce. They have all the luxurious amenities of life. It makes it look as though that were the solution to everything. That is a cruel hoax that we play on people. It is just a terrible illusion that we have.
Second, as my friend, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore mentioned, it is a tax on the poor. Studies have shown that it is people mostly in the lower income groups and lower educational brackets who buy those tickets. It is ironic that you do not find lottery vending machines or tables next to the savings deposit wicket of the banks. Is it not strange that when people go to the bank or credit union they do not find lottery tickets being sold there? There you would have the choice between saving your money in a reasonably safe place or gambling it and being a pretty sure loser.
They do not put them there. Where do they put them? They put them in the grocery stores, in the convenience stores and out on the street where you cannot miss them. They make sure that impulse buying becomes the biggest trap for the people who can be trapped into buying lottery tickets. Next to the potato chips is where you find the lottery tickets. Next to the milk bar you will find the lottery tickets. Given a choice between what they need and what they like, they will buy what they like. That is too bad. It becomes a tax on the poor, and that is wrong.
The third reason why it is wrong is that it is wrong for a government to create the business which eventually makes most people losers. I would have thought that a government would see its mandate and its mission to make people winners, to make people successful, to make people feel good and do well. As soon as a government institutes a lottery industry, it makes sure that most people are going to lose. If not, the lottery business is not going to win. It is not going to work. The only reason they can give a million dollar prize is that there have been a million people giving a dollar who are not going to get it. Knock off the cost of advertising, promotion and sales, and it will take two million sales to give a million dollar bonus.
November 8, 1984

Most people have to lose. It is morally wrong for a government to start a business which will make most people losers and trick the unsuspecting people into thinking that they are going to win.
Finally, and I again echo my friend from Etobicoke-Lake-shore, it is morally wrong for a government to encourage an economy, a life or a lifestyle simply of chance. Chance is just what the word says. It is risk over which you have absolutely no control. It is wrong for a government to do that. Our country was built well and built strong, not because of lotteries, but because of hard work, not because of lotteries or chance in the gambling sense, but because of the investment of hard work, initiative and chance in the competitive sense, not in the numbers game. It is morally wrong for a government to get involved in a business that depends on chance for success.
I compliment the Government and the Minister for taking the initiative to wind this corporation down, getting out of the business, not simply because we are losing money, although that is reason enough, but to undo the record of the previous Government and start establishing those principles upon which we will rebuild this nation in order to make sure that our people will find satisfying, productive, creative lives and find fulfilment in what they have accomplished instead of some shallow sense of fulfilment from what they have won.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a little unusual. I notice that you are sitting for the first time in your position as Deputy Speaker. I wanted to draw the fact that, as a very distinguished new Member of Parliament, you have now been given, by the election of this House, very important responsibilities. I am sure I speak on behalf of all the Members of the House in extending to you our expression of congratulations and our hope that you will conduct the affairs of this House as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the whole with the ability that we know you have. I wish you all the very best in that endeavour and assure you of our co-operation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add the same feelings and sentiments on behalf of the members of the Liberal caucus who welcome your presence for the first time in the Chair. We express our appreciation and confidence in your work in the future.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Hon. Member. I listened to his speech and I agree with almost everything that he said. I had not intended to speak in this debate because, frankly, I feel uncomfortable. I think there is something somewhat dishonest in the speeches we have heard which say that it is immoral and wrong for the federal Government-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, I would ask the Hon. Member whether he is making a speech or a question or comment.
Sports Pool Corporation


David Orlikow: A question. It was suggested by the Member and other Members that this is the wrong way to raise money, essentially raising money from the poor, that it is somehow immoral. I agree with that. My province which has an NDP government, the Hon. Member's province which has a Social Credit government, Quebec which has a PQ government and Ontario and other provinces which have Conservative governments are all in the lottery business. It seems to me that along with this vote, the Hon. Member should be back in his province urging that government-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: And you in yours.


David Orlikow: -and I in my province should be urging the provincial government to get out of the business. In a practical way, we should perhaps explore the possibility of suggesting to the CRTC that it forbid advertising of the lotteries and in fact perhaps even forbid the reporting of lottery winners on television. I wonder if the Hon. Member could give some thought to that.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, first, I do not disagree with what the Hon. Member has said. I can personally sympathize with his view regarding the advertisements on television. If the Hon. Member used my standards for what should be on television, I am sure that he would find that the screen would be black a good share of the day.
I personally sympathize with the fact that advertisements are designed to do exactly what the Hon. Member finds so objectionable. I find great sympathy with the need to get rid of such advertisements. The only question I have is about the degree to which we want to set up a list of prohibitions in our society. There are a great many things that are wrong with our society and I would like to see those things eliminated. However, I do not know whether passing a law every time something goes on that we think is wrong is a solution to that problem. Sooner or later, we must return to the implicit human need to make some personal choices about what we wish to do. Incidentally, that is where we gain our personal strength. We gain no strength of character by remaining pure because the Government has forbidden everything. The only way we gain personal strength is by refusing, on our own initiative, to do some things that we can do but have decided not to do because we think they are wrong.
While I sympathize with the Hon. Member and probably would agree with him that those things ought not to be on television, it is much better to allow them on television, not watch them and make sure we give enough guidance to our families so that they do not become misguided by those kinds of commercials.


Mr. Lapierre:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. I listened to his speech with a great deal of interest, and I was particularly impressed by the purity of his principles and the way he washes his hands off the matter by saying that

November 8, 1984
Sports Pool Corporation
the Government of Canada will no longer be involved in lotteries because it is morally dangerous, etc.
At this point, I would like to ask the Hon. Member how he manages to reconcile his high principles with the fact that over the next few years, his own Government will be receiving over $36 million from funds raised by provincial lotteries? If it is morally wrong for the Government of Canada to be involved in lotteries, is the Hon. Member's conscience flexible enough to approve if the money is raised by others? Can the Hon. Member answer that?


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, first I would refer the Hon. Member to Hansard of March 13, 1984, at which time I said much the same thing as I said today. I have not changed my mind at all from the days we were in opposition to the days that we are in Government. The reason I could speak on this Bill at early notice was because I had said the same things at other times. I have not changed my mind on the subject at all.
I take the Hon. Member's point seriously. I would like to see us wind down the provincial lotteries. I would gladly forgo that income because I think we would make much more if we created a spirit of enterprise in this country that is built on work, thrift, effort, self-expression and creativity. We would make a great deal more than the $36 million we are receiving from the lottery sales.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, speaking of creativity and imagination, in talking to us about the Sports Pool the Hon. Member forgot to mention why the Sports Pool was set up. It was established to finance the Calgary Olympic Games. Perhaps the Hon. Member could use his imagination and creativity to explain how he intends to finance the Government's commitment of $200 million.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Hon. Member to reconcile for me how the previous Government could, on the one hand, promote such a wholesome activity as the Olympics and then, on the other, pay for it with such an unwholesome activity as gambling.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 have just a few comments to make to the Bill that we have before us. I always relish the opportunity to take up a theological dialogue with the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). The puritan streak obviously runs deep on both the right and the left of this country, but it runs in a different manner. I would like to point out a few of those differences.
Let me say for the record, Mr. Speaker, that I support the Bill and agree with those who have already contended that we ought to do away with government activity in the lottery business altogether. Let me now say why this is so. I think my reasons will differ somewhat from those of the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta.
I was interested in the Hon. Member's analysis of the values that gambling erodes and the entire notion of coming into sudden wealth and the personal consequences that that might bring about. In my view, I do not make as big a distinction between the way gambling erodes values and the way the ethics of the market-place, the stock market, commodity futures and all the other ways in which we in this country and the philosophies of the Hon. Member's Party encourage people to regard sudden wealth through the market-place as that for which we are all striving. In fact, the ideal of the free enterprise society is that someone will finally make it big. That is the engine behind the kind of economy Hon. Members of his Party have exalted for years.
I would say to the Hon. Member that he ought to think twice about whether or not his left hand knows what his right hand is doing and whether or not he does not find himself in the odd position of, on the one hand, speaking about the erosion of values while, on the other, finding himself part of a political movement which in fact exalts the erosion of those same values.
The Hon. Member speaks about eroding the work ethic. It is interesting that we have here only a theology of works-righteousness and no reference to a theology of grace in which one might actually find a place for sudden wealth and suddenly being lifted out of the state to which one had been condemned for so many years, by winning a lottery. However, I say that somewhat with tongue in cheek.
I noticed that the Hon. Member was concerned about the erosion of values. Why do we not hear criticism from members of the Progressive Conservative Party of the erosion of values that takes place day in and day out on our television screens through what is euphemistically called marketing? Advertising is all about using sexual imagery and other sorts of things to sell products. Selling products is what the Progressive Conservative Party has been all about for years. Its members are the ones who have exalted marketing, selling products and the ethics of making a better mouse trap so that the world will come to your door. Those are the kinds of values they have been peddling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must remind the Hon. Member that the time allotted for questions and comments is now over.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I beg your pardon. I have been speaking to the Bill. I made that clear when I rose.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understood the Hon. Member began by saying that it was a comment.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I said that my comment was on the Bill. If you wish to check Hansard, Mr. Speaker, you will find that that is what I said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek).


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect to the newness of the occupant of the Chair, I
November 8, 1984

rose and said that I was speaking to the Bill. I regard myself as still having the floor. I think that if you seek the opinion of Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, you will find that that is the case.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think we can resolve this matter. I have consulted with my colleagues. I know that I heard the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) refer distinctly to the fact that he was making a comment. I can understand his confusion, but we on this side certainly have no objection to the Hon. Member continuing with respect to this particular issue.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to listening to another speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill has the floor.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, why do we not hear complaints? Why do we not hear about that kind of marketing? Why do we not hear complaints about the erosion of values which results from the wonderful free enterprise system, whereby people go out and sell products and spend millions of dollars hiring hucksters on Wall Street, Madison Avenue and everywhere else to figure out how to sell everything from soap to the Progressive Conservative Party? Why do we not hear anything about that? Why do we not hear anything about the way in which advertisements are deliberately designed to create the feeling among people that they need something when, in fact, they may not need that product? Why do we not hear objections to that?
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it is obvious to you, as it is to everyone else, that I get a little irritated when I hear Members opposite waxing ethical about the erosion of the work ethic and the erosion of certain values as a result of something which I admit myself that I object to, that is, in this case, government lotteries. I wish the Government would extend its moral imagination to things which are part of the world view and things which it traditionally defends. Maybe it could apply a bit of that critique to that.
With respect to that, it is interesting to hear people speaking out against lotteries, saying that they are a tax on the poor. Yes, they are a tax on the poor. Where is the proposal, which was promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during the campaign which we have just gone through, to tax the rich? Where was that in the Throne Speech? Nowhere. Was there an answer yesterday in Question Period? There was no answer whatsoever. We hear from Members opposite how horrible it is that lotteries are a tax on the poor, but we see no initiative whatsoever from the Government with respect to having fair taxation in this country and making the rich, who are paying nothing, at least pay a minimum tax. I did not hear
Sports Pool Corporation
anything about that from the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta.
When I am finished speaking, he will probably get up, and when he does, will he say that this Government is going to proceed with the give-and-take proposal having to do with support for voluntary organizations. If we proceed with this Bill as we are, and if, ideally, we were to do away with all lotteries, the voluntary organizations could then get the kind of support they need through the measures supported by the Conservatives when they were in Oppostion. Will that be forthcoming, or will we have another study of that particular proposal?
The kinds of things which lotteries have been used to support, and to which we objected having lotteries support, are, for instance, medical research. We spoke about that the last time the Bill was before the House. Are Hon. Members opposite in favour of a fair taxation system which would enable us to pay for the medical research we need in this country? Are they in favour of that? We have not heard anything about that.
I wanted to put these caveats on the record respecting both the theological observations of the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta and also respecting what can be argued is a hypocritical stance when it comes to a tax on the poor and similar issues. 1 hope the Hon. Member will give us some clarification on his position with respect to these matters.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta.


Benno Friesen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will check Hansard very carefully, but in the 15 or 20 minutes during which I spoke, 1 do not think I was making a theological argument. Maybe with the Member's expansive imagination he was able to make that case. I would be willing to engage in a theological debate with him on it, but I do not think that I made such an argument.
I would begin by saying that if he studied his theology the way he has his market-place, it is no wonder he is a socialist. The description he gave of the market-place was not a description, it was a caricature. I think he would agree with that. No one can ever make a defence of gambling with penny stock as being the creative side of the market-place. No one who looked at it for a minute would do that. If the Member wants to insist on making a lifelong commitment to narcissism, as his Party seems to do, then I say there is nobody but nobody who has a moral commitment to anything except the socialists. They are the only ones. Just ask them. They have looked in the glassy pool, have seen their own image and have fallen in love with it. Nobody else can be right.
I would simply respond to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), in the catalogue of questions that he had for which he wants answers, which is everything which he would like to have seen included in the Throne Speech, that that will come in time. If everything I have heard from Members opposite in Question Period were to be included in the Throne Speech, we would still be reading it. They think

November 8, 1984
Sports Pool Corporation
that everything which is on their own private agenda ought to be included in the Throne Speech. If it is not in there, obviously the government is immediately wrong. I would simply say to him that if he can endure with the perseverance of the saints, the rest will follow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill rises on a point of order.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Hon. Member has made a comment. He also has asked me a question. He asked me whether I was willing to endure with the perseverance of the saints, and I would like to respond to that question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I see that the capacity for flip answers has spread along the Government benches. We now see Members, formerly noted for their seriousness, who are now, perhaps not guilty of narcissism, but are obviously taking their self-image from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and have lost the capacity to respond seriously to important questions.
I said that the Hon. Member's remarks were theological. Perhaps I did not explain well enough, but he entered into a discourse on the areas from which we get our strength and he said that such strength comes only from personal decisions. So if we listened to the Hon. Member, we would be free to bombard our people with all kinds of marketing, advertising and images, because presumably the realm of the ethical is only personal. People are supposed to sit there and withstand all that. The Hon. Member has confidence that they will be able to do that. I think otherwise. I think that the realm of the ethical is both social and personal and that we have a responsibility to make judgments about what kind of advertising, marketing strategies and various other things we will permit as a Parliament. That is why we are here. We are here because the realm of personal decision-making is not the only realm of decision-making.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta rises to make a comment.


Benno Friesen: I would simply say to the Hon. Member that I am not at all confident that the public is naturally or uniformly competent to make all those decisions, or that they would make the right ones. But, thankfully, in a land of free people we have a right even to be wrong, to make wrong decisions and, hopefully, to learn from those wrong decisions.
Second, I would rather have someone make his own wrong decisions. I would rather have him do that than have someone else make them for him. That is the trouble with a centralist
government which wants to make laws on everything to make sure that no one can make mistakes. The Government wants to make sure that it will impose such kinds of regulations that no one can make a mistake. That is what is wrong with the socialist frame of mind.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from my colleague opposite what system he would put in lieu of the market-place and advertising? It is my observation by way of a comment, Mr. Speaker, that their replacement would be with central planning. No doubt that the market-place would be gone; no doubt that advertising would be gone, because some central bureaucracy here in Ottawa, controlled by the Hon. Member, of course, would decide how many acres of wheat we would plant on our farm and, as it is in the Soviet Union, so that when July comes along and the rains come and one cannot plant, the wheat would still have to be planted because the Hon. Member and his colleagues in the New Democratic Party would dictate that. Central planning, Mr. Speaker, is what that Party is after. It is a denial of the individual freedom for which our ancestors fought, and we will never give that freedom up!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I notice it is the same version of Canadian history which we constantly hear from the other side and which we used to hear from this side. In fact, there are still some of those Hon. Members on this side. However, we hope that they are a little more intelligent, the new Members, that is.


David Orlikow: I would not count on it.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: All we hear about is individual freedom, Mr. Speaker. We never hear about the fact that the Government had to intervene, that there was something called the "CPR", that there were all kinds of corporate, institutional and social initiatives when it came to the construction of our country. We never hear about that and, least of all, Mr. Speaker, we will never hear it from the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), because he sees the world through paranoid glasses when it comes to anything remotely to the left of Atilla the Hun. All that Hon. Member can ever hear when people are speaking is further evidence of the great communist conspiracy. Therefore, his question need hardly be taken seriously.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready to continue debate?
Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur
Sport)): Mr. Speaker, in listening to the comments of our socialist NDP friend, and I listened very carefully, I did not recognize the fact that he was speaking on the Bill which is before the House. He touched on many subjects, all of which have nothing to do with the Bill presently before us. The fact is that the Hon. Member totally and absolutely misses the point as to what is happening here today, and yet he has been here long enough to realize what is going on.
Perhaps I should reiterate what, in fact, is stated in the Bill and why this Government finally took the only honourable step
November 8, 1984

to wind down the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation. It was done for numerous reasons. The first and main reason, of course, is the fact that there was a 1979 agreement with the provinces giving the provinces the jurisdiction for gaming operations. I did not hear any reference from the Hon. Member in that regard. In order to establish a spirit of co-operation between the federal Government and the provinces-rather than the spirit of confrontation which has existed over the past decade or more fostered by the previous Liberal administration-we took the step of closing down the sports pool and are now in the process of legislating that decision in order to create harmony between this Government and the provinces.
Second, of course, because the sports pool was such a well run operation-typical of the Liberal administration-it was losing over $1 million a week, which made the decision that much easier.
There were some individuals who suggested to us that we not close down the sports pool but improve upon it, make it more comprehensive and simple and then use it as a tool to try to get money out of the provinces in order to close it down. We rejected that option because that is exactly the way the previous Government operated. It used to have a big stick in order to deal with the provinces. That sort of federal-provincial relationship is out of the window as of September 4 last, I can assure you of that.
My main purpose in participating in this debate today, Mr. Speaker, is once again to assure Canadians of this Government's commitment to contributions for the Calgary Games of $200 million despite the closure of the sports pool. As I stated at a press conference on September 21, and I quote:
This Government unconditionally accepts the commitment to provide financial support for the 1988 Olympics in Calgary to a total of $200 million.
I will expound in a few moments, Mr. Speaker, as to our commitment and where we intend to raise the money for that commitment. However, I would like to take a few comments to follow up on some of the historical background of the sports pool and lotteries in general, following on the statements made earlier today by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). As you may know, Mr. Speaker, the first lottery initiated goes back to 1973, which was the Olympic lottery. This was initiated by the Liberal Government at that time for the purpose of trying to raise funds for the Montreal Olympics, which were held three years later in 1976. There were problems immediately and the Conservative Party, in Opposition at that time, made those problems known to the House and to the Canadian people. We suggested that the Government should not get itself involved in the lottery business at that time. However, being in the position we were as Opposition, we did not get very far.
It is somewhat ironic that in those days I happened to be the critic for fitness and amateur sports, for the Olympics and for lotteries. It was under those conditions that on February 27, 1976, and again on March 29 of the same year, I brought numerous and specific facts to the attention of the House regarding irregularities concerning advertising and ticket sales
Sports Pool Corporation
with which the lottery was fraught. Specifically, on June 1, 1976, I went on to call for an investigation into the Olympic lottery. However, in spite of numerous concerns outlined not only in this House but across the country, Loto Canada followed the Olympic lottery and was established just after those horrendous problems which developed in the Olympic lottery on June 7, 1976.
We continued, Mr. Speaker, to try to clean up the operation because we were promised by the Government in power at that time that the lottery would continue only as long as it took to pay for the overrun of the Montreal games. It is for that reason, and that reason only, that we eventually supported the formation of that lottery on a temporary basis, with the understanding that it would be closed down after the overrun of the 1976 Olympics was paid for. That was not to be the case, unfortunately, and, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the Government went on to create other lotteries, and so we found ourselves in the situation in which we are today.
When the Progressive Conservatives eventually formed a government in 1979, we stuck with the initial principle which we had from the very beginning when lotteries were developed in this country. That was to say, let us get out of the lottery business, let us get out of gaming and gambling. We do not want to be in it. The federal Government has really no right to be in it. An agreement was signed in 1979, with the unanimous consent of the provinces, giving the rights and the jurisdiction of lotteries and gaming to the provinces. Shortly thereafter the Liberal Government was elected, and immediately it went into action, ignoring this duly signed agreement between the provinces and the federal Government, and started to wind its way into the sports pool, directly breaking the agreement that existed between the provinces and the federal Government. That was just another example of the terrible lack of co-operation between the federal Government and the provinces. The rest is history.
The status of the two corporations today, Loto-Canada and the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation, is as follows. Regarding Loto-Canada, on November 1, 1984, some $15.5 million was paid to the Receiver General for Canada and $250,000 was retained to pay outstanding accounts. That was because even after all those years Loto-Canada was still in existence. In fact, the Auditor General said in his report on July 29, 1983, that the lottery was ill-founded by monies that were legally due but not paid to the Receiver General for Canada. He went on to say that he was concerned about the high level of expenses incurred by Loto-Canada. As a result of these inherited irregularities, this Government moved quickly to take the action I just outlined.
With regard to the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation, approval for $36.5 million was obtained on October 26, 1984, by this Government to be allocated in the following manner. Some $20 million was allocated to forgive the start-up loan. The Liberals borrowed $20 million to start up this mess. Then

November 8, 1984
Sports Pool Corporation
another $16.5 million was allowed to pay outstanding accounts which were derived as a result of losses.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, to put an end to this whole thing now, that the remaining matters relating to this corporation will be cleared up in the very near future. It is in very good and capable hands, that of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and officials of the Treasury Board and of the Department of Justice, and I am confident that this will soon be behind us.
To go back to the Olympic commitment and how we are going to raise the necessary funds, that is the number one question. Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that it was never expected or intended that the full $200 million would be funded entirely from the sports pool profit. The previous Government saw this as only one of several sources of funding, and at least some of those we are actively considering. Others that we have in mind were not, as far as we know, considered by the previous Government.
Now, because the positive spin-off from the games by way of social, economic and cultural benefits will be realized by all provinces and regions of Canada, it is no secret that I have been negotiating and discussing with the provinces not only to engage them in partnership to help fund the Olympics, but also to work together in supporting and improving fitness and sports programs in a more co-ordinated fashion. I have had the opportunity to meet with my provincial counterparts responsible for fitness, sports and recreation, with some of them on numerous occasions now, and I can assure you that a true feeling of federal and provincial co-operation and consultation has become more than evident. I have also met and am continuing to meet with provincial Ministers responsible for lotteries. Of the ten Ministers who are fitness and sports or recreation Ministers, only four are responsible for lotteries. The other six are in different portfolios. I can report that progress is being made in forging the type of partnership between this Government and the provinces that I referred to earlier.
That is one way. There are other ways and means at which we are currently looking to help fund the Calgary Olympics, indeed, to help fund fitness and sports programs in the long run. For example, we will be introducing legislation to create an Olympic coin program, which should generate between $30 million and $50 million, depending on the price of silver and gold at that time. At present, the proposed program would involve 12 issues of one $20 silver coin, with a maximum mintage of six million units, and one issue of one $100 coin, with a maximum mintage of 350,000 units. An agreement for the use of the Olympic marks is currently being negotiated with the Mint, the Canadian Olympic Association and the International Olympic Committee. We are also seriously pursuing increased corporate sponsorship in the area of amateur sports and examining various ways to encourage the corporate sector to become more involved on a long-term basis after the games are held.
I truly believe, Mr. Speaker, that with some effort on our part the private sector can play a far greater role in both the
funding of the Olympics as well as in being more directly involved in assisting fitness and sports programs, not only between now and 1988 but beyond that time. I am very seriously looking into ways and means of coming up with some form of incentives for the private sector to do just that.
I prefaced my address, Mr. Speaker, by emphasizing that this Government will be honouring its commitments to provide financial support for the 1988 Winter Olympic Games in Calgary. Indeed, we take this $200 million commitment very seriously. As I indicated previously, I would like to take this opportunity to expound a little on the allocation of those funds. Perhaps the most important of all the federal monies in the long term is the $30 million for the Olympic Endowment Fund. This is in fact a legacy for our athletes, both present and future Olympians. The fund will be used toward maintenance and operation of the Olympic facilities and will ensure that our national team athletes have world class training centres, such as the speed skating oval and the Olympic Park. In addition, these facilities will draw world class athletes and coaches from all over the world to train in Canada. This is yet another benefit which will stay as a legacy. Most important, these facilities are going to be used by the Canadian people themselves, from minor leaguers and beginners right up to those who are training for international events. So the legacy of the Olympics will live on after 1988. It is with pride that the Canadian people are going to look toward 1988 as the best ever Olympics.
Other funding includes $27.8 million toward the budgeted cost of the Olympic Saddledome; $35 million for the Olympic Oval, which is to be constructed by the University of Calgary; $62.2 million toward the Canada Olympic Park, which includes the ski jumps, the luge and bobsled runs; $30 million towards the Olympic Endowment Fund, to which I just referred; and $45 million toward operating funding for OCO '88, it being the Calgary Olympic Organizing Committee. To date we have expended $48 million of the $200 million commitment. In addition to direct funding, we have promised to provide essential federal services such as security, immigration and customs. The Government of Canada may also provide certain discretionary services on a cost-recovery basis.
Having said all this, Mr. Speaker, we are very proud that we were able to move as quickly as we did in closing down the sports pool in good faith with the provinces, a move which made good economic sense as far as the taxpayers are concerned because of the $1 million to $1.5 million loss per week. 1 can report to you that the funding to replace this $200 million commitment is proceeding on schedule. I can also report to you that the construction projects in Calgary to which I just referred are proceeding according to schedule. Having seen the sites myself and having met the top notch organizers of OCO '88 in Calgary and across the country, I am confident that the Winter Games in Calgary in 1988 are going to be the most successful ever held anywhere in the world and that Canadians will be proud of what we, along with the organizers, are doing and will do between now and then.
November 8, 1984


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Minister on his first speech in the House as the new Minister for Fitness and Amateur Sport, and I am happy to say he has confirmed all commitments made by the previous government with respect to the Calgary Olympic Games. I share his optimism that the Games will be a success, and I am sure that the organizing committee will not disappoint us.
I also found it very encouraging to hear that negotiations with the provinces are proceeding satisfactorily, and I would like to put a few questions to the Minister on the subject, having had occasion in the past to meet with provincial ministers. I would like to ask him what his position is on Quebec's sine qua non condition-which is public knowledge-namely, an amendment to the Criminal Code. After hearing the Minister's colleagues and their moral objections to lotteries and the rest, I would like to know whether the Minister shares the view of the Government of Quebec that lotteries and sports pools and such should be transferred to provincial jurisdiction by an amendment to the Criminal Code.
I also wish to ask the Minister whether, in addition to the commitment for $200 million, the conditions of a program such as "Better Than Ever", announced by the Government this summer, will be met, and whether the Minister is also committed to helping Canadian Olympic athletes prepare for the 1988 Summer Games. I know there is a lot of concern within the sports community, and I would like to know where the Minister stands in this respect.
To get back to the $200 million, I really would like to know what the Minister's position is on the Criminal Code amendment being requested as a condition by Quebec, and especially whether he intends to formalize his agreement with the provinces which, I am sure, will have no hesitation in signing an agreement with the Minister to provide the $200 million. I would therefore appreciate if we could have a progress report on negotiations as well as the Minister's position on the amendment to the Criminal Code.


Mr. Jelinek:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being able to expound on some of the statements I made in response to the Hon. Member's question. The Hon. Member will know that it would be inappropriate for me to discuss in detail what is going on in our negotiations before they conclude. I can tell him that if he sees any problems or difficulties arising between this Government and the Province of Quebec, he must be looking into the past. 1 can assure him that in discussions with Mr. Parizeau the definite conclusion was reached that the Province of Quebec will be going along in principle at this time. We certainly feel very optimistic that when the time comes actually to formalize the agreement, the Province of Quebec is going to be very co-operative. Our meetings with
Sports Pool Corporation
Mr. Parizeau have been very cordial and positive. I repeat that I can only say that, as far as the Province of Quebec is concerned, the situation looks very bright indeed with regard to the formalizing of the agreement which I seek.
In response to the Hon. Member's question regarding the time when we hope to formalize this agreement, I think a Liberal Minister would have said, "as soon as possible". I would obviously like to have it as soon as possible. There are other priorities before us and before all Members of Parliament, the economy being one of them. I would hope, and I emphasize the word hope, that we will have a formal agreement before Christmas. If it is not before Christmas, then certainly in the early part of next year.
There was one other question which the Member asked, and that was with regard to the "Best Ever Program". I have already given my commitment to the associations and to the athletes that we will be going ahead with the "Best Ever Program". In future years, as far as dollars and cents are involved, there may be some modifications. There may be some improvements, but certainly the "Best Ever Program" is going to go ahead toward the Winter Games and the Summer Games as well.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question. I have listened with great interest to the speeches of both the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Minister responsible for Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) supported by a number of colleagues. An element of confusion has arisen. Just exactly why is it that the Government has decided to wind up the sports pool? Is it because it is losing money? Is it because it is illegal in the mind of the Government, in other words it breaks a contractual obligation undertaken by the Conservative Party when it was last in office? Or is it because of the serious moral questions which arise with regard to the appropriateness of funding matters of genuine concern through the sale of tickets based on the element of chance?
I can remember the original debate here when I spoke and the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) spoke. I do not recall the emphasis on that day being placed on whether it would be successful or, to any large extent, on whether it was in violation of the original commitment made to the provinces by the Conservative Party in office in 1979. There was passing reference made to that but the main concern, as I recall it, was that we felt it was an inappropriate way to raise the funds necessary for the ongoing programs which were needed in the country.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare said earlier that this was being done to a large extent because of the necessity for a much more congenial attitude to be developed between the provinces and the federal Government. He pointed out that the loss of substantial millions of dollars was an element. Colleagues of the Minister, speaking from the backbench, then made reference to the morality of it.
Is it because we do not believe this is an appropriate way to raise funds for necessary projects that this particular element of previous Government policy is now being disbanded, is it

November 8, 1984
Sports Pool Corporation
because it loses money, or is it because of the legal and contractual obligations? The Ministers nod that it is all three.


Otto John Jelinek: That may be confusing. I did not say that.


Ian Deans: There is a dispute arising here. The Minister of National Elealth and Welfare says it is all three, but the Minister responsible for amateur sport says no.


Otto John Jelinek: Let me answer the question.


Ian Deans: We have finally found the division in the Conservative Party. It is quite clear that they speak with forked tongue in an attempt to hoodwink the public of Canada again into believing that they are all things to all people. "Give the provinces what they want even though we believe it is immoral".


Otto John Jelinek: Do you want an answer or not?


Ian Deans: You give the provinces what they want because some years ago you decided to give it to them anyway and then shucked the responsibility for it. Now, can I get an answer to that? Is it on the basis of morality that we have decided, or is it on the basis of legality?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member started his comments and questions with a phrase indicating that there appears to be some confusion in the wind. I believe that the only confusion that exists is between his ears. We have made our Party's and this Government's position now very, very clear. In fact, the Conservative federal position since 1973 has always been to oppose the federal Government's getting into the lottery business.


Ian Deans: On what basis?


Otto John Jelinek: When we were finally in a position to come to an agreement with the provinces back in 1979, we did just that. We followed our own principles from years before and got out of the lottery business.


Ian Deans: On what basis? Did you do it because it was considered immoral or because it was considered illegal?


Otto John Jelinek: Our position this time is obviously that it was illegal. Our principal intent with lotteries is that we never supported them in the first place. That is the position that this Party has consistently taken. I do not see any confusion on this side of the House. If there is any confusion anywhere, it is on the other side of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The comment and question period for the preceding speech is now over. We will continue debate.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Epp (Provencher), seconded by Mr. Crosbie, moves that Bill C-2, an Act respecting the
winding-up of the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation and Loto Canada Inc., be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.

Hon. John A. Fraser (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) moved: that Bill C-5, an Act to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to commence this afternoon by extending to all of my colleagues from whatever Party who have returned to the House and to those from whatever Party who are here for the first time my congratulations and best wishes for their efforts on behalf of Canadians who elected them to take their place in this Chamber in the coming years. I think it is appropriate to set on the record that while there will always be controversy, dispute and argument in this Chamber, in keeping with the best principles of civility most of us who have been here for any period of time have learned to realize that we treat each other with respect and indeed sometimes even with affection. Therefore, I extend my best wishes to all of my colleagues and my commitment to work with all Members to achieve the task for which the public has sent us here.
Today I have the pleasure to introduce for second reading Bill C-5, which is legislation to increase the committed borrowing limit of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation to $30 million from the present level of $20 million.
I am extremely hopeful that Hon. Members will see fit to give speedy passage to this piece of legislation which was left over from the previous session, as its implementation is of considerable importance to the effective operation of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and the 3,500 fishermen who depend on the corporation for their economic survival.
I should point out that on the previous occasions when it was deemed necessary to increase the borrowing limit, this was accomplished through submissions contained in Supplementary Estimates. However, some Hon. Members may recall that this procedure was challenged in the House and, as a result, the Speaker ruled that the only way to effect a change to the borrowing limit was through an amendment to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act.
When the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was first formed in 1969, the borrowing limit was set at $5 million. This ceiling was raised to $10 million in 1970, and to the current level of $20 million in 1974. Needless to say, since 1974
November 8, 1984

market prices along with operating costs, cost of fuel, wages, etc., have risen steadily, and there is now a demonstrated need to adjust the borrowing limit upwards.
It might be useful to Hon. Members if I reviewed briefly the situation which led to the creation of this Crown corporation and explain how it operates.
The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was formed mainly at the request of the prairie Provinces at a time when they were very concerned about the recurrent price weaknesses for freshwater fish. It was a time when the fish resources of this area were largely neglected, the fishermen felt abandoned and exploited, and there was no consistency or policy that allowed the fishermen a decent return for their work. With the exception of the Great Lakes, the marketing, processing and export of freshwater fish was traditionally carried out by many small firms. As most of this production was exported to the United States, the small Canadian exporters were usually at a disadvantage when attempting to deal with the large and powerful American importers. This resulted in a wide fluctuation in prices during the season, which in turn created instability and uncertainty among operating firms and the fishermen.
When the Mclvor Royal Commission of Inquiry on freshwater fish marketing looked into the situation existing at that time, it found that the business was made up of some 6,000 fishermen, about 200 packer-dealers and 35 processor-exporters. It had an average total production of freshwater fish of approximately 72 million pounds and an export value of about $17 million. The fishermen are rather sparsely scattered throughout this vast expanse, and the majority of them are native people who have no alternative way of making a living other than fishing. There are several ethnic groups and many language dialects.
The commission found that facilities for receiving, handling, packing and storing the fish catch were not only primitive but generally unsuitable. The processing plants needed in this highly competitive business were almost non-existent.
The commission also found that the fishermen were receiving too small a share for the price paid by the consumer. Because they did not speak as one voice, they were relatively weak as sellers and they bore all the risks and uncertainties encountered in exporting.
The findings of the Mclvor Commission resulted in the creation of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation on February 27, 1969. The basic philosophy underlying the legislation to establish the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was, and still is, that returns to freshwater fishermen could best be increased through the establishment of a single selling body with the exclusive right to market and trade in fish in the interprovincial and export trade.
Through the corporation, freshwater fish is now being marketed in an orderly manner, with none of the fluctuations in earnings experienced by fishermen in earlier years. The corporation is also promoting and expanding in international markets, not just in the United States which has been the tradi-
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act tional market, but in European countries as well. Determined efforts are also made to expand our Canadian markets.
The corporation handles virtually all freshwater fish produced in Canada outside the Great Lakes, which amounts to about 50 per cent of Canada's total annual production. The area of operations, covering more than five million square kilometres, includes northwestern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories. In those regions the corporation buys fish either directly from fishermen or through agents, establishes initial prices for fishermen, packages and processes the fish, and markets them at home and abroad. About 90 per cent of all this fish is exported, and most of that goes to the United States.
The corporation, which has its main processing facility in the Winnipeg area, is obliged to operate on a self-sustaining basis. At the beginning of the season it establishes an initial price, which in practice is a floor price for the operating season. Any additional returns from the market are passed on to the fishermen at the end of the season or when the product is sold from inventory.
At this point Hon. Members might be interested in learning something of the current marketing operations of the corporation. I think I can do no better than quote from the latest issue of Freshwater Country, a very informative newsletter issued by the corporation. In his marketing report, Peter Smith, VicePresident of Marketing, said:
At the same time that the coastal fisheries are struggling to survive, there has been a dramatic improvement in our financial position here at the Corporation. Our 1983/84 fiscal year which ended in April was extremely profitable, and we expect a sizeable final payment in December.
During 1982/83 the recession in the United States continued to have negative effects on the fishing industry nationwide. Consumers were short of cash and concerned about the future. As a result, they continued to shop for the least expensive items available, and avoided expenses which they viewed as a luxury. This had a negative effect on sales and especially those to the restaurant trade ... a market which is extremely important to our Freshwater fishery.
While our industry continued to struggle with recessionary forces, production of some of our major species remained at record levels. This was particularly the case with pickerel and the result was a major decrease in prices to fishermen, as inventories climbed to uncomfortable levels.
Production from our major competitors on the Great Lakes was also too high, especially during the winter. In normal years, the Corporation faces light competition in the winter fresh market, but warm weather enabled Great Lakes producers to continue fishing during the winter of 1982/83. As a result, Great Lakes producers captured a large portion of the fresh market, and prices dropped dramatically due to the surplus of fresh fish available.
Other producers of fish from around the world were also attracted to the United States market because of the extremely high value of United States currency. This encouraged countries as distant as New Zealand to start shipping large quantities of fish into United States markets. Orange Roughy was one of these products. These boneless, skinless snow white fillets have been selling to restaurants for as low as $2.20 a pound.
It seemed that absolutely nothing could go right for us during 1982/83 and it was not surprising when the Corporation was only able to show a year end profit of $40,000 on over $39 million in sales.
During 1983/84 things started to turn around for the Corporation. Although we still faced heavy competition from other producers of fish, there was some easing of recessionary forces in our major markets. At the same time, production of pickerel dropped to normal levels in the Freshwater area and whitefish production remained manageable. Winter production on the Great Lakes was

November 8, 1984
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
also down as a result of freezing weather, and the Corporation experienced a lucrative winter season.
By the end of April, 1984 it was clear that the year had generated a substantial profit. This will be available to fishermen in the form of final payments in December, 1984.
In starting the New Year, we find ourselves in an extremely good inventory situation relative to pickerel and whitefish. Furthermore, we expect that market prices for pickerel will hold up this year, and that prices for whitefish will remain relatively stable, notwithstanding any dramatic increases in production here or on the Great Lakes. This is all reflected in initial prices to fishermen, which show a substantial increase for pickerel and some increases for whitefish as well.
We continue to have concerns about sauger. Harvests of sauger increased by 50 per cent last year, and this inventory will have to be moved in order to affect any increases in the price of this species. The large majority of our sauger is breaded by the food service trade and is sold to family oriented restaurants that serve budget-minded clientelle.
Northern pike is another product that has given us cause for concern. Our major market in France has been unstable for several years as a result of the declining value of French currency. As a result, the price to our French customers has been steadily increasing, while revenues earned by the Corporation have remained unchanged. Last year's decrease in production came at an opportune time since exports to France were down 15 per cent. We hope that pike deliveries will remain moderate this year... especially considering the effect that Swedish pike production is beginning to have on our French market. Pike production from Sweden is expected to be 250,000 kilograms this year and estimates are that it will increase to 500,000 kilograms by 1985. The combined effects of devalued French currency and increased competition have already begun to have an impact on our sales of dressed pike. The switch to headless pike is anything but welcome news, but we have little choice given market conditions.
Lake trout prices are up substantially this year. This is primarily due to reduced trout harvests in the Freshwater area. Availability of trout from the Great Lakes is also a factor. Pollution problems there have reduced the supply of trout to the market, and demand is stronger than it has been for some time. A large degree of caution is necessary in dealing with trout, since any sizeable increase in production will dampen prices in this specialized market.
Prevailing prices for pink salmon also impact on trout markets. Today it is common to find headless and dressed pink salmon selling in Canadian supermarkets for as little as $3.72 per kilogram or $1,693 per pound.
Although these factors have not had a major effect on key markets for Lake Trout, we certainly have to be aware of their possible impact in the years ahead.
In this regard, we have some serious concerns about the long term effect of farm-raised salmon and trout. This is a tremendous growth industry in countries like Norway and Sweden, where fish farmers actually supply the market with custom sized fish. Farm raised trout from Argentina have also begun to effect markets in United States cities like Los Angeles, where they are available in retail stores for as low as $2.18 per kilogram or 99 cents per pound.
In the year ahead we will have to be especially cautious in our dealings in both new and existing markets. The forces at work in our industry are very volatile and there is little doubt that the industry will remain unstable into the foreseeable future.
Levels of production will play an especially important role in the year ahead. This is certainly not the time that we can afford any major increases in deliveries of any species.
We will be striking out in some new directions this year in an attempt to broaden the market for our products. This fall for instance, we are making a major move in the Los Angeles area. We will be introducing vacuum-packed pan ready style whitefish into chain stores in an attempt to capture a portion of the market in this major metropolitan center.
We will also be continuing our campaign to sell Northern Canadian Game Fish into exclusive restaurants throughout the United States and Canada. Reaction to this concept has been very positive so far and we are hoping that our efforts will begin to pay off in the year ahead.
That is the end of the article. I thought it was appropriate for it to be included in Hansard because, in a succinct way, it covers extremely well the activities of the corporation.
I am sure Hon. Members will be interested to know that for the fishing season just ending the corporation has had a very good year, with sales in excess of $44 million. A very substantial final payment to fishermen will be announced shortly. I might also add that initial prices for major species have been increased for the 1984-85 upcoming fishing season. This is an indication that the good times will continue for those engaged in the freshwater fishery.
As I mentioned earlier, the current maximum borrowing limit of the corporation of $20 million was established ten years ago. Since that time operating costs have continued to climb, and it makes sense that that borrowing capacity should be increased. If this does not happen, the corporation is likely to find itself in the impossible position of being obliged under its mandate to buy all the fish offered to it and at the same time will have insufficient credit reverses to be able to pay the fishermen, which, to say the least, would be most unfortunate. With the disposition of Hon. Members, I think that is not a likely outcome.
In conclusion, I would again like to stress the importance of speedy passage of this amended legislation in order that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation can plan its budget for the upcoming fiscal year and properly carry out the job for which it was created.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I again beg the indulgence of the House. I want to recognize the fact that this is the first occasion on which you, the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees, have been in the Chair. The Hon. Member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Charest) is a young new Member from the Province of Quebec. I want to extend on behalf of all of us our sincere congratulations. I hope that you will enjoy your time in the chair and that you will dispense equal justice in the tradition of the Speakers in this country.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are also very pleased to see the Member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Charest) in the Chair. We wish him the best of luck, and I think I understand your "first night" jitters, having been in the same situation myself. In any case, I can assure you that you will have our full co-operation. Good luck!


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on this Bill, an Act to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act. It is a pleasure because this was placed on the Order Paper on one or two occasions by the previous Government.
Before speaking on the Bill, I would like to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) on his appointment. Like other Members, I wish him well, but not too well. I also congratulate him on bringing this Bill to the floor of the House so quickly. It is rather amusing that the first Bill the Minister brings in has to do with Crown corporations and, of course, in a positive way. I was under the
November 8, 1984

impression from the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) that Crown corporations were a sort of bad word. There is a valuable role for Crown corporations to play in our society, and I guess the Minister agrees with that.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans must have had a tough time with the Minister of Science and Technology, the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta, (Mr. Siddon). I remember a debate in this House on July 10, 1980, on a private Member's motion sponsored by the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta for the production of papers. At that time I spoke on the Government side in reply to the Hon. Member's request. What was amusing was that the first part of the Minister's speech today referred almost word for word to the speech that was written for me. It was obviously given to him by the Department. I guess that's the way it works.
In his speech, the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta was extremely adamant about the role of the Freshwater fish marketing agency. I wish to quote from page 2726 of the Commons Debates for July 10, 1980. This is what the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta thought. This guy is now a Minister in the Cabinet and a colleague of our friend, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. On July 10, 1980, he said, talking about the concept of the formation of this corporation, and I quote:
That original concept was recommended by the Mclvor commission in the late sixties and advocated by the Conservative government of Duff Roblin in the province of Manitoba. What that concept of a marketing board has become is, as I said a moment ago, a monopolistic, vertically integrated Crown corporation, like so many of our Crown corporations, which handles the product from the lakeside all the way to the consumer, whether the consumer be in the fish buying markets of New York state or Poland.
Here is what he said, and this is why I congratulate the Minister for bringing the Bill forward so quickly:
I suggest what we have now is a system of monopolistic dominance in the fish marketing industry, in the prairie provinces in particular, which is a far cry from what I understand to be the principle of democratic socialism where free enterprise and the private sector can operate in competition with one another. What we have is virtual communism in all of its forms in the example and illustration of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
This has been quite a conversion. I understand the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) is going to take part in this debate. I will not quote what he was saying, but we will watch him very closely.
I supported this corporation in 1980. My Government supported it. We went back to why the corporation was set up in the first place. It serves northwestern Ontario, the Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Western Arctic. In some of those areas there are small communities and outports with a very small fishing population. It is difficult for fishermen in that situation, if they are small processors to compete in the market-place or to get any kind of return on their product.
At the time this corporation was set up, there were business operators who not only owned the little processing businesses and the marketing aspects of their agency, but who also owned the fishermen's gear. In other words, they owned the fishermen. That was not unique for that part of the country. I
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act remember such operators in the fishing industry in the late 1950s and early 1960s in my province. One in particular not only had the processing business, but owned the fisherman's gear and the fisherman's house. Every year when the fisherman tried to get operating capital, there was another lien toward something. It left nothing for the primary producer, the fisherman.
This corporation was set up to help those primary producers who found it difficult to operate in the normal natural process of business. It is true that some of these businessmen have had some quarrel with this corporation. No doubt in some cases, because of the make-up of the corporation, a businessman would have some concern in certain areas. I know that if I were a businessman, I might have some concerns in certain areas. However, I think, as the Minister said earlier, that this corporation does the best for the most people involved in the industry. That is why we are supporting it.
I would like to see what other aspects of the corporation are beneficial. First, back in the 1960s before the corporation was formed, the small operators had tremendous difficulty competing, especially in the American market. There were a great many small exporters, but in the United States there were very few small importers. They were playing one against the other and keeping the price down. That is the kind of situation one can find oneself in when there are a great many small businesses trying to compete nationally and internationally.
The role of the corporation has been expanded to include Poland and some other countries. As the Minister stated, I think it is a bit of a success story. If I understood him correctly, I was very pleased to hear the Minister say that this year, the corporation expects total sales of $44 million and substantial benefits will go back to the fishermen. That, of course, is the principle of the co-operative movements in other parts of the country. Again, I would refer to my own riding in which there are two exceptionally well managed and well operated co-ops that have been able to do a great deal for the small fishermen. They are given a floor price in the spring and after the season is over and sales are complete, the profits are shared.
I believe that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation has a very positive impact on the western provinces and on western Ontario. I am extremely pleased to see this legislation before us now because it has been on the books for a long while. This Act was first introduced on April 29, 1983, under the heading of Bill C-149. It was introduced to the House at that time by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans of the former Liberal Government, Mr. De Bane, and was given first reading. However, because of government House business, the Bill did not go through all stages at that time. It was re-introduced by the Hon. Minister as Bill C-31, and that Bill, of course, received only first reading.
There can be no doubt in my mind that in order to run effectively in today's market-place, the borrowing limit of this corporation must be raised. It has been well over a year now

November 8, 1984
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
since first attempts were made to increase this limit, and I am glad to see that it is finally coming about.
I know other Members wish to speak on this Bill today. Perhaps it will not go through all stages today. In general, I am sure that we in the Official Opposition will agree with it and we hope that the corporation has a successful year this year and that that success will continue for the corporation and for the some 3,500 fishermen it represents well into the future.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I also wish to congratulate you on your nomination as Acting Speaker of the House. I understand there are several Quebec Members who are Conservatives in name but in fact, are New Democrats. If they want to cross the floor they will be most welcome.

Perhaps I might speak in English now so that you can understand me, Mr. Speaker.
This is my maiden speech as fisheries critic. I am looking at the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) who is present in the House. I would like to say how pleased I am to be fisheries critic as well as energy critic for our Party. I see that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) is present. Just wait. She will get her turn tomorrow or the next day. We will see what happens in the statement that is to be made tonight.
I might as well be honest with the Minister of Fisheries. I do want to say to him-and I think this will be the last time I say this-that I do indeed regard him with a great deal of affection. Not only is he from Vancouver, not only is he outspoken, not only is he a lawyer and a chartered lawyer at that but he is a fellow Scots Canadian. I think that sews it up.


John Allen Fraser: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He has also been known to have had some principles in the past. My job will be to make sure that those principles do not get lost within this new Conservative Cabinet and to push him so that some of his principles and views, especially those on helping the West Coast fishermen who are in real need, will get through Cabinet.
While I have all of this personal affection for the Minister, I put him on notice that since I represent a riding that borders on Trout Lake in Vancouver, I will expect that he will get some of his initiatives through Cabinet. If he does not, he will hear from us over here.
Having said that, I had better say something about the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, an Act on which I am an expert and about which I am pleased to speak. Just in case you do not know, Mr. Speaker, I should tell you that the Act was passed in 1969. This corporation has the sole jurisdiction to process and market fish in the prairie provinces, part of northern Ontario and in the Northwest Territories. It does not
have jurisdiction in most of Ontario and in Quebec because those areas can look after themselves. This corporation deals with freshwater fish in one specific region of the country.
You would be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that the corporation was set up because the private corporations, contrary to the mythology that we hear from the other side day in and day out, could not really handle and badly mismanaged the freshwater fishery industry in this area of Canada. The private corporations were not acting in the best interests of the fishermen. Is that not a surprise? The Government found that these corporations were mainly American controlled and that they were operating in a dog-eat-dog fashion, not a fish-eat-fish fashion. The fishermen were controlled by these corporations by the initial payments made to them. Start-up fees and so on were required at the beginning of the season, and that was too difficult for the fishermen.
The industry was in very bad shape at the end of the 1960s from the fishermen's point of view. Therefore, there was pressure for the establishment of this Crown corporation, which has been working fairly well. I have some criticisms of the Crown corporation which I will be making in a few moments.
You should be aware, Mr. Speaker, as you undoubtedly are, that the freshwater fishing industry is the second largest industry in northern Saskatchewan. Although sales of freshwater fish pale in comparison with sales of coastal fish, it is nonetheless a significant industry and has a great deal of potential for expansion. The Minister referred to some of this potential in his speech when he referred to new markets and so on.
We have the largest supply of freshwater fish in the world. Of course, we have what is probably the largest supply of energy in the world and the largest supply of forestry and minerals in the world. We are only waiting to have the brains to develop these things the way they should be in order to make us the richest country in the world. Some day we will do that.


An Hon. Member:: There is hope.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: There is hope. Well, I do not know about that. We will have to wait and see. There is certainly hope for developing this industry.
The Canadian commercial fishing industry in 1982 landed 1.38 million tonnes, valued at $838 million. After processing, the catch was worth about 1.98 billion dollars. This is an industry which the NDP takes very seriously. We give it a very high priority. In the same year, the freshwater commercial fishing landed 550,000 tonnes, which was worth $62 million. Processed freshwater fish products had a value of $100 million. Although freshwater fishing is a small proportion of the Canadian fishing industry, it is nonetheless significant.
The fishing industry exported $1.62 billion worth of products in 1982, which is approximately 82 per cent of the industry's output. In freshwater fish, we exported about 88 per
November 8, 1984

cent; much of it going to the United States, the European Economic Community, and to the rest of Europe and Japan.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the European Economic Community which was good enough to invite me this fall to study some of their problems. I studied the fishing industry in Denmark, Greece, and Brussels. I learned something about the European fishing industry. We could learn something from the way in which the Europeans handle their catch. I would like to thank publicly the officials of the European Economic Community for being so patient in dealing with an expert in fisheries such as I was at that point.
The major problem with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is that it does not own marketing plants in northern Saskatchewan or northern Manitoba. Fishermen living in those areas must ship their fish south to Winnipeg in order for their fish to be processed. Fishermen must bear the cost of shipping the fish south, and it is fairly prohibitive to them. As a result, a lot of fishermen in northern Saskatchewan are a bit peeved off-if I might put it that way-at the corporation. They actually petitioned the previous Government to opt out of the control of the corporation. I believe that was somewhat of an over-reaction, as I think there can be reforms made in the corporation, and 1 propose to suggest some reforms.
I would say to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that there is a lot of unemployment, both in northern Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan, which is the result of a lack of fish processing plants in those areas. In Lake Athabasca, for example, no fishing is being done on the Saskatchewan side of the lake. Also, there are complaints by fishermen in northern Saskatchewan that the quotas of fish which they are able to sell to the corporation are too low. This affects them, as they must make up for the extra shipping costs and they must ship more fish than their counterparts down South. Therefore, they want higher quotas.
Improvements are required with respect to the management and the operations of the corporation. For example, it is too centralized. It should expand some of its fish processing plants in the northern areas. One suggestion I would make to the Minister is that the board of directors, or its advisory committee, should travel to the northern areas of the provinces and talk to the fishermen about their problems. It is much easier for the board to go north than for the fishermen to go south. It is also much more intimidating for the fishermen to talk to men in three-piece suits than for the men in three-piece suits to go the other way. I know that it does not look very intimidating down here, but very often when people come from the North they find it difficult to deal with this cultural milieu. Therefore, I would make a pragmatic suggestion that the Minister could talk to the board and that the board should go and talk to the fishermen in the northern areas. Then we will not have, as we had in the last Parliament, the instance in which one of our Members from that area was petitioning, on behalf of the fishermen, to opt out of the corporation.
Fishermen are currently represented on the advisory committee of the corporation, but not on the board of directors.
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act Therefore, they have no real decision-making power in the corporation. I say to the Minister of Fisheries, why not put them on the board of directors?
One of the things of which I was made aware in Europe- not with respect to fisheries, but generally-was a movement toward co-determination. That is a situation in which the workers of a company are on the board of directors. It is done in Germany. It gives workers the feeling that they are participating in some of the decisions which affect their lives. There is a certain limitation to this, and it takes a little while to do it, but it is a coming thing. In this corporation, I would suggest that it would be ideal to have some fishermen on the board of directors.
Another aspect of the problem is the general under-utiliza-tion,of the industry. There are lots of whitefish in Saskatchewan waters, but the corporation is not buying them. The corporation gets all it needs from Winnipeg. Thus, in Saskatchewan there is the unfortunate situation in which white-fish can be bought from Manitoba and not from Saskatchewan, despite the fact that Saskatchewan lakes are full of the stock. Much of the fish which lives in the fresh water is suitable for being dried for export. We could be exporting fish to Africa and other Third World countries. There are plenty of markets abroad for fish. We should not limit ourselves to the needs of our country. The opportunities for export would result in more employment and growth in the industry. I spoke with fisheries officials in Athens, Copenhagen and Bonn about their fishing industries and the possibility of accepting more Canadian fish. There are some possibilities which exist in the EEC. We would have to make some exchanges for fishing grounds and other things in return.
When I was in Denmark, a gentleman informed me that if I wanted to know about cars, I should talk to Mercedes in Germany; if I wanted to know about the wine industry, I should go to France; but if I wanted to know about fish, I should talk to them. It is true. They can land fish which are in the North Sea and the Atlantic, and within 24 hours they are on the table in Paris. Not that I have ever eaten in a restaurant in Paris, but I am sure that the Minister occasionally does. The fact remains that whether a person is eating fish and chips or whether he is eating in a restaurant in Paris, the fish is good, and we could learn much from the way they market and process their fish.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), spoke in the House last year on this Bill when the capitalization issue was raised. The Minister now wishes to raise it from 20 million to 30 million. That is acceptable to us.
In summation, I hope that this Crown corporation is not privatized. I believe it has a role. I have pointed out some of the criticisms and difficulties which have been expressed by the fisheries, and I do so in good faith. I am sure the Minister will take these remarks back to the corporation. We would like to see more decentralization and more consultation with the fishermen. If we are to be in this together, we should consider the expansion of markets and the enhancement of enhancing the industry, canning, processing and other things. In that way

November 8, 1984
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act it is hoped that we would facilitate progress for a very important industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Western Arctic.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) and the Hon. Member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) who said what a great thing this Crown corporation was, a Crown corporation that has a monopoly on the purchase of fish. They said that there may be a few faults with it here and there and with the management, but the Crown corporation has this monopolistic power and that is what they want. Obviously, Sir, they have never talked to a freshwater fisherman.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is your Bill!


Dave Nickerson: They would have a much different idea of things if they really knew what the FFMC was doing to the fishermen of freshwater country. I have given the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) the assurance that I will vote in favour of the Bill which he has presented to us today. I do that, Sir, for two principal reasons. First, I am a good Party supporter and would never think of voting against the Ministers of the present Government. I know they are very competent and are doing their best for Canada. I have great faith in them. The second reason, Sir, is that the Minister has threatened to break my arm if I did not vote for the Bill. However, in return, Sir, I expect from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that within a matter of just a few months he will bring into this House, in keeping with the policies of the Progressive Conservative Party, a Bill to amend the FFMC Act further, and the nature of that amendment will be to revoke the monopoly of FFMC in order to allow other entities into the market-place. That, Sir, is they key to getting our northern fishing industry going again.
The Hon. Member for Egmont gave us a brief history of this Bill. He told us that it had been brought in in 1980 and had died on the Order Paper. It was brought in again in 1983 as Bill C-31 and again it died on the Order Paper. I want to tell the Hon. Member why it died on the Order Paper. It is because the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans of that day had no concern with the plight of freshwater fishermen at all. That Bill was always No. 151 in priority on a list of 150 Bills. It was put there and absolutely nothing was done with it. That, Sir, is demonstrative of the difference in attitude between the then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the present Minister.
The present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans commands the trust of fishermen throughout the whole of Canada. We have replaced complacency on the part of previous Ministers with action.
I would like to touch briefly on some of the figures involved. If one looks at the last available annual report of the FFMC in 1983, one sees that it had working capital loans of some $13.5
million, which was borrowed from the Government of Canada. It had fixed asset loans of some $4.5 million, again borrowed from the Government of Canada. It had approximately $750,000 in bank indebtedness, which brings its indebtedness to a total of somewhere between $18 million and $19 million. Therefore, until the new Government has the time and opportunity to make the necessary changes and if FFMC is to continue for the time being, it is necessary that we make this authorization for a further increase in borrowing authority. However, at the same time as we do this, Mr. Speaker, we should remember that the interest rate on some of those loans is nearly 16 per cent. The fishermen of the northern provinces, the Territories and parts of Ontario are paying about $500,000 a year in interest payments on those loans. What one has in microcosm is a similar situation as with the national finances of this country. In the national case we have accrued debts of billions of dollars and interest must be paid on it, which is cutting into the revenue. The same thing has happened with FFMC. It has had to borrow continuously more and more money, which puts that extra burden on the fishermen who are obliged to pay and pay the interest on those debts, debts which have been run up in the past.
There were many absolute horror stories in the past with respect to FFMC. There were warehouses full of fish and no sales. There was improper management. There was slack financial control of the corporation and all kinds of funny little practices going on. I remember the unauthorized attachment of rabbinical stamps to fish boxes for the Jewish market. I must admit, Sir, that some improvements have been made. I had the opportunity to visit the Transcona plant last summer and I was pleased to see that certain improvements in the operation have been made. There was certainly a better flowthrough of inventory and better inventory control.
I would like at this time to compliment Mr. Sam Cunnah, who was one of the managers there. He has recently retired. I would like to compliment him in public for the work he has done. Undoubtedly there is still room for improvement in the management practices. Improvements have been made in the central plant in Winnipeg and Transcona. However, there are still severe problems in the satellite plants. The plant at Hay River is an example of a plant which is just not doing its proper job. Furthermore, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation just cannot get out there and sell fish, which is its mandate. That is what it was set up to do, and it is still not doing a proper job of selling fish and receiving a good return on behalf of the fishermen for the extraordinary effort they put into catching fish. In part, that is the world-wide situation. I understand there are equal problems on the East Coast as on the West Coast. However, I believe there are things which can be done so that we can sell the excellent products of our freshwater lakes and rivers.
There are two questions which should be addressed with respect to FFMC. First, should it continue at all? That, of course, is still under study. The new Government is taking a new look at all the Crown corporations in order to determine which ones should continue and which ones could better be
November 8, 1984

dealt with in alternative ways, by privatization in one way or another. Second, if FFMC is to continue, should it retain the monopoly? I do not want to go into any great detail today on the first question except to give to Hon. Members this analogy. The FFMC has always appeared to me to be something like a lobster trap. One can get into it but it is almost impossible to get out. If the fishermen are asked whether they are any better off now that they have the FFMC than they were before, they will say that, no, they are not any better off. In fact, in the old days they were better off because they could sell their fish. There was always some kind of market in which they could sell their fish. I doubt if any Crown corporation can do as well at fish sales as private enterprise. Private enterprise does not have people just sitting there in some fancy office in Winnipeg hoping the phone is going to ring and someone will order fish. One has to get out there and sell. That is the way private enterprise works and would continue to work if we did not have this monstrosity called the FFMC.
The previous Minister, who has now gone to his just reward among the decaying leather seats of the other place, wanted to extend the Crown corporation monopoly into the Great Lakes. He wanted to put everyone down to the same level of misery. He could not stand the successful operation of homestead fisheries in the Great Lakes operated under private enterprise. He just wanted to spread the misery around.
With respect to the question of monopoly, I will say that this question can be addressed fairly quickly, and I hope it will. The position of the Progressive Conservative Party, which was worked out over a period of time and which was one of the promises we made to fishermen during the election campaign, is that we will revoke the monopoly presently enjoyed by the FFMC. That monopoly will be broken. It will be of benefit to two parties. First and foremost, it will be of benefit to the fishermen. They will be able to shop around and sell their fish to the people who will give them the highest price. They will not be in servitude to a monopolistic Crown corporation any more. Second, it will be fair to the people who wish to engage in the business of buying and selling fish. Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that if I bought fish for resale, processing or whatever, something I consider to be an honourable undertaking, helpful to the country and everything else, I could go to jail under the Act for two years for buying unauthorized fish from a fisherman? Surely that is an infringement on the liberty of Canadians and should not be allowed to last any longer.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is called orderly marketing.


Dave Nickerson: The socialists call this orderly marketing. They prevent people from going into honourable employment, helping their fellow man, providing jobs, putting good food on the table. This is what they do not want to see.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Talk to any farmer.


Dave Nickerson: Once FFMC gets out of the monopoly side of the business, it might continue to exist. I rather suspect it
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act would not last too long in competition with private enterprise, but I have no objection to its continuing to exist as long as it does not have a monopoly. Once that happens, the alternative is a private operation as it used to be before. People used to invest in the plant for working capital purposes, to buy fish from the fishermen. They would go down to New York or Chicago and sell their fish at the best price they could. That used to work out pretty well. Alternatively, we could have a co-operative arrangement. Right now fishermen cannot form a co-operative to sell their own fish. Surely my socialist friend would approve of that. Perhaps not, because he does not call that orderly marketing. The socialists do not mind the freedom of fishermen to form a co-operative being removed by this House of Commons. I think that if fishermen want to form a producers' co-op, they should be able to do so, but at present they cannot.
There could be provincial involvement. Provinces are already involved. We were told that FFMC is now making a profit, but that is only because of provincial and territorial subsidies to the industry. I know that the Government of the Northwest Territories is putting about $400,000 a year in subsidies into the industry. Some is for price support and some is to help support the packer who goes around the lake to pick up the fish from the lake stations. Even so, the price paid for fish is ridiculously low. What most of the fishermen end up doing is wearing out their nets for nothing. I have a few headlines from local papers: "Fishermen Feeling Financial Crunch". "Fish Prices Still Low". "Bleak Season for N.W.T. Fishermen". So it goes, on and on. I do not think that that will improve until fishermen have the option to sell fish to whomever they want.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: For a lower price.


Dave Nickerson: I do not think the taxpayer should have to shoulder this burden.


Mr. Tobin:: What about the $10 million?


Dave Nickerson: We have the situation where the nature of the resource is such that it can be exploited profitably. Why can we not do that? Why do Canadian taxpayers have to put money into something which could be operated efficiently with a proper return to the fishermen? In the Territories that resource is one of the best in the world. We are capable of producing premium quality products which ought to be sold for premium prices. This is just not the case because it is mixed in with the other product from the provinces which is not so high in quality. Were the Territories able to develop their own specialty markets, we could command those premium prices. I am sure that in all probability the provinces would be better off too, because they could concentrate on what is then available to them. I know of cases where people have gone out and developed a market, especially for the Arctic char. They have found buyers, told the FFMC about the buyer and asked FFMC to buy fish from them. They wait around for two months and then ask the corporation, "Well, why have we not got an order for this fish?" The FFMC has turned around and
*0162-4

November 8, 1984
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
given someone else that order. That is the type of thing that is going on.
My colleague, the newly elected Hon. Member for Nunat-siaq (Mr. Suluk), wanted me to bring to the attention of the House his suggestion that Arctic char should be exempted from the species presently dealt with by FFMC. In the eastern Arctic there is a considerable problem in having to sell through FFMC. It would be relatively easy to go out and find markets for Arctic char. There is not that much produced and it should command fantastic prices. However, with FFMC involved, there is not enough effort put into marketing Arctic char and the producers are just not able to get the prices they would be able to if there was a free market in fish.
I was asked, Sir, to get through some of my remarks as quickly as possible in order that this Bill might get through the House this afternoon, so I will not go through some of the things I had hoped to say respecting the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Most of it was good. I was going to be very complimentary to the Minister, but I can do that another time. I would perhaps reiterate one of the points he made concerning the need for aqua-culture. If we continue to hunt fish instead of farm fish, we are going to lose out in the markets of the future. It is absolutely essential that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, through organizations such as the Freshwater Institute, get into research on fish farming so that when in the future other countries have products from their fish farms at lower prices, we will be able to compete with them.
Those, Sir, are my comments on the Bill we have before us. I support the increase in the debt limit at the present time, mainly because we have no other option. The thing has been run into the ground for so long. However, my main pitch has been and will continue to be, until this is implemented in law, that the monopoly of the FFMC should be revoked. Other organizations and entities, whether private enterprise, fishermen's co-op or something brought together by the province or Territory, can also get into that business and Fishermen can continue to enjoy the standard of living they had before this socialistic measure was imposed on them in the late 1960s. We can then get this industry flourishing again. I am sure, with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) that we now have, that will happen in the very near future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We shall now go to the ten-minute period of questions and comments.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a quick comment because I am afraid to ask a question. I am watching the clock. I came in here this afternoon looking forward to supporting this Bill and seeing it speeded through second reading and into committee so that we could ensure that the Bill, after many, many years, would see the light of day in this place. But after listening to the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) speak on this Bill I am beginning to wonder whether or not it is a good Bill. I am confused as to whether or not the Hon. Member-I am not asking a question, God forbid-is supporting or denouncing the Bill. It is quite
confusing, Mr. Speaker, I have a little trouble when a Member says he is rising in his place to support this Bill to give FFMC an additional $10 million, and then spends the next 17 or 18 minutes denouncing FFMC. I am confused when a Member says that we must have this $10 million today, and then spends the next 18 minutes telling us that as soon as possible they are going to do away with FFMC.
It is only due to my interest, intrinsic respect for and confidence in the new Minister of Fisheries, who I am pleased to see occupying that post, and my great faith in him, that I will sit down and do my best to see this Bill get through second reading today.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We had discussions with the House Leaders of the Opposition Parties and my understanding was that they were disposed to let this matter go through all stages today.


Rodney Edward Murphy: You let that idiot rant and rave.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I cannot respond to that unparliamentary reference by the Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) but I had understood this to be the case. If that arrangement is not now going to proceed in accordance with the clear understanding I had, I would like to know now so that I will be able to judge my future relationship with the Opposition House Leader.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Speaking for the NDP and our House Leader, we would like to see the Bill go through. I believe the Hon. Member for Churchill has a few short remarks. We are prepared to let it go through.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, first of all I am a bit surprised at the Government House Leader disclosing discussions between House Leaders. It is not customary to do that in the House. We have no problem with seeing this Bill go through. We would like it to receive second reading this afternoon.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: All stages.


Jacques Guilbault: If we give it second reading, we will advance the Bill. I do not know if the Government is willing to let the Bill drag.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You do what you have to do.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. May I just say to the Government House Leader, by way of instruction to the Government for future purposes, that if the Government wants a Bill to pass in an uncontroversial way through three stages, then it ought to make some attempt to ensure that Members on its side do not use the opportunity for making obviously ideological and controversial statements about the contents of the Bill. Out of respect for the agreement made between the House Leaders-
November 8, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We do not have to put up with that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. It is argumentative. I think we should carry on. If we are going to pass the Bill through before six o'clock, either we should do it or else we should agree with what the House Leaders have agreed to do. Is the House ready for the question?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not plan on delaying the passage of this Bill. However, since the Churchill riding is one of the major areas that is actually affected by this legislation I would like to speak on it. I would like to speak on it in terms of what is actually necessary to improve the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. I am not going to take an ideological position which is just to rant and rave about how bad the corporation is. I for one happen to believe, as does our spokesman, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), that there are improvements that can be made to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
I happen to believe that the Minister was speaking along the same lines. I presume the previous speaker for the Conservative Party was speaking for himself. He did not seem to be speaking for the Government. I certainly hope he was not speaking for the Government, because, if it is trying to destroy and dismantle the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, it is going to be hearing from every fisherman in northern Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan and other parts of the country. They believe that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is the best vehicle for protecting their interests.
It is important that all of us realize that it was the failure of private enterprise which created the need for the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Most of the fishermen we are talking about are native people. Most of those people have felt that they were being robbed under the old system. They want the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation but they also want reforms brought to it. They want to see more processing taking place in their home communities. They want to see more control of that corporation by the fishermen. They want those types of reforms. They want more information in terms of the actual books of that corporation. That is the type of reform they want and that is a reasonable approach.
One of my complaints about the previous Government is that it never really considered the question of how to reform the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. It sat back and gave it money. The only debate we ever had in the House was over money, just as we are having at the present time. The debate is with regard to money rather than the actual structural purposes and levels of responsibility for the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Those are the types of reforms I would like to see. I hope that when the Government and the new Minister have a chance, that is what we will see.
I recognize that we want to pass this Bill. I recognize that the people in my riding would like to see this Bill passed, so I
Economic Statement
am going to sit down. However, before I sit down, I would like to congratulate you, Sir, on the occupancy of the Chair. It is nice to see a young man move ahead.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Fraser, seconded by Mr. Epp, moves that Bill C-5, an Act to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, he read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could re-ask the question now that the Whip of the Official Opposition is here. My understanding is that the matter is to be referred to a Committee of the Whole and dealt with through all stages. That was the understanding I had with House Feaders, and it was confirmed again this afternoon by the House Deader of the Official Opposition. If there was such a disposition, I think we could deal with all stages of the Bill and pass it today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the House agree?


Jacques Guilbault: This question was answered by the Official Opposition previously, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no agreement. The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being six o'clock, pursuant to order made Wednesday, November 7, 1984, the sitting is suspended until six-thirty o'clock this day.
At six o'clock the sitting of the House was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 6.30 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Order made Wednesday, November 7, 1984, the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 8, 1984
Economic Statement


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I asked my colleagues if they would sit down in order that they did not waste their energy now, in the hope that they might do that after as well as before.
Less than two months ago, this Government came to power with a national mandate for change. We did so because on September 4 the Canadian people made a clear and confident judgment about the future of this country.
Canadians voted for change, and for a better future, because they knew that as a country we could do much more to create that future; to create new growth, jobs and opportunities for all Canadians. In doing so, they have opened the way for a fresh start, for new confidence and a new national consensus toward achieving the promise and potential of Canada.
They voted not only for a change in policies, they voted for a change in the approach of government to the making of those policies. That is our mandate. That is our challenge.

The mandate of September 4 reflects as well a sombre judgment about the recent past. When Canadians looked back, they saw an unprecedented decade of soaring government deficits and rising unemployment; of expansive, intrusive government and sluggish, uncertain economic growth. They saw an economic world that had changed and a country that had not kept pace with that change. They saw their government and their economy dangerously off course and off balance.
Few Canadians will say that things are better today than they were in that great year of hope and achievement, our centennial year. Yet, fewer still believe that we can turn back the clock and return to the "good old days". There are new realities, new challenges. But something fundamental has not changed: our country is still blessed with rich natural resources, with the technological and financial capacity and, above all, the people to fulfill its great promise. It is not time to reclaim that future for all Canadians.
Toward that goal, we have taken stock in these past two months. I want to thank my colleagues for their help in charting our course during this challenging first stage of our mandate. Tonight I will share with Canadians the results of our intensive period of activity so that together we can plan our direction for the next four years.
There has been no holiday from decision-making for this government during this period. We have moved quickly to deal with the urgent need for action on a wide front. A number of decisions have already been announced. Tonight I will be announcing further important measures which make a good start on fulfilling our promises.
But most importantly, I wish clearly to set out the direction which we, as a new government, propose to take to fulfil our mandate for change. And I want to begin the national process of discussion and consultation that is so essential to achieving our goals. I will, therefore, be tabling a paper called "A New Direction for Canada: An Agenda for Economic Renewal". This Agenda paper is a statement of national purpose. It will
be the focus for consultations with all parts of the Canadian community.

The Agenda paper recognizes the important economic responsibilities of provincial governments. Our aim is to promote economic growth in concert with the provinces. Dialogue will take the place of confrontation.
Canadians know that this country has been missing opportunities to create new growth and jobs. They know that our competitive position has eroded; incomes have barely kept pace with inflation; confidence in the future has seeped away; and they have seen that the efforts of government to solve problems have too often made things worse instead of better.
For too long, the Government of Canada has responded to serious problems in our economy by dealing with the symptoms of those problems and ignoring the causes. For too long, government has tried to substitute the judgments of politicians and regulators for the judgments of those in the market place, through excessive regulation and by trying to buy its way, with borrowed money, out of each new problem that arises. We have suffered, for too long, from the growing gap between the rhetoric of reliance on the private sector and the reality of increasing government intervention.
The Government has all too often acted to delay change by protecting, at the taxpayer's expenses, those enterprises which have been too slow to increase their productivity or unable to seize new market opportunities. By being a captive of the past, we have risked forfeiting the future.
As a result, business-and especially small business-has been hamstrung by increasing regulation which has sapped the creative energy necessary to take risks, improve productivity and create permanent and satisfying jobs.
Our objective is to release the creative energies of Canadians to build a better future for themselves, to give young people a chance to make a productive contribution and to open up new opportunities for women in the work place and for older workers who have lost their jobs. We want to put Canada back to work.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Indeed, our nation's elderly and disabled cannot feel economically secure while so many of our youth are unemployed and the prospects for our economy are so uncertain.
Economic renewal will not come quickly or easily. It will come step by step. This government has resisted politically-appealing "quick-fix" prescriptions. There are no easy solutions for problems which have built up over a decade. Nor will economic renewal come without the co-operation of governments, business, workers and union leaders and other Canadians. Step by step, we must begin to direct our combined efforts
November 8, 1984

toward expansion of the economic pie and away from an increasingly divisive struggle for a share of a static or declining one. We will not only have to work hard, we will have to work together in a truly national effort of economic reconstruction.
This government is prepared to lead this process of economic renewal. We have set for ourselves four challenges:
first, to put our own fiscal house in order so that we can limit, and ultimately reverse, the massive build-up in public debt and the damaging impact this has on confidence and growth;
second, to redefine the role of government so that it provides a better framework for growth and job creation and less of an obstacle to change and innovation;
third, to foster higher investment, greater innovation, increased international competitiveness and a positive climate for the birth and growth of new enterprise; and
fourth, to bring about these changes in a way that is fair, open and consistent with the basic sense of compassion, tolerance and justice that is characteristic of Canadian society. [Translation]
We will not weaken the basic income support programs. Indeed we will seek to find room, within our own capacity and through stronger economic performance, to provide even greater assistance to those Canadians who truly need it.

We have clearly set out in the Agenda paper the direction we believe the country should take, but we had another choice. We could have made more decisions and taken more action now, but to do so in the absence of full consultations would undermine not only the spirit of this undertaking but its effectiveness. We want to discuss further the means of achieving these goals with other governments, labour, business and other Canadians. We want their advice and their co-operation.
These consultations will be critical in determining the specific measures we will take and the timing of these actions. But however difficult the decisions will be, let me be very clear: we are determined to act. I intend to return to this House with my first budget in the spring to lay out the next phase of our program for econoic renewal.
Let me now turn, Mr. Speaker, to the economic and fiscal situation which confronts us.
Our economic legacy is one of high unemployment, inadequate investment, eroded confidence and personal hardship. From mid-1981 to the end of 1982 we suffered through the worst recession since World War II. The recovery, which began in 1983, has been only moderate by post-war standards and has been distinctly weaker than the recovery in the United States. After almost two years of recovery, business and consumer confidence remains weak. Cautious households, facing uncertain employment prospects and little real income growth, continue to save at high rates. Businesses, facing excess capacity, high interest rates and uncertain future prospects, have been reluctant to invest and to hire. Investment is
Economic Statement
more than 20 per cent lower than it was prior to the recession and employment has barely recovered to pre-recession levels.
We are talking here not just of economic failure, but of human tragedy; of real economic hardship suffered by thousands of families; of the social and emotional suffering caused by the loss of a job; and of the loss of hope and self-esteem of young people who find themselves unable to make a productive contribution to society after spending so many years at school. This is the unacceptable price of the failure to provide adequate employment growth.
No less serious or troublesome than the economic legacy is the deficit and accumulated debt situation which we have inherited.
In each of the past ten years the expenditures of the federal government have exceeded its revenues. These continuing deficts have led to an enormous growth in the burden of debt and the costs' of interest on that debt. Moreover, unless we begin now to put our fiscal house in order, that burden of debt will continue to mount rapidly in the future. We are on a very dangerous treadmill.
To underline the seriousness of the situation, let me briefly review our economic and fiscal prospects. They are based on the assumption of slower U.S. growth in 1985, a significant decline in U.S. interest rates after 1985 and reasonably healthy world economic growth from 1986 to the end of the decade.
Based on these assumptions, growth in Canada would likely decline from about 4.2 per cent in 1984 to about 2.4 per cent in 1985. Over the second half of the decade, growth would increase and average about 3.4 per cent per year. While inflation would stay at or below 4 per cent for the remainder of the decade, unemployment would remain unacceptably high- 11 per cent through 1985 and then declining gradually to about 7 per cent by 1990.
With this set of projections and no policy changes, the deficit for this fiscal year would be $34.5 billion, almost $5 billion higher than projected last February by the previous government. That is bad enough but that is not the worst of it. Current projections show the deficit increasing next year to more than $37 billion and remaining between $34 and $38 billion in every year for the balance of this decade. This is in marked contrast to previous projections that showed the deficit declining over that period.
Next year's deficit, at $37.1 billion, would be more than $9 billion higher than projected last February. And this increase would have been even greater if the previous government had not budgeted for a decline in support for direct job creation and training from $2.2 billion this year to only $1.2 billion next year. The increase in the deficit this year and next and its failure to come down in this decade, even with continuing growth, are major reasons for concern.

November 8, 1984
Economic Statement
This is what we inherited. Not only is the situation serious today. If we don't take action it will be even more serious by 1990.
In our centennial year the net federal debt was $18 billion; by the end of this fiscal year it will be about ten times higher, $190 billion; by 1990, if there are no changes, it could approach $410 billion. Let me put this in more personal terms. In 1967 this debt represented about $4,000 per family; this year it represents about $24,000 per family. And by 1990, if we do not take action, it will be the equivalent of about $54,000 for every Canadian family.
I know that economists will tell me that this is not a perfect analogy, but I want to express the problem in its simplest terms. Many of us have taken on heavy debts in the form of a mortgage or a personal loan at some time in our lives. But we have done so because we believed our future incomes would increase faster than the costs of carrying that debt. If our debts and our interest payments continue, year after year, to grow faster than our incomes, we know we have a problem. If we reach the point where we must start borrowing money just to pay the interest on our debts, we know we have a serious problem. But this is the situation in which the Government of Canada finds itself today. This year almost 50 per cent of government borrowing is required just to cover interest costs and, if we do not take action, this will rise to more than 76 per cent by 1990. We believe we must act now to avoid a future crisis.

There is no easy solution to the problem we face. We cannot just grow our way out of it. Next year we will have completed the third year in this economic recovery and in each of those years the deficit will have increased-from $25 billion in 1982-83 to $31.8 billion last year, to $34.5 billion this year to a projected $37.1 billion next year.

Moreover, the economic and deficit projections I have given-distressing as they are-are based on an assumption that interest rates will fall to more normal levels in the second half of the 1980s. This assumption follows from my expectation that the returning United States administration and the new Congress will act to reduce the U.S. budgetary deficit and that this will allow the achievement of lower interest rates.
I would be the first to acknowledge that there can be no guarantee that this will be the case. And if interest rates do not fall, our economic and fiscal situation would be even worse. Growth would be lower and the unemployment rate could remain above 10 per cent for the balance of this decade. The federal deficit would continue to increase and could reach $50 billion per year by the early 1990s.
Finally, let me make it perfectly clear that the deficit projections I am presenting tonight are calculated on the same basis as those of the previous government, with one exception. For a number of years, the Auditor General has rightly argued that the accounting policies of the previous government did not give this House or Canadians an accurate presentation of the
government's Financial position. In order to provide a clear picture of the country's finances. I am announcing tonight that the government is prepared to implement most of the suggestions made by the Auditor General.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: These changes result in an increase in the projected deficit for this and subsequent years by amounts ranging from $500-$800 million annually. Full details are set out in the Agenda paper.

The projections for economic growth, unemployment and the deficit which I have presented are unacceptable. We can do better, but only if we approach this major challenge in a realistic way. And that means facing up to the deficit and debt outlook I have just described. The simple fact is that the mounting federal debt has become a powerful obstacle to growth and to private sector job creation.

A continuously rising ratio of debt to income threatens growth in three ways. It puts upward pressure on interest rates by raising expectations of future inflation and by competing for private savings. It limits the Government's ability to meet priority economic and social needs. And it symbolizes a state of economic mismanagement that undermines confidence and threatens the job-creating private investment that Canada dearly needs.
To promote growth and jobs, interest rates must be as low as can reasonably be attained. Confidence must be restored. That is why we must take action to limit the deficit. We must assure savers and investors, in Canada and abroad, that the impressive gains we have made on inflation will be consolidated and continued and that the federal government will not place undue demands on Canadian capital markets. Such assurances can be provided only by responsible monetary and fiscal policies. Monetary policy must continue to stand firm against inflationary pressures. Fiscal policy must ease the burden on monetary policy and contribute directly to increased confidence and to lower interest rates.
This government is committed to act now. Because I believe that deficit reduction is the key to rebuilding confidence, and confidence is the key to growth and job creation, controlling the deficit must be our priority for this year and for each year of our mandate. The goals of deficit control and increasing job opportunities cannot be separated.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: For us the question is not whether to act or when to act, but how best to act.
We believe that there are things government should do more of in this country to promote growth, jobs and social justice. We set out earlier this year a number of policy initiatives and I will announce action on some of these tonight. But, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said during the summer, we
November 8, 1984

are committed to implement these policies within an over-all framework of fiscal responsibility over the course of our mandate. And this means that to do more in some areas, we must do less in others.

Our immediate goal is to reduce the deficit through expenditure reductions and not through major tax increases. We have begun a searching examination of our own operations and of government programs. My colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, has directed an assessment of expenditure reductions and revenue recovery measures that can be implemented immediately, in order to begin to reduce the deficit and to create room for us to take new initiatives. He has had the full and complete co-operation of all ministers.
As a result of this review, I am able to announce that more than $4.2 billion of expenditure reductions and revenue recovery measures will be implemented in 1985-86.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is the first full year of our mandate and the first opportunity that we have to make a meaningful cut in the size of the federal Government spending. These measures, though, will have a continuing impact. On behalf of my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), I will be tabling the full details of these measures later this evening.
In developing these measures, we have made every effort to look first and look hard at our own operations. About $700 million of the total expenditure reductions I am announcing tonight comes from overhead reductions and general restraint measures.
At a time when Canadians are being asked to accept reductions in government programs and services, it is appropriate that Cabinet and Parliament also contribute.
Ministerial pay of the Prime Minister and Cabinet members will be reduced by 15 per cent and 10 per cent respectively for the year beginning January 1, 1985.
Parliament will be asked to reduce its expenditures. The government will ask the appropriate authorities in both Houses of Parliament to examine the expenditures of Parliament as thoroughly as we have examined the expenditures of government, including greater cost-recovery in the operations of the parliamentary restaurant.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Make the press pay.


John Edward Broadbent: Make the press pay their fair share.
Economic Statement


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Thank you for the advice. If you want to join in, you are perfectly welcome.
The Government will propose the establishment of a parliamentary committee to study two other issues of concern. The current system of pensions for Members of Parliament warrants review. It is more generous than most plans in the private sector. Some differences may be appropriate because Members are forced temporarily to abandon their normal careers, but careful scrutiny of all the features of the current system is justified at this time.
A second matter which the committee will be asked to study is the issue of multiple sources of compensation for those who retire with a federal pension and subsequently are re-employed in the federal public sector. Included in this group are Members of Parliament, judges, public servants, members of the Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and employees of Crown Corporations. The present situation is very complex and raises questions of equity which should be examined.

In our broad expenditure review we have sought measures which would be consistent with the following objectives: to promote growth and employment, to treat all regions of the country equitably, to ensure that those in need are not unduly affected, to honour existing agreements with provincial governments and others and to fulfill our pledges.

I want to stress that we went as far as we could in the short time available. We do not believe that the job is finished. Further action will be required. A committee under the chairmanship of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) is continuing its review of federal programs and regulations, with a view to consolidation, simplification, ending duplication and improving service to the public. It will report shortly with recommendations.
In the coming months we will have to examine all government programs, to streamline those that can be made more effective in meeting economic, social and national security objectives and to eliminate those that no longer serve a vital public purpose.
I have described in the Agenda paper the process which we must now follow to gain greater fiscal flexibility. We will review a number of major programs including our economic development and foreign aid programs, unemployment insurance, housing and transfer payments to individuals and provinces. Changes in these programs cannot be made without substantial public consultations. With regard to our aid responsibilities, I want to confirm that we remain committed to making steady progress attaining our target of .7 per cent of Gross National Product devoted to Official Development Assistance.
Let me emphasize that our agenda for further action is clear, open and on the table. We will consult fully with Canadians to ensure the changes we will make will be fair, will assist our economy to grow and to create jobs and will not

November 8, 1984
Economic Statement
violate the sacred trust of assisting those individual Canadians who need our help.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We believe in a planned approach to expenditure reduction which allows sufficient time for those affected to adjust. The state of the economy will also be an important factor in how fast we move.
But move we must. Our goal is to reduce the projected level of annual expenditures by 1990 by $10 to $15 billion, inclusive of the measures I am announcing tonight.

Improving the fiscal balance will remove a major obstacle to the growth of incomes and jobs. But there are other obstacles which government places in the path of innovation and growth and these must also be removed. This is the second major element of our agenda. We must ensure that government itself-through its taxation, expenditure and regulatory programs-does not impede the change and adjustment necessary to improve productivity and increase our international competitiveness.

Many industries in this country are over-regulated. Others are over-protected, not just from imports but from domestic competition. Some programs designed to assist investment have the perverse result of distorting investment decisions and leading to the establishment of companies that are viable only with continued taxpayer support. Other policies and programs have sent the wrong signals abroad-signals that Canada had turned inward and did not welcome foreign investment, particularly in the energy sector. And many government programs carry on long after they are needed and represent only a fiscal drain. These are obstacles to growth, structural problems which need immediate attention.
As the government scales back its own activities, it is essential to take complementary action to ensure that the private sector can expand to provide durable growth and productive jobs. To do this, we must encourage enterprise in this country. We must reduce the regulatory burden, not as an end in itself, but to release the creative energies of individuals and companies to experiment, to innovate and to produce better goods and services at lower prices.
Thus, the third major goal is to establish a stable policy framework with proper incentives for investment and growth. We don't need a "grand design" by which government dictates what industries will grow and which will wither. We do need clear and reliable rules of the game.
We must create a framework which provides the incentive for new, productive investment and new jobs. We must create a climate of confidence in which companies can undertake research and development and innovation. We must encourage Canadian enterprise to seek out new world markets. And we must improve the opportunities for training and development for all Canadians.
Finally, we must ensure that growth will be for the benefit of all Canadians and that the costs of change will not fall on those least able to bear them. To provide this assistance, we must make certain that those who really require social assistance receive it. We must also ensure that our social support systems encourage self-reliance rather than create a dependency on government. We will examine our child benefit, old age security and unemployment insurance systems to see how they may be improved within this framework.
Our ideas for addressing these four challenges are set out in broad terms in the Agenda paper. It is a major document, signalling a major change in the role of government. More detailed discussion papers on many of these issues will be released in the months ahead by the Ministers responsible for these areas. They will pursue directions for change with their provincial colleagues and other Canadians who are directly affected.
Some Canadians will be daunted by the fundamental nature and broad sweep of these undertakings. I want to underline this Government's commitment not to act prematurely or with insensitivity on these issues. But I want to underline even more strongly the urgent national need to face up to Canada's economic problems. We must be prepared to talk. But then we must act for the benefit of all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Some issues, however, cannot await further consultation. The current regime applying to foreign investment is one such area. My colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), will announce at an early date changes to the Foreign Investment Review Act. Similarly, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be proposing major changes to the Crown interest or "back-in" provisions of the National Energy Program. The clear message is that Canada wishes to become a better place for foreign investors to do business. This in turn should give domestic investors increased confidence in the Canadian business environment.
Other important matters must also be addressed. First, we must deal with a number of general tax issues which were before the House earlier this year so that taxpayers will know where they stand. Second, we must act now on several energy issues and matters related to the resource sector. Third, we must set the Unemployment Insurance premium rate for 1985. Fourth, we must begin to act on certain matters of social justice. Finally, we must address the issue of employment growth.
Let me deal first with the outstanding taxation legislation. The previous government left much unfinished business, some of it dating as far back as 1982. Some of this legislation does not go far enough to address our concerns. But it is imperative that the status of tax proposals, many of which affect this year's returns, be clarified.
November 8, 1984

Accordingly, I am announcing tonight that the draft Income Tax Bill published in August containing the proposals from the February 1984 budget will be proceeded with immediately with some minor modifications. We are committed to the small business tax simplification measures in that legislation. I look forward to building on them in future budgets.
The Progressive Conservative Task Force on Revenue Canada made an important recommendation that taxpayers must be considered innocent until proven guilty.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In this regard, I intend to introduce legislation as soon as possible to permit taxpayers to postpone the payment of taxes in dispute where they are the subject matter of a formal objection or appeal by the taxpayer.
I have already announced that the Government is proceeding with the one percentage point increase in the rates of federal sales tax, effective October 1, 1984. I will be introducing legislation to confirm this and other sales and excise tax measures from the April 1983 and February 1984 budgets. Changes proposed in February in the administration and appeals area of the sales and excise taxes will be dealt with later, after further consultation.
I am also proceeding with the customs and tariff measures that were contained in the February Budget. These measures, modified slightly as a consequence of international negotiations, include changes to the Customs Act to implement the new General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Code on Customs Valuation and related tariff rate increases on a small number of items.
A number of proposals made by the previous government in the form of discussion papers are also outstanding. The tax proposals for pensions and RRSPs have drawn constructive criticism as well as support. Modifications which address these concerns and achieve the objectives of the previous proposals are under active study. We will also be having discussions with provincial Governments on ways to strengthen both the public pension system and the standards for private pensions.
The gain-sharing proposals have also received extensive comment. The Government is strongly committed to the concept of profit-sharing and will be consulting further with business and labour to determine appropriate ways to support this objective.
I will address these and other outstanding tax issues, such as the transfer of tax deductions and credits, in my spring Budget.
Our resource sector has been slow to recover and commodity markets continue to be weak. Businesses have been making efforts to cut costs and remain competitive in a tough world marketplace. The Government can help. Farmers, fishermen, loggers and mine operators will be able to apply for a fuel tax rebate of 3 cents per litre on motor fuels used off-highway, an amount approximately equal to the federal sales tax.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Economic Statement


Michael Holcombe Wilson: This will apply to gasoline and diesel fuel purchased from December 1, 1984 to the beginning of 1987. The cost of this measure is expected to be about $160 million in the fiscal year 1985-86.

We are especially concerned about the impact on workers when the principal industry in an isolated or remote community is forced to close. Such closures and the need for individuals to adjust are part of economic life. They cannot be blindly resisted. How they are handled by all concerned-business, labour and government-is a key issue that is addressed in the Agenda paper. The consequences of closures are particularly severe for workers in communities where alternative employment opportunities are limited or simply do not exist. We intend to offer tax relief for termination benefits in these circumstances and will consult with those affected before determining the precise form of assistance.

I have also put into effect orders remitting tax on certain northern allowances. The remission will run until the end of 1985 and I will review the situation and consult with interested parties during the coming year with a view to establishing in the law a more permanent regime.
I am also announcing tonight that the government will soon be referring a number of agricultural taxation issues to a parliamentary committee. These include the taxation of parttime farmers, the question of agribonds and the taxation of capital gains on farmland. The Government will issue a background paper on these issues and will request the parliamentary committee to report expeditiously. Should changes be made to the treatment of farm losses in the next budget, farmers will have the option of applying the 1985 tax regime to 1984.
Let me turn now to the energy sector. We have to deal with oil pricing. This Government believes that the time has come to let the price of oil be determined by the market-place. This would be consistent with the general move toward the reduction of government involvement and regulation in the marketplace that I have signalled earlier in my remarks. Market pricing would provide a stimulus to the oil and gas industry. There would also be positive spin-offs for manufacturing industries in other provinces as exploration and development activity increased. There would, of course, have to be appropriate safeguards for consumers to deal with exceptional price surges. We shall therefore be consulting widely during the weeks ahead on the ways and means of moving away from price controls.
But we must immediately address a financial problem left by the previous government. The Canada-Alberta Agreement of September 1981 provides that the Petroleum Compensation Charge, a tax paid by refiners, be set at a level that covers the full costs of price subsidies for oil imports to eastern Canada and for new oil produced in Canada. The previous government

November 8, 1984
Economic Statement
failed to raise this charge earlier this year even though the need for the increase was very clear. The result is a deficit of nearly $1 billion in the petroleum compensation account, a deficit which is now growing by more than $140 million a month.
This is unsustainable. I am therefore announcing that the Petroleum Compensation Charge will be increased, effective November 10, 1984, by $17.50 a cubic metre. This is the maximum increase that could be made without raising oil prices at the refinery above world levels. Yet even this increase will be insufficient to hold the deficit in the account at its present level, much less reduce the inherited shortfall. The Government will continue to look for sources of revenue to offset this shortfall in its upcoming negotiations with respect to pricing and taxation.
Farmers, fishermen, loggers and mine operators eligible for the fuel sales tax relief which I announced earlier will also be allowed rebates approximately equal to the increase in the Petroleum Compensation Charge-a total of 1.8 cents per litre. In addition, the petrochemical industry will not be burdened with the increase in the Charge. The total cost of these rebates is estimated at $95 million. I must stress, however, that the Petroleum Compensation Charge relief will be available only until oil prices are decontrolled and must not be viewed as an enduring mechanism. Rather, it provides a short breathing space in which to complete the necessary adjustment to market-priced oil.
We are proceeding with changes to the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax as proposed by the previous government with two modifications. I am extending for one year the lower rate of Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax that applies to integrated oil sands projects and will double the threshold level of the small producers' credit from $250,000 to $500,000 effective January 1, 1985. The cost of these measures is estimated at $64 million in 1985-86. These new measures are only a beginning; we remain committed to a full examination of the fiscal regime in the oil and gas sector and the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax in particular. But our immediate imperative is to pass the outstanding legislation so that taxpayers can have their tax returns for the last several years processed.
The federal Government is determined that its fiscal regime for oil reflect the importance of energy supply for Canada's future and the economic contribution that will come from greater industry investment. One of the principal challenges is to increase production from the oil sands. We wish to see expansion of the two existing integrated plants. As well, we want to see whether more plants would be built if incentives that adequately recognized the unusually large front-end risks of such plants were made available.
The federal Government is ready to discuss with potential project sponsors and provincial government the incentive framework that would have to be provided by governments to stimulate renewed interest in development of this immense resource, including the effect of the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax. We recognize, of course, that many of the factors relevant to oil sands development also apply to frontier
projects and that the fiscal regime for the Canada Lands will have to reflect this.
We are concerned about the few high income tax filers who are paying little or no personal income tax because of the combined effect of tax credits and deductions. We are considering the introduction of a tax designed to ensure that the effective tax rate for high income individuals does not fall below some minimum level. In this issue, as in so many tax issues, the challenge is to make the system more equitable without undermining incentives for Canadian investment. We must also take care not to complicate the tax system unduly for the many Canadians not directly affected but who would face a more complex tax return.
The Government will undertake a thorough review of the situation commencing with a discussion paper to provide background information on a minimum tax.
The budgetary process itself and various aspects of the income tax system will be the subject of a discussion paper to be issued early in the new year. Both have come under increasing criticism from tax professionals and the public at large. The present system of developing, enacting and administering the income tax laws is now widely perceived as inefficient and less than fair.
For example, the traditional and long-standing Canadian practice of provisionally collecting taxes before Parliament has enacted the relevant legislation should be reviewed. It is time to improve the parliamentary process of turning budgetary proposals into tax laws and to involve the public more meaningfully in the development of budgetary proposals. Consultation will pave the way for major improvements in this vital area. I hope to be able to resolve these issues in my spring budget.
As a matter of law, the unemployment insurance premium rate and maximum insurable earnings have to be adjusted annually. Maximum insurable earnings will increase from $425 a week to $460 in line with the formula established in the Act. The current state of the account also requires that the premium rate be increased. However, I am concerned about the impact of a significant increase on employment and economic activity. Therefore, I am announcing that the premium rate for 1985 will be kept as close as possible to the minimum rate required by the Act. The rate will be increased by 2 per cent to $2.35 per $100 of earnings for employees and to $3.29 for employers.
In order to make the program more effective and less costly, a number of administrative changes related to the determination of eligibility for benefits will be made. These changes are part of the expenditure reductions I announced earlier.
To ensure that this program meets the needs of individuals in adjusting to rapidly changing labour market conditions at a reasonable cost to workers, employers and the government, statutory changes are likely to be required. Accordingly, the government has initiated a review of the Unemployment Insurance program to be undertaken on an urgent basis. A discussion paper will be published shortly by the Minister of
November 8, 1984

Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), followed by appropriate parliamentary review.
The state of our finances will not support the costs of many new initiatives. It would not be responsible to proceed with many of the things we would like to do until we have made further progress in reordering priorities and strengthening our economic base. However, it is possible to begin to provide some greater assistance to those Canadians in need and to increase the resources devoted to the creation of employment and training opportunities. The Government will extend the Spouses' allowances program to all widows and widowers between ages 60 and 64.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Some 85,000 low-income Canadians, mostly women, will benefit from this proposal starting in the fall of 1985. Costs to the Government will be approximately $200 million in 1985-86. My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), will be providing detailed information.
I am also announcing measures to improve veterans' pensions in order to ensure a more equitable and generous treatment from a society which owes our veterans so much.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The cost of these measures will be $22 million in 1985-86. My colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) will be providing further information.
Expanding employment and creating new opportunities is at the heart of our program for national economic renewal. We are committed to providing lasting jobs for all Canadians who want to work. The government will therefore be committing an additional $1 billion in 1985-86 primarily to help Canadians to acquire new skills and to find jobs in the private and public sectors.

Our goal is not to do more of the same through temporary make-work programs, but to offer those who are unemployed real opportunities to make a useful contribution to society. This requires a fresh outlook and new approaches that will ensure that employment and training programs are delivered more effectively than in the past.

The total cost of the new expenditure and tax initiatives I have announced tonight will be $1.5 billion in 1985-86. In addition, the government previously announced an allocation of $200 million to the Canada Works program, for direct employment creation in 1985-86. The expenditure reduction and revenue recovery measures I announced earlier will more than offset the cost of these measures. Indeed, the deficit we inherited for 1985-86 will be brought down from $37.1 billion to $34.9 billion and our inherited financial requirements will
Economic Statement
be reduced even further, from $32 billion to $29.2 billion. We cannot be satisfied with the level of the deficit and I intend to propose further measures in my budget following consultation on the proposals set out in the Agenda paper.

The measures I have introduced reflect the direction in which it is essential to go. We have begun to reduce the deficit. We have done so while increasing resources for our most important priority-employment creation-and while enhancing our support for individual Canadians who need and deserve assistance.

I am tabling the documents I have referred to earlier and Notices of Ways and Means Motions covering the tax and tariff measures I have described and a measure dealing with the interpretation of Canada's tax treaties.
There is an abundance of strength, energy, vitality and resilience in the people of this great country. Our imagination and enterprise are boundless, and there is no reason on earth why we cannot work together to build the kind of future we all want for ourselves and for our children.
This government is determined to lead the way in a national process of economic renewal. The agenda which we bring forward tonight provides a roadmap for a challenging and rewarding journey. It represents a new beginning for Canada. Change must come. The old ways of doing things have not worked. But change must be based on understanding, discussion, and above all, fairness.
This is a vital part of our mandate: to consult and to listen before acting. Building greater understanding of our problems and casting a broad net in our search for solutions are keys to success. The goals are clear; reaching them is the challenge.
I will begin by meeting provincial finance ministers and treasurers tomorrow, and the process will continue up to and beyond a National Economic Summit under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister early next year.

There will be no surprises. Our agenda is open and it is on the table. How fast we pursue it will depend on the support and understanding it commands in the Canadian community. [English]
As we begin discussion on this agenda, I would ask Canadians not to lose sight of the broad national purpose to which we are pledged. We all come from different walks of life, different regions of the country, and we all have different backgrounds and interests. But our common bond is the desire we all share to see a strong and prosperous Canada. Achieving this will improve the lot of each and every one of us. We can achieve it if we work together to make it happen.
Let us remember that a strong economy leads to strong democracy, to greater protection for our basic values. And our future depends in a fundamental way on how we develop and strengthen our economy and democratic institutions.

November 8, 1984
Economic Statement
We must have faith in ourselves and in our country. We must stop acting as if we were helpless in the face of capricious events outside our country. Let us strengthen our resolve to deal with those matters that we can control and thereby strengthen our place in the challenging economic world around us.
With the support, understanding and co-operation of all Canadians, we can make this country strong again. We can refurbish our image in the world as a good place to do business and we can build a future in which Canadians from all walks of life, in all regions of the country, can share in growing prosperity.
That is the purpose of this economic agenda. That is the goal of this government.
That is the challenge for this nation.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, 1 understand there is a program on television called "That's Incredible" which usually deals with such events as the Hunsinger fumble, back in 1954 but I really do believe that our new Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), or perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) himself, would be a good candidate for that show.
We have heard a budget this evening, Mr. Speaker, telescoped into a Throne Speech debate; something on which there was no consultation. Frankly, I am not too surprised. If I were the Minister of Finance I would be very reluctant to subject this quite remarkable document and those that accompany it to a budget debate. Nevertheless, I would ask the Minister of Finance to assure us that he will be in the House tomorrow during Question Period, notwithstanding his commitment to the provincial Ministers of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I was going to start this evening by offering my congratulations to my hon. friend, our new Minister. I still intend to do so, not because of his statement this evening but because he had the courage to take on this difficult task today.
I think I can say on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House that we had great expectations of the Minister in question.

He is known to us as a serious, responsible, diligent Member of Parliament. He has been in the House now for several years and I think all of us have had some admiration for the solid performance and the intelligent and often non-partisan approach he has taken.

So now, unfortunately, he is trapped, as it were, by promises the Right Hon. Prime Minister made during the election campaign, promises that were generous and impossible to keep,
and now the Minister has to take the responsibility for those promises. I will elaborate on this later in my speech.

I should tell you one other thing before getting to the body of this remarkable document. The Minister of Finance has other talents. He is a tennis player, I understand. In fact, I have seen his forehand. But tonight we have witnessed his backhand, and I can tell you it is not elegant and it hurts.
I feel, and I suspect that many in this Chamber, many in the two rumps of the Conservatives and those on the other side who do not look overjoyed with this particular presentation, feel that this is really not the work of the Member we have seen on this side of the House for many years. There is inspiration here from perhaps the "happy hacker" of 1979, or perhaps his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) who has been wise enough to leave this place, at least for the time being. He cannot suppress his blush.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Look at him.


Donald James Johnston: Quite right, he cannot suppress his blush. We all expected a great deal more, and I feel Canadians have been severely let down.
Having read the Throne Speech, and having heard the Minister read this document tonight, I must say that the Prime Minister had the wisdom not to defend the Throne Speech during his comments in the House yesterday. I read this new approach which, although I do not like to repeat, I will.

But I would do so just the same.
This government is prepared to lead this process of renewal. We have set for ourselves four challenges: first, to put our own fiscal house in order so that we can limit, and ultimately reverse, the massive build-up in public debt and the damaging impact this has on confidence and growth; second, to redefine the role of government so that it provides a better framework for growth and job creation and less of an obstacle to change and innovation; third, to foster higher investment, greater innovation, increased international competitiveness and a positive climate for the birth and growth of new enterprise; and fourth, to bring about these changes in a way that is fair, open and consistent with the basic sense of compassion, tolerance and justice that is characteristic of Canadian society.
It all sounds terrific.

That is a lot of good rhetoric, and it is followed by what could only be described as a traditional "x" budget exercise badly carried out, as I will demonstrate in a few moments.
When I read this remarkable document this evening an image came into my mind with which all of us, at least of my age, will be familiar. We often used to look out on the cold streets of this city, my city, and undoubtedly Baie Comeau in the winter time, and would see the sparrows out there trying to get the oats out of the horse manure. I spent much of this evening trying to find the oats in this particular document. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that no sparrow would get fat on the oats contained in this particular piece of draftsmanship, with the exception, of course, of the continuation of the budget
November 8, 1984

proposals which were tabled earlier this year by our Minister of Finance, and which I am happy to see will be introduced into legislation.
I was looking at Barbara Amiel's comments this week after she reviewed the Throne Speech; "pretentious cliches, shopworn ideas". Now, Barbara Amiel is not known as a pillar of the Liberal establishment. I am anxious to see what Barbara Amiel has to say tomorrow morning now that she has read the second piece of this presentation.


George Albert Proud: She is leaving Canada after having read that.


Donald James Johnston: I do not think it will be that bad. She pointed out, as all others have pointed out, that the promises so generously made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign are completely and totally incompatible with any kind of deficit reduction, and the Minister of Finance knows that full well. Certainly the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), who I see has had the good sense to take his leave as well, estimated those during the campaign at a cost, I think, of $20 billion. We on this side of the House know that that is impossible. We did not expect miracles from the Minister of Finance this evening.

Although he did promise miracles during the campaign, we do not expect any here.

The Minister said, when he looked at the projections which were presented to us, that in his view they were unacceptable. 1 agree with that, Mr. Speaker. They are unacceptable because, between the summer and November, using the same departmental officials, somehow the deficit for 1985-86 has blossomed from $27 billion odd to $37 billion odd. That is in fact about $9 billion more, and someone owes us a very good explanation for that inflated Figure.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: That has happened since this gang got its hands on the machinery of government.


Robert René de Cotret: Ask Lalonde.


Donald James Johnston: What we have watched here this evening is an exercise by which the deficit has been inflated, and then a budget exercise which brings it down to something like $34 billion in 1985-86. When the Throne Speech was read the Governor General told us that, yes, indeed, the deficit would be reduced, I believe in an orderly, balanced and fair way. What was also stated in the Throne Speech was re-emphasized in the rhetoric here this evening. I keep coming back to this point, Mr. Speaker, because we must be very careful with that group to make sure that the rhetoric we hear on the one hand is matched by action on the other. We have not seen that yet. We have seen just the contrary, as I will point out.
Economic Statement
That being said, we were told that the Government would re-energize the private sector and that the jobs we all want to see would come from the private sector.

Sure, they are going to stimulate the private sector. They are going to find thousands of jobs in the private sector with their new policies.

I have in front of me the expenditure and program review under the signature of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). He looks a little sheepish and is also blushing, as he well might. Let us review some of these cuts that have been introduced. I will only mention a few of them because I do not want to take too much time in the House. Although they were not dealt with in any detail in the Minister's presentation, I think Canadians and my colleagues who have not had the opportunity would be interested in looking at a few of these measures that will stimulate the private sector and create jobs.
They are found in an interesting series of appendices to this document. For example, with respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, $75 million will be removed. I will not debate the merits of that, but will leave that to the critic. However, is that the way they will create jobs? Certainly not in the CBC. I ask the Minister of Finance how many jobs are involved in that cut? I am sure that he knows, but he did not tell us this evening. There is to be $7.5 million cut from cultural agencies such as the Canada Council, National Art Centre and probably theatre groups right across Canada. Where is the job creation in that cut or the stimulating of the private sector? With respect to the PIP Program and exploration and development, there is to be a cut of $250 million. Will there be many jobs created in the private sector through that cut? Clearly not, Mr. Speaker.
Let me continue with respect to research and development. Where is the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) who told us during the election campaign that they were going to increase R and D spending to 2.5 per cent of GNP, doubling it? Here we find that $34.6 million is removed from the National Research Council immediately, as well as other research programs being terminated. Is there a lot of job-creation there?
Let us consider the Program for Export Market Development. That is a program which we designed to stimulate export-led growth in this country to create jobs in this country. The Government will take $4 million out of that program. Are there many jobs being created there? The same is true for the Canadian Commercial Corporation from which $5 million is being taken. Again, this directly affects our exports and the capacity of this country to export to the world. An amount of $9.6 million is directly being taken out of the social housing program which provides work in the construction sector. We are all aware of the number of jobs that are created by the

November 8, 1984
Economic Statement
Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program across the country. That represents a $29.4 million job loss.
I turn to Industrial Incentives Programs. I see the Minister of DRIE sitting across the aisle. There is $200 million taken out of the IRDP. That is the only real program which is designed to help small and medium sized businesses in this country. While the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and other Ministers opposite have said that that is where the jobs will come from, they are taking out $200 million in 1985-86. The way that program works means that applications would have to shut down in 1984-85 because they are ongoing through those periods. What kind of approach is that to the stimulation of jobs in the private sector? Did the Minister propose an alternative? Did he come forward and say that they will take $200 million but another program to stimulate that sector, in keeping with the rhetoric of the Throne Speech, would replace it? I have not found one innovative idea to create jobs in any of those sectors.
Let me cite a few more measures. There is "rigorous management of programs". That is interesting.


John Napier Turner: What about VIA Rail?


Donald James Johnston: My leader mentions VIA Rail. I do not purport to cite all of them, just those that come directly from the page. VIA Rail does appear on the page, with $93 million, repair facilities and so on.
However, let us deal with other measures that touch people directly. For example, the Government will reduce the six-week eligibility for unemployment insurance payments and get it down to three weeks. That involves $5.8 million.
There is the Mobility Program. On the one hand the Minister just discussed giving some form of tax relief in these communities that are affected by plant shutdowns, but on the other hand $2.8 million is taken out of the Mobility Program of Employment and Immigration. That program is designed to assist workers to relocate to areas of higher employment, allowing them to get jobs in other communities where jobs are available. The list goes on, Mr. Speaker.
I wish the students, who came to make representations to Members of the Conservative Caucus and a number of us as well, were still here. With respect to the Canada Student Loans Program, $5 million of financial help for students in this country is removed. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is blushing, as he should. I must repeat the response he gave in the House earlier today. I can see that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) is chortling because at least his commitment was satisfied in the Throne Speech debate.
Canagrex is gone.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: I will let the response come from the critic and those people who use Canagrex to get their products into foreign markets. You might find another mechanism, but none
of you are prepared to come forward with this other mechanism. Let us see it.
The General Industrial Training Program to provide financial assistance to employers to provide skills training is absolutely critical today in order for those people to get upgraded jobs. We see that $40 million is taken from that program. However, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) will conduct a study. In fact, there has been a new industry created by the Government. It is studies, consultations and committees. While there will be much unemployment there, it will certainly not be productive, particularly since in most instances the Government is trying to re-invent the wheel.
I thought the Prime Minister would blush at the mention of Summer Canada. There will be $85 million gone from this program which provides employment for students during summer months. The $84 million CHIP Program-another good employment program-is gone.
It is interesting to note with respect to capital projects that the Washington Embassy has been deferred a year. I hope the Prime Minister discussed that with the President.
I found it particularly interesting that two of the major research centres-the Manufacturing Technology Institute and the Research Institute in Shawinigan-were both cancelled. One happens to be in the riding of the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), while the other happens to be in the riding of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien).


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: How did they get there?


Donald James Johnston: Is the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) in the House tonight? The Maritime Forestry Research Institute in Fredericton, New Brunswick, seems to have escaped the axe. It is an institute of approximately the same magnitude. Incidentally, that was put into the Member's riding, for which he should be grateful. I think the cuts speak for themselves.
Finally, the greatest embarrassment of all must be reserved for the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates). How could you do it to him? He was sent to Washington to say that the Government would increase defence spending. He was to put new uniforms on our troops and increase our commitment to NATO, which we are told has been neglected by the previous government. But what do we find? The sum of $154 million has been taken out from departmental operations in Defence, with the bald statement that these savings can be realized while maintaining Canada's commitment to NATO. What kind of credibility does that leave the Minister of National Defence? In fact, what kind of credibility does that leave the Government as a whole? He has always said that we would maintain our commitments to NATO. I come back to my point.
November 8, 1984

[ Translation]
Where are the jobs with these cuts? Can anyone tell me that? Does he think I did not notice that he is establishing here-


An Hon. Member:: -Members from Quebec.


Donald James Johnston: Another thing-

There is the Natural Gas Laterals Program in Quebec, $85 million. Current construction will be completed but the rest of the program will be cancelled. Again this means jobs out the window.
I had thought that we might see some symbolic cuts. Unfortunately we have found some real cuts, damaging cuts. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that restraint starts at home. I understand Maxwell Henderson was on Canada AM this morning. He made that point. He said, "cuts begin at home just like charity, let us ground the JetStars, let us put them on the ground for a while"-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: -and "let us roll back some of those bloated ministerial assistants' salaries." It is pretty obvious that the Government needs highly paid assistants over there, but $80,000 is a bit much.
In addition, the Prime Minister and Cabinet Members will take a 15 per cent cut and a 10 per cent cut respectively. Having read this document and the accompanying material to the extent I have, I think that cut is modest. I am sure everyone on this side of the House, with the exception of the two rumps, will agree. In fact, if they had any humility, they would at least double that cut on the basis of the work they have done for this country to date.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: I see the Minister of Finance has taken his leave. I am concerned. I have expressed the opinion certainly of everyone in this caucus, and probably even the Members of the NDP, although they probably have not had time yet to check it with Dennis. My concern is to learn whether the Minister of Finance is really his own man. There is an important tradition in Cabinet that Ministers of Finance have the final word. They set-
[ Translation]
-the framework for economic policy and they also have a policing function, which is extremely important, especially with the crowd across the floor.
I ask you, can we take the Minister's rhetoric at face value, considering what his actions have been up to now, including what he announced in his statement this evening? I say there is no comparison, and I would like to give two examples.
Economic Statement

I read the Minister's speech which he gave in Ottawa to the Strategic Planning Forum Conference. He took a few gratuitous swipes at the previous government. He said that throwing money at individual problems without treating or even examining the whole patient was surely unconscionable quackery. I am delighted the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) is applauding that. Would he also applaud the $15 million investment in Petromont against the recommendations of all experts, against the recommendation of the principal shareholder, Union Carbide? Or, did he recognize that for what it was-political expediency of the worst kind. That is where the Minister of Finance is to exercise discipline, over his colleagues, which he failed to do. Not only that, Petromont was there during the election. Our government and our Leader recognized that that was not an investment in the interests of the taxpayers of the country. If there was ever a moment for political expediency, it was during the election campaign. The former Hon. Member for Vercheres will testify to that. That is what I mean by: Is the Minister of Finance his own man? [Translation]
Unfortunately, he is not and I would like that to change. [English]
I should like to make another point. The Minister speaks of certainty in the tax system. This is the same Minister who, together with his colleague the Minister of National Revenue, decided to suspend advance tax rulings on certain kinds of tax credit transfers which were within the law and upon which advance rulings had always been given. This created a climate of uncertainty; proceed at your own risk because you do not know where you stand. What has the result been? Ask Algoma what the result has been. Ask Tembec what the result has been. The result has been direct job losses in the private sector. That is how the Government plans to re-energize the private sector.

So, if we want the Canadian taxpayers to know exactly where they stand, that policy must be changed tomorrow.

Nobody gave this Government a mandate to govern by uncertainty and instability, having run on the premise and with the rhetoric that what ought to be established in the country was a solid investment climate where people knew exactly where they were going, with the tax system set out, with advance rulings and so on. Frankly I find it incomprehensible.
I have another great concern with the Minister of Finance. I mentioned his tennis at the beginning. I would like to extend the metaphor. What we have seen in the Throne Speech debate and here in this financial statement is a series of lobs. I see that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) does not know the term. That is when one hits the ball into the air, sometimes as high as one can, to see if one can get into position before it lands. We have task force lobs, consultation

November 8, 1984
Economic Statement
lobs, committee lobs. We have a series of lobs thrown up by the Minister of Finance. That is not his style, because I have seen him on the court. However it is the style of this Government. Take him off that short leash. Let him give us the kind of programs in which he believes. Do not let him be the servant of the "happy hackers"; the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister with his generous promises, and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. It is a shameful way to govern.
Also I have to spend a moment on this quite extraordinary introduction about the national legacy inherited by the Conservative Government-a decade of-I cannot remember the term. I fear I will have to read the document again, much as I would rather not. The cupboard is bare, we were told.

The cupboard is bare.

He garbs himself as Mother Hubbard. Mother Hubbard as I recall the nursery rhyme-but others have probably read it more recently than I-was not a hypocrite. She did not know that the cupboard was bare when she went to it. There is not one Member on that side of the House nor one Canadian who followed budget debates in the country over the last several years who does not know that the cupboard is bare. With a projected $29 billion deficit, would anybody suggest that the cupboard was not bare? Would anybody suggest that it would be barer at $31 billion or $32 billion? Now they are saying $37 billion, but I doubt that very much. It has always been known that the financial cupboard was bare, but there was a very rich legacy hidden away in that cupboard which the Minister of Finance studiously avoids mentioning, although he paid some tribute to the remarkable progress of the country in bringing down inflation, the greatest evil which can beset any society.
When I look at some of the comments made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign, he certainly knew the cupboard was bare. He was predicting deficits of upwards of $36 billion per year. Now he has the culot, as we say in Quebec, to come in here and tell us that they did not know the cupboard was bare. In fact, in many respects the situation is much healthier than they led the Canadian population to believe.
In fairness to previous Liberal governments of the last several years, I want to read a few facts into the record which will never be read by any other Party in this House. They were contained in various speeches given over the years. Now that we are in Opposition, perhaps someone will listen to us. I should point out in looking at this, and it may come as a surprise to many, that Canada now in terms of inflation is in fact lower than the United States. Based on the recent three-month period, our inflation rate July through September is 2.6 per cent. Put that in your cupboard.
Let me just give a few facts. We have been criticized for growth. Let us go back over the period from 1968. The Canadian Economy has grown on average 3.4 per cent per year, at a rate equivalent with France, faster than the United
States, Germany, Italy, or the United Kingdom. Among the summit countries, only Japan has had a higher growth rate in that period.
Listen to this carefully because I have a feeling that most of the Conservatives in this House do not like to be inhibited by facts. Nor do our friends in the New Democratic Party. I will be brief.
In 1984, earlier this year, 3 million or 42 per cent more Canadians were employed than in 1968. The comparable average for the other six summit nations, including the United States, admired so much by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) and some of his colleagues, is only 15 per cent. That is the comparable average in the other summit countries. We created new jobs at about three times the rate of our major economic partners under Liberal governments, under Liberal policies.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: That is what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister also found in the cupboard. Our record for absorbing new workers into the economy, at least until the mini-budget that we heard here this evening, has been a remarkable one, especially as regards women. In 1968, 2.5 million women, or 37 per cent of working age women in Canada, were employed. In 1983, these figures had risen to 4.5 million and 52.6 per cent of working age women in this country. That is another fact. That is another part of the legacy which we have given, involuntarily, to the Conservative Party.
We have had a faster growing labour force than any other OECD country. Without going through all of these, let me touch one in particular which destroys the credibility of the rhetoric which we find in this particular document about how dreadful things have been in the past 10 years.
Real disposable income per capita, which as we all know is a widely used measure of the standard of living, grew about 60 per cent in Canada over that period, which is well above the 44 per cent increase in Canada over the previous 15 year period. It compares with a 35 per cent increase in the United States durng the same period.
I do not think I need go on. I will be happy to table this document, if Members wish, in both official languages. It will give them the opportunity to educate themselves a little bit on the legacy which has been left to them. If they do as well in the period in which they have the over-all direction in this country, all Canadians and all of us will be grateful.
I must say that tonight portends terrible news for Canada. The prospects which we read about in this document are in no way represented by the particular actions, the particular steps that have been taken and put before the Canadian people tonight.

In concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I could go on all night, but I was told that I have as much time as the Minister of Finance. However, I am not interested in talking about
November 8, 1984

every aspect of his budget. I mentioned a few which may turn out to be the most dangerous for our society. But I must say that it is an extremely shaky start for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). We are very disappointed and let down.

I am bitterly disappointed by what I saw there this evening.
I had great expectations that finally, after all the rhetoric, after all the speeches, the Throne Speech and the election campaign, even though we are partisan, hidden away somewhere there was some approach that would be different, that would be creative, that would light the way to greater prosperity, to a lower deficit, meeting as many of the irresponsible promises put forward by the Conservative Party as possible. We have not seen that period. We are in darkness. All I can say is on behalf of my colleagues-
[ Translation]
I would like to urge the Prime Minister to give more freedom to his Minister of Finance. He cannot be kept on a short leash as we saw this evening simply to protect the new government's credibility, which will no longer exist after tonight. He must be given more freedom of action, he must really have the mandate required to steer the government and the country. Since he does not have that, it is imperative to take action to avoid the consequences and the disastrous effects of the budget he brought down this evening. I, for one, always found the Minister to be a very flexible and reasonable man. It is obvious that he has detected the flaws in the statement he made here this evening.

If we were completely partisan politicians, we would rejoice. We would be chortling over here at this extraordinarily incompetent piece of economic strategy that has been put forward for Canadian consumption. But we do not. I say that more in sorrow, frankly, than in anger. If they continue down this road, I would predict that before the next election the sky will be dark, dark with chickens coming home to roost.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on September 4 Canadians voted for a change. They had been told during the election campaign that the priority of the Progressive Conservatives, to quote the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), was jobs, jobs, jobs. Immediately after the election, we noticed a significant change in their priorities, to the deficits, to cuts, to tax increases. We have seen a move away from jobs to tax increases, to a reduction of services that Canadians have traditionally been used to.
What is interesting is that here is a government that for years and years has said to the people that we have to get government off of our backs, that we have to lighten it up, we have to get government off the back of the ordinary Canadian citizen. Tonight in the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), Canadians are being asked to pay more in gas taxes. They will be expected to pay another 10 cents a gallon or 2 cents a litre. There will be more tax for watching television. Those with cable television will have to pay more.
Economic Statement
When you take out a divorce certificate, you have to pay for that. When you take out a citizenship certificate, you must pay for that. If there is a security investigation for your Visa application, you have to pay for that. When the government inspector comes to inspect scales, those who run shops and service stations across the country will have to pay for that privilege. All of the people who work in agricultural producing firms and have people coming in to check on their facilities will now have to pay for those federal inspectors to come on site. Those people who visit national parks will have to make increased payments. Those entrepreneurs who have a new idea or patent to register will have increased costs when registering that patent. It goes on and on, Mr. Speaker.
This was the Government that wanted to get the government off people's backs. We now have a document containing pages and pages of new and creative ways for the Government to be on the backs of ordinary Canadians once again.
In the Throne Speech on Monday night, we heard of a new era that was about to begin, a new era of co-operation, a new era of economic renewal and social justice. Tonight we see the reality. The reality is the same old policies that we have seen year after year, but with a Conservative face on them. We have seen cuts to services to ordinary Canadians. We have seen increases in taxation to ordinary Canadians. The result of this will be continual confrontation, continual economic stagnation and a continuation of the social injustices that exist within our country.
There has been no change, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister said earlier today that we would be applauding the economic statement of the Minister of Finance. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we are not applauding that statement. Ordinary Canadians will not be applauding the statement they heard tonight. The Government promised jobs and we have tax increases and cuts in service.
A number of symbolic actions were included in the statement. For example, for the benefit of Bay Street, the Government's net cuts out of this year's expenditures will be $2 billion in a $200-billion economy. Again, this is a symbol. The net effect will be job losses.
Our analyses to this point have indicated very clearly that while the Government says that the unemployment level will be 11 per cent next year and will slide down a percentage point or two between now and 1990, that will only happen assuming that the deficit and the interest rates in the United States will be decreased substantially. With the cuts in government services, the cuts in government programs and the increased taxes that Canadians will be paying as a result of this statement tonight, our analyses indicate that we will be seeing the loss of between 50,000 and 100,000 jobs in the months ahead.
We do recognize that there are positive items in this statement. The introduction of the measures proposed by the Auditor General was, I believe, accepted by all Members of the House as a positive step. The rebates in fuel costs that will be available to farmers, loggers and fishermen is certainly

November 8, 1984
Economic Statement
good news. Increases in spouse's allowance for those over the age of 60 and slight increases in pensions to veterans is good news. The Government said that it added $1 billion to job-creation funds, but, in a sense, that was a bit misleading. What the Government meant was that while the Liberals had promised a cut in the coming year, the Conservative Government was not going to make that same cut. It would keep the same levels of funding that existed this year. In a sense, there is no increase from the status quo.
The real news in tonight's economic statement is that there is good news for those on Bay Street. The billions and billions of dollars worth of tax loopholes that exist in our tax system were not plugged tonight. They were not touched at all. However, for the unemployed in Canada, for the underemployed in Canada, for the poor, for those people struggling to make mortgage payments, for the hard pressed small business person, for the farmers and fishermen, for those in the forest and mining industries, there is nothing in this budget. For the ordinary Canadian citizen, there is nothing in tonight's statement that will benefit them.
What is in the statement for the average, ordinary Canadian citizen is increases in the price of gasoline by 10 cents a gallon or 2 cents a litre and an increase in unemployment insurance contributions. The Government will again introduce all of the tax increases first introduced by the Liberal administration. This will result in $9 billion being taken out of the pockets of ordinary Canadians over the next four years. It will be taken out of the pockets of the small communities across Canada, of the rural areas across Canada and will be focused here in Ottawa. Those are Liberal tax increases that this Government has simply re-introduced. At least the Liberals had the courage to say how much the increases would cost. Liberal Members said that they would cost $9 billion over four years. In this statement there is no mention of that. There is only mention that there will be cost increases that have been in the pipeline as a result of the actions of the Liberal Government. The Government did not have the courage to admit what was going to happen.
I suppose the biggest surprise of all is that the oil companies, the corporate sector and all Parties in this House have agreed that one of the biggest boondoggles in tax give-aways is the PIP program. Each year, $1.5 billion is shovelled out to the oil companies to bribe them into exploring and developing our frontier areas. They say they do not need that. There was a cut, Mr. Speaker, but it was cut so that this coming year the oil companies will only receive $1.6 billion in PIP grants. However, there are significant cutbacks for research and development in the energy sector, and particularly in the area of renewable energy or the conservation of energy. There have been nearly $70 million in cutbacks to research and development in that critical area.
There have been cutbacks to research and development funding in the forest industry. If there is one item that Members of Parliament have been briefed on time and time again, it is the serious problem of research and development through to production in the forest industry. What is this
Government's response to that critical and growing catastrophe in that critical sector? It is to cut back on further research and development in that particular area.
Presumably the Government may have indicated that the National Research Council would take up the slack. We have learned that funding to the National Research Council will be cut by $35 million. We know that we must explore and develop new markets for our manufacturers. What do we find? We find that export market development funding will be cut back by a few million dollars in this coming year.
What about social housing programs? In today's Toronto Sun, I read that housing starts across the country on an annual basis are now at about 129,000 a year. On the business page it is indicated that that is a virtual catastrophe for that critical sector. What is the response? The response is to cut out social housing on top of the cuts to the tune of $10 million made by the Liberal administration.
What about the RAPP program, the one program that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of elderly Canadians took advantage of? That program enabled people to make renovations to their home to extend its life for another 20 or 25 years. It was labour-intensive and helped seniors across the country, particularly those who live in some of the older neighbourhoods in the older parts of the country. What was the response? The response was to cut back on the RAPP program funding by a few million dollars. Funding to that critical program was reduced by $30 million.
Most Members of Parliament have sons or daughters, nieces or nephews, grandsons or granddaughters who take advantage of the Summer Canada Program, which affords them summer jobs and enables them to return to their studies in the fall. That program will be eliminated by this Government. The Government is saying that it will not help the young people of this country with summer jobs and that $85 million will be cut from Summer Canada. What a low blow that is to the young people of the country!
When the small business sector has ideas, skills and is developing markets but needs a little seed money to get its operations going, it looks to the federal Government or the provincial Governments to provide that seed money to enable it to take that first and critical step. The response of the Government is to cut funding to the industrial incentive programs to the tune of $200 million. The Government has said to the small business sector of the country that its good ideas will have to stay where they are just a little while longer.
There were cuts of $84 million to the CHIP program. Fisheries is a critical resource which is in difficulty on both the East and West Coasts. Funding to development and assistance of that particular sector has been cut $12 million. Of course, where funding is needed most, in research and development, it is cut by $1.5 million.
Research and development is critical to the future of the Canadian economy and in virtually every sector of the Canadian economy. But, the Government has cut it out. It has been
November 8, 1984

totally removed. Research and development is not necessary! Every other western industrialized nation is increasing both private and public investment in research and development, except Canada. We are now notable for cutting back in that critical area. The Japanese have built 19 centres in the last year to develop research through production programs, at a time when Canada is cutting back. What a regressive step!
There is no mention of cutting back on the hundreds of thousands of dollars which Ministers spend each year on flights across the country in government jets. One could make comments about nannies and so on that are on the public purse, but one need not get into that.
This was an opportunity for the Government to send a clear message to Canadians that now is the time to change the course in this country, now is the time when action will be taken and the process of putting Canadians back to work into meaningful, long-term, permanent jobs will begin. The Government did not do that. It could have set not only targets to reduce the nation's deficit, but set targets to reduce levels of unemployment in this country. One can make the case that when there are 1.5 million people officially unemployed and hundreds of thousands unofficially unemployed, and when there are literally hundreds of thousands of small businesses and farms across this country on the verge of going into receivership, backruptcy, or on the verge of simply closing their doors and walking away disappointed, the Government could have taken some positive steps. It could have set targets for reducing unemployment. It could have sent a clear message to Canadians by cutting the increase in the federal sales tax, introduced by the Liberals when they were in power. The Government did not do that. That is a billion dollars which will be taken out of the pockets of ordinary Canadians. They are valuable dollars which will not be circulating in the small communities of Canada.
Where the Government really missed was on its opportunity to say something strong about interest rates. I realize the Minister of Finance said that he wished interest rates would come down and he hoped they would come down in the future. It sounds like the fairy tales my young sons used to read-if you wish it will come true. Having a lower made-in-Canada interest rate policy would have been a signal which would have kick-started the economy back into life. I do not know whether Canadians are aware of this, but we now have the largest real interest rates of any country in the western industrialized world. Most of our trading partners do not have the same real interest rates that we have. I think it is time that Canadians asked themselves: Why is it that we have the largest real interest rates in the western world?
As others have indicated, we just learned in the last few hours that as a result of these large spreads in interest rates the Canadian banking establishment managed to accumulate the largest profits of any banking establishment in any country of the entire world. I think we must ask ourselves if it is necessary to have those high real interest rates in Canada. Is it not time to introduce-as we suggested during the election campaign-measures which would ensure that the Bank of
Economic Statement
Canada would set rates which would result in a real return- which is traditional in this country-between 2 per cent and 3 per cent? Today the real return is about 8 per cent. What would happen in a country with interest rates in the 6 per cent or 7 per cent range? It is the kind of situation in which you find small businesses being able to afford their operations, where jobs would be created and homeowners could start to build their homes once again. If the interest rates in this country were at 7 per cent, the price of a typical Canadian home would be cut in half. In other words, homes would be affordable again and we would be moving away from the crisis situation which we are facing in our homebuilding industry.
Is it not time to review the tax system of this country? The Finance Minister had very little to say about changes in the tax system. He did say that we needed to look at a minimum tax for those thousands and thousands of wealthy Canadians whose incomes year after year may be $100,000 or $200,000 and who pay absolutely no income tax, not a single cent. Maybe they should pay something. But, rather than act on it, rather than take action and set up a committee to introduce legislation and programs to close off the loopholes, the Government said that it would think about it. It will study it, contemplate it, medidate on the concept, and sometime in the future it may act. That is not the kind of change that the people of Canada voted for on September 4.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: We can imagine what Bay Street is doing tonight. The champagne is flowing. The federal Government is subsidizing corporations by more than $18 billion a year, and that will continue. The second largest area of welfare in the country is the billions and billions of dollars which we hand out to corporations with no expectation that jobs be created and with no expectation of affirmative action programs. In other words, you take the taxpayers' money and they will get nothing in return. If we are to continue to take taxpayers' money and give it to corporations, is it not time for Canadians to expect something in return, particularly jobs, for that kind of tax incentive?
We must change our tax system. We must take action on our tax system. When the tellers in the banks of Canada are paying more in income tax than the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal combined, in terms of dollars and cents, something has gone wrong in the country. Our major banks are now among the richest banks in the world. They did not pay a single penny in income tax in 1982. Plus, they received a deferral for the next year of $22 million. That is the kind of tax system which we have. Canadians wanted change but there was no mention that that was the kind of change which Canadians could expect in the months and years ahead.
We feel it is time to start investing in our young people through programs such as the Youth Initiatives Program. That would result in substantial amounts of money being provided to our young people, which would allow them to develop the kind of employment opportunities that the country requires and that they are able to take. We feel that it is time to invest

November 8, 1984
Economic Statement
in a resource policy that would result in the upgrading of our resource sector, such as forestry. Significant increases ought to be placed in those sectors, which would result in economic return to the country such as reforestation programs, programs for disease control and pest control, silvaculture programs and fire control programs. We are talking about the need to create jobs in order to get the people of Canada back to work. We feel that that is how the deficit can be dealt with most effectively.
If small businesses are expanding their operations, if consumers feel confident, are employed and can purchase the necessary goods and services that they require, if farmers, fishermen and ranchers are in a mood of expansion and development, that means that sales taxes will start to flow into the federal coffers. It will mean that personal income taxes will start to flow back into the coffers. It will mean that the corporate sector will start to pay its taxes with a fair tax system. That is the way in which we would like to see the deficit reduced in this country, by putting people back to work and by expanding the economy. That is the kind of change that we feel Canadians wanted on September 4.
One can go on and on, Mr. Speaker, about what this document did not do tonight. We knew from the comments of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister that the cupboard was bare. What ordinary Canadians did not realize was that as a result of this economic statement their cupboards will be bare. As a result of this economic statement, rather than changes which will result in jobs, economic development, hope for the small-business person, what we have is an economic statement which will result in tax increases for ordinary Canadians, costs for government services which traditionally one would expect to pay as part of their taxes, and significant cuts in programs which will result in job loss and a reduction of assistance for economic development across the country.
We feel, Mr. Speaker, that this economic statement was not introduced in the best interests of ordinary Canadians but that it was introduced in the best interests of Bay Street.


Mr. Speaker:: It being approximately 8.45 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, November 7, 1984, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 8.42 p.m. the House adjourned.



Friday, November 9, 1984