1984-02-06

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, January 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jack Burghardt for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, in the 20 minutes that I have on this the second Throne Speech debate of the Thirty-second Parliament, I want to touch on two things. First, the reality of work and production in the industrial world for the balance of this century; second, the futility of and the dark economic future ahead for countries which continue with more and more government intervention and control of the marketplace. I will argue that the interventionist policies of the Liberal-Socialist alliance are wrong and in fact impede our ability to remain a player in the new industrial world. I will argue that the continuance of a tax beyond the purpose for which it was designed is confiscation and deprives the nation of the vigour and momentum it needs.
Let me provide an example of an economy which is growing, moving forward and adapting to present and future realities. I, along with other colleagues on both sides of the House, participated in an exciting and informative trip recently to Taiwan. I also personally have knowledge of the emerging economic debates within the People's Republic of China. The issue of Hong Kong, the Island of Taiwan and the People's Republic of China on the mainland perhaps carries the hope that the ideological struggle and impasse between the eastern and western superpowers can be resolved. The two ideologies are symbolized in Europe with East and West Berlin and the missile standoff. The two ideologies in Asia are at a stand off between the corporatist structure of Japan, the free enterprise economies of Hong Kong and Taiwan and the state capitalism of mainland China.
The hope I carry is that the Chinese leaders in both ideological camps are showing an awareness that a compromise by way of a blend of systems some time in the future might be possible. The thoughts on Hong Kong offered recently in the House by Premier Zhao Ziyang gave me hope that the Chinese minds will resolve the ideological impasse without resorting to war. If they can resolve this impasse, they will provide the opportunity for mankind to walk together into the future.
The bottom line, of course, is freedom. It could be that, as we move to resolve our debate in Canada between those who
believe in more state ownership and control and those of us who believe man is best served by spreading the decision-making base more widely under the rule of law, we too will be able to play a part in the merger or defusing of tensions between the two systems. Is the answer not to be found in that system or combination of systems that serves the needs of man best and allows us to embrace the future with hope and with freedom?
Taiwan is a controlled, free enterprise model that is an economic miracle alongside mainland China. It has an unemployment rate of 1.5 per cent which is considered to be too tight. The Premier told us that he believes a rate of 3 per cent would be more desirable and more manageable.
The emphasis on the family unit on that island allowed it to absorb the impact of high energy prices. When industries closed to allow an adjustment to new costs, the labour force returned to their family units. This sponge effect was an essential element in the cushioning of economic cycles and the imbalance caused by unforeseen world market forces. The cost was not a burden on their treasury.
In Taiwan people work six days a week and 10 hours a day. There is competition for jobs and a job is a very valued thing. The average male industrial wage per month is $400 U.S. while the average female wage is $300. In the beginning, the top to bottom wage differential was 15 to 1; today it is 4 to 1. This narrowing is of great importance and pride to Taiwan's political leaders.
The people are well dressed, drive mopeds, motorcycles and cars. Their housing is reinforced concrete built to withstand earthquakes and there appears to be a comfortable, disposable income beyond food, clothing and shelter. The farmland was purchased from the landlords and sold to those who work it. Agriculture feeds 18.5 million people and there is a surplus for export. The people eat very well.
All of this is to say that people value their jobs, strive for better ones, are motivated and understand the need to be productive. They do not need a productivity council. Their industry is modern, making use of the latest technologies. There has been a large emphasis on that island on small enterprise, with the state now moving to encourage the small to grow to medium-sized operations in order to filter out the waste of excessive competition. The high-tech industrial park is designed to exceptionally high standards and it attracts the new, integrated, international industries.
Over there we saw research that was 10 years in evolution out of "Silicone Valley" in California being placed into production in their high-tech industrial park. The companies are

February 6, 1984
The Address-Mr. Huntington
mergers of the majors. The attraction, of course, is a good, stable, industrial workforce and a stable set of rules. No government impediments interfere with very short research bench to production to market ''play times". The five-year corporate tax holiday can be extended, within rules, to nine years.
All of this is to say that the government has a complete understanding of modern industrial needs in the 20th century and sets the environment to serve those needs. It does not impede industry but, rather, enhances and encourages it.
My, oh my, how different that is to the interventionist environment the Liberal Government has created for Canada! Rather than welcoming investment the Liberal Government rejects it with policies like a 4.5 cent per gallon Canadian ownership charge, whereas the Government of the People's Republic of China settles on jobs and foreign exchange created by those jobs.
I was impressed also with the fact that all decisions were made on the basis of how well the needs of the people were served by those decisions. The Taiwan example is duplicated in South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and, of course, in Hong Kong. The Asian Rim, Mr. Speaker, is where the industrial future lies.
If I may come on shore to the continent of North America, Sir, it has been my observation that industry and labour in southern California have recognized this reality. In southern California industries are beipg decertified-not that I am advocating wholesale decertification; I am speaking only to a segment of North America which.is recognizing the reality of the Pacific Rim-and a good industrial wage now seems to be $4.50 an hour without benefit packages. Again, I am not advocating this; I am giving examples of the realities of the workplace on the Pacific Rim. Input costs in southern California are adjusting and output is beginning to'compete with the reality of the Asian Rim. New investment is being made in automation and in quality. Steel billets from Brazil are replacing the out of date steel mills. Rolling and extrusion plants are being updated. It appears to the outside observer that its industries and work force are moving to compete with the industrial realities of the Pacific Rim.
To fail to recognize the reality of change on the Pacific Rim is to continue to mislead the people and "ostrich" out the reality of work and industry through the balance of this century. The Third World is emerging. A massive shift is underway.
I ask the question, Mr. Speaker, what part will Canadians play in this emerging reality? In the Speech from the Throne, of which the Liberal Government is so proud, we just have, really, a regurgitation of the same old political rhetoric. It talks about opportunities through growth and developing regional strength. With respect to developing our regional strength, have you, Mr. Speaker, ever seen a country so divided as this one where a central government is imposing itself over the will of its second-tier governments in order to
centralize all decision-making processes? If the provincial governments are not careful, all they will end up doing is managing decisions which are made here in Ottawa.
The Speech from the Throne speaks of an aggressive trade drive. For what? For wheat, zinc, and the output of Bombardier? What about the rest of Canada and the growing of an industry which can compete rationally in the new world markets? The Throne Speech speaks about a competitive world class of industries. How can one have a competitive world class of industries when there are tariff barriers which protect industries which will not adapt to modern realities? We have FIRA and a plethora of rules which impede the decision-making process and prevent these new, integrated, international companies from even considering Canada as a place in which to create new industry. The Throne Speech talks about small-scale entrepreneurs being "unsung heroes" on the one hand, while on the other Revenue Canada is wiping them out. The Throne Speech talks about building our resources, while at the same time northern work and hardship benefits are removed, which makes it impossible for the exploration industry to survive without government grants, loans and suasive largess.
We are told in the Throne Speech that we are now going to enter a partnership for recovery. We are going to open the door to labour. There was something mentioned about a safety net, and after attacking the principle of private property in one of its Budgets, the Government now speaks, in a pre-election era, about new protection for homes and businesses. Beware of this doubletalk, my friends. It is destroying us. It is keeping us from recognizing the realities of the new, emerging industrial world. At a time when arbitrary powers are being abused by Revenue Canada, the Speech from the Throne assures us of our personal safety and security and reminds us that the new Charter will protect our freedoms. In spite of these rhetorical assurances, we see an outright attack on the middle class through the abuse of powers entrusted to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres).
May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that it is this middle class that creates and innovates and can lead us to an authentic industrial recovery. May I remind you again, Sir, that policies like the Canadian ownership charge slowdown and inhibit private sector development and initiative. We see more and more government intervention in our lives here in Canada, and the Liberal Government passes thousands of regulations every year. Those regulations have impeded and destroyed the decision-making base of the private sector. The Government refuses to release the magic of tax incentives that would almost overnight start us on the road to industrial recovery. The Government refuses to create an environment that will once again encourage employers to hire people.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that the address be amended by the following words:
This House regrets to inform Your Excellency that the approximately 4.5 cent per gallon Canadian ownership charge imposed on heating fuels and gasoline sold at the pump that was established to finance the takeover of Petrofina Canada has been illegally extended by your Government for the unjustified
February 6, 1984

purpose of nationalizing unspecified industries operating in Canada thereby undermining investor confidence in Canada and causing jobs to be lost to Canadian workers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: 1 have received the amendment from the Hon. Member. I must refer him to-


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Chair is about to rule on the acceptability or non-acceptability of the motion, I have a submission to make before that fixed ruling is made, if you please.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: May I then first refer the Hon. Member to Standing Order 38(6), of which he is aware. I assume his point of order will deal with that Standing Order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Order we are dealing with in the Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders is, I believe, Standing Order 42(6). Standing Order 42 deals with the address in reply to His Excellency's speech, and Standing Order 42(6), I believe, is the Standing Order the Chair refers to, which reads:
The motion for an Address in Reply shall not be subject to amendment on or after the seventh day of the said debate.
Standing Order 42(5), the Chair will note, stipulates that:
On the eighth of the said days, at 15 minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment, unless the said debate be previously concluded, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion.
On the face of it, Sir, those two Standing Orders appear to be quite clear. A combination of the two, or Standing Order 42(6) on its own, would prevent any further amendment on or after the seventh day of the debate. This, of course, is the seventh day of the debate. The difficulty I have when looking at Standing Order 42(5) and Standing Order 42(6) is reconciling those Standing Orders with Citation 353 at page 124 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fifth Edition. The Chair will note that Citation 353 falls under the heading at the top of page, "Amendments to the Address", rather than simply an amendment to any motion. Citation 353 set forth:
[DOT] (U25)
Any Member may introduce an amendment up until the moment when the final vote has to be taken.
The authority for that is cited in Hansard, January 30, 1959 at page 564. Referring to Hansard, which appears as authority for Citation 353, we find a ruling made in 1959 by Mr. Speaker Michener when he was dealing with the situation which arose when the then Member for Assiniboia, Mr. Argue, moved an amendment to the address in reply. At that time the House was operating under the Standing Orders of 1955. The applicable Standing Order in Chapter 4 at page 25 of the 1955 Standing Orders is under the heading: "Address in Reply to His Excellency's Speech". That Standing Order was then numbered 38. Standing Order 38(5) of that day read as follows:
On the tenth of the said days, at thirty minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment, unless the said debate be previously concluded, Mr. Speaker
The Address-Mr. Huntington
shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion.
Standing Order 38(4) dealt with the ninth of the said days, which was the day upon which any amendment then under consideration had to be put to the House.
Mr. Argue on that day had moved a motion, seconded by Mr. Winch, dealing with the address in reply. On the tenth day at 5.30, as he was required to do under the then Standing Orders, the Speaker dealt with the propriety of the amendment itself. That is the ruling from which Citation 353 is taken. On page 565 of Hansard of that day Mr. Speaker Michener said:
It is clear on that point that it is open to any hon. member to introduce an amendment up until the moment when the final vote has to be taken at 5.30. My objection is to the character of the amendment. I will just explain my viewpoint by reminding the house we are debating the motion to thank His Excellency for the address from the throne.
Citation 353 came from that ruling. I appreciate the fact that our Standing Orders have been changed. In 1959 when Mr. Speaker Michener had to deal with the problem there was a ten-day Throne Speech debate. Our rules now provide for an eight-day debate. In his ruling dealing with the specific issue, namely whether Mr. Argue was in order in presenting a motion after the ninth day, which Standing Order 38(4) of that day provided had to be disposed of on the ninth day, there was a subsequent amendment to the main motion before 5.30 on the tenth day. The Speaker dealt with it at that time by interrupting the proceedings at 5.30 pursuant to the then Standing Order 38(5), as the Chair will be obliged to do on Thursday, which has been allotted as the eighth and final day of the Throne Speech debate. When interrupting the debate the Speaker went on to say:
-it is my duty at this time to interrupt the proceedings and put to the house every question necessary to dispose of the main motion.
He went on to say:
When l read the motion which was moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) I had some doubts as to its regularity under the rules, but as no hon. member objected to the amendment I allowed the debate to proceed. Hon. members will note, however, that I did not attempt to restrict the debate to the subject matter of the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia. Since then I have given some thought to the matter and considered whether an amendment of this kind should go to a vote, and I came to the conclusion that it certainly should not go to a vote without my expressing doubts as to its propriety, so that it would not stand as a precedent.
On further reflection 1 have come to the conclusion that it is really not in order and that it should not be put to the house. I should, perhaps explain briefly what are the bases of my conclusions, and I realize that-
That concerns Citation 353.
I suggest that there is a problem to be resolved here. We are confronted with Citation 353 in the most recent issue of Beauchesne and we are also confronted with Standing Order 42(6), which seems to be a bald prohibition against any amendment being made after the sixth day of the Throne Speech debate, or, as the Standing Order says, on or after the seventh day.

February 6, 1984
1080___________________________________________
The Address-Mr. Huntington
May I suggest that the Chair proceed as Mr. Speaker Michener did at the time when he received the amendment on the tenth day; he allowed the debate to continue without restriction while he considered the matter and then ruled on it. I suggest that the Chair has the luxury of so doing until the eighth day, on Thursday.
I suggest that there is a problem here. It would not surprise me to have the Chair come back and say that Standing Order 42(6) applies and there can be no further amendment on or after the seventh day. If the Chair reaches that conclusion, I suggest that the Chair also say that obviously Citation 353 has no longer any place in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, standing where it is under amendments to the address. It certainly is clear from that citation that a member may move an amendment up to the time that the final question is put. Therefore there is that direct conflict.
As I say, it would not surprise me to hear the Chair say that Standing Order 42(6) is the applicable Standing Order and there can be no further amendment. However, if that is the conclusion then there must be some direction from the Chair. It certainly would not offend us in the Opposition, nor I dare say those on the Government side, if the Chair made direct reference to Citation 353 and ruled that Standing Order 42(6) prevails and Citation 353 has no effect. I suggest that that kind of statement would have to come from the Chair in the event that we meet future problems of this kind.
Therefore, my suggestion would be that the Chair take the matter under advisement and bring us its ruling on the final day, as did Mr. Speaker Michener. That is how he dealt with the matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Chair has listened very attentively to the Hon. Member, as it does regularly, and his words of wisdom and excellent research into the subject. However, the Chair feels that the Hon. Member is making a fundamental error when he talks about Citation 353 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition inasmuch as the citation reads:
Any Member may introduce an amendment up until the moment when the final vote has to be taken.
That is applicable to those situations where an amendment is receivable.
As the Hon. Member himself has said, it is quite clear that Standing Order 42(6) reads:
The motion for an Address in Reply shall not be subject to amendment on or after the seventh day of the said debate.
Today is the seventh day. In the opinion of the Chair, Standing Order 42(6) is very specific and since it has been adopted as recently as a few months ago, the Chair can only suggest to the Hon. Member that the intention of the House was that there would be no amendments proposed on seventh day or after the vote was taken on the sixth day. Therefore Citation 353 would only be applicable up until that particular vote, which has now taken place. Therefore the Chair must rule that Standing Order 42(6) is applicable in this case and the motion is not receivable.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise not for the purpose of questioning that ruling howsoever, though it would have, in my view, been advisable to consider it. We are still left with the residual problem of Citation 353 and Standing Orders 42(5) and 42(6). Citation 353 says nothing about the final vote being receivable. It says:
Any Member may introduce an amendment up until the moment when the final vote has to be taken.
The final vote in one interpretation is that which your ruling has just placed on it. The other interpretation is that the final vote referred to in Citation 353 is that final vote referred to in our present Standing Order 42(5), which states:
On the eighth of the said days, at fifteen minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment, unless the said debate be previously concluded, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion.
My contention is that the other interpretation is that the final vote referred to in Citation 353 is the final vote on this debate, which does not take place until Thursday. I urge the Chair to take that obvious conflict into consideration and to rule on that aspect, which is a different aspect from the point of order that I raised.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I have ruled that I cannot accept the amendment. However, the Chair has a suggestion to make. In all of these matters, the Chair is obviously trying to interpret the will of the House and is very conscious of the need also to interpret the will of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. But the Chair is also under the impression that it was not the intention, when these rules were adopted, that amendments be proposed on this seventh day and the Chair reads that particular Standing Order 42(6) as being very specific.
Since there are several points of difficulty, the Chair can only suggest that when issues such as this arise an effort is made to activate the work of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that the Chair can have a better idea of what is really the intent of the House. This is not the only point that has arisen in the past. I suggest to the Hon. Member that it is probably better to have a debate in the Committee and bring it back to the Chair so that the Chair can interpret what really is the will of the House. At the moment, the Chair can only rule that Standing Order 42(6) is very specific and an amendment cannot be accepted.


Mr. David Weatherhead (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne on December 7, 1983 the Government went into some detail regarding pension reform. It stated that its number one priority is to reduce poverty among the aged and that it is committed to increase the guaranteed income supplement for the single pensioners. It is also committed to strengthening both public and private pension plans so that Canadians can be better assured of security, dignity and fulfilment in retirement. In particular, the Government in this Throne Speech promised to improve the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act with respect to coverage, vesting, portability, survivor benefits, benefit protection and mandatory splitting of pension credits, and to discuss with the
February 6, 1984

provincial governments changes to their pension benefit legislation and to the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans to ensure that pensioners receive comparable benefits wherever they live in Canada.
In this part of the Speech from the Throne, it was also mentioned that the parliamentary task force report on pension reform will soon be published. It was published eight days later. Since I was a member of this task force and feel very strongly about the urgent need for substantial pension reform,
I would like to discuss certain aspects of it today.
Our nine-member task force, under the chairmanship of the Elon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), included Five Liberals, three Progressive Conservatives and one New Democrat. We held extensive hearings in Ottawa with all the main national interest groups including business, labour, women, pension organizations and pension consultants. We then held individual hearings in every province and territory of Canada except Prince Edward Island to obtain additional input from provincial and local organizations interested in pension reform.
Our mandate from the House of Commons was to examine the proposals of the Government of Canada's green paper Better Pensions for Canadians, with particular reference to income protection, survivor benefits under the C/QPP, the issue of expanding mandatory pension arrangements, the financing of the CPP and proposals to overcome the special pension problems facing women, including homemakers.
There was full agreement among witnesses before our committee that the group with the greatest need is the single elderly, most of whom are women, and most stated that the GIS is the appropriate remedy. However, the cost to raise all senior singles and couples who receive some GIS to the highest of the Statistics Canada poverty lines, those in large urban areas, would be more than $3 billion annually. Of the nearly two and a half million seniors who receive Old Age Security, slightly more than one-half receive some GIS. However, 216,000 single seniors, mostly women, receive full GIS and they are now far below any of the StatsCan poverty lines.
The present Old Age Security is $263.78 a month and at the present time full GIS for a single senior is slightly more, at $265.60 a month. Since seniors lose just $1 of GIS for every $2 of additional income, not counting the OAS they receive, single seniors can receive more than $530 a month, or $6,383 per year, additional private income from bank or security interest, private pension plans, et cetera, and still receive some guaranteed income supplement from the Government of Canada.
I am very proud that it was Liberal Governments in the past which brought in the OAS and then the GIS; that both are fully indexed, and in addition, that both have been substantially enriched over the years. While very few seniors are really wealthy, some are still considerably better off financially than others. However, the across-the-board increases to the GIS in recent years, most recently the $35 per GIS household in 1980 as promised by the Liberal Party in the February, 1980,
The Address-Mr. Weatherhead election, has meant that seniors who really have no additional private income, or almost none, are still left behind and below any of the Statistics Canada poverty lines.
Accordingly, our task force was determined to target an increase in the GIS to the about 500,000 single seniors who have absolutely no other private income, or small private incomes of less than $2,500 a year. The majority of our task force recommended, therefore, that the GIS be immediately increased by $102 a month to the over 200,000 single senior Canadians who have no other private income at all, and by somewhat lesser amounts to the about 300,000 single seniors who have less than $2,000 additional annual private income. This would mean every single senior would have income of at least $632 a month, plus hopefully provincial government top-up, like GAINS in Ontario, and that single seniors would be receiving at least 67 per cent of the OAS-GIS which senior couples are guaranteed. This majority task force recommendation would be an additional cost of about $350 million to the federal treasury.
However, I did not agree completely with this majority recommendation because I believe that the more than 200,000 senior Canadians, mostly women, who have no other private income at all should have their GIS increased by $130 a month and not $102. This would guarantee single seniors an income of at least $660 a month, plus hopefully provincial government top-ups like GAINS, which would equal 70 per cent of the guaranteed income to senior couples. The cost to the federal treasury of my recommendation of up to $130 a month targeted increase to senior singles would be about $550 million a year. But I strongly believe that in our about $90 billion national annual budget an extra one-half billion must and can be found to support more adequately the one-half million senior Canadians, mostly women, who have no or almost no income other than the OAS and GIS.
A targeted GIS would be similar to existing provincial top-ups like GAINS, and consultation with provincial governments will be essential. However, the task force expected that the provincial Governments will keep faith with their own elderly citizens and will maintain the level of support in the GAINS and other existing programs.
We noted from hearing witnesses in all parts of Canada the very difficult circumstances of many people between the ages of 60 and 64, particularly unattached women. Although the recent recession is ending, there are still far too many unemployed, and it is extremely difficult for those over 60 to find new employment. In addition, many over 60 are physically not able to handle full-time employment but they may not qualify for a CPP disability pension, and, of course, they cannot get CPP pension benefits or the OAS-GIS until age 65. Accordingly, our task force recommended that the spousal allowance program be extended to include all eligible widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64 whose spouses died before reaching 65. The additional cost to the federal Government of this recommendation would be about $150 million a year but it would be of great benefit to a large number of Canadians, mostly women who have not quite reached age 65.

The Address-Mr. Weatherhead
Women now over 65 who are alone because they are widowed, divorced or single are likely to be poor. They receive only the public pensions OAS-GIS, perhaps a Canada-Quebec Pension Plan pension if they were in the labour force after 1966, and perhaps a Canada-Quebec Pension Plan survivor benefit if they are widows. Low-paying jobs, the high proportion of women among part-time workers, the fact that they are out of the paid labour force frequently to bear and raise children, and private pension plans that have long vesting requirements, poor portability and survivorship benefits, all mitigate against reasonable pensions for women. For all these reasons, women's groups have insisted that the problem of pensions is largely a women's problem.
Although there is a large increase of women in the paid labour force in recent years, the role of women as homemakers will not soon disappear. Homemakers include not only those with little attachment to the labour force, but also those with some or full attachment. The task force proposal on homemakers' pensions would benefit 1.7 million women who are in the labour force part-time, or full-time at low pay, and 1.5 million women who are full-time in their homes. Since the Canada-Quebec Pension Plan was established in 1966, women have asked that homemakers be included in the plan.
The Canada-Quebec Pension Plan was intended to provide pensions for Canadian workers and women who run a household, care for children, husbands and other relatives, or do work that has a real economic value to Canada. They deserve pensions in their own right. It would also provide increased protection for women in the case of marriage breakdown.
Most of the women's groups which came before us asked for homemakers' pensions within the Canada-Quebec Pension Plan, and all eight Liberal and Conservative MPs on the task force agreed. We recommended that a homemaker pension be available to those who work in the home, full or part time, who care for a spouse, a child under 18, or an infirm adult relative living at home. A homemaker would be deemed to earn one-half the average industrial wage, or to have employment earnings topped up to one-half of the average industrial wage, or about $10,000. We suggested that homemakers' pensions should start in 1986 at $129 a month and increase to $194 a month in 1984 dollars by 1996. There would be some retroactivity. Those who have reached 65 years of age since 1976 would also receive $129 a month, and those who reached 65 from 1966 to 1976 would receive a portion of the $129 monthly if their earnings had been less than one-half the average income wage.
The initial cost of the homemakers' pensions would be about $900 million a year with the spouses of homemakers paying between two-thirds and three-quarters of that amount; the balance would be paid by all CPP contributors by adding an additional 0.3 per cent to the CPP contribution rate.
Our task force also recommended that Canada-Quebec Pension Plan credits be split automatically when the younger spouse reaches 65, at marriage breakdown, or when one of the spouses dies.
February 6, 1984
We also recommended that the current Canada-Quebec Pension Plan survivor benefits for spouses over the age of 65 be replaced by a formula that would generally result in 65 per cent of the family's Canada-Quebec Pension Plan's retirement benefits continuing for the surviving spouse and that a prorated survivor benefit be paid to a divorced spouse. Survivors' pensions would no longer be terminated when the survivor remarries.
Our task force also recommended that the general drop out provision in the Canada-Quebec Pension Plan be increased from 15 per cent to 25 per cent of the lowest earning years rather than 40 years, and if more than 12 years were spent in looking after children under seven years the extra years would be deducted also.
Finally, with respect to the CPP the task force recommended that people could choose to start taking the pension benefits any time between ages 60 and 70, subject to the appropriate actuarial adjustments. This would significantly help many between 60 and 65 who had been in the labour force for a great number of years but who either could not find work or wished to retire before age 65.
Any changes to the Canada Pension Plan, including our recommendations regarding homemakers' pensions, can only be made with the consent of two-thirds of the provinces having two-thirds of the population. However, the provinces are anxious to commence negotiations for higher CPP contribution rates, which should be increased from the present 3.6 per cent gradually to between 8 per cent and 9 per cent of payroll over the next 25 years to put the CPP on a proper pay-as-you-go basis with a modest reserve. Accordingly, now is the ideal time to have the provinces seriously consider all of our recommendations regarding the CPP, not only to put it on a sound financial basis, but to agree to the various improvements that we have suggested for the benefit of all Canadians.
It is generally agreed that 70 per cent to 75 per cent of pre-retirement income is required to maintain living standards after retirement. For a person who had been making the average industrial wage, the OAS and C/QPP pensions would total only about 39 per cent of pre-retirement earnings, but another 36 per cent would have to be obtained from private occupational pensions, or from savings of various kinds, to make up the 75 per cent earning replacement figure. However, now only one-half of men and less than one-third of women in the paid work force are covered by private pension plans and most of those plans have long vesting rules, little portability from job to job, almost to inflation protection, poor survivorship benefits and little coverage of part-time workers.
Although about 90 per cent of the occupational pension plans fall under provincial jurisdiction, the federal Government can lead by example in the 10 per cent where it has jurisdiction and by amending the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act and income tax legislation.
With respect to occupational pension plans, our task force recommended more representation by active workers and
February 6, 1984

retirees in the management of the plans and full reports to the employee and spouse on the financial standing of plans. In addition, we suggested that enrichment of benefits for active employees should be matched with comparable enrichment for retirees and deferred pensions in plans.
We also suggested that all future pension accruals receive substantial inflation protection, which would usually be the increase in the consumer price index, minus 2.5 per cent per year. All pension plans should vest benefits after two years. We also recommended the creation of a registered pension account, RPA, which would phase out existing RRSPs. The RPAs would be fully locked in and on leaving one job for another the employee would have a number of options that would include transferring his vested pension into an RPA, which would make his pension benefits portable and have them continue to grow at the same time.
Better protection for spouses is also the result of our recommendations regarding splitting of credits and survivor benefits in occupational pension plans. We also stated that coverage for regular part-time employees must be offered where the fulltime employees and occupational pension coverage. Equal benefits for men and women with the same earnings, which in some cases would mean using unisex actuarial tables, were also approved by us.
In Chapter 8 of our report we discussed the present tax treatment of retirement savings and made some general recommendations in this highly technical and very sensitive field, while stating that further specific public consultations could be made here. Unfortunately, I do not have time to go into the details now.
As mentioned earlier, the lack of private pension coverage for large portions of private sector employees is a matter of serious concern. The task force proposals regarding earlier vesting, portability, inflation protection, credit splitting, survivor benefits, regular part-time employees and RPAs with a 40 per cent tax credit rather than a tax deduction would certainly help increase coverage in private plans.
Also, our recommendations regarding homemakers, credit splitting and survivorship would improve CPP coverage. The majority of the task force, however, recommended against mandatory expansion of coverage by public and private plans, with the caveat that if our recommendations have not brought significant improvement in private sector coverage within three years, the question of mandatory expansion be examined by a parliamentary committee.
My dissent from this recommendation is detailed in the third full paragraph on page 71 of the report. I agree with the arguments of labour and an overwhelming majority of women's groups that an expansion of the CPP is the simplest and fairest way to solve coverage problems. All workers, part-time, full-time and homemakers, would benefit from such an increase. The CPP is fully indexed, fully portable, vests immediately and can be introduced quickly. However, a doubling of the CPP to 50 per cent of the average industrial wage would add about 8 per cent of payroll to the CPP contributions which, with the 8 per cent to 9 per cent that is already
The Address-Mr. Neil
required for a proper pay-as-you-go CPP, would be too much of a financial drain on employees and employers. Accordingly, my recommendation was that the CPP be increased from 25 per cent to 35 per cent of the average industrial wage on a gradual basis, eventually increasing CPP contributions to between 3 per cent and 4 per cent.
There has been extensive debate on pension reform in recent years. There will be continuing debate in the future, but now is surely the time for our federal Government to take the lead and initiate some meaningful and widespread pension reforms along the lines that I and our pension reform task force have recommended.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Ten minutes for questions or comments?


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate this morning. I listened with considerable interest on December 7 when the Speech from the Throne was read in the other place. Quite frankly, I could find very little in its content to fill me with any degree of optimism.
Over the past decade and a half since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took the reins of power, we have seen massive increases in spending, massive deficits and an overwhelming burden of public debt. In fact, I understand that at the present time the national debt is over $140 billion. Unemployment remains at about 10 per cent. In fact, on the date of the Speech from the Throne it was 11.1 per cent. The most disturbing and disheartening fact of unemployment is that the youth of our country is the group which is hit the hardest. They will live with this sense of hurt and frustration for many, many years to come.
In the 1980 Throne Speech, the Government stated:
One of the essential objectives of this Government is to put more people to work. Young people, women, natives, and the handicapped face special problems in finding jobs. To meet the needs of these groups, my Government will expand its employment program while using its resources more efficiently. There will be an increased effort to develop critical trade skills so as to better prepare today's labour for tomorrow's jobs.
Despite the rhetoric, nothing has been done by this Government to create permanent jobs. There have been many make-work programs, but little if any attempt has been made to create permanent jobs to ensure that young people coming out of schools or universities will have the opportunity of permanent employment. 1 quote further from the 1980 Speech from the Throne:
Members of Parliament will have a major role in advising on the selection of job creation projects, and my Government will enter into a new partnership with voluntary agencies and local organizations in a program of community service.
As a Member of Parliament, I have not had the opportunity of participating. Neither have Members of Parliament on the Opposition benches. I would suggest that that paragraph should have read: "Liberal Members of Parliament will have a major role in advising". According to recent press reports, we understand that last year each Liberal Member of Parliament

February 6, 1984
The Address-Mr. Neil
was given $500,000 or half a million dollars to spend on job-creation projects in his or her constituency. I find this absolutely incredible. It is nothing more than an attempt to enhance the image of incumbent Liberal MPs and an attempt to buy votes.
Is this the way our democratic system should work? It is not what I was taught to believe. It was not what I spent almost four years in the armed forces to protect. It is shameful, it is disgusting and at the same time it is sad to see a political Party, which has been in power for many of the past 117 years, prostitute itself and by its actions erode the very system of which we as Canadians are so proud.
We must also make mention of the actions of the Department of National Revenue, the Department which has been under criticism for the past few months. Over the years before coming to Parliament, I did a considerable amount of tax work. It was quite pleasant work because at that point in time there was communication with tax officials. If there was a problem, it was a simple matter to communicate with those officials. We could sit down with them and discuss the problem with them and with our clients. We could reach a solution without too much difficulty. In those days appeals were few and far between. They generally involved the interpretation of a particular section.
Now appeals are commonplace. No longer do we find any personal relationship between the tax Department, its officials and taxpayers. We are dealing with a computer which does not have the power to reason or, if it communicates, it communicates in stilted phrases. In the alternative, we are dealing with assessors whose jobs and/or promotions depend upon a quota set by some senior bureaucrat. Just imagine the position in which an assessor finds himself-he must meet his quota or else! Of course, the Minister has denied that there was any quota. He said that targets were set. I would like to know what is the difference between a target and a quota. I would suggest that in the minds of assessors there is no difference. I would say that always in the minds of assessors is the fact that either they produce, meet their target or quota, or else they will not survive.
In the time remaining I would like to make a few comments in the area of agriculture because my constituency is an agricultural one. The urban areas of the constituency are dependent upon the agricultural economy to survive. I looked forward with anticipation to what might be in the Speech from the Throne in the area of agriculture because in the 12 years I have been in the House of Commons the Minister of Agriculture has done very little to improve the economic viability of farmers.


Mr. Gurbin:: You might say nothing.


Douglas Charles Neil: My colleague is close to being right. Over the years the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has spent a great deal of time on rhetoric and very little time on action. He has no long-term plan. He talks about various aspects of agriculture. He has talked about research and development and how important it is, yet he has been unable to persuade his
Cabinet to increase substantially the amount of money which is being spent on research and development in agriculture. In fact, it took us three years to persuade the Minister of Agriculture to release some $9 million of producers' money which the Government was holding in a non-interest bearing account for an organization that was interested in research and development. He has talked about red meat stabilization programs, but he has been unable to bring together the provincial Ministers of Agriculture to discuss and agree on developing a plan. He really does not want to talk to the provincial Ministers of Agriculture because he has his own ideas as to what a red meat stabilization plan should be. He stood in the House and spoke in support of the Bill to eliminate the Crow. He voted in favour of that Bill which will have the effect of increasing freight rates to prairie farmers, prairie grain producers, five times by 1990. This is the Minister of Agriculture who says over and over: "I have the interests of the farmers of Canada at heart".
Farmers, particularly those in western Canada, are in a difficult position. In fact they are in serious trouble because the price of many products is low. Interest rates are high, there are high input costs and shrinking incomes. Bankruptcies are increasing. However, these figures are deceiving because in addition to bankruptcies there are voluntary liquidations and quit claim deeds being taken by financial organizations which are not recorded by Statistics Canada. Many family farms are disappearing.
What did the current Speech from the Throne have to say about agriculture? I would like to quote wherein it read:
To help ensure that food production will continue to be one of Canada's long-term strengths, a livestock stabilization program will be established in co-operation with the provinces. Amendments will be proposed to the powers of the National Farm Products Marketing Council. A commission of inquiry will study the problems of potato marketing in Eastern Canada. The maximum for advance payments for grain will be increased. Amendments will be introduced to the Western Grain Stabilization Act to make it more responsive to the needs of producers.
What about increases in advance payments on crops? This has been talked about time and time again over the past five or six years. This Party has said that if the Government will bring in amendments, we will put it through in one day. That is more rhetoric, Mr. Speaker.
What about the western grain stabilization Bill? There is not a farmer in western Canada who is happy with it. Those who are covered by the plan have been in financial difficulties for a number of years, yet the way the plan has been set up, on a five-year average, it will not trigger a payment. There is about $1 billion in that account and there has been no payout.
The Speech from the Throne says that amendments will be made-and there is no question about that because an election is in the offing-in order that there will be a payout under the plan, to try and buy votes in western Canada. That is what will happen. There has never really been a proper assessment of the plan. There is not a farmer in western Canada who is happy with the plan or, if there is, I have not talked to him.
February 6, 1984

I should like to refer to a second quote from the Speech from the Throne as follows:
Attention will also be given to the need for long-term farm, fishery and small business financing.
For the past number of years this Party and members of this Party in the House and on the agriculture committee have told the Minister how he can obtain low-cost money for farmers. Agri-bonds allow a farmer to invest the capital gains portion of his selling price with the Farm Credit Corporation in order that the Corporation can get cheap money. The Minister has never come to the assistance of the farmers with this type of thing. He has watched bankruptcy after bankruptcy and has done nothing.
The Speech also says:
Revisions will be sought to increase the flexibility of these laws, to introduce a system of pre-bankruptcy arbitration for farmers, and to give greater protection to the wages of workers.
The bankruptcy Bill has been around for six, seven or eight years. It was dealt with in committee but never brought forward in the House. Now we have a new Bill. Over the years the Government and the Minister have not really done anything for agriculture despite the rhetoric. Despite the Minister's smiles on television and at public meetings, he has done nothing and will do nothing because there are not many votes for his Party in western Canada.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was disappointed that you could not see your way clear to accept the amendment of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). I can understand your position but I had hoped the amendment would be allowed. If it had been I would have proposed a subamendment with reference to the illegal 4.5 cent per gallon ownership charge on gasoline that the Government is collecting. I would have asked that the approximately $1 billion in ownership charges that the Government has collected be applied to reducing the price of home heating fuels, farm fuels and gasoline at the pumps.


Mr. Ferguson:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) if he will support the prebankruptcy arbitration provisions mentioned in the Speech from the Throne when the bankruptcy and insolvency Bill comes before the House. I was made aware of his opinions when Bill C-63 was in committee.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, the Bill was just tabled last Tuesday, January 31, so I have not had an opportunity to read it in detail. I have always been in favour of pre-discussion of bankrupts' or farmers' financial problems prior to action being taken. I know that the Hon. Member had a Bill that the Government did not see fit to bring forward. Certainly I feel that if the provisions in the bankruptcy Bill will be of assistance to farmers in financial difficulty, I will have no problem supporting it.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to ask the Hon. Member about red meat stabilization. He made reference to that in his speech. What is the holdup with this
The Address-Mr. Neil
particular plan? Last summer four provinces agreed to proceed with it and recently the Minister of Agriculture for Ontario proceeded on his own to set up a commission. I do not see the delay being at the federal level when the provinces cannot agree among themselves.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to give my views on this. There is no Bill before the House; all we have is a paper prepared by Mr. Anderson and some other individuals. The Department of Agriculture held this sacrosanct for about a year and it finally came across my desk last week, but there is no legislation.
In my remarks I said the Minister of Agriculture has predetermined what he wants and is not prepared to discuss the matter with the various provincial Ministers of Agriculture. It may be that the Minister cannot get his Bill through Cabinet.
I know that there is some unhappiness in every province. The Minister, as far as I know, does not meet on a regular basis with the provincial Ministers of Agriculture but meets with them once a year for about half a day. How can anything be accomplished in agriculture, which is the joint responsibility of the federal and provincial Governments, if the Ministers of Agriculture do not meet on a regular basis?


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) referred to the Government's Canadian ownership tax on gasoline and oil products sold in this country. When the Liberal Government moves into that area, quite often it not only gives socialism a bad name but leaves a bad taste in the mouth of many Canadians when it comes to aspirations toward Canadian nationalism.
Since the Hon. Member represents the Party that brought in the CBC and did a lot to assist the CPR with millions of dollars over the years, could he explain to the House whether he believes we should have Canadian ownership of the oil industry and what the latest plans of the Conservative Party are for Petro-Canada?


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, it would be pretty difficult to give socialism a worse name than it has at the present time. I wonder if the Hon. Member is happy with the charges that are assessed the people in the north of his constituency. In the amendment which was rejected we said that the tax is now illegal because the purpose for which it was set up no longer exists. In that case, the Government is illegally collecting 4.5 cents per gallon from everyone who buys gasoline. The time has come to eliminate that tax and reduce the price of home heating fuel. We must reduce the price of gasoline at the pumps and give the people of Canada a break.


Rodney Edward Murphy: We have here an unusual situation, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Hon. Member a question to which he did not respond. However, I will respond to his question to me. We are against that tax for one reason and one reason alone. It is a
1086

February 6, 1984
The Address-Mr. Neil
very regressive tax. It hurts those people who can least afford it, as is the nature of most sales and user taxes.


Mr. Epp:: Why did you raise it in Manitoba, then?


Rodney Edward Murphy: What we would prefer is that if we are going to have Canadian ownership, we look at different methods of accomplishing that. I come back to the question which I asked the Hon. Member. Is the Hon. Member's Party in favour of Canadian ownership of our oil industry, or does it want to continue the present situation, which is an embarrassment to our nation, of having control and ownership exercised offshore?
Second, what is the position of the Conservative Party with regard to PetroCan? What is the latest position under the new Leader of that Party?


Douglas Charles Neil: The Hon. Member talks of regressive taxes. He does not talk about the increase of sales tax in Manitoba by the New Democratic Party.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It is almost as much as Ontario.


Douglas Charles Neil: It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) was not in the House when the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) spoke. That Hon. Member talked about the Pacific Rim countries, about China and some of the other socialist countries. He indicated that they are developing a mix, that they have finally come to understand that socialism will not work on its own. They also understand that foreign investment is necessary. If you drive out foreign investment, then your country is in trouble.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question of privilege. I have been in the House since the bells rang at eleven o'clock this morning and did hear the speech of the Conservative Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That is debate, of course; it is not a question of privilege. Does the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw want to make any further comment?


Douglas Charles Neil: I simply want to apologize, if the Hon. Member was here, and say that if he was here, he was not listening.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question I would like to direct to the previous speaker. I would point out that I, as well, listened to the presentation of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and found it wanting in sufficient content. I believe many others found that as well. However, it certainly did not apply directly to the question which was asked of the Hon. Member of the Conservative Party, of that Party's Leader and of its energy critic. That Party has to get off the pot on this issue.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Order.


Raymond John Skelly: First of all, Imperial Oil does not contribute foreign investment from Exxon. It bleeds this country. The
question is where does the Conservative Party stand on foreign ownership and foreign control and the fact that those corporations are pumping money out of this country? Have those Hon. Members not read the Bertrand Commission report? Do they not understand what the real issues are? They should get up and answer the questions for a change instead of waffling.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member who just spoke has perhaps not read the report of Mr. Laxer on his Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh!


Douglas Charles Neil: I am not speaking on behalf of the Party at the moment when I make this comment: I went through four elections and in nearly all of those elections the candidate of the New Democratic Party who ran against me kept talking about "corporate welfare bums", foreign ownership and so on. My answer to that was that these companies who were doing business in Canada have been doing business according to the law of the land. If the law is wrong, the law should be changed. We invite people in and if they obey the law, in my opinion that is sufficient.


Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I can well appreciate the dilemma of the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), although I am not sure his dilemma is as genuine as he would have us believe. I believe he knows the answer to the question he put to the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) with respect to where the Tories stand on foreign ownership. That Party stands squarely in favour of foreign ownership. Its Leader is owned by Cleveland, I am sure the Hon. Member is in no doubt as to where the Tories stand on foreign ownership. Their policies are a virtual branch plant of the United States administration at the moment. Let there be no doubt where the Tories stand on foreign ownership. They do not have a stand on much, but on that they do have a stand.
It is a pleasant Monday morning, however, Mr. Speaker, so let us talk about something positive like the Throne Speech which we heard on December 7. Throne Speeches generally have a reputation for being vague and general and short on specifics. This particular Throne Speech stands out as the exception to that particular rule. It is not vague. It has to deal with some generalities, of course, but it is not at all short on specifics.
I believe there has never been under any administration a Throne Speech which has spelled out in such detail how the Government proposes to build on a very solid base of achievement. This Throne Speech spells out for us a program to consolidate the gains which have been made as a nation over the past three or so years. We have made gains in reducing inflation. The Speech from the Throne proposes how we will build on that very important gain, the gain of reducing inflation substantially over the last three years.
We have begun to develop a competitive industrial base. We propose now to build on that important gain. We have maintained the social safety net at a time when countries in the
February 6, 1984

western world have generally abandoned their obligations to the elderly, to the ill and to people on low incomes. Only two countries, Mr. Speaker, in the last three years have not yielded to the temptation of socking it to the less fortunate economically. Only Sweden and this country have not done this. Every other country, including Britain and the United States-those two great examples which the Tory Party hold up-have socked it to the poor. They have cut back on aid to the elderly. They have reduced their financial commitment to the low income groups and to the ill.
Canada, I am proud to say together with Sweden, are the only two countries which have withstood the considerable pressure from Tightest philosophies, from small "c" conservatives who believe, and practise around the world, that we ought to ask the poor to pay for times of economic difficulty. This Government does not believe that. We do not believe that as a whole in this country. That is one of the shocks the Tories are in for.
The rhetoric of that Party is great. It must feel important to be in the company of Tories like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. However, I say to Hon. Members who mouth that rhetoric that they are not in the company of the average Canadian when they do that. The average Canadian believes in and supports the social safety net which this Government and its predecessor Liberal Governments have built over the years and have stood by even in times of economic recession such as we have been through in the past few years. We have maintained that social safety net. In my view, that is a solid achievement of the last two or three years in particular. As I have said, the temptation to do otherwise was very great.
We have also continued to protect and extend the rights of Canadians. We have reduced inflation, there can be no argument about that. We have begun to develop a competitive industrial base. We have maintained the social safety net. We have continued to protect and extend the rights of Canadians. Those are four significant areas of solid achievement. The Throne Speech proposes to build on those solid achievements and others, to build on the gains we have made in those important areas, and it is fairly specific as to how the Government proposes to do that.
1 realize, Mr. Speaker, that my approach to this subject is considerably different from that of the gentleman who preceded me in debate, the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). In fairness to both of us, we approach our assignment of getting ready for this debate from opposite ends. He, being in opposition and, more importantly, being a Tory, has to sit down with the document and say: "What is wrong with this? Where are the loopholes? What nasty and negative things can I say about this? How can I put the worst possible light on this?" That is the frame of mind in which he approaches his preparation for the debate.
It should be no secret to anyone in the House, Mr. Speaker, that I approach it from a very different vantage point. I support the Government which prepared the speech. I support
The Address-Mr. Simmons
the programs the Government has been pursuing with considerable success. Therefore, I can find in the Throne Speech a number of very positive initiatives to help us as a government and as a country build on the very sure foundation we have laid.
For example, Mr. Speaker, I find the Throne Speech proposes giving even greater protection to home owners. That is a positive initiative. The Tory speaker did not mention it, but then that would undermine his thesis that there was nothing good in the Throne Speech. Is he, along with his colleagues, telling us and the people of Canada that giving greater protection to home owners is insignificant? There are many hundreds of thousands of home owners out there who will not agree with him. Therefore, over his opposition we are going to go on giving that increased protection to home owners because they deserve it and we have an obligation to help provide it.
As the Throne Speech says, we intend to enhance the flexibility of the mortgage market, again in the interests of helping the home owner. We intend to go forward with our proposals in the Canada Health Act. Is that, in the words of the gentleman from Moose Jaw, another nothing? Does he dismiss that as being of no consequence to the people of Canada? Is that what he meant when he said he could find nothing in the Speech that filled him with optimism? Is he not optimistic that the Government has the courage to ensure that people will continue to have adequate health protection? Is that what he meant when he said there was nothing to be optimistic about? I can be very optimistic that we have a Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and a Government which have taken the initiative in this legislation. It is a good, positive initiative. It is an optimistic piece of legislation.
In fairness to him, Mr. Speaker, I suppose what the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw means is that as a Tory he cannot be very optimistic if the Government is addressing some of the real issues. As we address the real issues, both he and his Party have less cause for optimism. You see, Mr. Speaker, the scenario they must adopt, the prayer they must continually make, is that everything will go wrong.
Well, that prayer is not going to be answered. In this Throne Speech we have protection for the home owner and the elderly. We have proposals for youth, for the native people. We have proposals for the various regions of this country. We have proposals to address agricultural and fisheries problems. I realize that would not make a Tory very optimistic, but I understand the spirit in which he said that. It makes me as a Liberal very optimistic because, for me, it means my Party and my Government are doing some of the things that need to be done in this country.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have made a continuing commitment to reduce inflation even further than we have. That is something to be optimistic about. We have taken steps to strengthen both the public and private pension plans. That is something to be optimistic about. We have recognized in this Throne Speech the particular plight of youth in this country and their difficulty in finding jobs. It is this emphasis on youth

February 6, 1984
The Address-Mr. Simmons
which I especially like about the Throne Speech. We have the youth opportunity fund, the establishment of a Ministry of State for Youth, the National Voluntary Service, Environment 2000, a number of particular and specific initiatives to help address a very difficult problem.
Nor are the elderly forgotten in this speech. We have given notice that we intend once again to increase the guaranteed income supplement, not the first time this Government has done that. We should remember that this Government and previous Liberal Governments made possible the whole safety net of payments for the elderly. We are very committed to this particular program and we are going to continue to implement increases as the need arises.
1 have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, some of the initiatives which, properly implemented, will go towards achieving a stable society. However, it should not be forgotten that no matter how thorough a government is in discharging its domestic responsibilities to the electorate, it cannot overlook, ignore or turn a blind eye to the international situation and the potentially disastrous implications for Canadians of the current cold war confrontation. I as a Canadian, a Member of this Party and supporter of the Government have watched with particular interest the initiatives taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to cool the rhetoric, get people at the international level talking again, slow the arms race and get people back to the table; in short, to do whatever has to be done to make this world a more peaceful place. I have watched the detractors and those who were praying for failure put their politics well before their obligation to Canadians as a whole. We have learned to live with that kind of politicking in this country. 1 have been encouraged that the Prime Minister is persistent where lesser men would have thrown in the towel. The goal he pursues is a goal of all of us. If he succeeds we will be the richer; if he does not, we will all be the poorer.
I listened to the previous speaker make one of the more vindictive and unwarranted attacks I have heard on the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). It is really sad when one has to use that kind of tactic to try to make a point. Has there ever been another politician anywhere, of whatever political stripe, at whatever level of government, who has brought more commitment and devotion to the job than the Minister of Agriculture? Is there anyone who has a better record of achievement for the constituents he represents here than the Minister of Agriculture? I am speaking about his farming constituency. It is easy to stand up and denigrate, run down and bad mouth. The Minister of Agriculture has done some magnificent things for Canadian agriculture and he will continue to do so.


An Hon. Member:: Name them.


Roger Simmons: The detractor says "name them". I would need days, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker tells me I have only two minutes left for my speech. Perhaps I could have a little seminar with the Tories behind the curtain in which I will inform them of some of the great things the Minister of
Agriculture has done for the farmers of Canada, including farmers in parts of my own riding. I could, Mr. Speaker, were there time, talk about the initiatives which this Throne Speech takes in the area of the fishery, a subject which is very dear to my heart. I could speak about the issues which are raised in this Throne Speech to address particular problems in Atlantic Canada. I say Atlantic Canada because that is the area which I happen to represent here. I could speak equally about initiatives in other areas across the country.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that my time has expired. I will conclude simply by saying that I am very proud to be a supporter of a Government which puts forward a Throne Speech, not only with such imagination but with such a list of specific initiatives that will continue to build on the very solid foundation we have built as a Government to address the problems of the elderly, youth, unemployed and all groups in this country.


Mr. Jarvis:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member who has just completed his contribution. If my notes are accurate, he spoke about the Prime Minister's peace mission and indicated that there were those who were detractors praying for the failure of that mission. I do not wish to do the Hon. Member an injustice, but is he implying in any way that there are detractors and those praying for failure who occupy public office in this House?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I certainly included the gentleman from York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). I include the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney). I could specify other names, but perhaps I could help the Hon. Member by reminding him it was only last week when the Prime Minister made some very candid, instructive and helpful comments in Europe that there were those, including the Member for York-Peel and the Leader of the Opposition, who attempted to imply that somehow it was sacrilege these days to encourage a candid dialogue in the interests of peace. I have interpreted their shameful role in this as being detracting and trying to undermine what the Prime Minister was doing.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, just so that I clearly understand the Hon. Member, is he accusing the Hon. Member for York-Peel and the Leader of the Opposition of being detractors of the Prime Minister's peace mission? Does he include those two colleagues as praying for failure, as he described it, with respect to this peace mission? Would he confirm that? Is he willing to repeat those accusations outside of the House?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the first question, I very clearly said that 1 interpreted, as I believe most Canadians do, the despicable actions of the Hon. Member for York-Peel and the Leader of the Opposition in respect to the Prime Minister's statement in Europe as detracting. I very carefully did not link that to praying. I hope they pray but I do not know if they pray on this particular issue. I did not say that.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member accuse the Hon. Member for York-Peel and the Leader of the Opposition of being among those that he accuses of praying for the failure
February 6, 1984

of the Prime Minister's peace mission? It is a very simple question. If he does, will he repeat that accusation outside of this House?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: We must be careful that we do not extend beyond the bounds of reflecting on other Members.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I interpret what the two gentlemen did last week as effectively detracting from the peace effort. That is what I said and I stand by that. I will say that outside the House.


William Herbert Jarvis: Answer the question.


Roger Simmons: I cannot affirm that the Member for York-Peel and the temporary Member for Central Nova pray. I hope they do.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, could the Member indicate to the House whether he got the $500,000 for the Special Employment Initiatives Program, what kind of projects that money was spent on, and how the spending on those projects articulate with the themes of the Throne Speech?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. The Chair recognizes that discussions on the Throne Speech are fairly wide but, I think we are diverging a little from the subject of the Member's speech. Questions and comments ordinarily would be directed to the Member on what he has said during his speech. I will allow the Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) to reply.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, any funds that come under my jurisdiction for job creation are well spent in my constituency in consultation with people in the constituency. I would suggest that before the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) digs too deep a hole on that particular issue he ought to ask the Hon. Member's for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) whether their ridings got such funds. He would be surprised and disappointed by the answer.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we have been trying for some time to get the list of 844 projects so we could see whether or not that spending articulated with the themes of the Throne Speech. That is the context. I have spoken to the Members for St. John's and they did not get the same kind of funding. I guess that is part of what is bothersome. Could he just give us the thrust of it? What is happening in his riding under that porkbarrel that reflects the Throne Speech? 1 would appreciate an explanation of how it trickles down to a particular riding and how it fits the theme of the Throne Speech.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, we are spending job-creation funds in Burin-St. George's on slipway building to help fishermen continue their work. We are spending it on senior citizen facilities and we are spending it to give youth job opportunities. I am for all those things. That is why I applied the money
The Address-Mr. Skelly
to these initiatives. The Member for Calgary West may be against them but they go over very big in my riding.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that there was not an opportunity in the limited time available to ask the previous speaker another question. Since he mentioned the subject of fisheries, I would have liked to ask him why the present Government which holds a majority in this Parliament is not prepared to discuss this issue in a meaningful way with fishermen and talk about solutions or make suggestions regarding the problems in the West Coast fishery.
At this point I suggest we could reflect upon one of the most colossal failures in the history of the West Coast fishing industry. That failure was the implementation by Jack Davis of a fishing fleet limitation program. At that time Members of Parliament continually requested consultations with the Minister to give an opportunity to various user groups to provide input into a more acceptable solution. I suggest that even Members of the Government would be hard pressed to say that the Davis plan was not a complete and total failure which left the industry in worse shape than it was when he appeared. Unfortunately, the greatest failure was that Davis and the Liberal Government of the day did not enter into meaningful consultations or attempt to achieve a consensus on an appropriate way of limiting that fleet and managing the West Coast fishery.
I would have asked the member why we are faced with the same situation today. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) is making proposals that would essentially run fishermen, the fishing industry and those who work in it as well as the communities on the West Coast into a deeper and more difficult situation than they face today. Knowing the fairness of the previous speaker, 1 know he would have been there to help us obtain a commitment from the Minister and the Government to provide an opportunity for meaningful consultation and some consensus on how to proceed with this very important issue. Unfortunately, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has not given any indication that he will subscribe to that proposal. My colleagues and I fear that we may find that the situation which was created by Jack Davis will be compounded even more.
There are many other issues I would like to deal with in the brief time that I have available that are related to the West Coast fishing industry. Perhaps during the question period after my speech some of those ideas can be developed.
First, I wish to speak about the most pressing proposal that seems to be before us today. I am sure that every Member of Parliament, every Senator and those in the bureaucracy are aware that there are 120 fishermen from the West Coast who have spent thousands of dollars from their own pockets to come here to represent businesses, individuals in the communities and the industry in which they work. In short, these 120 people represent a large population.
I cannot impress enough upon Members how important it is for them to be available to listen to those people, who will be

February 6, 1984
The Address-Mr. Skelly
visiting them in small groups in an attempt to explain the vital importance of this issue not only to them as participants in the industry, to their colleagues or to the processing operations, but to every coastal community. I would urge every Member of Parliament to make an effort at least to listen to them.
I believe this happened when the farmers came to Ottawa to lobby. Members were able to understand their plight after they listened. They made a commitment to contact the responsible Minister and other influential members in order to arrive at an equitable solution based on some meaningful consultation.
In speaking on the Throne Speech debate today, my first appeal would be that Members of Parliament make an extra effort to listen, understand and make commitments to those people who represent so many British Columbians who are in such a desperate situation today rather than opting for this unilateral approach to solving this problem. That would cause great harm and dislocation and probably concentrate the control of this resource-based industry upon which we all depend in the hands of a very privileged few. Essentially, this concentration will ultimately go to the Japanese trading companies that ultimately control so many of our resources in a negative way in the Province of British Columbia.
One of the most important issues currently under discussion is that of fleet reduction. This is what Jack Davis did that led to the original failure. This failure occurred because there was no consultation to try to achieve a consensus among user groups, the departments, the communities and businesses that depend on the industry.
It is important to note that it appears as though the Minister is heading for a unilateral imposition of a fleet reduction plan. It seems that he is still contemplating the idea of expropriating vessels beyond that. Members of the NDP are not prepared to tolerate that approach and I think other Members of the House should impress this adverse impact upon the Minister. Members have given very important advice to the Minister about how to proceed with that fleet reduction program.
While we would support a fleet reduction program since it would certainly leave more room for individuals to make a decent income, the Minister must follow certain criteria in implementing that program. First, there must be a consensus on the approach taken to that reduction. It should not be through expropriation. Those bona fide fishermen who have traditionally been in the industry must have the option to remain in it. I suggest it is contrary to the spirit of our country suddenly to expropriate a vessel from someone who has been traditionally in the industry when there are meaningful and effective alternatives available.
Before any change is implemented there must be a final plan in mind. For instance, definite reductions must take place in certain areas. The federal Government must provide full funding for this project. I am unalterably opposed to a royalty since it appears that Peter Pearse, the individual who conducted the commission on the West Coast fishing industry, wanted to use the royalty not only to raise funds for a buy-back but to drive people out of the industry and into bankruptcy. During these difficult times a further burden should not be placed on
fishermen and since the federal Government created this problem there is an obligation on the part of the country to resolve it.
This must be a progressive change since any immediate imposition would cause horrendous dislocation of people's employment and community economic bases. Once a plan is decided upon it must be implemented slowly in order to prevent any dislocation.
If the buy-back proposal proceeds, the Government must make two commitments. One is to maintain the employment base so that no one loses employment. The second commitment is that coastal communities such as Alert Bay, Sointula, Port Hardy, Klemtu, Bella Bella and Bella Coola must be guaranteed that they still will be able to contain their economic base. Communities such as Campbell River, Powell River, Gibsons or Pender Harbour will be irreparably harmed if the entire fleet concentrates at two points on the coast, Prince Rupert and Vancouver. These are the criteria that form part of this buy-back program which must be achieved by consensus. There must be agreement on a final structure and it must be proceeded with in a way which will not cause irreparable harm.
I see that we are approaching one o'clock and 1 would appreciate an opportunity to continue when the House resumes after the recess.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks this House has seen revealed the aggressive, oppressive tax grabbing practices of Revenue Canada. According to a press report, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) said yesterday that people facing financial problems because they are being pursued for back taxes are getting what they deserve.
One of my constituents, a Mrs. Madeleine Snell, of Fort Langley, B.C., writes: "Five and one-half years ago, my husband suffered a nervous breakdown and depression. Since that time we have suffered severe financial difficulties and have
February 6, 1984

been unable to pay Revenue Canada and told them of our circumstances and his illness, and asked them for leniency and patience in paying our income tax for 1980, 1981 and 1982. However, after unpleasant phone calls, they confiscated our bank accounts, plus that of my 11-year-old son, in the amount of $37-a Christmas gift from his grandfather. My husband was threatened over the phone and was told: 'Mr. Snell, if you don't pay up, I will make it impossible for you to conduct your business in British Columbia.' "
Mr. Speaker, no Canadian deserves this lack of civility and dehumanization. The excesses of Revenue Canada must stop now. If the Minister of National Revenue is incapable of controlling his Department, he should resign.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.
*
* *



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should enlighten Canadians and the House about some facts that give cause for concern, to say the least. For the sake of that moral purity he claims to possess, could he perhaps let us know more about a statement in the Globe and Mail last Friday, that a Mr. Wolf, a multimillionaire, had paid $25,000, or as much as $250,000, to help finance an anti-Clark drive in 1982? According to the article, the money was paid to a Michel Cogger, one of the chief strategists of the campaign to elect the present Leader of the Opposition in June 1983.
These facts require some clarification, and I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition, for the sake of his political ethics which he would certainly not want to compromise, will be answering a few questions in public, as soon as possible.
First, was he aware of the payment, in 1982, of an amount varying between $25,000 and $250,000, or any other amount, for the purpose of dumping the former Leader who is still the Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark)?
Second, was he aware that the amount was paid to his friend, Michel Cogger, at the end of 1982 when he had pledged public support to the then Leader and Member for Yellowhead?
Third, assuming that the answer to one of those questions is yes, did his organization benefit in any way, before or after the convention in Winnipeg, from such payments made by a Canadian non-resident, of by any other person anxious to dump the former Leader?
And finally, is he prepared to provide the necessary clarification of these facts within the next twenty-four hours, to reassure the Member for Yellowhead, who hopes this is all a-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.
* *
*



FISHERIES


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, Members will be aware that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) recently received a paper prepared by his officials outlining the various options confronting the Government to restore the West Coast fisheries. Amongst these recommendations is one that the Minister's Advisory Council has put forward to reduce the fleet by 20 per cent in one year, at a cost of $100 million. The Pacific Fisheries Commission has already recommended a 50 per cent reduction over ten years at a cost of $300 million. Whichever recommendation is followed, even if they are married and implemented in tandem, high unemployment in the fisheries industry is bound to result and in the fishery supported communities along the coast.
What is so surprising in this official policy option paper is that no attention whatever is paid in it to restoration of the fish habitat and hence of the fish stocks. Nor is there any indication of how different fish gears are to be reduced-all in one sector, or is it to be proportional?
On the habitat question, it is essential that the salmon's hemispheric habitat be taken into account. Salmon are born and live out their lives not just in upcountry streams, many of which are now plugged or polluted, but also inshore, where they are similarly endangered, as well as far out to sea where the great danger is overfishing by huge mother ships flying foreign flags.
The Minister, if he has any intention of saving the West Coast fisheries, is going to have to do more than just cut back on the fishing capability of Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I must advise him his time has expired.
* *
*




Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: I am pleased today to welcome 120 B.C. commercial fishermen to Parliament. Unfortunately, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) is not here today to meet with the largest B.C. fishing industry lobby to come to Ottawa in Canadian history. The lobby is here to learn, once and for all, from the Minister and other parties in

February 6, 1984
this House, whether there is a commitment to preserve and promote the salmon stocks and the commercial industry in B.C. The lobby members share my concern about the Department's inaction on a number of issues such as Kemano II and the destruction of the Skeena and Fraser River habitat; Amax; Quinsam coal; offshore drilling; Dome's LNG Project; Ridley Island development; twin tracking along the Fraser and Thompson, and many others.
In particular, the Government's supine position on Kemano II reveals just how readily corporations, such as Alcan, can buy entire watersheds through campaign donations to Liberal and Conservative coffers. Surely it is only fair to have a full public inquiry into a project that would in total take 88 per cent of the water out of the Nechako river system.
The entire fishing industry, from those who take the fish from the water to those who haul the finished product, including those who own the processing industry, are opposed to Alcan's Kemano plans.
I urge, on behalf of the fishermen here today and Canadians from coast to coast, that Alcan's proposal come before a full public inquiry, with funding for interveners, and that the Minister, when he finds time to come back into Parliament, go on record opposing habitat destruction and commit his Government to at least a $200 million salmon stream rehabilitation project for British Columbia.



FINANCE


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to bring to the attention of the House the morality or immorality of Finance Ministers using the Budget, taxpayers' money, to porkbarrel job-creation funds to Liberal Members and Liberal held ridings only.
I would like to remind the House of the use by the previous Finance Minister of the Budget, to provide funds to former Cabinet Ministers and his own riding through the Coalgate affair. What about the use of $200 million so the present Minister could save his own face? Now there is another clear-cut porkbarrel by the present Finance Minister of $300 million, spread over two budgets, over 15 different government Departments, in the Special Employment Initiatives Program. As well, taxpayers' funds are to be spent by 15 Cabinet Ministers to advance their own leadership aspirations, and one-half million dollars is set aside for every one of the 147 Liberal Members to give to their friends in an attempt to win re-election.
We must ask, Mr. Speaker, if local Liberal riding presidents and organizers in Opposition-held ridings have been asked to spend their $500,000 for the good of the Liberal Party of Canada. This is a half-baked one-half million dollar porkbarrel, Liberal riding by Liberal riding, that casts doubt upon the morality of the whole budgeting process in our country. How can we have any confidence in the future of this country-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.



NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, in the 1980 Budget, the then Minister of Finance announced the creation of a $4 billion Western Grain Development Fund to help modernize the western grain handling and transportation system. In 1981 the then Minister of Finance re-profiled the Western Development Fund and indicated that $345 million was to be set aside from this Fund for native economic development; $75 million to be spent in 1982-83, $80 million in 1983-84, $90 million in 1984-85, and $100 million in 1985-86. To date, from talking to members of Treaty Eight and other Indian bands across the country, I have learned none of these funds have been made available to Indian bands for economic development.
I thought I would point out to the Speaker and to Members of the House that the Indians are now referring to this fund as "phantom Loto 345-write a letter, write a proposal, burn it, let it go up in smoke, and somehow some phantom will appear with the funds requested for economic development on the reserves. The plight of native people on the reserves with regard to jobs is despicable.



FINANCE


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the issue raised in those newspaper articles which refer to the fact that Grit ridings have received over $500,000 each for job plans. The same articles refer to the fact that the money comes from the grants and contributions program. In a letter that we received from the Minister's office, referring to that program, it states:
The Employment Creation Grants and Contributions facility in CE1C provides a mechanism to fast-track job-creation projects to ensure maximum economic benefit. Unlike some other CEIC program areas. Grants and Contributions were not allocated on a constituency basis and, thus, were not the subject of formal consultation with Members of Parliament.
If the letter that we received from the Minister's office is telling the truth, then the statements made by various members of the Liberal back-bench, in which they said they received that money for their ridings, are a direct contradiction of what the Minister's office says. It means, if those back-benchers are telling the truth, there is a hell of a God damn boondoggle going on in this country at this time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 6, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please retract the language which is clearly unparliamentary and does not do credit to the dignity of this place or to himself.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I suspect the Deity would not approve of what is in this program and the way it is being abused by the Liberal back-benchers.


Some Hon. Members:: Retract.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I apologize for the use of the phrase, but my intent is still the same, that the Government is abusing taxpayers' money to try to get its own back-benchers re-elected, and not for the purpose of creating jobs in this country.


An Hon. Member:: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: A question of privilege may not be raised at this point of the proceedings, but later in the day.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of all but two Ministers on the very front bench, I will go to the Acting Prime Minister with my opening question. Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us what the morality is, and what the contributions to Canadian unity is, when job-creation funds go to Liberal ridings but do not go to the rest of the ridings in the country? It creates first and second-class unemployed Canadians throughout this country, first-class Canadians in Liberal ridings and second-class Canadians in other ridings. Can he explain how that contributes to national unity, or where the morality is?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, in the Budget and in other programs announced by the Government, there are a number of opportunities for good projects implementation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister has the floor. I am sure Hon. Members will do him the courtesy of listening to what he
has to say.


Jean-Luc Pepin: There is, for example, the Special Job Creation Program and the Special Recovery Program.


Mr. Crosbie:: The special Liberal program.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Every day I hear the Opposition say that we are not doing enough to help the recovery of the country. Therefore, I do not see why Hon. Members should complain about
Oral Questions
what is taking place. It is up to every Member of Parliament to ensure that his or her riding makes the best use of existing programs. They have all been announced, either in the budget speech of April 19 or in other legislation presented by the Government.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, is the Acting Prime Minister indicating to the House that it is a legitimate part of the budgetary process to provide funds for employment creation and that those funds are clearly earmarked and shall only go to Liberal ridings rather than to ridings all across the country, that everybody pays taxes but the pay-out in terms of job creation should go to Liberal ridings more than ridings represented by Conservative Members? Is the Acting Prime Minister telling us that that is the principle which is acceptable to this Government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, anyone who reads the answer I gave to the first question will realize that either the Hon. Member was not listening when I was speaking or had no intention of trying to understand what I was saying. When I had the good fortune of being Minister of Transport, because of the Special Recovery Program I had the opportunity to push, or fast-track as it is called, a number of major projects from coast to coast, such as airports, ports, highways, and so on. I really do not see what my friends are complaining about. Each of us knows about these programs. It is our responsibility, in the best interest of those who elect us, to make sure that they benefit from them.


REQUEST FOR LIST OF PROJECTS FUNDED
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, now that the Prime Minister is here, I will direct my supplementary question to him. We on this side of the House are concerned and we are suspicious that $300 million for employment creation is going to Liberal ridings and not to Opposition-held ridings. The way to clear this up would be to provide the House with a list of the 844 projects funded under this program. We have been asking for that list since November. In the interests of public examination of the morality of the present Government, will the Prime Minister provide the House with the list of 844 projects, where they are located, and how many dollars are involved in each?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is so concerned with morality, I do not understand why he feeds into the preamble of his question something which is patently false. These funds are spent in all provinces and all territories. They are spent on the basis of unemployment rates. That is the situation.

February 6, 1984
Oral Questions FISHERIES


WEST COAST SALMON FISHERY-REQUEST FOR HABITAT POLICY COMMITMENT
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Four years ago the Government commissioned Dr. Pearse to do a report on the West Coast fishery because everyone knew then that the fishery on the West Coast was in a crisis situation. Dr. Pearse reported in 1982 that the salmon fishery was in crisis. He said that "the economic problems and other concerns are rooted in fundamental deficiencies in fishery policy". The Minister a few weeks ago blamed the fishermen.
In view of the fact that for over a year the Minister's advisory council has been proposing policy to the Minister, all of which has been ignored, and the fact that basic to recovery of the fishery is the need for rehabilitation of habitat- streams, rivers, and estuaries-can the Prime Minister say why, in the four strategic alternatives outlined in a January 5 departmental working paper, there is not a single mention of habitat or the salmonid enhancement program, and can the Government and the Prime Minister make a commitment now to a policy of net gain of habitat for the West Coast fishery?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks a question based on what he calls a departmental memo or policy paper. It is not my practice to comment on confidential documents.


CONSULTATIONS WITH MINISTER
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister can comment on Dr. Pearse's report, which his Government commissioned. He said that "the economic problems and other concerns are rooted in fundamental deficiencies in fishery policy". The Cruickshank Report, which his Government commissioned, said that the problem is the direct result of government inefficiency, and a series of bad management decisions and inefficiency.
My question involves consultation, of which the Minister has made a great deal. During this period of 14 months of consultation with the Minister's Advisory Council, specific proposals have been put to the Minister, and ignored. Over 400 frustrated, exasperated, and angry fishermen are in Ottawa now to try to get the Government to listen and to act.
How does the Government explain that a paper dated January 30, which was given to the Minister's Advisory Council just the other day and which contained nothing but a list of questions, leads with a letter from the Deputy Minister stating that the paper is only "a general discussion paper", "contains no arguments for or against anything", "should not be interpreted as reflecting any preferences or conclusions of the Minister, the Department or the Government", and completely ignores the specific strategic alternatives submitted to the same Council on January 5?
I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the purpose of his Minister and his Government to make a mockery and a sham out of the work of the Minister's Advisory Council.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Allen Fraser: The answer, of course, does not belie the facts.


Erik Nielsen: Very typical.


John Allen Fraser: The fact is that the Minister's Advisory Council is being ignored.


FISH HABITAT REHABILITATION
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Pearse of the Prime Minister's own royal commission said that "available data is limited to the large river systems so the hundreds of small streams . . . which support half of all salmon production" could not be analyzed. In view of the fact that the Government will not even consider more than a "moderate level of fish habitat rehabilitation", will the Government commit itself now to bringing forward salmonid enhancement second stage funding for a full and complete inventory and an aggressive campaign of action to restore habitat, or is the Government satisfied with only cutting catches and reducing the fleet? Is the policy to keep as many fishermen as possible in-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member should ask his question. It is his second supplementary. Would he please ask his question.


John Allen Fraser: I will put the question directly, Mr. Speaker. Is it the policy of the Prime Minister's Government-and he has presided for 15 years over the decline of the West Coast fishery- to keep as many fishermen as possible in, which it ought to be, or to get as many as possible out?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is really asking a rhetorical question. 1 do not think the improvements made on the West Coast through the Salmonid Enhancement Program are as he states. I do not think he is ignorant of the progress made during the seventies and the early eighties through that program.
He is asking me to comment on words spoken by Dr. Pearse some year and a half or two years ago, in a report which was at the basis of the Minister's consultations and on which the Minister himself has made answers repeatedly in the House. I will be happy to take this latest representation of the Member to the Minister and make sure that he is informed of it.


REQUEST FOR FUNDING TO PROTECT JOBS
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The West Coast fishing industry is in a crisis, and that crisis is understood by everyone in British Columbia. It would seem at the moment
February 6, 1984

that the only response from the Government is to see that there is a major reduction in the fleet, anywhere from a 25 per cent to 50 per cent reduction in the fishing fleet in British Columbia, which will mean massive unemployment in one industry that up until now has been practically regulated out of existence.
In view of the Minister's concern, or professed concern, about unemployment in Canada, and that in British Columbia there is already 13.6 per cent unemployment, will he commit some funds in his Budget of next week in order to protect those jobs in the fishing industry, or at least provide alternate job opportunities for fishermen in British Columbia?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a number of representations in that regard. Obviously, I will consider my friend's expression of views as a further representation. I would like to remind him, however, that the source of funds does not only come from budgets. It mainly comes from estimates which will be tabled before the end of this month. At that time my friend will also be able to assess how much money the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will have available this year, and how much money will be available in British Columbia in particular.
I quite recognize with him that there is a serious problem in the fishing industry in British Columbia. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has addressed this problem extensively in the last several weeks and months. I hope further steps will be taken later on.


Edward Allan Miller: The Minister will be aware that his counterpart, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, is not with us today and that some of these questions could more aptly be put to him.


SALMONID ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, the latest document from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to the Minister's Advisory Council recognizes that in 1984, 1985, and 1986 there will be major reductions in the amount of Chinook and coho available to the fishing industry. As a result there will be a loss of employment despite whether or not there is a buy-back program and a reduction in the fleet.
Would the Minister assure the House and the fishermen of British Columbia who are with us today that he will give full support to any recommendations which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans proposes to him, in view of the necessity of increasing the Salmonid Enhancement Program and the employment opportunities that program could offer to British Columbians?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think the record of the last ten years in particular clearly indicates that the Government has played a part, very much a part, in the welfare of Fishermen and of the fishing industry. A number of steps have been taken, both on the East Coast and on the West Coast, over the last 10 years or 15 years. As a matter of fact, we have taken some quite recently on the East
Oral Questions
Coast. My friend can be assured that the representations made by the fishing industry and by fishermen on the West Coast will be given most careful and most sympathetic consideration.


Edward Allan Miller: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. According to reports of statements attributed to the Minister, he said, "people facing financial problems because they are being pursued for back taxes are getting what they deserve". Do Canadians deserve to be telephoned at 6.30 a.m. with a demand that they have $34,000 in hand for the Department within seven days? Do Canadians deserve to be harassed into a state of mental depression? Do Canadian taxpayers deserve to have their children's accounts confiscated by Revenue Canada? Specifically, is it true that Revenue Canada has confiscated bank accounts of children in order to pay the income tax reassessments of their parents? If so, does the Minister condone this practice? If not, will he bring the practice to a stop forthwith?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the words quoted by the Hon. Member. I said in an interview that, when a taxpayer is in a financial bind because some of his assets have been seized by the Department of National Revenue, in most of the cases I examined it was because the taxpayer had been guilty of gross negligence in failing to respond to repeated requests by the Department, after having been given numerous periods of grace. Considering the provisions of the Act and the fact that, the taxpayer's negligence in responding to the Department unfortunately led to such restrictive or Draconian measures being taken by the Department, it was because the taxpayer had neglected to communicate with the Department to explain what the situation was, whether it was difficult, or to indicate how soon he was prepared to pay his taxes.
The Hon. Member is now referring to a news item which mentioned the fact that a child's bank account was seized. I obtained some clarification on this particular case. The taxpayer's bank made the mistake, because the taxpayer's son whose account it was had the same name as his father. The bank explained the mistake was theirs and they had taken corrective action.

February 6, 1984
Oral Questions


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I wish that it was just a case rather than many cases.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Those cases have been identified, and they will be identified to the Minister. He spoke of draconian measures in some cases as if draconian measures were in fact acceptable.


TAXPAYERS' MEETING AT ALDERGROVE, B.C.
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Last TThursday night over 300 angry Canadians attended a tax protest meeting in Aldergrove, British Columbia, along with officials from Revenue Canada. It has been reported that while the meeting was in progress someone was in a parking lot with a flashlight and a notebook taking down the licence plate numbers of those attending the meeting. Can the Minister assure the House that the information being collected was not information being collected by or for Revenue Canada and that those attending such a democratic meeting will not become victims of further reassessment or retribution because of their attendance at the public meeting?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the conclusions the Hon. Member would like to draw are too ridiculous to even be considered. I would appreciate it however, if the Hon. Member would give all the facts. The meeting was attended by departmental officials who informed the people what their responsibilities, duties and privileges were under the Income Tax Act. Our approach was not to look around outside and try to find culprits, but to take advantage of this opportunity to inform Canadian taxpayers of their rights and responsibilities, in order to urge them to comply with the Income Tax Act, all of which has a very positive and educational value.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines ane Resources, my question is directed to the Minister of International Trade. The Globe and Mail quotes from a memorandum between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and a South Korean company, which indicates that Canada is prepared to transfer its complete Candu 600 megawatt reactor technology to South Korea in order to build jointly a reactor in Turkey. Canadian taxpayers have spent billions of dollars developing the Candu reactor, and it is considered to be one of Canada's most
outstanding engineering achievements. Is it the Government's policy to give away our high technology in order possibly to nail down a short-term sale at the expense of our entire long-term Candu market?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for a question that certainly is one that could well interest her. I want to assure her that it is the policy of the Government, and it is the policy of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, to negotiate the transfer of technology in circumstances that are advantageous to Canada, and where it is not advantageous to Canada it is not done.
In relation to Korea, I think the Hon. Member might well want to address detailed questions of what technology has been included in the transfer, or in any proposed future transfers, for additional sales of Candus to or through Korea, to the Minister of Energy when he is present. In the meantime I would assure her that transfers of technology in the case of the Candu, as in other cases, are carried on with the best judgment of what is in the best sales interest of Canada and Canadian workers.


Pat Carney: In the Government's best judgment, the best deal for Canadians so far is to swap Candu reactors for Romanian strawberries.


TERMS OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the Minister for International Trade. In the memorandum of understanding quoted in the press, there is no mention whatsoever of any sale of a Candu reactor to South Korea. Are the Minister and the Government really planning to give away our technology without even a firm sale to Korea? Is he exporting Canadian jobs as well as high technology?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I can add anything to the answer I gave to the Hon. Member, and I am not sure that she listened carefully to what I said.


John Carnell Crosbie: If she did, she would not understand it-who could? It is complete bafflegab.


Gerald Augustine Regan: That is, quite clearly, that there is a judgment made by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and by the Government in all technology transfers as to the advantage in relation to present and future sales of such transfers. I think the Hon. Member will be aware that, with reference to Candu technology, Canada not only constantly has to improve and modernize the technology but that we have the advantage of the experience that makes us, in any sales that can be facilitated to a third country, a very valuable partner.
While we are all satisfied on the basis of performance, and statistics on performance of existing reactors around the world, that the Candu is the best one there is, I believe we have to continue to find ways in which we can maximize the numbers
February 6, 1984

that are being sold. I believe the transfers of technology have been and will continue to be a useful way to increase the number of sales and, therefore, of Canadian jobs created.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
Mr. Speaker:: May I call to the attention of the House the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of a distinguished delegation from the Federal Republic of Germany. The Chairman is Dr. Vogel, Leader of the SPD opposition in the Bundestag, accompanied by Mr. Stokke, and Mr. Voigt, members of the Social Democratic Party.


FINANCE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In 1979, the last year for which figures are available, the tax expenditure account indicated that tax breaks to business cost $6 billion in lost tax revenue. How much did this corporate welfare account cost us in 1983? How many jobs were created as a result of the lost tax revenue being given to the major corporate sector in this country during the last year?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I do not have ready at hand the amount represented by the tax expenditure in 1983, but I will inquire with my officials and Find out whether we can at least give the Hon. Member an approximate figure.
As to the number of jobs created, my hon. friend should recognize that incentives given to the business sector, the private sector generally-small, medium and large businesses-are given in order to help that sector compete with the rest of the world. Canada has been a large exporter during the recession. In spite of the tough recession, the deep recession that there was around the world, we have been able to compete and a good part of this was certainly due to the fact that we have been able to keep our firms going and able to meet the competition by having costs that are not too high.
The number of jobs created by such incentives obviously is not quantifiable in exact numbers. My friend should realize that the way to create jobs is certainly not by making firms bankrupt, closing down firms, making sure that they are not making any profit-that is the best way not only to bankrupt the firms but to bankrupt the total economy. If my friend wants to create jobs he must realize that we must have a private sector that is dynamic.
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POLICY


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister recognizes that, almost without exception, studies that have been done on the effect of tax concessions to major corporations bear out what the two most recent reports have said, the one by Richard Bird of the University of Toronto and the one by Douglas May of Memorial University, that in fact we get little if any benefit in terms of job creation from the moneys passed through the federal treasury to the major corporate sector in Canada. I want to ask the Minister when it became acceptable to tax average Canadians and to take the money and hand it over to corporations, which results in less employment in Canada and therefore in a much higher cost to average Canadians in terms of their tax burden.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should be reminded that the taxes paid by Canadians are paid by individuals in the form of personal income tax and indirect taxes, and are also paid by corporations. The total amount is the one that appears in the books that are tabled with the Budgets and which spell out exactly how much is being collected by Governments.
At the same time, my hon. friend should realize that we have to remain competitive with the rest of the world. If the corporate sector in Canada is not in a position to compete with the American tax sector, for instance, we will not have any firms operating in this country. They will go under and be beaten by the competition.


Erik Nielsen: Or by Revenue Canada.


Marc Lalonde: The experience of practically every single industrialized country in the world is that you need a certain number of direct grants and a certain quantity of tax incentives to firms. I invite my friend to look even at social democratic countries in Europe, such as France, Germany, et cetera, and he will find that there are large tax expenditures programs in favour of the private sector.


Mr. Speaker:: A supplementary to a previous question. The Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller).


FISHERIES
Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. The estimates for stocks for this coming fishing season do not indicate that the Government has managed the stocks all that well, particularly in terms of habitat. There are only 35,000 metric tonnes expected this year. In view of the fact there is a lower expectation of stocks, with area licensing, a possible buy back program, all leading to higher unemployment in the fishing industry in British Columbia, will the Minister make a

February 6, 1984
Oral Questions
commitment, as the Minister of Finance, to be supportive of the Minister of Fishries and Oceans in any request for additional funding for habitat protection, for enforcement, and for salmonid enhancement, and make a real commitment to this renewable resource which can provide jobs forever and ever if it is looked after properly?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have always tried to be supportive of every reasonable request which is made by Ministers. My friend recognizes, however, that there are many Ministers in the Cabinet, and many reasonable requests come forward. Obviously, we have to priorize expenditures and try to apportion them in the fairest way possible. I can assure my friend that not only the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but also the Minister of State responsible for social development, Senator Austin, has been making very strong representations over the last several months in that regard.


FINANCE
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister is aware that distillery taxes amount to $533 million, while the total revenue of the industry is $496 million. This has led to a decline in distillery sales and the lay off of 2,500 workers, costing the Government almost $40 million in unemployment insurance payments and lost income taxes. Would the Minister tell us what he plans to do about this situation?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. friend that, First of all, the share of taxes going to the federal Government from the distilling industry has gone down quite considerably over the last 15 years. If he looks at the figures, he will find that the share which has increased the most-


John Carnell Crosbie: Watch out, Pinocchio.


Marc Lalonde: -has been the share taken by the provincial Governments. I invite the Hon. Member, if he has good representations to make about taxes, to address himself to his own Conservative provincial Government. The provinces are the ones which have increased the taxes most over the years. We have an indexed tax system at the federal level at the present time which, post factum, merely represents the increases which have taken place in the price of the product and in the provincial taxes. This is the policy which has been followed by the federal Government.
Finally, I would like to stress the fact that there has been a considerable change in behaviour of the citizens not only of Canada but of the United States vis-h-vis the consumption of hard liquor over the last several years. I must say it is not a change in behaviour of which I would disapprove. On the contrary, as a former Minister of Health, I would like to see a
reduction in the disease sclerosis of the liver, and a reduction in the number of people injured or killed in car accidents by drunken drivers.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I am not standing here for a lesson on morals. I am standing here to ask about lost jobs and lost revenue.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TAKE BUDGETARY ACTION
Ronald Alexander Stewart: The imposition of the regressive ad valorem taxation which has been imposed on the distillers is hurting our tourism industry, forcing the sale of spirits down to the point that if it keeps at the level it is today-and I have the figures here, Mr. Minister-the net loss will be to the federal Government because the taxation will not be as great as it was last year.
In effect, what the Minister is doing is forcing sales down, increasing revenue, but the net result is that the goose which has been laying these golden eggs is going to be killed. Will the Minister address this issue in his Budget and stop fudging with the provinces?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, again I would like to invite my hon. friend to address his representations to his provincial Government if he wants to see taxes reduced in that regard. If the provincial taxes are reduced, the federal taxes will automatically be reduced because they are indexed on the price of the product and the provincial taxes. I would also like to point out to my friend that if there is a reduction in alcoholism in Canada this will also mean a reduction in the cost of health services. Therefore, even if tax revenue were to go down, there would be a significant decline in terms the cost of health services with respect to people who are injured or sick because of the abuse of alcohol. It is not a one-way street in that regard. Again, I must suggest that my friend look at the considerable change of lifestyle and behaviour which has taken place in North America. I believe we should applaud this evolution whereby Canadians are showing a lot more moderation vis-h-vis the consumption of alcohol than they did in the past.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister knows that throughout a lot of northern Saskatchewan the year before last there was frozen grain which resulted in cheap grain. There was also no final payment for this grain. Last year a lot of that area was flooded, and I am sure the Minister is aware of the effect of the midge in that particular part of the country. It resulted in little or no crop. Is the Minister planning any special assistance for that particular area, alone or jointly? Does he intend to make any representation to the
February 6, 1984

Minister of Finance, who tells us today that any reasonable request will be examined? Does the Minister of Agriculture intend to make any request to the Minister of Finance to provide some assistance to that particular area, either alone or jointly with the Province of Saskatchewan?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows the procedure, I am sure, which is generally followed, that those people within the Province of Saskatchewan who feel they have suffered a hardship because of weather-and in this instance it was mainly because of the weather-must appeal first of all to the Province of Saskatchewan. If that province feels that is too large for them to look after-or any province, for that matter-under the system we follow, then the Province of Saskatchewan must appeal to the federal Government to co-share the responsibility. So far I have not received that kind of representation from the Province of Saskatchewan. I do know that the Senator in charge of the Wheat Board is supposed to be in that area, I believe this week, making a personal inspection and listening to complaints, which I am sure the Hon. Member has already done.


Stanley James Korchinski: The Minister knows full well that the Special Recovery Program is in federal hands. He does not need any assistance from any province on that one.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT-AMENDMENTS SUGGESTED
Stanley James Korchinski: Would the Minister tell the House whether any consideration is being given to introducing any amendments under the Western Grain Stabilization Act, something which the Senator in charge of the Wheat Board is touting as a possibility? Is there any consideration being given to introducing amendments immediately, in view of the fact that the situation exists there now, without waiting for any province? The Minister can do that now if he wants.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to answer the insinuation made by the Hon. Member that we changed the policy we are offering to people. It has been in front of them for years in Canada. If there is crop insurance available for crop losses, neither the province nor the federal Government becomes involved in those programs. The Hon. Member is asking us to supersede that with some other kind of new policy. If crop insurance is not taken out, there is no way that the province will ask us to assist it with those kinds of losses suffered because of weather.
Concerning the Western Grain Stabilization Act, yes, we are reviewing it. The review is not finished with respect to suggestion made by many people, including people from both sides of this House, as to how that Act should be changed to make it more realistic. I do not have that final report as yet from my Department. I am sure that, if there are amendments, the Hon. Member will have concurrence of his colleagues to give the measure speedy passage when it does come before the House.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


BANKS' TREATMENT OF WEST COAST FISHERMEN
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance and it pertains to the West Coast fisheries. The chartered banks on the West Coast, as the Minister will know, have been operating a virtual reign of terror against West Coast fishermen, seizing vessels, stacking up homes as guarantees against vessels, then seizing the vessels. Today I sent a letter to the Minister which would indicate that the banks are threatening those fishermen whose vessels, homes, and guarantors are being squeezed, that confidential financial information will be released about those fishermen in order to intimidate them. Will the Minister commit to this House that he will ask the banking officials to inquire into this situation immediately and find some relief for fishermen who are being squeezed by what are probably the most powerful agencies in this country?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I just received a copy of the letter the Hon. Member sent me across the floor. I have not had time to take cognizance of this particular letter, but I will certainly read it with care. As he knows, in the past we have made representations to the financial authorities when it was felt they were exercising excessive zeal in some instances. I will certainly examine these particular instances, and I would be very happy to inform my friend of what steps we could take.


INCREASE IN FISHERMEN'S COSTS
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that for the recipients excessive zeal could only mean a reign of terror over the last three years. One of the serious problems in the West Coast fisheries is the continued rapid increase in costs resulting from the federal Government increasing fuel taxes, interest rates, moorage charges-a whole range of financial impediments to fishing on the West Coast created by the federal Government.
The excise tax on fuel is about to increase from 9 per cent to 10 per cent. Will the Minister commit to this House that it will not increase, that in fact he will roll it back? Will he meet with a delegation of fishermen to hear their representations on those matters and the mechanisms which could be put in the next Budget in order to relieve some of their financial burden? Would he make those commitments today in the House to those fishermen?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the NDP could have been very helpful in containing costs in Canada by supporting the programs put forward by the federal Government to reduce inflation, particularly the six and five program which they objected to consistently, and which has been a considerable factor in reducing inflation in Canada.
As far as the Hon. Member's representation on the excise tax is concerned, I have to tell him that the plan to increase

February 6, 1984
Oral Questions
the excise tax was contained in my Budget of last April which was approved by Parliament. The money thus collected will be used to pay for the special recovery projects which have taken place all across the country, including British Columbia where large amounts of money, tens and tens of millions of dollars, have been invested to create jobs and help the British Columbia economy in a very difficult time. My friend should realize these expenditures have to be paid for and it is normal that they should be paid for in the way put forward and which has been, as I said, endorsed by Parliament.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of International Trade and is supplementary to the questions put by my colleague earlier. The bafflegab the Minister used in his answer to my colleague's question indicates that he either does not know what is going on or he is trying to hide his ineptitude and that of his predecessor in not completing one Candu sale, and presiding over the collapse of another during their term of office. Would the Minister state clearly that any transfer of technology will be clearly tied to the continued use of Canadian suppliers and engineers, and will not simply give away the store and totally undermine the future of that industry with this single deal in order to save his political hide?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine a higher degree of ineptitude than to suggest we should do the negotiating for possible sales of Candus here on the floor of the House. I want to reject most heartily the idea that I outline on the floor of the House exactly the terms I would put on the table or that I would have as the bottom line in any of the negotiations currently under way for the sale of Candus.


TERMS OF SALE TO KOREA
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is a totally ridiculous response and totally ignores the question I am asking. The industry is interested in saving its jobs and its future. The AECL is interested in selling heavy water and engineering in a way that will sell out the future of the industry in Canada. This Government is interested far more in saving its own political hide in the short-term, and is not thinking of the future of the industry.
Is the Government tieing this latest attempt to hide its embarrassment at not selling any Candus to a firm commitment by Korea to purchase on a long-term basis Candus for Korean domestic requirements and in a way that would use Canadian suppliers and engineering talent?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon. Member has much
business experience, but I want to assure him that, whatever his position may be in relation to approaching sales, I am not the least bit interested in any political hide when it comes to the question of creating Canadian jobs through the sale of Canadian goods and services, including Candus. My approach to the question will be that of maximizing our sales in the best interests of Canada, and not in relation to political benefits about which the Hon. Member seems to be concerned.


FINANCE
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, following the lead-off questioning by my colleague from Calgary West, I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance, who was there a moment ago. While he is getting back to his seat I will point out that he is a senior member of a Government which has gone so far that the pork-barrel does not have a squeak left.
How does this Liberal Government base its job creation money on anything but the jobless figures? Since we have an 11.1 per cent unemployment rate throughout the entire Hamilton area, how can the Minister of Finance explain that his colleague, the Minister and Member for Hamilton East, and the Hon. Member for Hamilton West, have received their $500,000 a piece, but we in Hamilton Wentworth have not heard anything about a $500,000 grant? I just checked with my friend, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, and he has not heard anything about it either.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer my hon. friend to a circular sent to all Members of Parliament. It is dated February 1, 1984, and I understand it has been sent a few days ago.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Not yet.


Marc Lalonde: Well, I am told it has been sent to all Members of Parliament by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and it spells out the criteria of the special employment initiatives program.


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: Three million dollars went to Firestone. Why don't you do your homework, Geoff?


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope the Minister of Manpower and Immigration did not put that circular in the mail, because we will not see anything of it.


REQUEST THAT FUNDS BE ALLOCATED TO HAMILTON-WENTWORTH RIDING
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance accept my own personal request for
February 6, 1984

consideration to his giving the riding of Hamilton-Wentworth $500,000 for job creation programs in his new Budget?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to pass the Hon. Member's request on to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I know he is doing his best to help his constituents, and I will pass the message on to the responsible Minister.

Privilege-Mr. Cooper
will be spent in areas where unemployment is high. It does not seem inconsistent to me for the Minister, under whose authority the funds come, to consult Members as to how they can best be spent. He is in constant touch with his caucus and with regional Ministers. It seems to be a good way to try to meet their objectives. I repeat, the funds are being spent in every province. There are no Liberal Members of Parliament elected in at least three of the provinces, and only one in another, so it would seem to me that, mathematically, funds must be spent in Tory ridings.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and relates to the virtual ban of the pesticide ethylene dibromide, or EDB, in the United States. I am aware that EDB is primarily used as a soil fumigant and for citrus and other tropical fruits, and that the problem is primarily with agriculture in the U.S. and not in Canada. Is the Minister satisfied that EDB in various foods, especially cake mixes and so forth, is not a threat in Canada?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a chance to review my dossier and give an answer to the Member tomorrow.


CONSULTATIONS WITH MEMBERS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, the simple fact of the matter is that we on this side of the House are not being consulted and are not partaking in any of these projects. It is very much a political porkbarrel in which the Prime Minister and his Cabinet are indulging. Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that in terms of input with respect to these projects we will all receive the same treatment that he and his colleagues are giving to people in the Liberal Party? I find this despicable.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member or his colleagues have projects in their particular ridings in which there is high unemployment, on which they would like money spent, let them submit those projects to the Minister. I am sure he will consider them most earnestly.


FINANCE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and relates to the Employment Initiatives Program referred to by my colleagues from Calgary West and Hamilton Wentworth. There is no question that the Liberal Members have been given different treatment with respect to this program from that given to any other Members of Parliament. They have been guaranteed $500,000 and asked specifically for projects which would be used within Liberal ridings.
The Prime Minister and his Government are playing sleazy politics on the backs of the unemployed. Will the Prime Minister immediately have a stop put to this very unsavoury type of activity on the part of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Government? We have seen the Minister of Finance act in this sleazy method. We do not want to see all Members of the Cabinet lower themselves to that standard.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this in the first answer I gave today. Since then I have looked at the figures. There was some $150 million being targeted to all provinces and all parts of Canada, including the Territories. The moneys are targeted according to unemployment rates. The Government has made sure that these funds


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant) meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has received notice from the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) of a matter of privilege. I will recognize him. However, normally the courtesy is extended to the Chair of indicating what the subject matter of the privilege is.


MR. COOPER-ALLEGED INTIMIDATION BY CANADA POST OFFICIAL
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege for the first time since I have been elected to serve in the House. I recognize that privilege is a serious matter and one which should not be taken lightly.

February 6, 1984
Privilege-Mr. Cooper
My question of privilege today essentially relates to three areas. The first question of privilege is that I believe there has been an attempt to inhibit my freedom of speech in this Chamber. Second, there has been a threat made against my office, and therefore against me, in an attempt to influence my actions in the House of Commons. Third, there has been an attempt to intimidate my office and therefore to hamper the manner in which I perform the role of spokesman for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the Official Opposition in this House.
Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 49, Citation 157 indicates that Official Opposition spokesmen are given precedence in asking questions in the House. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the role of official spokesman in the House of Commons is an important role which must be protected so as to allow the proper carrying out of any duties attached to that specific responsibility. Lately there seems to be an increasing tendency on the part of Government officials to attempt to intimidate either Members of Parliament or their constituents in order to stop criticism of a particular Department or Crown corporation. We saw such a case last week when a constituent of the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) was harassed by Revenue Canada officials for going to the Hon. Member with his revenue problems.
It is because of this, Mr. Speaker, that I rise on my question of privilege today. I believe any attempt to prevent a Member from performing his duties is a breach of privilege and that if Government officials are free to hassle Members or their constituents the ability of back-bench Members of Parliament to perform their jobs will cease.
Last Thursday I rose and asked a question of the Minister responsible for Canada Post. The following day, Friday, February 3, my office received an abusive phone call from the project officer to the President of Canada Post. This call was clearly an attempt to influence my actions in the House of Commons by way of threats and insults.
Citing from the Twentieth Edition of Erskine May, page 151 under the headline "Acts Tending Indirectly to Obstruct Members in the Discharge of Their Duty" reads:
Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt to influence a Member in the discharge of his duties, but having a tendency to impair his independence in the future performance of his duty, will also be treated as a breach of privilege.
On 25 June 1963, the Speaker ruled that a letter sent by a Parliamentary Agent to a Member informing him that the Promoters of a Private Bill would agree to certain amendments on condition that he and other Members associated with him would refrain from further opposition to the Bill constituted a prima facie breach of privilege.
Beauchesne's Fifth Edition at page 20, Citation 55, says:
The privilege of freedom of speech is both the least questioned and the most fundamental right of the Member of Parliament on the floor of the House and in committee.
When the project officer called my office-and one can only assume because of her direct access to the President that it was with his blessing-she was angry that my office had not cleared the question with the President's office. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this was an attempt by the office of the President of
this Corporation to interfere with my freedom of speech or action in this House.
Citing Beauchesne's Fifth Edition on influencing Members, at page 22 Citation 67 says:
It is generally accepted that any threat to a Member, attempting to influence his vote or his actions as a Member, is a breach of privilege.
I believe my privilege was further breached when this individual made it very clear that we would receive no co-operation or information from the President's office if "that was the route we wanted to go". In other words, unless we cleared our questions with the President's office we would not receive any help in performing the role for which I am an official spokesman in the Opposition. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this was a threat designed to influence my actions. It is, I believe, a very serious threat. If this threat were carried out it would mean that all information from Canada Post would cease to be available to me and therefore I could not possibly perform my job. If this were to happen to other Members of Parliament who did not clear their questions, then our ability to function as Members of Parliament would cease. If we as Members lose our ability to serve as ombudsmen to Government Departments for our constituents, a very large part of our purpose ceases to exist.
Citing again from Erskine May on page 158 under the heading "Molestation of Members on Account of Their Conduct in Parliament" it says:
It is a breach of privilege to molest any Member of either House on account of his conduct in Parliament.
The following are instances of this type of contempt:
It then goes on to say:
Sending insulting letters to Members in reference to their conduct in Parliament or letters reflecting on their conduct as such Members-
That was in 1831 prior to the use of telephones. I think the same thing can be applied to the use of a telephone. Just before our caller rudely hung up on my office, she called our action "sleazy", an obviously degrading insult to my office and to myself. This type of comment does, I believe, fall under the reference I have just quoted in Erskine May.
I believe this abusive action from the office of the President of Canada Post was an attempt to insult, threaten and influence my actions in this House and therefore is a breach of my privileges. There is today an increasing concern that the non-elected arm of government, the officials in some government Departments and Crown corporations, have become so powerful that they no longer answer to either the Ministers responsible or to Parliament. This power has allowed them to threaten Members of Parliament, criticize their actions and abuse their constituents, all without any fear of action from Parliament itself. Last week's threatening of a constituent of the Hon. Member for Waterloo by Revenue Canada officials clearly demonstrates the contempt in which these officials hold Parliament and its Members.
This abusive phone call which my office has received would seem to imply that postal officials had a contract with my
February 6, 1984

office which was breached by my not clearing questions I ask in the House. This clearly shows contempt for me as a Member and for Parliament in general as the governing body of this land.
How far does the threat made in this phone call go? Does it mean that the new postal facility promised in the City of Grande Prairie will be cancelled? Does it mean that complaints of my constituents regarding Canada Post service will be ignored?
This kind of threat is serious and likely constitutes a violation referred to in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 23, Citation 72, which reads:
Since 1867, the House has had a rule specifically forbidding the offer of money, or any other advantage, to a Member.
Citing from the Twentieth Edition of Erskine May, page 156, under the heading "Attempts by Improper Means to Influence Members in their Parliamentary Conduct", appears the following under "Bribery":
On 2 May 1695 the Commons resolved, That the offer of money, or other advantage, to any member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever, depending or to be transacted in Parliament is a high crime and misdemeanour-
I was very definitely offered an advantage if I behaved in a manner acceptable to Canada Post and, conversely, threatened with a disadvantage if my office failed to co-operate. I consider this matter so serious that I have written a letter to the Minister responsible for Canada Post and to the President of Canada Post requesting an apology and an assurance that this kind of behaviour will not be continued in the future.
I believe that this is a breach of my privileges and if Your Honour finds there exists in any way a hint that my privileges have been violated, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion to have this matter referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Hon. Member who complained he had received threats from a person at the Canada Post Corporation who has not been identified in the House. I may point out to the Hon. Member that 1 was not aware of this telephone call, which was certainly not done at my request, and I must say I am somewhat skeptical and surprised at the serious and elaborate approach the Hon. Member seems to be taking to this situation. I do not think employees working for the President of the Canada Post Corporation would dream of threatening a Member of the House. Since I received a letter from the Hon. Member asking me to forward his story to the President of the Canada Post Corporation and to obtain an apology, I shall, of course, act on the Hon. Member's letter, but I am very surprised that he raised the issue in the House, that he made it a question of privilege and that he is claiming that his privileges as a Member were breached. The fact is that he has asked questions, that he can continue to ask questions, and that in addition to asking oral questions, he can also have
Privilege-Mr. Cooper
all the written questions he wants entered on the Order Paper. The simple fact that he is expressing his indignation in the House proves that he is entirely free to act, and that whatever the content of the telephone conversation with an employee of the Canada Post Corporation, it has not restricted him in his actions or prevented him from intervening in the House as he sees fit.
In any event, though not wishing to doubt what the Hon. Member said, I would like to make enquiries to the person he did not name and who may have called from the Canada Post Corporation, since I am sure there is a perfectly good explanation. I will be the first to be surprised if an employee of the Canada Post Corporation had wished to intimidate the Hon. Member in any way.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should not be surprised nor indeed should he be skeptical of a question of privilege, imbedding as it does a very grave question with respect to the right of Members of Parliament to be free to conduct themselves without having to look over their shoulders at Crown corporations, government employees who are supposed to be controllable by the government, or indeed looking over their shoulders at computers. The Hon. Member who has raised the question deserves every consideration by the Chair with respect to the gravity of what he has raised because if that kind of conduct is going on the conclusions that are reached are frightening.
The Minister says that he has received a letter from the Member. I have not seen the letter but I will consult with him.
I think he exercised a discretion, quite properly so when he raises the matter in this Chamber today, in not disclosing any names. He may have done that in the correspondence, I do not know, but I certainly will check with him. I think the Minister should have the name of the individual if the Hon. Member has it so that he can conduct proper inquiries.
This leads me to the suggestion that the Chair may wish to exercise caution in the manner in which the point raised by the Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) is treated and to take it under advisement so as to enable the Minister ample opportunity to investigate the complaint that has been lodged by the Member for Peace River. I would assume that the Minister would come back to the House and respond to all Members, not just the Member for Peace River who raised the question, when his inquiries have been completed so that we can rest easy that this kind of conduct is not occurring, which I hope would be the case.
If, as a result of his investigations, there is any substance at all to the question raised by the Member for Peace River-and like most of us in the House, I know him too well to know that he would not be raising a frivolous question of this nature; and he says that today is the first time he has raised a question of privilege, which is indeed a grave one-I would suggest to the Chair that the Chair take it under advisement until the Minister's inquiries have been completed and he has come to the House and responded to the Hon. Member. At that time it

February 6, 1984
Privilege-Mr. Cooper
would be appropriate, I suggest, for the Chair to reach a conclusion on the question whether or not there exists a prima facie case of privilege. Certainly on the face of it, at the moment, there indeed appears to be such a case presented, but in all fairness I think the Minister should be allowed the opportunity to make a full inquiry into the complaint and report back to the House and to the Hon. Member who raised the question.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who raised a question of privilege has made use of two avenues to air his grievance. First of all, he wrote to the Minister, and it seems that in his letter he was more specific than he was here in the House. In that case, if he has the courage to name names in his correspondence, he should wait for the Minister's reply before rising in the House and making accusations that he has been threatened. The accusation-


Some Hon. Members:: No! No!


Yvon Pinard: All right, Mr. Speaker. He says there were no threats. So, if there were no threats, there is no question of privilege. However, if someone called me, as a Member of this House, and tried to intimidate me into not asking questions before clearing them with that person, I would have the courage to mention the name of the individual in the House, I would have the courage to tell you I have decided to bring the matter out into the open, namely that someone at Canada Post is intimidating me and preventing me from asking questions without clearing them with that person. It seems to me I would have the courage to say before the House who that person was.
So the Hon. Member has taken two approaches, the first one being to write to the Minister and wait for a reply. He preferred to use the second approach, before receiving his reply from the Minister. However, if he wants his question of privilege to hold up he should . . . Otherwise, he is abusing the parliamentary immunity he claims to have, which is conferred upon him by this House, if he does not have the decency and the courage to name the name of the person who breached his privileges.
It is not enough for Hon. Members to indulge in witch hunts and make all kinds of allegations that corporations are breaching their freedom of speech, if they do not have that courage. Especially since, as the Hon. Member claims, he admits he knows the person in question, especially since he claims to be able to do so. He should have the decency-
It is difficult to be courageous, Mr. Speaker, I understand, but if my rights were infringed to speak freely in the House and if anyone in Canada were to threaten me not to ask any questions before submitting my questions to him or her, I would have the courage to name that person in the House if I were to pretend my privileges in that same House had been abused. That is what I am asking of the Hon. Member. If he
does not have the courage to mention the name here, he should wait for the Minister to reply to his letter. If not, he should mention the name here, allow the Minister to make his inquiry and allow the Minister to come back to the House to give his version of the facts. If those facts are contradictory, of course there would not be any question of privilege.
I think the question may be serious, I do not know, but to allow it to be believed serious, the Hon. Member should at least name the individual or persons who in fact threatened him. I think that is elementary; otherwise it would become too easy to waste the time of the House by all sorts of witch hunts, pretending that representatives of Crown corporations are threatening Members not to ask any questions.
My intervention is very simple. All I am saying to the Hon. Member, who pretends to be threatened by an individual, is that if he wants to raise the matter here, he should have the courage to mention the name of the person.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I must say immediately how disappointed I am that a Member of this House would denigrate a question of privilege which bears so heavily on our right to function without fear or favour in this House. I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to investigate this matter; I know you will, Sir, very carefully. Anything that can be interpreted by a Member to expose him or her to jeopardy or harm in the carrying out of his or her duties has to be investigated.
There are additional examples to the one the Hon. Member has brought up. I recall an incident during some fairly heavy discussion of the National Revenue Department. Advice tendered to me, in the criticism of tax officials, was to the effect to be very careful because "the next thing out of your mouth will result in an audit being done on your income tax". Fortunately, I am in a position to do that but I am sure that advice was given to encourage me to temper my comments.
There are forces outside of this House which have played on Members of Parliament. I mentioned today the chartered banks which are imposing tremendous pressure on West Coast fishermen. There are examples in this House of where the banks have imposed tremendous pressure on Members of Parliament. When the Bank Act was under consideration the Canadian Bankers Association asked for financial reviews of Members of Parliament, and beyond that-


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, the Chair would like to hear argument related to the point of the Hon. Member for Peace River. The Hon. Member, without my passing judgment in any way on what he is saying, seems to be aside from the point raised by the Hon. Member for Peace River.


Raymond John Skelly: I accept the rather lengthy preamble but 1 think the remarks put forward by the Government House Leader were unfortunate, to say the least. I think what he could do is support the call for an investigation of this matter by the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation, which
February 6, 1984

is completely appropriate. I think, however, that this goes one step further.
I know, Mr. Speaker, you will take a very serious look at this, but a matter of privilege related to this item has other precedents in this place. If this House does not move to protect our privilege, then the erosion of Parliament is complete and we might as well shut the place down.


William Herbert Jarvis: Concerning this very serious matter, Mr. Speaker, you are being urged by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) to find no privilege if a person, such as my colleague from Peace River (Mr. Cooper), is put in a position where he opts to complain to a Minister. That is the basis of the argument put forward by the President of the Privy Council. He is saying that the Hon. Member for Peace River had an alternative. He could either write to the Minister and complain or he could raise the matter as privilege. The President of the Privy Council is now suggesting that because the Hon. Member chose both courses and because he did not name that employee in the House, he lacks the courage to do so.


Yvon Pinard: Right.


William Herbert Jarvis: I say with respect to that point that it is not a question of lacking courage; it is a question of having civility, courtesy and of following the customs of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: It is only in extraordinary circumstances that one would name a public servant or a servant of a Crown corporation in this House.


Yvon Pinard: Typical Tory policy.


William Herbert Jarvis: Custom dictates to the contrary because the individuals are not here to defend themselves.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: I think this is crucial to your decision, Sir. The person to whom the Hon. Member spoke was addressing the Hon. Member, not in his or her own personal capacity but as a servant of the President of a Crown corporation of Canada. That is the key. It is the same as if I complained to someone on the staff of the President of the Privy Council and that person responded. The individual does not respond to me in a personal capacity but speaks to some degree for the Minister, as indeed this employee did who spoke on behalf of the President of Canada Post. It is absolutely crucial to this vital question of privilege that one should not have his or her ability to raise a question of privilege diluted by failure to name the individual. That is a basic element of decency, not a weakness in a question of privilege.
There is a second point which the President of the Privy Council conveniently ignores. The Hon. Member for Peace River has no more privileges than I, but it was well known to that employee that that particular Member speaks on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition with respect to Canada Post.
Privilege-Mr. Cooper
Therefore, that Member was speaking for all of us in that particular telephone conversation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: There is no way, in my view, that that question of privilege can be attacked in terms of its validity by the President of the Privy Council when he suggests that, having written to the appropriate Minister and not having named on the floor of the House the particular person to whom he spoke in the President's office of Canada Post, therefore no valid question of privilege exists.
I urge your very serious consideration, Mr. Speaker. I certainly support wholeheartedly the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) because I think it strikes at the very heart of our parliamentary privileges.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the Hon. Member's explanation, and it seems to me, in the light of the scarce amount of information he was able to provide, that if he had really had the courage to name the person, he would have had a genuine question of privilege. In fact, this is the same approach that was used in Waterloo with the Department of National Revenue: people are mentioned, and today they mentioned the President of Canada Post Corporation, who was identified, but the person to whom the Hon. Member referred and from whom he supposedly received threats, was not.
I feel this is just another witch hunt to discredit the dedicated employees of the Public Service, without mentioning any names but making a blanket charge and putting the blame on everyone by identifying the President of Canada Post.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is a question of privilege. If the Hon. Member wishes to pursue the same route as for the Department of National Revenue, he should rise in the House and say this person's name, so that the situation will not be taken to apply to all employees of the Public Service. That is blackmail!


Mr. Speaker:: I invite Hon. Members to be brief at this point.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this matter but I cannot believe the argument coming from the other side. I thought the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) made his case very well. If, in fact, the circumstances turn out to be as he described them, and I do not for one moment doubt that they will, it would appear that he has established a prima facie case for the Speaker to rule on.
However, I do want to deal with the question of names. It would be unfair, I think, to expect the Member to name the individual now.


Yvon Pinard: Why?

February 6, 1984
Privilege-Mr. Cooper


Ian Deans: Rather, all that should be required, I suggest, would be that the Speaker determine that the Member is in a position to provide the name in the event the case he has placed before the House is deemed to be a breach of privilege. I understand from a brief check that he is in a position to provide the name should the Speaker determine that all other matters relating to these particular circumstances are as the Hon. Member described them.
The question surely is not a partisan one. The question is not whether the Minister has done a good job or otherwise. The question before us is whether the privileges of the Members of the House, all Members of the House, are being breached in circumstances such as these.
I would suggest, if I may, that quite clearly what the Hon. Member has raised, if it were to occur to any other Member on either side of the House, would constitute a breach of privilege. I assume the Hon. Member has raised it not only because it affects him directly. If it can be shown that it is a practice being followed by this individual or other individuals in informing Hon. Members of the House of Commons that their access to information will no longer be there in the event that they should raise a question which displeases the head of a Crown corporation, or for that matter anyone else, quite clearly that would be a breach of everyone's privilege.
What is being asked for is a recognition that to breach the privileges of one Member is to breach the privileges of all Members. Therefore, the argument surely ought not to be whether the Hon. Member has courage in naming the individual who did it. It is simply a matter of whether the Member has in fact had his privileges breached. After listening to the case he put forward, I suggest that the threat has clearly breached his privileges. If he is now in a position, should the Speaker find that he has had his privileges breached, to provide the name, as he obviously must do in order for the matter to be dealt with, he can simply acknowledge that he could provide the name if the Speaker requires it. He need not provide the name today, but at a subsequent point of time if the Speaker requires the name in order that a proper inquiry could be held before the appropriate committee. To bring this matter down to a level of partisan politics would be wrong.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as well-meaning as the suggestion was from the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, and I agree with everything he said except where he suggested the Chair should put itself in the position of requiring the Hon. Member for Peace River to produce the name-


Ian Deans: I didn't say that.


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, the Chair has heard the point and will of course be very careful on a matter of that nature.


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I had no foreknowledge whatsoever of the case being brought by the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper). As a Member of
this House, I am stunned by his case. I am very impressed and worried about the implications of his comments on what was attempted. I am therefore quite surprised when Members opposite, for some reason totally beyond me, miss the key point raised by the Hon. Member for Peace River, who did not name the human being involved but who referred specifically to the office held by the person who telephoned the Hon. Member for Peace River.
When the "blues" are checked by Members opposite, who have said, apparently, as I understand their case, that unless the Hon. Member for Peace River names the person, there is no case of privilege, the logic of their case when they read the "blues" will be to find that the Hon. Member for Peace River has named the officer and the office of the officer. Surely dignity says that is precisely what a Member of the House of Commons should do because the Member has put to some degree his case and his credibility forward. He has made a claim about an officer of the Canada Post Corporation.
Surely that claim should convince Members opposite that the Hon. Member for Peace River is prepared to back his assertion. If the assertion is found to be true, it should bother even Liberals to know that officers of Crown corporations may be attempting to influence the spoken views of Members of Parliament. That alone should convince Members on the opposite bench that this case should be looked at.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) mentioned the serious and elaborate approach taken by the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) in his statement. He said he was making enquiries to get a better picture of what was happening at Canada Post.

I have given weight to the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), given the gravity of the charges, that the Minister should have an opportunity to make further inquiries. I will take the matter under consideration. It is obviously one that will be examined closely. The Chair will not render a decision at this time.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that after the Minister has completed his inquiry you will allow him, if need be, to come back and give some explanation because the last Hon. Member to speak indicated that the office had been mentioned? I am told that more than one person holds that office. Rather than try to give civility to some so-called threatener, it would be much simpler if the name of the person were to be mentioned. Since it has not been mentioned, the Minister should be allowed to make his inquiry and speak here before you make your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: That was what the Chair had in mind, precisely that. Obviously the House will have to give its consent to hear the Minister's statement. The Chair has indicated that is the course it would like to follow at this point.
February 6, 1984


MR. DIONNE (NORTHUMBERLAND-MIRAMICHI)-CHARGES OF ABUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege issuing from this day's proceedings. During proceedings under Standing Order 21, several members of the Opposition made slanderous charges that back-bench Members on the Government side of the House were abusing public funds. That is a very serious charge. The same charges were repeated in Question Period. Those charges are unproven and unfounded. The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) specifically stated that backbench Members, and he included all back-bench Members on the Government side, had abused Government funds.


Mr. Forrestall:: Did you get left out?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It is unusual for the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) to behave in that manner. Even worse, those allegations are based on news reports which can best be described as stupid. In both cases those statements are a clear violation of the privileges accorded by the House to its Members.
I cite for your consideration from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition Citations Nos. 49, 50, 51 and 319(3). Even more important, I refer to Citation No. 40 which clearly states:
-where the propriety of a Member's actions is brought into question, a specific charge must be made.
I have never abused any public funds. I have, as I am elected and paid to do, sought and achieved very substantial Government expenditures in my riding for worthy and essential projects. I shall continue to fight for more. The only projects under which my riding has received funds are the Canada Works Program and the Student Summer Employment Program. That is applied by the same formula to every riding in this country.
I ask that you examine those statements, especially those made by the Hon. Member for Churchill, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) and the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), to establish if my privileges have been breached. If Members are to be allowed to stand in the House and hurl accusations at other Members of the House that they have abused public funds without any substantiation except a dumb newspaper story, where do we end up as Members who are supposed to have respect for the House and for each other?
If you prefer, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move that those statements mentioned, and perhaps others which I will check in today's Hansard, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for apropriate action.


Mr. Speaker:: The question of privilege is a narrow and technical one, matters affecting Hon. Members and preventing them from the performance of their duty. In the opinion of the Chair, there is a difference as to fact and-


Erik Nielsen: Can we be heard before you rule?
Point of Order-Mr. McMillan


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair was not sympathetic to the question of privilege. The concern of the Chair is the time of the House.


Erik Nielsen: I will be brief. I feel that initially every question of privilege raised by a Member is deserving of consideration by the Chair. However, other views than a single view should be sought before the Chair rules. That is a personal observation, not intended to reflect in any way upon the Chair.
I would like to support the submission made by the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne). I do not quite agree with the thrust that he has taken in it from the exchange today, but we would have no objection whatsoever to having the question raised by him referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, either in the form which he has suggested that it be presented or a simple reference of the matter raised by him so that the whole matter can be thoroughly aired, with witnesses heard, and we can get to the truth of the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: In the opinion of the Chair, the Hon. Member has not established a case of privilege. A dispute as to facts is not privilege. Argument is argument, the Parliament obviously makes strange bedfellows from time to time, but it is the opinion of the Chair that the Hon. Member does not have a case of privilege.
The Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) on a point of order.
 * *


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct a very important omission in the Hansard record of Friday, February 3, 1984, in connection with a question I posed in the Oral Question Period to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) about the reopening of the Georgetown Seafoods plant in Prince Edward Island.
I have brought the matter to the attention of the English Hansard Editor and, after carefully reviewing the tapes and the relevant "blues", it was agreed that an important part of the Minister's response to me on the day in question was omitted from Hansard. Since the issue is of such urgency in Prince Edward Island, I believe, as I think he does, it is necessary to set the record straight immediately rather than await any changes to the official Hansard at a later date.
Very briefly, I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on Friday for a commitment that the Georgetown Seafoods plant on Prince Edward Island would be reopened in time for the new fishing season, which starts in May, with the help of the Minister and his Department, especially with respect to an

February 6, 1984
Point of Order-Mr. McMillan
allocation of fish which is under federal jurisdiction, not the jurisdiction of the province or the private sector.
According to the tapes for the relevant exchange between the Minister and myself, the Minister said, "1 will be making an announcement about it", meaning the reopening of the plant, "in the near future. It is not a question of months". That was his quotation. Those last words, "It is not a question of months", are entirely absent from Hansard, though they are on the tapes to which the Editor and I listened very carefully. Consequently, the real import, the pith and substance of the Minister's response to me in the House on Friday, has been lost from the record. It is clear from the tapes, but not from Hansard, that the Minister said in effect that Georgetown Seafoods will be reopened in a matter not of months but rather weeks or even days. Without the missing words, one could be left with the impression, as I think one is in fact left with the impression, that the plant would be reopened only some time in the distant future. The exact opposite is what the Minister actually said on the floor of the House of Commons on Friday in response to my question.
I draw this matter to your attention, Sir, and to the attention of the House in hopes that the record stands corrected pending a more official change to the Hansard record at a later date.
I hasten to add that I raise this matter not as a reflection upon Hansard officials, nor even as a reflection upon the Minister, who I am sure would want the record to be corrected along the lines I have suggested.


Yvon Pinard: On that particular subject, Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister should read what the Hon. Member said and, if necessary, make his contribution before the changes are made.


MR. DOMM-REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It rarely occurs in the House that there is an air of unanimity. I gathered from the conversation which occurred earlier in the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) that the matter dealing with the $500,000 grants, namely the Canada Community Development Program, be referred to a standing committee for examination, it would appear from a cursory observation that it would be the desire of the Chair to accept whatever appeared to be the unanimous consent of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the point of the Hon. Member? The Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) raised a question of privilege. The Chair found that there was no prima facie case of privilege. What is the purpose of the Hon. Member's intervention?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Following that question of privilege, there was a desire on the part of the Official Opposition to accept, through
unanimous consent of the House, that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee. All I am asking-


Mr. Speaker:: A motion has to be introduced according to the procedures of the House. The Hon. Member is aware of the options open to him and to his House Leader to put motions on the record. Obviously the Hon. Member does not have a point of order, nor does he have a point of privilege at this point.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I rose on a point of order, but I am prepared to make a motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member cannot make a motion at this point on a point of order of this nature. The Hon. Member, if he seeks to introduce a motion, would have to have unanimous consent to introduce it without notice. Normal procedures are not being followed.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I would seek the unanimous consent of the House, in light of the matter before the House, that is, the way we will treat the subject matter brought up by a Member of the Government-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is rising to seek the unanimous consent of the House for leave to introduce a motion. Is that what he is trying to do? Is there unanimous consent?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a good idea if the Hon. Member were to give detailed notice so that we know exactly what the motion would include.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and responsibility to present a petition on behalf of taxpaying farmers in my constituency of Fraser Valley West. The nature of this petition is to express concern over Section 31 of the Income Tax Act which unfairly penalizes small farmers who need other jobs to finance their farms. As taxpayers, the petitioners are also concerned with the callousness and insensitivity of tax officials with Revenue Canada.
The purpose of this petition is to ask the federal Government to repeal Section 31 of the Income Tax Act so that valuable small farm holdings are maintained and farmers are not taxed unfairly. The petitioners also want tax assessors to treat taxpayers in an equitable, courteous and dignified manner.
February 6, 1984


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Jack Burghardt for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I wish to continue the debate and refer to elements related to the West Coast fishery. Before the luncheon adjournment I had spoken at length about some matters concerning fleet rationalization and the buy-back being proposed by the Government. I indicated that certain criteria had to be followed before there could be any acceptance of that program.
Those criteria must also include a commitment to extensive salmon enhancement on the coast of British Columbia. It is not just a matter of trying to reduce the fleet and control the population strictly by management techniques, allowing larger and larger escapements while at the same time allowing more and more destruction of the spawning habitat. There has to be a balanced aggressive commitment to salmon enhancement along with a fleet restructuring program.
The next extremely important issue is whether Canadians will get proper access to those stocks which originate in Canadian rivers. This question comes up as concern about our international relations regarding salmon stocks mounts. There seem to be four extremely important parts to this international aspect.
First, we have no sound data on which to base judgments about what happens to those stocks once they leave Canadian territorial waters and go to the high seas. We know that over the years there has been a high seas gill-netting operation, which it is felt causes great harm to the salmon stocks that eventually return to Canada.
Second, there must be an extremely aggressive attempt by the Government to move Japanese and other Asian fishing countries out of the high seas gill-net business. It is a destructive and wasteful program that targets on fish from Canada, and it must be eliminated. The Government is not providing any solid activity on that front at the moment, but it should.
There has been mention in the House of reinstituting the high seas tagging program in an attempt to determine what is happening to stocks on the high seas and to develop strategies to ensure that they survive and return to Canada.
The third aspect of our international relations regarding salmon stocks and resources in Canada is the interception treaty. It is absolute folly for the Government to pursue actively the matter of getting an interception treaty with the Americans. On the other hand, we cannot sell out to them. We must resolve the problems so Canadians will not be required to give away Canadian fish in order to get an interception treaty. There has to be pressure for a fair and equitable interception treaty that will allow us to get on with the business of enhancing our stocks and ensuring that they do not wind up in
The Address-Mr. Skelly
the holds of American ships but, rather, that they end up in Canadian ships. It is vitally important that the interception treaty be pursued and that fish originating in Canada be left with Canadians.
The last matter is not a minor aggravation by any means. I refer to resolving boundary disputes and fishing problems. We have examples of the American Coast Guard seizing Canadian ships that cross boundaries. When dealing with the same kind of problem I think Canadians have been more neighbourly toward the Americans, but the whole question of boundary positions and boundary transgressions has to be dealt with more aggressively by the Canadian Government. This is an international package and it must be resolved. There are interests on which we can assist the Americans, but in turn we must achieve our own goals. The high seas data gathering process is particularly important, so is eliminating the high seas gill-net fishery against our salmon stock as well as the interception treaty.
The area where the Government shows the least guts is on the question of habitat protection. The Conservative Party has also failed to put its position on the record and to take a stand for the protection of habitat. Without spawning grounds we have no resource. The greatest conflicts come in the area of resource harvesting-logging, mining, fishing and land development. At some time we must go on record that we are going to delineate the critical fish habitat and that no one is going to destroy it. It must be held in trust for future generations of Canadians.
In British Columbia the NDP Government put in place an agricultural land reserve program because only 3 per cent of the land was capable of raising agricultural crops. A minimum amount of the land base and the water resource in British Columbia is capable of maintaining a very valuable resource in fisheries. We must put a fisheries habitat reserve system in place which is sacrosanct, not the kind that Dr. Pearse advocated with no net loss of habitat or "build yourself a small showcase hatchery and you can wreck a valley bottom". There are examples of the destruction of habitat on the Fraser, on the Skeena, projects such as the Kemano Project, the Quin-some, Amax-we have to end all those. We want a delineation of critical fish habitat and we want a sacrosanct mechanism to preserve such a fisheries habitat reserve system. Estuary land, critical marine fish rearing areas, rivers and streams that are critical to the resource, must be delineated and preserved in perpetuity.
We must have integrated resource management studies in which areas can be developed by integrating resource development without harming them. I refer to places such as the Nimpkish system, the Owekino Rivers in that area, the Dean, the Kimsquit and areas that are vitally critical. If logging goes ahead without concern about integrated resource management study, recommendations and development, then we will write off the whole area and the resource will gradually disappear. Ultimately there has to be a resource management board to deal with these questions and to make the decision on an

February 6, 1984
The Address-Mr. Skelly
ongoing basis that some areas cannot be mined or logged without destroying a resource that should last forever.
These are the positions that we take and that the other Parties in the House have failed to take. It is one thing to talk about peace and harmony and say that everything will be fixed up after the next election, but we should be talking tough to logging companies and mining companies and telling them that there are areas they cannot penetrate and where they must co-operate with other resource users to ensure the preservation of the resource.
As my time is running short I will not be able to go into detail on the salmon enhancement programs which are virtually important to the whole critical question of management of the West Coast fisheries resource. In these last two minutes I should like to deal with that matter. There is no confidence in what the Government is doing, and that is unfortunate because in a forthright, honest and fair manner, and by restructuring the way decisions are made on West Coast fisheries, the Government could win back some confidence if it put a better management system in place. There must be a resource management board that is elected from user groups. By consensus and consultation it should develop a management plan. It is no longer acceptable for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to be the sole authority for gathering data or for the development of management plans. Before any fishery policy can succeed there must be some commitment on the part of the user groups in the communities that depend on it. Something the Government could do in every one of these issues is to put an effective consultation and consensus mechanism in place.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, in my part of the country there is a Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation which conducts research and marketing for the sale of fish and products in different parts of the world. I wonder if a similar mechanism exists for the sale of fish on the West Coast. Also, could the Hon. Member tell me if, in any of the proposals he has made with regard to resource management and marketing, there is a mechanism to ensure that fishermen have a voice? One of the problems with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is that the fishermen really do not have a voice on the board. Most of the people on the board are appointed by the various governments and, as a result, are not responsible to the fishermen. I wonder if the Hon. Member could respond to that?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the question was brilliant and insightful. It bears on excellence-it definitely was an excellent question. What I would like to do is to point out that there is a considerable difference in the problems faced by freshwater fishermen and the West Coast fisheries and their approach to marketing the product. We have, over the years, been extremely concerned about the dominance of a small number of powerful corporations. British Columbia Packers is an example of a multinational corporation with tremendous control over the fleet and the processing and marketing. It virtually borders on a monopoly situation.
We have called for investigations of the Combines Investigation group into that and the Government has been very reluctant. It has been willing to attack fishermen on the whole question of the competition issue but it has failed to get involved by taking a good, hard look at British Columbia. Packers and the way it has dealt with the West Coast fishing industry. We have asked for amendments to the legislation so that there can be a fair, more competitive approach to marketing. Fishermen could then receive a good price for their product and do away with that market dominance.
Conservative Members indicated the other day that they were all for foreign investment and control of Canadian resources. What we wind up with is the Japanese trading companies playing a tremendous role in gathering that resource together and controlling its price. If we were to follow the Pearse recommendations and concentrate the control of that resource in a very small number of hands, ultimately the control would lie in the hands of a small number of Japanese trading corporations which would leave us to be hewers of wood and carriers of water. That is the way it is with coal and base metals, and it is becoming that way with our forest products in the Province of British Columbia. As yet we would still have some opportunities if this Government would move to make sure that the fishing resource is developed in a fair and equitable way for fishermen on the coast of British Columbia and for the coastal communities. I thank the Hon. Member for that brilliant question.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Debate. The Minister of State (Youth).


Hon. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for their best wishes on the occasion of my recent appointment as Minister of State for Youth. 1 shall certainly need the co-operation of all Members, because I realize that the tools I have been given are not so many magic wands that will solve all the problems of young Canadian men and women in one fell swoop. However, with my usual determination, for which I am sometimes criticized, I intend to promote, in the course of my mandate, any formula that is likely to improve the circumstances of our young people and to simplify access to existing mechanisms, and, to put it in a nutshell, I intend to act more or less as a catalyst for hopes that are becoming increasingly closer to being realized. In response to wishes expressed by our young people on many occasions, and I am thinking of the Youth summits in Quebec City and St. John's, Newfoundland, and the national tour by the Department of the Secretary of State to prepare for International Youth Year, last year the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) decided that the voice of youth should make itself heard more often, not only in Cabinet but also within the federal administration, where I have been given specific responsibilities, together with the Minister of Employ-
February 6, 1984

ment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal). I shall also be making a pragmatic analysis of the present circumstances of young Canadian men and women and seeking ways of improving those circumstances as quickly and as satisfactorily as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a very important task. I will have to work very hard to meet the expectations of my colleagues in the House and those of our young Canadians. Since I am the first person to be appointed Minister of State for Youth in Canada, I realize that I am breaking new ground. I have a new perspective on the relationship between Canadian youth and the Government of Canada and also a new perception of the many government programs and policies that have been developed in the past. My fellow members cannot, of course, expect this new perception to be crystal clear at this stage. In fact, I shall try above all to ensure that the new ministry will be a reflection of our young people.

To this end, I will continue the consultations with young people, begun by the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal), in order to ensure that the Government of Canada is ever more accessible to young people, ever more directed by young people and their ideals, and ever more attuned to the new Canada they envision.
Although I hope to embrace the ideals of youth, I am not blind to the unhappiness which afflicts many young Canadians. It is easy for older people to hearken back to youth as a golden age in which the persistent worries of later life, the hectic pace, the decisions and defeats are blissfully unknown. In fact, youth is a time of transition and uncertainty as much as one of hope. Their worries centre on such vital problems as going to school or dropping out, choosing a career, getting married. They are worried about politics and the larger world; about whether there will be a world to inherit at all. And always, for today's youth, there is unemployment. In Canada, youth unemployment is far too high and combatting it is, therefore, this Government's priority.
We may take pride in the fact that the rate of employment growth in the second half of 1983 was nearly double that of the OECD average, which helped to account for the 378,000 jobs, seasonally adjusted, which were created in 1983. However, our youth have not been the main beneficiaries of this growth as economic recovery has taken hold. Young workers, following the rule that they are the first fired and the last hired, must continue to wait for job opportunities which will not only provide income but also the experience and training on which to build their careers. What is more, young people have suffered a loss of purpose and social contact. They do not have a job where they can make friends. All this has been at a huge social and financial loss to all Canadians. And the result, I am afraid, is that too many young people have lowered their expectations, have stopped searching for the future they want and have begun to settle for less.
The Address-Mrs. Hervieux-Payette
But my Ministry is rooted in the premise that a country's greatest resource is its people. Despite hard times, we find in Canada's youth the best of our ideals and the most powerful energies and beliefs. These characteristics will shape tomorrow's world and their impact will be felt sooner than we may think. Just yesterday it seems today's leaders were young and in school, anxious to change the world. Today, at the very brink of the responsibilities of their lifetime, young people await the challenges of the future.
These young people are as individual as they are numerous. Among them are women and men, natives, rich and poor. Many of them have already achieved much in their own right. Among them are sports stars who have made Canada's name known and respected throughout the world. Among them too are musicians, young entrepreneurs, skilled workers, students, writers, computer wizards and achievers in many other fields. They are the final argument against the "settle for less" attitude caused by economic hard times. They are our mainstay against the economic mediocrity which such attitudes could produce.
One of the immediate challenges I face as Minister of State for Youth is overseeing the participation of Canada in International Youth Year. The United Nations has devoted 1985 to young people and has established three themes: participaction, development, and peace, to provide a focus for activities.
The International Youth Year offers a unique opportunity to youth to involve themselves in a significant way in the discussion and resolution of issues which affect their lives. The year gives us a focus to continue to encourage the personal development of young people in the direction they choose, and to heighten their awareness of our increasingly interdependent world. It is also an opportunity to foster an improved international understanding and co-operation which young people in all countries seek.
I am approaching my responsibilities for the International Youth Year in the same way that I approach all other aspects of my Youth Ministry, with the emphasis on meeting, consulting and listening to the young people of our country, the International Youth Year offers us a special opportunity to raise public awareness of the situation of young people and the contribution they make to society. In my meeting with young people on this subject they have stressed how important their active involvement is in the planning of the year and the activities that will take place in Canada to mark it.
Young people have asked that the International Youth year be organized by them and for them, the role of the Government being to provide flexible support for their own initiatives. They also want the Youth year to bring about a change of attitude and approach in the dealings of the Government with them. I share the concerns and the hopes of young people for the year 1985.

February 6, 1984
The Address-Mrs. Hervieux-Payette
The themes of participation, development and peace will provide ample opportunity for integration with local, national and international activities. Indeed, as announced in the Throne Speech, the Government intends to tackle the problems of young Canadians during this session. The appointment of a Minister of State for Youth is therefore a mark of confidence in young people and of a deep interest in their problem, which are in fact the problems of all Canadian men and women, whatever their age. Young people must be given the chance to develop their talents and channel their energies in areas of their own choice. The Governments, the labour movement and the private sector can help them to make proper decisions and provide the assistance required to meet their objectives.
A while ago, Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the social and economic cost of youth unemployment. It is estimated that youth unemployment costs in the neighbourhood of $3 billion a year to the federal, provincial and municipal governments in unemployment insurance and welfare benefits, as well as in assistance programs during periods of high unemployment. On the other hand, recent research shows an increase in the number of admissions to psychiatric hospitals during times of recession and a decrease during periods of economic recovery. The same is true for alcohol and drug problems. These findings apply to the population as a whole, but even more so to young people.
I shall deal later on with the federal programs already available in the areas of work training and job creation, but I must say offhand that we need more than programs. We also need a nation that is more mindful, more understanding of, and better disposed towards young people. Our governments and all those responsible for hiring, including both the private sector and the non-profit organizations, must become still more aware of the special needs and problems of young people and embark on a genuine crusade on their behalf throughout the country. I fully intend to be at the forefront of such efforts, Mr. Speaker. As I said on the very day of my appointment, I also intend to listen carefully to young people, not only at meetings like the upcoming summit of young Quebecers which I am told will be held in Montreal in late March, but in all circumstances and individually whenever possible.
Mr. Speaker, one can speak for young people only after listening to them to understand fully their problems and their latest causes, to appreciate their difficulties and realize all the implications so as to be in a better position to find remedies or appropriate solutions. I commit myself to the service of all Canadian youths and, although I do not have magic or miracle solutions, I can promise them full and active co-operation.
I should like to mention briefly that, thanks to existing federal programs, our young people already have in 1984 the opportunity to participate actively in certain projects. I have in mind particularly the federal program to create student employment this summer for which SI70 million has been
earmarked, as announced in the last Speech from the Throne. As in the past, young people will be given an opportunity to submit projects based on original ideas likely to create challenging jobs and undertakings which will be useful to the community. In many instances those young people will be working in fields which will enable them to gain a sound experience for their future careers. I will have more to say about this later on, but for now I would like to emphasize that, in our economic system, the private sector has an even larger role to play when it comes to student employment. I take this opportunity to urge major companies as well as small and medium-size businesses in Canada to consider right away the possibility of hiring male and female students next summer. It stands to reason, Mr. Speaker, that I will give special consideration to young women, as required by the difficult conditions in which they often find themselves.

It is extremely important, Mr. Speaker, to give young people the skills they need to practise professions the nature and importance of which are rapidly changing in an era in which technological advances are revolutionizing the world economy. For this reason the National Training Program was set up pursuant to an Act that we passed in the House two years ago. It is based also on agreements with the Provinces and on the co-operation of private enterprise, labour unions and teaching institutions. This year alone Ottawa will allocate more than $1 billion to professional training.
A key element is to be able to predict which skills and professions will be in greatest demand in the next few years so that the education provided corresponds to the real needs of our economy. The goal, then, is to better plan Canada's human resources, especially its young resources. An important component of the program is the skills growth fund which is mainly used to upgrade the facilities to prepare people in highly specialized fields such as robotics, micro-computing and other areas of technological innovation.
In the 1984-85 fiscal year the Government of Canada will devote $1,197 billion to its training programs, which will benefit over 275,000 Canadians, nearly half of them young people. The success of our programs, however, will depend not only on governments, educational institutions and young people, but also on private enterprise. As Mr. David Slater, Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, pointed out in a speech delivered in Saskatoon on January 12, the private sector has an essential role to play in the training of human resources. Employers must take the first step in labour market development by clearly identifying areas in which workers with new or different types of skills are needed. Educational institutions must follow their lead by providing appropriate training. Encouraging employers to take this step will continue to be a priority of this Government in its ongoing consultations with business leaders.
I would like to return briefly to the Canadian Government's job creation programs in general, Mr. Speaker, and say a few words about those intended especially for young people. With
February 6, 1984

the additional amounts announced in the Speech from the Throne, the funds set aside for employment programs, including Canada Works and Summer Canada 1984, will total more than $1 billion. Of the $400 million in new funding for job creation announced in the Throne Speech, some $266 million will be directed toward job creation programs for young people. Some $100 million in job creation expenditures will be added to the popular Career-Access Program, which provides wage subsidies to private employers and will create jobs for new labour force entrants. To co-operate with the voluntary sector, the federal Government will provide $25 million in funding from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to lever in $60 million from the unemployment insurance fund, thereby creating jobs through Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Another $35 million, which is used to draw an additional $84 million from the unemployment insurance fund, has been added to the use of Section 38 to create private sector opportunities under the Canada Works Program. Overall, these new expenditures will mean that in 1984-85, some 300,000 young Canadians will be involved in federal Government job creation and training programs, and some 2.4 million will be using our employment services.

There is one sector to which I will pay particular attention in the coming months-young people, for whom summer employment federal programs have been increased to $170 million, enough to benefit 69,000 students. Most of those jobs, 41,000 to be precise, will be created under the Summer Canada 84 program of Canada Works. Then again I might mention many other federal programs for young people, particularly the one designed to come to the assistance of dropouts, and especially the Kitimavik Program which has been under the strong leadership of Senator Jacques Hebert and which in recent years has been of great benefit to young people, not only as a source of employment but also in terms of sound personality development and career apprenticeship. In short, it is a Canadian life experience program.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to advocate greater understanding of young people, their aspirations and their future outlook which is different from that of earlier generations. Indeed, young people do not necessarily want to upstage the world, but they do seek their place under the sun and oftentimes it means nothing more than a job. 1 fully disagree with those who say in certain circles that young people want to go too fast, that they want top management jobs the minute they start working, or that they just will not accept menial or restricting work. With very few exceptions, all young people are anxious to become active, productive and full-fledged citizens in a country which still remains one of the most prosperous and most civilized in the world. 1 am asking for only one thing: let us help them and let us listen to them!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: A ten-minute period is allowed for questions, answers or comments.
The Address-Mrs. Hervieux-Payette


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister on her first speech in the House related to youth. 1 think the sentiments are positive. I would like to thank her for reaching a reasonable agreement with the Calgary Olympic Committee and to express my disappointment with the Minister who followed her for wanting to change that agreement so substantially and in such negative ways.
In the area of youth unemployment and the funds allocated to youth, the sentiments expressed are positive. However, we on this side of the House have analyzed how the funds designated for Canada Works were allocated. Thirty-one per cent of the unemployed live in Conservative ridings, but only 16 per cent of the funds go into those ridings for the unemployed people there. Today in Question Period we raised the issue of the Special Employment Incentive Program. We suspect that 80 or 90 per cent of that $300 million goes to Liberal ridings. This creates first and second class unemployed citizens. If you live in a Liberal riding you are a first class unemployed person eligible for funds. I did an analysis of Cape Breton. There are $592 per unemployed person in Canada Works. There are $12.50 per year for unemployed persons in the City of Calgary.
I would like some assurance from this brand new Minister with a brand new responsibility that the funds dedicated to youth in this country will be distributed equitably to the youth of the country and that their distribution will not depend on how people voted in a riding. I want assurance that if you happen to be an unemployed youth in Calgary you will have access to employment funds on the same terms and conditions as will an unemployed youth in the Minister's own riding. Those funds must go across the country on the basis of the number of unemployed people. There must be no fancy formulas. They should be spread proportionately to the number of unemployed young people so that they really do have equal opportunity in the way that the Minister suggests she would like to see. Can we have the assurance today that that will be her pattern in the distribution of funds of that kind?


Céline Hervieux-Payette: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that the formula will apply very fairly across the country. My hon. colleague was mixing up Summer Canada and Canada Work Programs in general. We should recognize that the unemployment rate is higher in Cape Breton than it is now in Calgary. The formula applies equally across the country as far as Canada Works is concerned. As for Summer Canada, for which I will be responsible, I can assure the Hon. Member that the students will be treated fairly around the country.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Youth. We were told in April of 1983 that funding during the fiscal year 1983-84 would amount to $1.12 billion or $1.14 billion. In her comments this afternoon the Minister is still talking about the same amount

February 6, 1984
The Address-Mrs. Hervieux-Payette
of money. Could she indicate whether there is any new money in this program?


Céline Hervieux-Payette: Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague is referring to general programs. When we talk about an increase, we have in mind the increase concerning young people. That increase has been announced in the Speech from the Throne and the funds will indeed be available. Some $260 million have been added for young people alone.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, we do recognize the importance attached to youth in this country. I would once again draw to the Minister's attention that the former Minister of Employment and Immigration in April of last year, long before the Throne Speech, indicated that funding for youth programs during the fiscal year 1983-84 would in fact be $1.12 billion. On the basis of a rough calculation I find that her comments today seem to be dealing with about the same amount of money. So much importance is attached to youth unemployment in this country which is critical. It is highly critical among the black youth in my riding. Programs which were in place for black women and black youth have been withdrawn. Is there any new money or any programs that we are not aware of the implementation of which will bring in additional dollars? Is there any new money additional to the money announced by the former Minister in April of 1983?


Céline Hervieux-Payette: Mr. Speaker, I think I was very clear when I said that career access was increased by $100 million. This program already had a budget, of course. The Hon. Member should be differentiating between the job creation programs and the training programs. If we add all these together, the funding is much more than $2 billion. I can assure the Hon. Member that whether it is native youth, black youth, or any young persons from the minority groups, I will make sure that all general programs, not only those targeted at youth, will be used proportionately for the unemployed youth in this country. I will make sure that these programs are available to them and that the amount of money set aside, which is well over $2 billion, will be used for the youth fairly, making sure that they will have access to these programs.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: This is the question period.


David Berger: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to congratulate the Hon. Minister on her appointment and wish her success in her future undertakings. Opposition Members, especially the Progressive Conservative party, have often suggested that adding to our bureaucracy will not solve the problems of young Canadians. I wonder how the Minister would reply to this. Second, one of the proposals made by Members of this caucus, and particularly the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), was to create a mobile youth team which would call on the colleges, universities and youth clubs for the purpose of speaking about existing programs. Does the Minister plan to follow up on this idea?


Céline Hervieux-Payette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) for his question. He may be sure of one thing, the bureaucracy which will be responsible to me in the carrying out of my duties will certainly be as small as possible. I understand that the Secretary of State and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) have adequate resources which are at my disposal, and I must say that, at the present time, I am quite content to be working with these resources. We shall therefore have just a small co-ordinating team to make sure that the programs designed for young people both within the Secretary of State and the Department of Employment and Immigration and other Government agencies will be better co-ordinated.
As for the last part of the question which refers to the possibility of having a mobile team of young people within our government programs who would be helping other young people, that is one of the measures we are considering. It is a very attractive concept to have young people helping their contemporaries and informing them about government programs, and I also see how they could inform employers and volunteer organizations about the thousands of young people who are willing to work and be of service to society. If we can set up a government project that would not only direct young people to government programs but also get them involved in society as a whole, I think it would be very interesting alternative, and I can assure my hon. colleague that our ministry will give it careful consideration.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, as the new Minister realizes, there is a crisis in umemployment among youth in this nation today, with over 20 per cent of young people being unemployed. One of the remedies to which many young people have resorted is to try to go back for post-secondary education. At this time the Government has capped its funding for postsecondary educational institutions to 6 per cent last year and 5 per cent this year. This is retroactive legislation in the Bill that is presently before the House.
During this time of high unemployment, with universities facing cut-backs in services and universities and other postsecondary institutions considering limiting enrolment, could the Minister use her good offices to talk to the Minister of Finance and encourage more funding than the limited increases that are proposed in Bill C-12 for those institutions to make sure that there are places for young people next fall?


Céline Hervieux-Payette: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is not my role to correct my hon. friend's figures but the unemployment rate among youth is 18.5 per cent. I would not like to be over
February 6, 1984

pessimistic. It is 16 per cent for young women and 20 per cent for young men. I wish to make that clear.
As far as post-secondary education is concerned, if I felt that adding more money to the education system was a solution to the youth problem, I would gladly recommend that to the Government.
I was a former chairperson of a schoolboard which administered 12,000 students and provided the salaries of probably the highest paid teachers in the world. I am talking about Quebec. The Quebec Government reduced their salaries by 20 per cent. I believe that the reduction of salaries has been the trend throughout most of the country. Most of the Civil Service in the country was either cut back or went on the six and five program, which of course was providing relief and ensuring that the economy was rebuilding.
I would like to assure my hon. friend that post-secondary education is a matter of great importance to me, but I am not convinced at this point that adding money would provide more space and better quality to education.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment areas follows: the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy)- Atomic Energy Control Board-Regulations governing workers' safety-Request for public hearings. (b) Increase in permissible radiation level; the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse)-Agriculture-Exchange of plant generic resources; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-National Revenue-Retroactivity of tax demands.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Jack Burghardt for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to have this opportunity to speak today in reply to the Speech from the Throne, although I had hoped to have the opportunity some three years ago. I suppose one must ask oneself why a government would not bring in a new Speech from the Throne with new direction and new ideas each year as has been the traditional policy. It could be, as has been suggested, that it has taken this long for the Government
The Address-Mr. Bradley
to pass its Bills. With its abuse of the rule of closure, time is not its best argument. Possibly the Government recognized the state of the country but did not have any solutions and thus put off its embarrassment. It might be quickly pointed out that this is not true-just look at all the different proposals in the Throne Speech. If the Government had so many ideas, then why did we not see a Throne Speech last year or the year before in order to give the country direction or at least some hope of direction?
The fact is that many measures have been included in the Speech from the Throne, but it has been presented at this time for only one reason, that is, the lowly position of the Liberal Party in the polls so close to an election. I believe that John Bulloch, President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, was right on when he said:
It is a good thing cats and dogs do not vote or there would be something there for them too.
This Throne Speech is a shotgun reaction, with No. 9 shot.
I am just a rural riding boy from along the quiet shores of Lake Erie. I look at my riding and ask myself what is in this Throne Speech for my constituents. I would like to take a few minutes to reflect on my constituency. It is a beautiful area located in southern Ontario, running close to 100 miles along the north shore of Lake Erie. It is a true mosaic. We are blessed with a diversification of soil types, crop production, vegetation, occupations and ethnic origin. Haldimand-Norfolk is basically a rural riding with a gentle mix of industry. We boast of the new Stelco Lake Erie works. We have the Texaco Refinery, the Ontario Hydro Nanticoke plant, American Can, IMC, ERCO and many more large and small enterprises.
Our soil type and agriculture vary greatly from east to west. We have a strong traditional mix of dairy cattle, grains, beans, tobacco, eggs, beef, pork, chicken, turkey, apples, tender fruit, vegetables and even peanuts. We have a major freshwater fishing fleet which, along with related fish processors and marine industries, support two ports in the riding.
This mosaic is further enhanced by the inhabitants. There are people with British, Dutch, Hungarian, German, Belgian, Polish, Ukrainian, Portugese, Greek and other etchnic backgrounds who work side by side. The people of Haldimand-Norfolk are a proud people. Many are decendants of those who pioneered this country. All are hoping and praying for a good and productive life for their children.
I have told you of my area so you can see that we are average Canadians, proud Canadians from many walks of life. Just like any part of this great land, our concerns and hopes are very simple: health and prosperity for ourselves, our children and our country. But we look in vain for guidance from the Government.
These are difficult times. Granted, the Government cannot be expected to have all the answers. I admit that there are many issues in the Throne Speech that I like and would like to support. On behalf of my constituents I will readily support any program that creates jobs, aids our seniors or protects our social programs. However, there is only mention of some good

February 6, 1984
The Address-Mr. Bradley
programs. The skeleton is there but there is very little flesh on the skeleton.
I have looked for measures that will help us in Haldimand-Norfolk. I see reference to Canada's role in seeking world peace and I applaud the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) actions. 1 respect his actions which demonstrate obvious concern. We all want peace.
Countless Canadians gave their lives so we could have peace. Because of those who died to preserve peace, I was allowed to serve my country in the Armed Forces for 18 years without having to fire a shot in anger. I want peace. I am sure the Chief of Staff of Canada's Armed Forces wants peace.
I would rather that we did not have to test the Cruise Missile in Canada, but I honour our commitment to our NATO allies. I would prefer if the Cruise and Pershing II missiles did not have to be deployed, but I recognize the need to negotiate from strength. I support the Prime Minister's actions in this area of peace. Actually, it is nice to be able to agree with him, but I hope he still maintains that disarmament must be bilateral and mutually verifiable.
I also support the Throne Speech policy that Canada continue to fulfill its obligation to NATO. I would also like to see mention made of steps being taken to return our forces to more distinct uniforms along with other confidence building measures. Let us return pride and respect to our forces.
I see reference in the Throne Speech to direct action to create jobs. It also states that "a large portion of the government's job-creation expenditure will be devoted to unemployed youth". The Government also stated in the Throne Speech that, "Using reallocated and new resources a $1 billion Youth Opportunity Fund will assist young Canadians in acquiring new skills and finding jobs in the private, voluntary and public sectors". It also stated that a Minister of State for Youth will be appointed.
I applaud the appointment of a Minister responsible for youth. I do so because youth unemployment has increased from 13.6 per cent in 1980 to 18.5 per cent. I do so because there are 313,000 fewer young Canadians working today than in 1980 and because current unemployment among youth stands at more than 534,000.
Flowever, the youth opportunity fund of $1 billion is another slice of pie. The smoke and mirrors are back. Of the $1 billion, some $750 million is committed to existing programs already under way. They are going to be shifted, dusted off and renamed. In reality there will only be some $250 million of new money, slightly more than the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) added to his budget with a stroke of a pen when the famous leak occurred. The facts, Mr. Speaker, are that on April 19, 1983, the then Minister of Employment announced in a press release that the Government would spend $1,123 billion on youth job-creation this year, that is, 1983-1984. So what is this $1 billion program? Nothing new and $123 million short. We just heard of new programs announced by the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette). I applaud those announcements. We will be waiting anxiously
for the details to see where that $1,123 billion on youth job-creation is put.
Why do we not create a worthwhile and realistic Armed Forces youth program? Why not take our youth into our Armed Forces voluntarily for a period of 18 months to two years? Why not give our youth basic military training and give them a trade, teach them a trade that has been designated by Departments and by the private sector? Our young people could sign on for three to five years in our reserves to accomplish that. Then we could increase our reserves, supply employment for our youth, increase our NATO responsibilities and commitments and provide the skills and trades necessary in this country. We have committees that have decided such a move in necessary, both in the House and in the Senate. As far as Canada's reserves are concerned, let us support them.
There is a reference in the Throne Speech to small business, Mr. Speaker. It reads:
Small scale entrepreneurs are the unsung hereoes of the recovery. Small businesses are a perpetual source of inventiveness, valuable export earnings, and vast job-creation potential. To assist this sector, an expanded Shop Canadian program will be launched. Access to federal programs for small businesses will be improved using the Federal Business Development Bank for delivery.
Sounds good, or does it? No one will doubt the first two sentences, that small scale entrepreneurs are the unsung heroes of the recovery, and that small businesses are a perpetual source of inventiveness, valuable export, earnings and vast job-creation portential. Mr. Speaker, small business was in the front trenches of the recession. In 1982 alone 80,000 small businesses closed their doors for reasons ranging from retirement to receivership. But we find the phrase, "to assist this sector an expanded Shop Canadian program will be launched".
What kind of program is that to assist small business, another government throw-money-at-advertising program? Some Liberal advertising firm must be in financial trouble and in need of a boost. What about the statement, "Access to federal programs for small businesses will be improved using federal business development bank for delivery"? What are the action words, Mr. Speaker, "access to" and "improved"? Small business has been down that road before. Where is the promise of incentive so badly needed?
Small business people do not want handouts, Mr. Speaker. They want incentives and demand. They want to expand and grow because they are needed, not because money was thrown at them to create short-term jobs in order to qualify a person for unemployment insurance. The Government's priorities are wrong. Give small business a need to expand, a reason to be confident in the future and it will create the new jobs, permanent jobs.
I looked closely for other rays of light, Mr. Speaker. I found some hope for tourism in the following mention:
Tourism is a source of income for hundreds of thousands of Canadians and is particularly important to the small business sector. A national tourism strategy, developed in co-operation with the industry and the provinces, will promote each
February 6, 1984

region's special features. Canada's attractions will be aggressively marketed, both at home and abroad, and especially in the United States.
Initiatives to assist tourism are welcome. However, the major problem facing the Canadian tourism industry at the present time is that of cost. With the exception of a non-committal statement on air fares, this is not addressed in the Throne Speech. For example, before the September increase in the excise tax on alcohol, the cost of liquor to restaurants in New York State was equal to only three-quarters of the cost to Ontario restaurants.
Gasoline prices are higher in Canada than in the United States, almost double, providing east-west travellers with an incentive to travel through the United States rather than through Canada. Government decisions are often made without regard to their implication on the travel industry. More must be done in this area to be realistic.
I did find an interesting point, Mr. Speaker in the following statement:
Legislation will be introduced to confirm the tax incentives for research and development announced in the April Recovery Budget.
I would rather it had been produced and debated last April, following the budget. But, better now than never. Let the Government bring it on. I am pleased to see the Government again "intends to seek a Canada-Japan auto agreement for the benefit of both countries". And guess what, Mr. Speaker? The Via Rail System will be upgrated. I remember not too long ago when the Government insisted it had to cut VIA. 1 remember our task force and its finding of a need for VIA. The Liberal Government cut VIA anyway. It is nice to see the Government can have a change of heart now and then.
I am in favour of the "environment 2000" concept coupled with additional funding for forestry research and development. Forestry is a renewable resource which we must protect and develop. I only hope seedlings can be found. In future maybe the Government should ensure the resources are available before the project is commenced.
There is a paragraph that reads:
Part time work is a growing trend. Consultations on pension rights and fringe benefits for the part-time work force will be undertaken with provincial Governments, labour and business.
I applaud that statement, Mr. Speaker. However, consultations are not enough. We have reports and we have recommendations. What we need is action directed toward equality for the part-time worker.
The Canada Health Act which has been introduced in the House by the Minister is mentioned here. I am strongly in favour of our medicare system in Canada and 1 also hope we can maintain its universality, without user fees and extra billing. In fact, I hope we will even be able to expand it further into necessary areas. But I remind the Minister that all of this can only be done with adequate federal funding, real commitment on her behalf, and co-operation with the Provinces.
It looks as though there may be some hope for mortgage interest protection for home owners and some attention given to the need for long-term farm, fishing and small business
The Address-Mr. Peterson
financing. I await more information on these programs, Mr. Speaker, to see whether the offer mentioned in passing in this speech is actually forthcoming.
There is reference to bankruptcy legislation for farmers, and I quote:
High interest rates have taken a substantial toll among businesses, and especially among farmers, revealing important weaknesses in our bankruptcy laws. Revisions will be sought to increase the flexibility of these laws to introduce a system of pre-bankruptcy arbitration for farmers, and to give greater protection to the wages of workers.
I await that as well, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to point out that this will be the sixth bankruptcy Bill introduced by this Government in the last nine years. The Bankruptcy Act has been on and off the Order Paper since 1974, when the Prime Minister made an election promise for its introduction. Previous Bills include C-60, S-l 1, S-14, S-9, and C-19.
There were a few good ideas in the Throne Speech. I have tried to look at them positively. I am concerned, as I said earlier, that they are just that, ideas, skeletons without flesh. I look forward to actual presentation in the House. I must admit though, Mr. Speaker, I fear all we will see is the smoke and mirror items before a possible election, with the remainder hanging in the air again as election promises, just as we have seen so often in the past, along with capital gains, tax exeption for farmers and cheap gasoline. If this Government really wanted to do something for agriculture, it could introduce the capital gains exemption, allow agri-bonds to be developed by the Farm Credit Corporation and remove taxes from gasoline and other energy products used in the agri-food industry.
Canada does not need such phrases in the Throne Speech as: reallocated resources, assist in finding jobs, flexible use of UIC funds, planning consultation, negotiations are under way, will be planned in co-operation with, moved to facilitate establishment of, intends to seek, additional attention will be given, consultation will be undertaken. What we need is concrete actions and directions from this Government, not more promises.
The country has lost confidence in this Government. This Speech from the Throne, even with its few good ideas, will not regain that confidence. Once you have lost confidence, it cannot be easily regained, if at all.
I see my time is just about up. In closing, I call on the Government to go to the people, call for a new mandate, not on this Throne Speech of smoke and mirrors but issues based on concrete proposals, and allow the electorate of this country to pass judgment on its past actions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There is a ten-minute period for questions, answers, comments.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words. It is important, I say in particular to the Hon. Member who preceeded me, that we look back a little bit before we look ahead to see if we have in fact been a Government that has been more thought or
1118

February 6, 1984
The Address-Mr. Peterson
concept-oriented than a Government that has been action-oriented. That is the complaint he made.
When I look back over the previous four years, I see a Government that has been committed to making major legislative changes in spite of the fact that unanimous consensus has not always been there, a Government that has been prepared to make very difficult decisions which affect Canadians perhaps differently in one part of the country than another.
The first major task that we undertook as a Government was to look at our energy situation and to develop a comprehensive energy policy, the National Energy Program. This was not done without some controversy. We realize that it upset some of the balances that had been there, but in terms of what it accomplished, bringing in a greater portion of this vital industry under Canadian control, having a made in Canada price for consumers and in terms of off-oil subsidies program, we achieved a great deal. We are now in a position where we are not as concerned about supply as we were about four years ago. The supply situation is looking after itself.
Let us look at another area that caused a great deal of controversy, namely, the Charter of Rights. There are those in this House today who rose and said: "You should not have a Charter. Legislators can better look after individual human rights and freedoms than can the courts. Leave it in the hands of the elected representatives. Don't give individuals rights which they themselves can assert in the courts of law." They were talking about equality rights based on sex, religion, country of origin and language, matters that are fundamental to the essence of an individual's concept of his nation. We acted in that area even though we did not have unanimous consent, particularly from the Official Opposition. I am glad Canadians now have a Charter of Rights. That is probably one of the most important long-term contributions which this House could have made to the quality of life of every individual Canadian.
Another major area where we did not have unanimous consent but where we acted was with respect to western transportation. We knew that bottlenecks were coming. We knew that fundamentally western producers had to be able to get their product to market.
There were many who said that to touch the sacrosanct Crow rate was politically stupid, but fundamental changes had to be made. We decided it was more important that the farmers have a way of exporting their grains than to preserve the rate which had been in effect from the late 1900s. I hope that that Crow rate change will resolve itself through the consultative practice that is going on and that any problems which might have arisen can be dealt with in the manner prescribed by the Minister. Please do not tell us that this is a Government that has not had the courage to act.
We are now out of the recession by 14 to 15 months. Inflation is down to its lowest since 1972, at 4.2 per cent. I want to say to all of those in the public sector who had their inomes specifically indexed, and who some feel bore the major brunt of this, that their contribution is appreciated. I say to those who voluntarily came into line that their contribution is
greatly appreciated as well. To those whose incomes have not gone up at all or who have had to take cuts due to the change in the competitive structure in Canada, I say that their contribution to productivity and to controlling inflation has been most important.
Interest rates are about half of what they were at their all-time high. We have to ensure that interest rates do not go up in the future and strangle the recovery which is upon us. This means that we will have to work assiduously to try to control deficits, particularly where the spending is not perceived as being a national priority.
Unemployment, unfortunately, is at a totally unacceptable high level, exceeding 11 per cent. This is not a situation which we as Canadians can live with comfortably. It is our major preoccupation to bring about ways of dealing with this issue, an issue which is really of a crisis nature to those who do not have jobs. In the Budget of April 19, 1983, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) took very positive steps to try to deal with this issue. More than $4.8 billion through Special Recovery Capital Projects and through tax incentives to the private sector to help it become competitive and to create new jobs was put to the task of dealing with unemployment and creating new jobs for Canadians. Despite the fact that unemployment remains unacceptably high, our record at job creation is unparalleled in the industrialized world. More than 350,000 new jobs have been created in the past 12 months. If we look at our record from 1970 to 1983, we have 50 per cent more jobs in Canada in the latter year than we had at the start of that period. Again this is an unparalleled record in the industrialized world, particularly when we compare our record with that of West Germany, for example, which has actually suffered over that time a 2 per cent decline in the number of jobs.
What are our challenges in building a strong economy which will create even more jobs and give Canadians the type of economic future for which we have to work? I believe there are two keys to it-first is the new technologies which will make us productive, and second is exports. If I had two keys which I could turn to make the economy stronger and create those jobs, it would be the new technologies and an export-oriented Canadian economy.
Let us look at our present situation with respect to the new technologies. Canada is about the third most productive nation in the world today in terms of output per worker, but the increase in our rate of productivity has fallen dramatically. One way to get that productivity gain up to levels where it would be competitive again is by having new technologies brought into common use by the Canadian worker, Canadian manufacturer and Canadian producer. To me the key to this is, in large measure, research and development.
Research and development is not dispersed and utilized by enough firms in Canada today. There are only about 1,000 firms in Canada which do any research and development. Twenty-five firms out of that thousand do 50 per cent of it, and 100 of them do 75 per cent of it. More and more firms,
February 6, 1984

particularly small businesses, have to become involved in research and development. Our goal as a Government was 1.5 per cent of GNP being devoted to R and D by 1985. We will surpass that target. 1 suggest that perhaps we were overly pessimistic in reaching that target of 1.5 per cent, but I am glad the Budget of the Minister of Finance of last year took major steps in dealing with these particular issues.
For example, a $10 million federal expenditure for a national centre for productivity and employment growth was announced. Just a few days ago we saw the birth of that institute headed by Shirley Carr and Tom d'Aquino, two outstanding individuals in their own fields. This is the type of co-operation we have sought so long between labour and business, between the private sector and government. I hope we will be ushering in a new era of co-operation where all sectors that go together to make up the Canadian economy realize that we have much to lose if we do not work together but much to gain if we work in harmony, if we discuss our objectives and are on a common track. I congratulate the Hon. Donald Macdonald for this idea and for the implementation of it. 1 also congratulate the Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Lumley).
There is also a commitment to new research and training facilities and an increased awareness of the role of government procurement in helping with the new technologies and new technology policy initiatives amounting to an extra $100 million. More important-and this is the key to any type of recovery because it gives incentives where they can best be used, that is, in the private sector-are the tax incentives. Prior to the last Budget the tax incentives made available in Canada for research and development in the private sector were the most generous of the industrialized world. What did we do in that Budget, however? We increased those incentives to the private sector. The 50 per cent incremental deduction for R and D was enhanced by taking it away and replacing it with a new type of tax credit that goes from 20 per cent to 30 per cent for small business. In addition, we have the eligible loss carryovers which have been extended. New firms which want to get into research and development can actually sell to investors their unused tax credits. We have created a tax shelter concept for R and D, placing it among our national priorities in terms of development initiatives.
I am confident that these tax measures will go a long way toward convincing Canadians that R and D and the introduction of new technologies are critical and worthwhile for them in terms of their future economic success because, we will not have a recovery which is led only by governments. The cutting edge and the body of it will always be the role and the policies adopted by the private sector. Our role as a Government is to create the climate under which they can flourish.
In making these statements I believe it is also important to recognize the structural situation in Canada. Much of our enterprise is controlled from abroad. This is one of the reasons the high level of R and D we want to see take place in Canada has not necessarily come about. We have become importers of technology rather than developers and exporters of it. In
The Address-Mr. Peterson
making a comment about foreign-based multinationals, one recognizes that obviously there are business reasons for concentrating R and D in one centre. That is usually the home country, the foreign nation. We also have to recognize that Canadians will always be slaves to the developers of foreign technology if we do not develop our own capacities here in Canada. There is a way we can co-operate with the multinationals. It is not to cut them off, as the NDP would say. It is not to welcome them holus-bolus, without any strings attached, as the Tories would say. It is to use in a constructive way our FIRA provisions so that we gain an economic opportunity to do the R and D here in Canada. We can do that in co-operation with foreign multinationals, if they are prepared to engage in world product mandating-producing goods here in Canada for export to every other country in the world. If a multinational is coming into the country to take advantage only of a branch plant economy and to produce all other goods on a very reduced scale for Canadian consumption, there will never be large production runs, productivity increases or the efficiency of economies of scale we could get from world product mandating. With world product mandating will come more R and D in these particular areas. That is one of our great challenges in the times ahead.
I believe the Speech from the Throne took a constructive path in setting forth a number of objectives and ways in which we will become even more outward looking, not focused on our own small economy but focused on the tremendous potential of our productive capacity. We must be prepared to look at world markets and to compete in the tough world.
Let me list some of our achievements. We have the national microelectronics design network; increased funding for NSERC; the office of industrial innovation; steps taken toward an agreement with Japan for more Canadian content and additional production facilities in Canada; co-operation with the private sector for it to set up task forces that will report to us on problems with certain industries; opportunities in industries such as automotive, aerospace, forest and petrochemicals. I am pleased-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. The time allotted to the Hon. Member has expired. There will be a question period of 10 minutes.


Mr. Wright:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to some of the things that the Hon. Member for Willowdale just said. He thought we should look back before we look ahead, and he mentioned the made in Canada price of gasoline. He quoted from the 1980 Speech from the Throne as follows:
My ministers do not intend to impose an 18-cent increase in the excise tax on transportation fuels, and the made in Canada price will result in a lower price to consumers than the one proposed in the budget of the previous administration.
Since that time the price of gasoline has risen by more than $1 per gallon, the price of heating fuel has doubled, and in the United States gasoline prices are approximately 60 cents per gallon lower than they are in Canada. Does the Hon. Member

February 6, 1984
The Address-Mr. Peterson
think that this made in Canada price of the Liberal Government was a good choice?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright) neglects to look at the situation which existed in 1980. At that time shortages appeared to be imminent and critical. Of every dollar earned on oil and gas, 45 per cent went to the provinces, 45 per cent to the producer and only 10 per cent to the federal Government. This was way out of whack. Even people in the private sector said that the federal Government deserved a bigger share of the energy pie.
I make no apology for trying to redo that balance to a certain extent. The Hon. Member should realize that by far the biggest share of the tax revenue included in the price at the pump is the result of provincial taxes.


William Herbert Jarvis: No it is not.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: He should also realize that much of the revenue that was generated from actual production is being plowed back into finding new reserves in Canada through incentives given to Canadian controlled private programs.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member praises the National Energy Program. That is incredible. Does he not know that four years later Canadian companies and oil companies generally produced less oil on any given day than they did four years ago? We are going backwards.


Mr. Gauthier:: We don't use as much.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: In the City of Calgary, the centre of the oil industry in Canada, there is a 21 per cent office vacancy rate, a 15 per cent vacancy rate in rental accommodation, and an unemployment rate higher than the national average. When the National Energy Program was brought in, Calgary had the most buoyant economy in the country. It was a city on the move, building for Canada and buying products from eastern Canada.
Could the Hon. Member tell us how many jobs were lost in the riding of Willowdale as a result of the National Energy Program and how many jobs were lost in Ontario? When I read the National Energy Program I stood in this House and said that Canadians would lose 300,000 jobs. I was wrong, Mr. Speaker; four years later 514,000 jobs had been lost, most of which are traceable to the disaster called the National Energy Program.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is rubbish.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It chased capital out of the country. Can the Hon. Member tell us how many jobs were lost in his riding and in the Province of Ontario because of the National Energy Program? Is he proud of that record?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it amazes me that someone with the Hon. Member's background who has studied the international situation very carefully should ignore the fact that the price projected by OPEC to continue spiralling, has been cut back. The price is now around $29, but the Party opposite
thought it was going to be $45 or $42. These were the projections in the 1979 Budget brought down by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). There has been a cut-back in world production in many areas. In Houston, there are over 45 million square feet of unoccupied office space. Prices did not continue to skyrocket as we had anticipated but the consumer has benefited from that.
The Hon. Member spoke of the quantity produced. What we sought under the National Energy Program was self-sufficiency, and we are now self-sufficient in oil and have about 100 years of gas reserves ahead. I should like to see it exported and if Hon. Members opposite have any bright ideas on how we could make better use of it, I should like to hear them. We are asking Canadians to switch from oil to gas. Canadian producers with gas based feed stock will be given a much greater advantage in Canada than is enjoyed in many other parts of the world. This is the type of program that will increase our productivity and ensure that energy is working for the benefit of consumers as well as producers.


Frederick William Wright: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Hon. Member for Willowdale why his Party voted against the sale of natural gas to the United States.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) has been doing a tremendous job of trying to open up international markets. He has been trying to find a place where the gas can be sold. If anyone has a better idea about how that can be done he or she should come and work with us instead of carping. This is not a matter for cheap partisan politics but is something that we should work on together for the benefit of the producers who want to find markets. If Hon. Members Opposite have constructive ideas about how to sell gas abroad, they should come and work with us. That is the responsibility of a Member of Parliament.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that the oil and gas sector was the largest single consumer of trucks of any sector in the Canadian economy. He will also know that he and I represent a province where the majority of secondary manufacturing in automobile parts is located. Do I understand the Hon. Member correctly when he said that the purchase of such companies as Petrofina and British Petroleum have a higher priority in the interest of Canadians as compared to the protection of those jobs in the automobile parts sector of Ontario?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I believe I would have to adjust my hearing aid or else have the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) adjust his because I do not believe I made any such statement at all. If the point he is trying to make is that we need jobs in Ontario, then I want him to reflect on what types of jobs. Are they jobs which are going to enhance our productivity? Are they jobs which are going to give us a real increase in our standard of living? If they are, then they will have to be jobs which are oriented to providing goods or services, and probably both, which are competitive on a world basis.
February 6, 1984

1 applaud the Throne Speech because of its emphasis on small business. A very constructive way we are going to be doing this is in the area of tourism. I am delighted initiatives which have been taken by the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Smith) in bringing to world knowledge the extent of our tremendous tourist facilities here in Canada, and the tremendous opportunities which he has opened up through these programs which were announced in the Throne Speech. We are going to have to look for-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. The time for questions has expired. Debate.


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour for me to participate for the first time in debate upon the Speech from the Throne. Yet while this may be the first time, I speak in full anticipation that it will be the last time for many sessions that I shall do so from this side of the House. Not even the masterful dissertation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the Throne Speech before the Christmas recess will save it or his Government from the well deserved obscurity which awaits them after the election. Indeed, the Speech has already faded from public attention. It has already gone to join the legions of broken promises, failed expectations, understatements, misstatements and miscalculations by this Government which have preceded it.
Today the people of Canada want fact, not fiction. They want to know what is going on over at Revenue Canada. They want to know where all the jobs which were promised are. They want to see for themselves the industrial strategies which will keep us competitive and productive in a fast changing world. What they do not need, Mr. Speaker, or want, is another lecture on how this Government is in control, how it will pull us back from the brink of ruin and disaster caused by a bankruptcy of policy and spirit. The people of Canada, the voters of this country, know only too well the causes of the failures. They are all too obvious.
That is not to say, Mr. Speakre, that we on this side of the House find all of the Speech objectionable. Clearly we join in applauding the initiatives and objectives of the Prime Minister on behalf of world peace. We can even applaud the efforts of the Ministers to resolve difficulties with medicare and postsecondary education funding, even if the Government is only fulfilling existing obligations under the Established Programs Financing Act. We shall overlook that the $500 million allocated for the task was made to appear as new money. It is, after all, a rare event when this Government lives up to any of its commitments.
However, there is little to applaud in a document which stands as a blueprint upon which the Government of Canada intends to govern during the current session. As a proposition that the Government has earned the right to govern beyond the next election, it is completely devoid of support. Does the Government really not realize that this time too many Canadians know the truth, the real truth? Not enough of our citizens will forget what was said and promised in the past. We might do well to remember in this year of 1984 that George Orwell
The Address-Mrs. Cossitt
wrote, "Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past". No one can believe that what we have seen over the past four years, no matter how big the deception, is a Government in control of anything. Do the 514,000 more unemployed Canadians today than there were in 1980 believe that these are the people who will get them back to work? We have a $70 billion increase in our national debt, a debt upon which we now spend $17 billion a year in interest payments alone, one and a half times what we will have spent on unemployment insurance benefits in 1983. Does this inspire faith that this Government can direct and run our economy? Does the singlehanded derailment of our oil and gas industry, and with it the once achieveable goal of energy self-sufficiency in this decade, or the gross miscalculation, negligence and sheer incompetence which passes for management in some of our key Crown corporations such as Canadair inspire this faith? These are the points and issues a responsible Government which believes in public accountability would admit to before it asked one more time for the confidence of the electorate.
This Throne Speech is an election document. There is no mistaking it, and it is one of the worst sort. It is one which distorts, when it does not blithely gloss over the past. From this Government that is to be expected. What is more astonishing to me, however, is its almost complete lack of vision. As a reasonable and realistic blueprint for our future, even more than as an honest and factual record of the past, it is a failure. If the Government was sincere in its consideration of what lies ahead for our economy and our society-beyond the next election, that is-then surely there would have been within the Speech more than mere passing references to the issues upon which our future prosperity and success must be founded. Critical elements of our economy such as small business and tourism, and key aspects in restructuring to meet the challenges of the future, research and development, youth training, re-education and skills upgrading, were dealt with in most instances in one short paragraph.
The issue of productivity was one of the few issues upon which the Government lavished any reasonable attention. We must, I suppose, be thankful that it has finally recognized both the problems and the importance to our economy of increased productivity.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) in his speech spoke with great eloquence of the need to restore productivity and the reasons why we have failed to maintain or even to increase pre-1974 levels. He spoke of the need to approach the matter in a spirit of co-operation, to re-establish the appreciation of labour and its dignity. Government, in conjunction with management and labour, can find ways and means to increase productivity by answering the causes which are holding it back. Productivity will not come about simply with awards, medals and ribbons. Were that the case, the industrial base of the Soviet Union, with its heroes of labour, would not be as chronically inefficient and non-productive as it is.
Productivity, Mr. Speaker, comes from dignity and satisfaction in work. It comes from pride, craftsmanship and achieve-

February 6, 1984
The Address-Mrs. Cossitt
ment. It comes from the knowledge of continuity and security in one's works. It comes from the feeling deep within all of us that we are doing something with our lives, that we have a purpose, and with our ability and intelligence and, yes, our faith in ourselves and our society, we can build something worthwhile. We can improve and hand on to our children something better than we ourselves inherited. This is the spirit of human progress. It is the spirit which founded and built this great country from its earliest explorers and settlers to the present day. We stand for something, we citizens from many lands and walks of life who can be proud to call ourselves Canadians in any language. To much of the world we still symbolize a rugged land of vast beauty and potential, a land of forests and mountains, plains and lakes, a land of farmers, loggers and miners who put food on the table and fuel the world's industrial base.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) can tell this House how many hundreds of thousands seek from all over the world to enter Canada each year.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to the Hon. Member who is speaking, but obviously on the government side of the House there is much too much disorder and talking. I believe you should call them to order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guiibault):: The point is well taken. When a Member has the floor, all Members are requested to show some decency and respect.


Jennifer Cossitt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also express my appreciation to my colleague from Churchill.
As I was saying, the Minister of Employment and Immigration can tell the House how many want to come and enter Canada each year, even though I am sure this is only a small number of those who do want to enter Canada. Yet, of all those thousands, perhaps millions, who still clamour to come and share in the dream of working and supporting themselves and their families, how many would still do so if they knew they would be ruled by a Government which has consistently whittled away at that tradition of independence and initiative, and which has made rules and regulations more important than industry and enterprise? I am not sure which is worse, the neglect they would leave behind in their impoverished homelands or the benign neglect which awaits them here.
What has happened to that sense of optimism about our future, that ideal that there would always be a job for every Canadian who wants one, that if you have a good idea you can make it grow and prosper? What has happened to it is that the Government got into the act with both feet. Government always had a better idea, more resources available, and slowly but surely that individual drive and initiative, the hallmark of our economy, has been eroded.
The young Canadian of today enters the labour force with little if any of the sense of continuity, security and achievement that was traditionally part of his or her heritage. Yet they too have dreams and aspirations. Are we simply to say
that they shall no longer dream, that they shall no longer have those aspirations-yet another regulation to be obeyed? Is there no antidote to the fear and uncertainty which is increasing as the workplace undergoes technological transformation?
I believe we must not only overcome those very real and very human doubts about technological change, but in the process we can recapture that spirit, that ethic of work and pride and achievement. Through that, and only through that, we will recapture our productivity no matter the product or the process or the machine. But how? Not with medals or more reports and task forces on technology and microelectronics. We have had more than enough of those to know what the problem is. It is now time to work on a solution. We must begin to build a structure which really will deliver lasting employment for all Canadians wanting work. Training and retraining and re-education mechanisms must be created capable of re-directing perhaps as many as four million Canadians who, over the next several years, will see their traditional work skills become obsolete. Before 1990, over one million women alone will either become unemployed or move down into the unskilled job ghettos if we do not create a system capable of retraining and placing them in the new higher skilled jobs as they develop.
According to the Science Council of Canada, an organization chaired by a gentleman of the most impeccable Liberal credentials, Dr. Stuart Smith, we must eventually commit a full 5 per cent of our GNP annually to re-education and retraining. Only with such an expenditure can we hope to remain competitive, provide the jobs Canadians will need, and the skills needed to get the work done. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the Throne Speech which shows the Government has any awareness of the magnitude of the challenge facing us. It talks about competitive, world class industry, and yet the commitment to R and D remains the same 1.5 per cent of GNP the Government has been trying and failing to reach for years. Even if it does now finally reach it, how long is 1.5 per cent going to keep our industry world class competitive when our major adversaries have targets of 2 per cent and 2.5 per cent and even 3 per cent? Or when a country such as France, with a technological trade deficit of $330 million in 1981, is aiming for a surplus of $6.7 billion by 1990, while our 1980 technological deficit of $1 billion is expected to rise to $5 billion by 1985? We are constantly falling behind.
In the last federal Budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) boosted direct Government expenditure on R and D to $635 million per annum. Again, according to the Science Council of Canada, the Swedish Government was spending $1.2 billion per annum directly on R and D back in 1980 when this Government took office. The Netherlands spends only marginally less than we do on only slightly more than half our gross domestic product. Is this our answer to world class competition? It is no use talking about potential sales of $20 billion from Bell Hellicopters and Pratt & Whitney, not when we know what happened to all those potential sales over at Canadair.
February 6, 1984

The Government has had almost four years in which to prepare for this Speech from the Throne. There should be more to our future economic strategy than potential sales, potential markets and potential jobs. We do not need the additional task forces planned, we do not need any more conferences such as the Canada Tomorrow extravaganza which the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston) hosted last fall, which spent $500,000 but almost ignored the key issues of worker displacement and what may happen to women's employment. What we do need is to make that potential a reality now. What we need is leadership and decision making now. We are already lagging further and further behind our competitors thanks to the failures of this Government. We should not miss the boat altogether.
It is one thing to have what the Throne Speech calls an "aggressive trade drive", something I welcome and endorse wholeheartedly. It is something we should have had years and years ago. After all, we have known of our weakness in foreign markets long enough, especially in the Pacific rim. But if we do not have products to sell and people to design and make them, then the most aggressive trade drive in the world will be stalled in neutral.
Tourism, however, is a product we do have to sell and one, thanks to the federal Government, we have been selling rather poorly for years. In 1972 we had 4.9 per cent of the international tourism market. Today, our share is only 2.7 per cent. In 1972 Canadians spent $260 million more outside Canada on tourism than foreigners spent here. This year that deficit is expected to reach $2 billion. Were that $2 billion to be spent here, it would mean over 100,000 more jobs and an extra $1 billion in revenue for government. So I heartily applaud the Throne Speech's six-line acknowledgement that this $16.5 billion a year industry, which employs over 10 per cent of the paid labour force, does in fact exist. Let us hope that the national tourism strategy will work and will create more jobs. Let us not simply look to the industry, as the Government did in the last budget when it increased excise taxes, as a source of instant revenue. Let us hope this time the Government will see tourism as one of the essential cornerstones, as it is, of our future prosperity, and, for once, live up to its word and give the support it has promised.
That, of course, is a problem we have had with every Throne Speech, every budget, every election platform and promise that comes from this Government. The Liberals simply do not do what they said they would do.
A little more than a year ago in his television mini-series the Prime Minister appealed for trust. The Speech from the Throne is another appeal for trust. I ask how we can have trust. We do not have to go back to the promises of a Just Society, wage and price controls and 18 cents a gallon gasoline increases to know we can trust neither him nor the Ministers who serve in his Cabinet. This speech alone is sufficient proof. There is the $500 million to establish programs financing passed off as new funding. There is the recognition that small
The Address-Mr. Wright
business entrepreneurs are the unsung heroes of our recovery when it was the high interest rates of the Government that caused 40,000 small businesses to go bankrupt last year and sent us spinning into a recession. There is the boast of 353,000 new jobs created since last December, of which only 237,000 are full-time while 396,000 unemployed Canadians no longer receive benefits and 537,000 young Canadian men and women are still without work.
The Government has created some opportunities for some Canadians to be sure. The Auditor General's Report has a list of them. If you can purchase a $315,000 motel for $200, I would certainly call that an opportunity. If you can get $800 a day plus expenses for investigating the economic miasma which the policies of the Minister of Finance helped create, I would certainly call that an opportunity. However, the $800 a day royal commission opportunities and the $200 million budget photo opportunities from the last Minister of Finance are not getting the almost 1.5 million unemployed Canadians back to work, nor are they creating the world class competitive industries which will bring the real employment opportunities of the future.
The promises and directions contained in the Speech from the Throne cannot and do not stand alone. Behind them lie four years of actual performance; a performance which is nothing short of ruinous. They have failed. The Government is no longer credible. The Speech from the Throne asks not for belief but the suspension of belief. One more time the Government asks us to trust it one more time, to trust in its ability to somehow muddle us out of the mess it has muddled us into in the first place. That is the single question the whole speech asks, Mr. Speaker. The answer is quite short-not any more.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Period of ten minutes allowed for questions or comments. Debate.


Frederick William Wright: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join in this debate on the Speech from the Throne. I would like first to offer my congratulations to you and your colleagues for your promotion to the chair.
It has been almost four years since we had the last Speech from the Throne. During that four years many things have happened to the economy of this country. There is not one region or one section of the economy which has not been hurt by the actions of the Government.
I would like to look at some of the things that have been done by this Government. The output in Canada has declined by 6.5 per cent. The unemployment rate has been as high as 12.8 per cent. Interest rates have been as high as 22 per cent. Inflation has been as high as 12.9 per cent. Productivity has declined by 4.2 per cent since 1979. The net debt in Canada has doubled in only four years. A record of almost 11,000 businesses declared bankruptcy in 1982 alone. The dollar has declined from 84 cents in April, 1980 to 80 cents today, and has been as low as 76.8 cents. There has been a net outflow of $16.7 billion in direct investment capital since the last Throne

February 6, 1984
The Address-Mr. Wright
Speech. Canada has the second highest unemployment rate of any major industrialized nation. At the time of the April 1980 Throne Speech the unemployment rate was 7.7 per cent. Today it is 11.2 per cent. Manufacturing was only at 71 per cent of capacity in the fall of 1983. In real terms, farm incomes in 1982 were 22 per cent lower than in 1979. Thirty-one thousand businesses have declared bankruptcy since the last Throne Speech. Mr. Speaker, this country has been ravaged by this Government in an economic sense. Yet it still persists in telling us what a great job it has done. What did it promise in the last Throne Speech? I would like to quote from the last Throne Speech. It said the Liberals will:
-protect those Canadians most affected by unacceptably high interest rates. My Government will act to assist those unable to bear the burden of renegotiating their home mortgages in the present abnormal situation so that the spectre of foreclosure will be avoided.
Tens of thousands of Canadians lost their homes and several provinces were forced to bring in mortgage assistance programs after the rates went as high as 22 per cent. Approximately 17,000 homeowners were assisted with an average of $2,000 per homeowner. It goes on:
One of the essential objectives of this government is to put more people to work. Young people, women, natives, and the handicapped face special problems in finding jobs.
It goes on to say:
There will be an increased effort to develop critical trade skills so as to better prepare today's labour force for tomorrow's jobs.
Youth unemployment went from 13.6 per cent to 18.5 per cent. Unemployment generally went from 7.7 per cent to 11.2 per cent at present. That is the way they promise things to Canadians in the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker. They went on to talk about energy and how much they had done for energy in Canada. The Government said it would not impose an 18 cent increase in excise tax on transportation fuel. It said there would be a made in Canada price. Gasoline prices are a dollar higher than they were in 1980. Heating fuel has doubled. Yet if one travels south to the United States one finds gas is 60 cents a gallon cheaper. The Throne Speech goes on to say:
Energy policy is as important for Canada in the 1980s as railway policy was in the 1880s.
Since the last Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, half the drilling rigs in western Canada have been idle or have left the country. The Canadian Drilling Association has estimated that in the first 150 days following the NEP, 35,000 jobs were lost. The Throne Speech of 1980 goes on to say:
-we remain partially dependent upon imported oil. My government is determined to reduce that dependence by promoting conservation and by stimulating the production of new domestic energy supplies.
What has happened is that $17 billion has left this country, Mr. Speaker. This has resulted in a direct loss of 409,000 jobs. Production of oil in this country has been reduced by 277,000 barrels a day. An internal federal Government report now says that oil imports will rise from 25 per cent of total supply today to 33 per cent in 1987. So much for the Government's promises.
In the 1980 Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, the Government went on to promise:
It is the intention of my Ministers to continue the policies of expenditure restraint and improved government administration-
What has happened? Federal spending has risen from $62.9 billion in 1980-81 to $102 billion in the 1983-84 year. This year, Government spending will equal $9,300 per taxpayer compared with only $1,700 per taxpayer in 1967-68. Out of every $3 of tax expenditure, $1 will go to service the national debt.
The Government went on to explain what it would do for farmers. It said,
Farmers and small businessmen are also hit especially hard by rising costs and my Government is sensitive to their plight.
How sensitive was the Government when 80,000 small businesses closed their doors in 1982 alone? Between 1981 and 1983, 750,000 jobs were lost in the small and medium business sectors. In 1980, 877 farmers formally declared bankruptcy, the year of the Speech from the Throne. This Government has an abysmal record.
In his speech on December 9, 1983, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) referred to Liberals who were asking themselves if they could withstand the awesome threat of a rejuvenated Conservative Party. He claimed that he had good news for the Liberals; that the Tories were still opposing Liberal policies. How true that is. We will continue to oppose those Liberal policies. Let me say to the Prime Minister that he is like a worm on a hook. We will not let him off that hook until the people of Canada have received their just due. In other words, we will feed the Prime Minister to the people of Canada so that they may have their day.
The Prime Minister has said that Progressive Conservatives are always against Liberal policies, including the economy and the Constitution. I recall the constitutional debate in 1980 when we said that the economy was declining and should be discussed instead of the Constitution. But the Prime Minister ignored us. We said that many people in the country did not wish to deal in metric, yet the Prime Minister and his Government insisted on forcing metric on the Canadian people.
When we told the Prime Minister and the Liberal Government in 1980 that interest rates were climbing and the Canadian people could not stand it, he talked about the Constitution. Conservative Members will recall when we brought amendments and suggestions to the committees, Liberal Members would come into the committees in order to vote against our amendments. Yet they insist on standing up and asking for our ideas. Our ideas are put forward in committees where we can make suggestions and amendments to Liberal policies. But they vote them down each time.
In his December 9 speech, the Prime Minister spent much time talking about what Tories believe in. For example, he said that 65 per cent of the Tories at a 1982 policy conference were against increased aid to Third World countries. In fact, 41 per cent of the Tory delegates said that they were in favour of the
February 6, 1984

same commitment, based on GNP, as before, 35 per cent said that we should increase our commitment while only 23 per cent said that we should decrease our commitment. The Prime Minister must not be listening or reading what we are saying.
The Prime Minister said that we are against helping senior citizens. When delegates at that policy conference were asked if they support in principle a proposition that senior citizens should be guaranteed an income above the poverty line, the results of the poll indicated that 78 per cent were in favour of increased support for seniors while only 12 per cent said no. Yet the Prime Minister stood up in the House and said that we were against any increased help to senior citizens. From whom is the Prime Minister receiving his information?
He also talked about our opposition to hospital care. However, a full 76 per cent of Tory delegates wanted to maintain or increase spending on hospitals in this country. The Prime Minister must be living in a different world.
If the Prime Minister is prepared to stand up, representing the Liberal Party, and make such ridiculous statements, we can only assume that all members of the Liberal Party are of the same opinion. If they do not share that belief why do they not stand up and admit that their Party's policies are incorrect?
The Prime Minister went on to say that the Conservative Party is an anti Party, that we are against everything the Liberals say.


An Hon. Member:: You are right. Tell us how it works.


Frederick William Wright: I am surprised that a few of them are still awake. The people of Canada have opposed Liberal policies for the last four years and all the polls that have been conducted have shown that the people of Canada are saying it is time for a change. That is what will happen in the next few months. When the Prime Minister says that this is an anti Party, he is right. We are against everything the Liberals do. We are against their interest rates. We are against their economic policies. Some of us wonder about the type of government the Prime Minister has been leading for the last 15 years.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Good.


Frederick William Wright: I hear the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) saying it has been a good government.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes.


Frederick William Wright: It will be goodbye to the Liberals in the next election. That is about all he will be able to say was good. After the election we will try to increase the number of people employed in Canada so that the Member for Ottawa-Vanier will not be unemployed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Don't worry about that.


Frederick William Wright: In conclusion let me say that when I heard the Prime Minister talk about people in this Party being "anti", I had to reflect on who is the real "anti" Member of the House. It is the Prime Minister. When our parents and relatives were
Adjournment Debate
fighting the Second World War the Prime Minister was "anti". He was running around Montreal on his motorcycle wearing his German helmet. When our relatives were fighting in Korea in 1952, he was leading the Communist delegation to Moscow. We do not have a Prime Minister who is for anything, he is against everything. By accusing us, he is using the typical socialist rhetoric in an attempt to prove us wrong, when it is he who is "anti". The people of Canada are tired of his socialist experiment. They will have their day at the next election.



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

Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to add to some public conversation about an item that I have raised on three different occasions in the House. The first time was on Thursday, November 24, 1983, the second time was on Tuesday, December 13, 1983 and the third occasion was on Friday, December 16, 1983.
The issue I raised in Question Period on those three days was the proposal by the Atomic Energy Control Board to have in camera meetings at which it was going to discuss and study proposals to increase the radiation dosage to which many workers would be exposed. At those same in camera hearings, the AECB was proposing a number of changes that I thought would seriously affect the health of workers in that industry and their unborn children. Finally after my third intervention, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) agreed to have the press follow me into those meetings. At that point the Committee was still not allowing the press to go in with other groups who may have been making representations at the Control Board hearings. Since then I have heard that the Canadian Labour Congress will be allowed to take in press when it makes its presentation before the AECB. To my way of thinking, although it is a mild victory for us, this is still not good enough. When the Atomic Energy Board is looking into proposals which will affect the safety of workers and the safety of future generations, that is a matter which I do not believe we can study behind closed doors.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, about some of the risks under the new proposals. For example, women workers will now be exposed to radiation up to 500 per cent of what was formerly allowed. AECB has made this recommendation not because there are any new studies which indicate health is not threat-

February 6, 1984
Adjournment Debate
ened, but because the Canadian Human Rights Commission found it was unacceptable to have different limitations for women and for men. The Canadian Human Rights Commission made that finding because the different limitations were preventing women from access to many jobs. But instead of lowering the allowable exposure rate, the AECB increased the rate. Some officials of AECB are on record as saying that this will increase the risk to those women and to their unborn children. The only new provision which the AECB has provided to protect the unborn is this: Is is suggested women who are pregnant must notify their employers in order that corrective measures can be taken.
Let me tell you what this really means, Mr. Speaker. Most women in this country do not know they are pregnant in the first month or two of the pregnancy. That is the very time when the danger is the greatest to the unborn fetus, especially the increased radiation being proposed by the AECB. That is not an acceptable alternative. Not only is it unacceptable, it is dangerous to the health of both the woman and the unborn child.
There are other concerns with regard to the proposed regulations. Young workers under 18 will now be allowed to be exposed to full adult doses. Prior to this, adults under the age of 18 had lower limits, and for good reason. If you are exposed to it year after year, the annual limit will be more harmful to your health. The risk is much greater. By allowing younger workers to be exposed to a full rate earlier in life the risk is increased. In addition, the Atomic Energy Control Board is removing the two weekly and quarterly dose limits which used to exist for workers. Those limits are being abandoned by AECB.
I only have a few minutes left to speak on this issue. I want to talk about my major concern. Not only are the meetings behind closed doors, not only are they increasing the danger to young people, women and unborn children, but AECB is much too close to AECL. It is not an effective independent tribunal. If we are going to have an agency which has control over the atomic energy industry of this nation, if it is to be a board which has public faith on environmental issues, public safety and worker safety, it has to be a tribunal completely independent of AECL and the industry.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the comments at the end of the Hon. Member's remarks, I hope that he will want to appear before the AECB when it has its hearings and present his case at that time. He may see some feedback on some of his suggestions.
In so far as the proposed new radiation protection regulations are concerned, workers and members of the public will be protected by a more comprehensive system. In this new system, the total risk of exposure to different parts of the body will be limited to that corresponding to 5 rem. In the current regulations, each individual part of the body can be exposed to separate independent limits with the potential for a higher
total risk. In addition, it is proposed that employers be required to keep the total exposure to all workers and members of the public as low as reasonably achievable.
With regard to women employed in the atomic energy industry, the approach taken in previous regulations has been to apply additional restrictions to all women of reproductive capacity. An undesirable consequence of these additional restrictions is that women have been denied employment in some jobs on the grounds that the regulatory limits for women might be exceeded.
The AECB has been asked by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and others if the additional restrictions for women are really necessary. The AECB's medical advisors concluded that they were necessary only when a woman is known to be pregnant. Therefore, in the proposed regulations additional restrictions apply only to women known to be pregnant and the onus is placed on each woman to decide for herself whether or not to accept the risk associated with employment as an atomic radiation worker. In order to assist in such decisions, the employer is required to inform her of the risks to embryos, and foetuses of exposure to radiation.
Once a woman is known to be pregnant, essentially the same limits in both the current and proposed regulations apply. In the current regulations, this limit is 1 rem during the known period of pregnancy. In the proposed regulations, this is expressed as .06 rem per two weeks, which would accumulate to 1 rem in 33 weeks. It may be surmised that the proposed regulations recognize a greater degree of liberty in individual decision making while requiring that appropriate information be made available to the persons involved.
In view of the importance of the proposed regulations for workers, members of the public, employers and labour unions, the Atomic Energy Control Board, as part of its public consultation process, will be holding a series of meetings in early 1984 with representatives of the various interested parties who may have requested this, and make application to appear before them. I am confident that if there is any justifiable request for an appearance or representation, the Atomic Energy Control Board will accede to that request.


AGRICULTURE-EXCHANGE OF PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last November at the biannual conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization, a paper prepared by FAO at the instruction of the 1981 conference was presented on the subject of plant genetic resources. This paper describes the growing concern, especially in Third World countries, about the erosion of genetic materials. This has been exacerbated by the green revolution, which has as its goal the increase of production using modern techniques including hybrid and improved seed. Unfortunately, some of this missionary work has been misguided, inappropriate and downright harmful when traditional production methods which did work were replaced by modern techniques that do not work. Mother nature can be
February 6, 1984

unforgiving when one tries to second-guess her, as most farmers know too well.
The new seed which is developed in centres like the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, or the International Centre for Maize and Wheat Improvement in Mexico, does not always cope with disease or draught or a lack of pesticides or irrigation water or chemical fertilizer when the money of the peasant or the country runs out for these expensive imports. Often, unfortunately, by the time that happens the traditional diverse seed handed down through the generations is gone, replaced by new varieties. It has either been eaten or spoiled or sold to pay bills. This is often very difficult for the peasant farmer whose very survival depends upon a reliable crop each year.
However, there is another more intangible result of such trends on a global scale. The genetic diversity is diminishing rapidly in the face of the spread of western-style monoculture in plantation agriculture for export crops, and also in the spread of man-created or man-engineered seeds. Meanwhile, pests such as smut or insects are actually encouraged by this same uniformity, leavings crops much more vulnerable to disease.
In Canada we have a network of research stations and scientists to keep abreast of disease. Yes, it could be expanded, but when one compares our research capacity in agriculture with that in most Third World countries one can see the desperate situation in which so many of these countries find themselves. They want to acquire more expertise in plant breeding and agronomy to upgrade their agriculture, and they want to control it themselves. They are confronted with a muddle of new and old agriculture, insufficient seed storage, inadequate c'eaning and production systems, and an almost total lack of expertise either to set up or to run such a system. Even if they did have some plant breeding skills, they have no stored and identified genetic material with which to work.
All this is by way of introduction to my question of December 16 to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in which I asked if Canada was prepared to be a signatory to an undertaking to assure the free exchange of plant genetic material set up by the recent FAO conference. This would act as a guarantee, subject to certain conditions for each signatory, such as those who wish an exemption of patented material for countries with plant patents, that plant genetic resources would be exchanged freely. Third World countries feel that they should have access to material, much of which was collected in the Third World but is stored in rich countries or in gene banks with the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources. The IBPGR is controlled by the rich countries. If rich countries turn churlish, refuse to have anything to do with this FAO undertaking and ignore the international plant gene fund and the commission set up under the council and the FAO network of gene repositories, there will be increasing difficulty in collecting funds for necessary expeditions and increasing polarization over the gene issue between rich and poor countries. The Minister said:
Adjournment Debate
We do not intend to sign this agreement because some of the main players who have the genetic resources are on the sidelines now. They are not going to be participating in this program. That is why we are not going to sign it.
Have you, Sir, ever heard a better articulation of a dog-in-the-manger attitude or an "I'm all right, Jack" attitude? "We have the resources so the Third World can go to blazes" is what we are telling them. What kind of attitude is this on the part of the president of the World Food Council, which the Minister is? Why has Canada with its reputation for openness and generosity taken such a stubborn position on a moderate and open-ended agreement such as this?
The answer can be found, I believe, in the issue of plant patents or Plant Breeders Rights. The rich countries, and in particular the U.S., are unwilling to see any relinquishing of control over seeds. In the words of Shell Oil, the largest seed merchant in the world, "seeds form the very basis on which every other technology is based". The modern seed is designed with pesticides and fertilizers and mass production in mind. It is the basis for the expansion of agri-business and the market for the products of companies such as Shell in the Third World. Why would any company or country now doing a lucrative annual business in seed in a Third World country want to see that country learn to produce these seeds themselves?
It is beneath us in Canada to get dragged into this conflict. Moreover, it is reckless and dangerous. As farmers need access to the research results of government breeders to stay ahead of disease and remain competitive in world markets, so too these breeders need access to the Third World to collect new material. As this material is disappearing, it is doubly important that Canada collect more material and also be a part of a world effort to collect, describe and place in accessible high quality storage as much genetic material as possible, as soon as possible. This should be and must be done through international co-operation.
While the U.S.S.R. cannot sign the undertaking because it is not a member of FAO this can be overcome if all countries who are members of FAO would sit down in a spirit of co-operation and compromise and hammer out something workable. One can be sure the Third World will be addressing this issue. Then why not Canada?
The Minister condemns the FAO initiative because not everyone can be or chooses to be involved, yet the Minister knows full well that the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources is in exactly the same situation. The board may have the support of rich, western countries which are storing a lot of material and can access it, but they do not have the membership of the Third World countries where the material has been and will continue to be found. I have nothing against the board; on the contrary the evidence shows it has done much good work. But the board is not a substitute for the broader efforts of FAO. It may and will complement the FAO work but it will not replace it, nor can it, given its current structure.

February 6, 1984
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I am sorry to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on December 16, the Minister answered the Hon. Member's question about the exchange of plant genetic resources. At the risk of repeating myself, it is a matter of common knowledge that free access to plant genetic material is of primary importance to Canadian farmers and everyone on this earth. Following allegations of the existence of restrictive practices, the FAO was asked to prove that certain exchanges were indeed subject to government restrictions. No evidence was produced, and talks at the recent FAO Conference did not manage to produce a single case of restrictive practices of this kind.
The International Board of Plant Genetic Resources was established in 1974 and consists of members of industrialized and developing countries. Canada has supported the Board financially since it was founded. As the Minister said on December 16, we think the solution to the perceived problem should come by strengthening existing systems and not by striking out in a new and uncertain direction. Canada participated in a lengthy debate on plant genetic resources at the recent FAO Conference. A number of countries, however, had trouble accepting the proposals that were adopted. Canada recognizes the importance of this kind of resources and the potential risk inherent in their erosion and loss. We therefore support the principle of free exchange of and access to, plant genetic resources.
As far as the project is concerned, our position taken at the Conference has not changed. Actually, the results of the Conference may be seen as partial justification for our apprehensions. We are now faced with a situation where the countries that are the main depositories of resources and expertise in this area are holding back and refusing any commitment. We are now examining to what extent, if necessary, we could implement the principles contained in the project, with a view to responding to a possible invitation by the Director General of the FAO to participate. Basically, as the Minister says, the principal agents-the countries with the most impressive resource banks-think as we do, so that the FAO instrument may not prove to be very effective.


NATIONAL REVENUE-RETROACTIVITY OF TAX DEMANDS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, recently, as all Hon. Members know, there as been a lot of attention paid to the Department of National Revenue and the attitude which that Department takes toward taxpayers. Many Hon. Members have paid a lot of attention to the question of whether or not quotas exist for tax auditors. Last week I had the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House an issue
which I believe is one of the more important ones vis-a-vis how the tax Department works. That is the whole question of retroactivity.
A constituent of mine recently has been audited and found himself owing the tax Department as a result of being audited back four years and having a different interpretation placed on what is deductible and what is not. In this case he happened to be a small farmer, but many others in various occupations have had this type of thing happen. A taxpayer submits his tax return for three years claiming certain deductions and no one ever says anything about it. In fact, in this case, even more money was sent back on one occasion. The natural conclusion of my constituent was that he was not doing anything wrong but was working within the rules. Then all of a sudden tax auditors come along, go back four years and say, "Our interpretation of this deduction is now changed and on the basis of our change in the interpretation of the rules, you now owe us the following amount of money for the years 1979 to 1982", or whatever the years were. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, on the face of it that when it is a matter of interpretation, not a matter of going back and finding out that a person has evaded tax-that is a different matter-then retroactive action is unjust and should be stopped immediately if Canadians are going to continue to regard the Department of National Revenue, and by extension, the Government, as an agency of fairness when it comes to running the affairs of the country. I bring that concern to the Government's attention and I would be interested to hear what kind of answer I will get today on the question of retroactivity.
Another question which concerns me is the way in which Revenue Canada treats senior citizens, many of whom pay their income tax quarterly. This has been brought up in the House before by myself as well as by other Hon. Members. Senior citizens have to pay their tax quarterly and they are required to pay tax in the first or second quarter on money they have not yet earned, money which may be coming to them in the form of interest on Canada Savings Bonds in November. Yet the Department of National Revenue wants them to pay taxes on this money which they have not yet received. There has been quite a feeling of injustice about this, and rightly so, Mr. Speaker.
These are not the kinds of things which Government can expect to continue doing and at the same time expect Canadians to think that we live in a fair society where Government can be trusted to deal with its citizens justly and with some sensitivity. On those two issues alone, it seems to me, there are grounds for reform. I hope we will hear from the Government soon that it will be changing the provisions with respect to the collection of taxes on a quarterly basis from senior citizens. They should find a way to overcome the legitimate indignation which many pensioners feel about being put in this position.
What is particularly maddening, Mr. Speaker, to a lot of people who find themselves in this situation is the fact that there are people in this country who make a lot of money and who pay no taxes at all. This situation undermines the very foundation not just of tax collection but the whole moral
February 6, 1984

context in which we have to live together as a society. One of the expressions I was familiar with as a child was, "pick on someone your own size". That is what the tax Department should do. Instead of picking on small farmers, pensioners or other average Canadians in this unfair way, it should go after the big boys, the ones who are not paying any taxes at all. This is one place where the tax collectors could expend a lot more energy than, in my view, they are expending now. In the meantime, in order to make it easier for them, the Government could start changing the tax law itself so that some of these people who are able, within the rules, to avoid paying any taxes at all while accumulating great salaries or wealth in some other way, will no longer be able to get away with it.
This has to stop, Mr. Speaker. On the one hand we see pensioners and other average Canadians being almost persecuted and regarded as dishonest by the Government bureaucracy, while on the other hand we have wealthier and more powerful Canadians getting away with murder. If the Government wants to restore confidence in government in this country, which the Liberal Government has done so much to destroy over the last 15 years, this is a step it could take right now.


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised quite a troubling problem. I believe he was referring to the matter of business losses claimed against other sources of income, in particular income from salaries and wages.
Adjournment Debate
To begin with, it is not possible to examine every tax return in detail during initial assessing. If this were done, the ten million or so refunds that go out every year would be delayed for a very long time. Thus, the review of returns at the initial assessing stage has necessarily to be quite limited.
However, certain returns, a quite small percentage of the total, are selected later for what is called the post-assessing stage. Included among these are returns that claim to set off losses from a business against other income. A key question in these cases is whether or not there is a business, and a key determinant as to whether there is a business is, according to the courts, whether there is a reasonable expectation of profit. It would be often quite unfair to answer this question and to make this determination on the basis of one year's return, or even two years' returns. The pattern of development of the taxpayer's enterprise has to be observed over a longer time than that. By the time it is fair to say that there is in fact no expectation of profit a number of years may elapse. When this is done, the losses of a number of years have to be questioned and the reassessment facing the taxpayer can, in law, go back as many as four years. Nonetheless, I want to assure the Hon. Member that it is the policy of the Department to administer the laws in fairness and equity to all taxpayers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The motion to adjourn the House being deemed to have been adopted, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, February 7, 1984