1985-03-22

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, in December last the Government invoked the meat import law and limited beef imports this year to 146.5 million pounds. This was in response to the EEC countries shipping 51 million pounds of beef into Canada subsidized by up to 48 cents a pound. When the United States complained about its quota of 21 million pounds, the Government capitulated and has agreed to increase that to 65 million pounds. It got nothing in return, selling out the farmers in Canada. Now the EEC is demanding that its quota be raised to 33 million pounds or the EEC will impose a countervailing duty of $50 million on farm commodities being sold to Europe.
When the Government capitulates to the EEC, the new quotas for beef will rise to 216 million pounds, the largest ever, and we will have seen the most cowardly retreat by the Government of Canada in history. It is time the Government of Canada summoned its courage, marched into the GATT tribunal in Geneva, and started fighting for Canadian farmers.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, over the years Canadians have, from time to time, complained about harassment of their visitors arriving at Pearson International Airport. During the past year these complaints have increased. They have been regularly denied by the administration, even in answer to MP's letters.
Now officers are complaining that they are being harassed, that their performance is being measured by the number of visitors they send for inquiry or send to detention under bond.
Two months ago a complaint was sent to the Minister. Six weeks ago an internal report was made to the Minister. No action was taken until after a Globe and Mail story. The Minister has now promised an independent inquiry. I call upon
the Minister to make sure that it is genuinely independent, that it has an impartial chairperson, and a representative of the union, the CEIV, who represents the employees at the airport, and that witnesses, especially officers of immigration, are invited to testify under oath and under protection of the Canada Evidence Act, and without fear of reprisals. The scope of the inquiry should include all the allegations made by those officers about the treatment to which they are being subjected by their supervisors, and the inquiry should reach up to whatever level is necessary to determine who was responsible for the policy of telling long-term employees that they may not be promoted-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


WAR CRIMINALS
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, history is the measure of a civilization. Our history is the criterion which the nations and peoples of the world use to formulate their opinions and pass judgment on the character and social fabric of Canada. I have become disheartened and disillusioned as the media make daily revelations that Canada gave refuge to Nazi war criminals after the war.
The Toronto Star has uncovered evidence in the archives that former Liberal Prime Minister Mackenzie King's Cabinet approved a special order in 1948 allowing war criminals to remain in Canada despite earlier deportation orders. This revelation tends to confirm past suspicions that previous Liberal Governments provided sanctuary for Nazi war criminals and collaborators after World War II. What tragedy and hypocrisy when, during the same period, Jewish survivors of Nazi concentration camps were denied entry!
I urge the Government, for humanity, for the western world, to face up to the challenge, deal with it, and remove this dark cloud over Canada. We must bring these criminals to justice in Canada or overseas so that our brave men did not die in vain. I am certain that the Deschenes Commission will rectify this injustice.

March 22, 1985


S O. 21 PENSIONS RETIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES-RESTORATION OF PENSION INDEXING BASE ADVOCATED
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago the previous Government unilaterally cut the indexing of retired public employees' pensions as part of the six and five restraint program. My Party fought that measure in committee and in this House, and considered it a flagrant disregard for an agreement between employer and employees. Thankfully this program of cut-backs and austerity has ended, but the damage done to retired federal employees' pensions will remain in perpetuity.
The base rate of a federal retired employee's pension has been permanently reduced by the difference between six and five and the inflation rate at that time. As a result, some
200,000	former federal employees are losing substantial portions of their pension benefits. While Canadians are glad to see that the rate of inflation has fallen, Mr. Speaker, indications are that this has occurred due to long-term economic trends and external factors, such as international interest rates. I therefore strongly urge the Government to look at the viability of restoring the indexing base of pensions for retired federal employees.
I also welcome the willingness of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) to review the pension system. In addition, on behalf of Canada's excellent and dedicated Public Service, I sincerely hope that no Government will again introduce such a regressive measure.

[ Translation]


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the House of the reaction of the Kent Tourist Association and Alma Village in New Brunswick to the 300 per cent increase of the admission fee to our national parks which the new government announced last November.
In its letter to me, the Association referred to the devastating effects which this increase will have on the tourist industry. It emphasized four major effects, and I quote:

Tourists bitter over high rates in New Brunswick;
Business needing less staff to handle diminished traffic;
Decreased attendance at swimming pool and golf course will eventually result in their loss as they are not part of Parks Canada mandate and have only been held by high attendance;
All our county will directly feel the effect as it is dependent upon Fundy Park as the main attraction.
In summary, we will no longer be able competitively to draw people to the area.

Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a mistake on the part of the party opposite. It should come to realize that creating new obstacles is not likely to help the tourist industry. Through consultations with the tourist industry, the government would realize that it is making a serious mistake and that its decision must be reconsidered. Nothing short of a change in policy would demonstrate its goodwill to the tourist industry.

[DOT] (mo)


NATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, the main concern of Canadians is still unemployment and jobs. Last November's economic statement and other government initiatives such as Investment Canada have begun to create a new climate for medium and long-term growth. However, Canadians want short-term solutions as well.
The up-coming Budget cannot deal with unemployment in isolation. It must also take into account our unprecedented peacetime deficit and national debt, abnormally high interest rates, the value of the Canadian dollar, and the possibility of renewed inflationary pressure.
In order to solve these problems we must have a plan of action upon which most Canadians can agree. This is why the National Economic Conference, now taking place here in Ottawa, is so important for all of us. It provides a forum for business, labour, consumers, native people, church leaders, ethnic groups, social service agencies, the unemployed, and voluntary organizations, to discuss their solutions not just with the Government but with each other. Hopefully a consensus will emerge and the up-coming Budget will provide a formula which will get Canada moving again.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, ever since Canadian Forces Station Dana, Saskatchewan, was established in 1962, it has played a very important role in the local economy of the village of Dana and the surrounding district. I have been notified by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) that on March 13, 1985, the Conservative Government decided to close the stations which comprise the Pine Tree network. The actual date for Dana will be announced within the next three years.
This closure represents a very serious setback to Dana and area. The jobs of the 120 military personnel are not threat-
March 22, 1985

ened; of course they will be reassigned within the Department of National Defence. However, approximately 65 direct jobs and five indirect civilian jobs are affected, and it will be extremely difficult for those 70 individuals to find new work and for the area to maintain its level of services to people, with such a large loss in revenue. Also, a centre for community activity will no longer be available and the village of Dana and surrounding area will suffer greatly. No job offers have been made to the civilian staff. A six-month notice is all that will be offered prior to the actual closure.
I appeal to the Government, on behalf of all those individuals and families who will be hurt as a result of this closure, to provide real assistance in locating alternate employment. I urge the Government to take a hard look at the economic and social costs of these closures across the country, and to provide real economic assistance, instead of merely stating its intention to close down the stations.


NATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is living up to its main commitment to listen to Canadians before acting. Since September 4 we have been charting a new course for Canada, characterized by consultation and co-operation. This new direction points to economic renewal and national reconciliation.
In less than seven months consultation papers have been prepared by Ministers seeking public input on a number of significant issues. Our Government has held important summit meetings with the provincial First Ministers, and with the President of the United States, our greatest friend and ally.
Today the process continues with the National Economic Conference. The Government has brought together, for the first time in Canadian history, 136 participants from all walks of life and from all parts of Canada. The voices which will be heard include those of business, labour, consumers, women, native people, church leaders, ethnic groups, social agencies, and the unemployed.
If economic renewal and social justice are to be achieved, it is essential that we work together rather than against each other. That is what the National Economic Conference is all about. It is an integral part of the Government's commitment to change the way decisions are made in our country.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the March 20 edition of The Toronto Sun shows just how desperate some junior Tory Ministers are and how far they will go to get their pictures in the newspapers. Yes, like some peeping Tom, the face of the junior Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. McMillan) peers from a government advertisement, appealing to Canadians to write in and tell him just what it is he is supposed to be doing as Minister.
Does the House remember how some Tories, after the last election, railed against what they perceived to be an evil Liberal practice of having the names of Ministers responsible appearing in small print on signs regarding projects undertaken by the federal Government? The Tories were to end such a practice.
Do you recall how the Tory Opposition worked itself into a frenzy of indignation over government advertising? What was the result of all that sanctimonious nonsense? The result is plain to see, peeping Tom, the Minister for Tourism, using taxpayers dollars to put his own shot in the newspaper. The aim of the ad is to sell the Minister. With his own photo and a reproduction of his signature, which takes up more space in the ad than even the word "tourism", the product message is unmistakable.
Whom is he trying to reach? Perhaps he is trying to remind the boss that he still exists. "Please, Mr. Prime Minister, notice me and give me a place to stand. The junior Minister for Tourism-yours to discover." The Tory Government would serve Canadian tourism better-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. This morning the Government showed unparalleled contempt for the elected representatives of the Canadian people when the Minister of Finance, outside this House, said the Budget would be presented the week of May 20. I want specifically to ask the Acting Prime Minister why the Minister of Finance did not show the traditional respect for Parliament in this regard and give this very same information to the House yesterday when asked the specific question? Will he repair this damage and give the

March 22, 1985
Oral Questions
exact date of the Budget right now to the elected representatives of the Canadian people?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member is aware that it is traditional for the Minister of Finance himself to deal with any announcements with respect to the timing of the Budget. He will, I am sure, give the date of the Budget at the first opportunity available to him in the House of Commons.


ONTARIO PROVINCIAL ELECTION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance had many opportunities to give the information to the House that he gave outside it this morning. I want to ask another question of the Acting Prime Minister. In doing so, I say that the real reason for presenting the Budget the week of May 20 is because Premier Miller of Ontario does not want to carry this Government's Budget around his neck like an albatross when he campaigns for re-election in that province a few weeks hence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister why the political interests of the Ontario Conservatives are more important than the real needs of 1.5 million Canadians who will be waiting 250 days, some eight months, for concrete action in a Budget on jobs, action they obviously are not going to get when they need it.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, all things are relevant, I suppose. In terms of carrying things around one's neck like an albatross, I am sure that there could have been no more weighty an albatross to hang around the Liberal neck than the Budget of Mr. MacEachen. It did more to erode the economy of this country than most.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: There is now under way here a National Economic Conference that has been convened to obtain the views of the broadest cross-section of our society, in the hope that some of the problems that the Hon. Member mentions can be addressed with that kind of broad input, so that the Budget of the Minister of Finance will reflect the real needs of the country to restore some kind of economic renewal in Canada.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PRIME MINISTER
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question to ask of the Acting Prime Minister. It is typical of the move of the Tory Government to a presidential system that it is not going to recognize that the 285 Members
of this Parliament, elected by the Canadian people, in fact provide the broadest possible cross-section of the views of the Canadian people. Why did the Prime Minister as recently as last Wednesday, two days ago, speak of an April Budget? He knew at that time that there would be an economic summit this week. Why has the Prime Minister not kept his word so that there could be an April Budget? Why is the Prime Minister, through the Minister of Finance, unnecessarily delaying the Budget by a month, unnecessarily delaying the required concrete action on jobs for more than a month, and at the same time showing contempt for the elected representatives of the Canadian people?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, all things are relative. I see no departure from the word of the Prime Minister with respect to the date of delivery of the Budget. I do not see the connection that the Hon. Member has been inferring with respect to the plans of any provincial Governments. The Hon. Member speaks of 285 Members of the House of Commons. The last time I looked, there were 282 Members, 211 of whom are on this side, and those numbers were decided last September.
The Opposition has every right to expect a full discussion of economic affairs and has certainly been taking advantage of such opportunities since the House commenced sitting. Its members have certainly taken advantage of such opportunities in debating the economic statement delivered last November 8. All of the opportunities have been there, and if this Government is being marked for one thing, it is the restoration of the meaningfulness of individual participation by Members of this place in all of our national affairs.

[ Translation]


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence and Deputy Prime Minister.
Two days ago, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said before the House, in answer to a question by my colleague the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, that there was absolutely no danger that Canada would be taking part in the United States SDI Research Program. Yesterday, the Minister said before the committee that he was considering the possibility of participating in the star wars research program. This morning, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said before the committee: We have not yet received a formal invitation from the U.S. Government to take part in star wars. I would like to know whether we might be able to get the truth from the Minister of National Defence. If he has not received
March 22, 1985

a formal invitation to date, has he received an informal invitation?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Hon. Member's recollection of what was said, both here and in committee, is quite inaccurate. I do not ever recall using terminology of danger, and I cannot recall hearing the Secretary of State for External Affairs refer to the danger of participation. In the House of Commons, and I believe in committee, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has left doors open. We would be less than responsible if we did not leave those doors open regarding any decision that the Government of Canada might wish to make on behalf of Canadians.
With respect to the discussions to which the Hon. Member refers, there are no discussions going on. I told him that in committee yesterday.


CANADIAN POSITION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I never used the word "danger". I would like to have a clear commitment from the Government. The House decided not to participate a year ago when we were debating this subject after President Reagan made the suggestion that we should move to escalate the armament race to a new level with SDI.
We would like to extract a commitment from the Government. However, I see that that will not be easy because the Government cannot make up its mind about anything and is postponing everything. Can we have the Government's assurance that the Canadian people and the Canadian Parliament will not be associated with the star wars project of President Reagan? That is what we want from the Government.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as I said in committee, star wars is the term that is being used by the Hon. Member and his colleagues. Star wars is the term that is being used by Members of the NDP in this House. Unfortunately, star wars is being used by those outside of the House as well as in the House in their efforts to link a radar system with the highly imaginative term "star wars", when there is no such connection. I have explained that, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has explained that, and it has been explained in committee. The Hon. Member refuses to accept that, but that is probably because he does not know the difference between radar and space technology. In any event-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Will you be part of star wars?


Erik Nielsen: We have no intention of becoming associated with wars, and we have no intention of embracing the stars.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions POSITION OF U.S.S.R.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, The New York Times also uses the term "star wars", a well as many commentators who speak on this matter. It is only President Reagan who wants to get rid of the phrase because he would like to legitimate star wars by calling it SDI.
I would like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, since I believe, as I am sure he does, that External Affairs should be the senior partner in all major policy matters which relate to defence. Since many of his colleagues have said that the Russians are also developing star wars research and technology, does he think that the Soviet Union should agree to no longer do any research, testing, development, and that it should have no involvement in the militarization of outer space with a star wars type of program? Would the Prime Minister then say that there is no need for the United States to develop any research, testing, and so on, of star wars technology?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there is no way one can anticipate the response to events which have not only not occurred, but are quire unlikely to occur. The point I have made in the House of Commons is that because the Soviet Union is involved in research of a strategic defence initiative kind, it is entirely prudent for the West to be involved in research of that kind.


POSSIBILITY OF U.S.-U.S.S.R. AGREEMENT
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, since the Soviet Union is obviously very concerned with the great thrust of American research-and I take it that it is far superior to the Soviet's-my question is quite explicit. If, at Geneva or elsewhere, the Soviet Union said that it would not have anything to do with any Strategic Defence Initiative, or star wars, would the Minister then not agree, since we are all very worried about the militarization of outer space, that there should be a mutual agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States not to get into the militarization of outer space?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the question is explicit, and the question is hypothetical. There is no practical way in which that hypothetical question can be answered before the facts are known. The Hon. Member, who is a serious student of these questions, knows that agreements which might be reached between the Soviet Union and the United States are almost certain to be hedged in caveats and conditions. It would be most imprudent for Canada or, indeed, any other country, to take firm positions now on decisions which are, by definition, not firm and unknown.


RESEARCH INQUIRY
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I only wanted the Minister to assure the House that

March 22, 1985
Oral Questions
the Government would, in fact, like to see the elimination of the whole star wars development on both sides. He has not given that assurance. Could he not at least give that assurance? Is the Government in favour of the elimination of star wars?
Does the Government support what I now understand to have been a statement by the Chancellor of West Germany, Helmut Kohl, to the effect that, if there is any progress at all in Geneva, there will be no need for either side to pursue the so-called Strategic Defence Initiative?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I cannot, nor in honesty can any Hon. Member of this House, prejudge research now under way on the Strategic Defence Initiative. Nor can I prejudge the possibility of the United States of America following up on, and the Soviet Union accepting, the idea that those two superpowers should work together on their research.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The Minister has picked up an option from the previous Liberal Government to send additional military personnel to Europe.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: He has announced the North Warning System; most of the work had been done by the previous Government. He has cut his Estimates this year by $150 million. He has allowed real growth in the defence spending to drop from over 4 per cent last year to barely 3 per cent this year. When is the Minister, and this Government, going to take their election promise seriously, which was to "honour the commitment" to spend more money on defence, instead of just trying to give the impression that they are doing something original when they are not doing anything original at all?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if we are not doing anything original, then I don't know why the carping criticism from the other side with respect to what we are doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: With respect to commitments of a budgetary nature, that question has been answered several times since the House began sitting. When we got there, the cupboard was bare-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nunziata:: Your head is bare.


Erik Nielsen: -so that the pace at which we achieve the restoration of our Armed Forces, the pace at which we achieve the honouring of our commitments to our allies, is entirely governed by the economic circumstances of the country, which were left in quite a sorry mess. We hope to achieve those objectives, given the economic renewal due to the initiatives which we are taking as a Government, at the earliest possible moment. Yesterday I stressed to the Hon. Member, as I have before, that those objectives are being looked at in terms of our mandate over the course of four or five years and certainly not within the six months we have been sitting here.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I understand why the Minister has to pile it high. It is because he has a very narrow wagon.


COST OF ADDITIONAL TROOPS IN EUROPE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: A few
days ago I asked the Minister whether the $50 million this year, and the $100 million next year, which are required to send the additional 1,200 troops to Europe, would be new money in his Estimates or whether it would be from the existing budget. He could not answer that. Would the Minister of National Defence now tell Canadians whether it will be new money or existing money? If it is money already in his budget, what item or items is he chopping-being the chopping man in the Department-in order to find that money, instead of increasing the growth of defence expenditures as promised by his Party in the last election campaign?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, at least I've got a wagon. I'm not dragging my axles.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I have answered that question before in the House of Commons. It was answered for the Hon. Member when I made the statement in the House the other day with respect to where the money was coming from to meet the commitment of $50 million in the first year and the remainder of that commitment, roughly $150 million a year, by saying that we were examining the existing resources of the Department to see what portion of those resources could be allotted to pay for the initiative of this Government, not of those tired old remains of the last Government who sit over there. But whatever slack has to be made up, it will be made up without any erosion of our existing commitments, and without any erosion of the real 3 per cent to which we are committed now.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: You are loading your wagon again.


FINANCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Over the
March 22, 1985

last several months the Government has teased us with a tantalizing dance of the Budget. First the Budget was to come down in early April; then it was mid-April; then it was late April; then it was early May, and now we are being told it is going to be the week of May 20.


Some Hon. Members:: It's Miller time.


John R. Rodriguez: Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why the Government has resorted to the reprehensible practice of the previous Government in making these kinds of important announcements outside the House of Commons, thus indicating its disrespect for the people of Canada?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is the same question which was asked by the House Leader for the Official Opposition.


Pauline Jewett: Let's have an answer, then.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt heard my response. The Minister of Finance will take us all into his confidence with respect to the date of the Budget at the first opportunity. He may wish to take advantage of it in the House of Commons.


ONTARIO PROVINCIAL ELECTION DATE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Government has dilly-dallied and shillyshallied over the announcement of the date of the Budget, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if it is not a fact that the Government is trying to avoid embarrassment of the Frank Miller Government seeking re-election? That's why it doesn't want to bring this Budget down now.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It's Miller time.


John R. Rodriguez: In fact it is the date of the Ontario election which is in effect determining the date of the Budget.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I really don't know what the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt finds so upsetting. Perhaps it is the fear of an election in Ontario. I am certainly not privy to any insider information with respect to that.


John R. Rodriguez: You are playing politics with the lives of the people.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: You are showing fear of an election in Ontario.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure that the Minister of Finance, in his usual fashion, being the man of integrity he is, will not have
Oral Questions
any other considerations than those of the national interest when he selects and brings down his Budget?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. We had a statement by the Minister himself yesterday, and now by his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that the Cabinet is actively considering ways in which the country might become involved in the research and development activities related to the "SDI" program, to use the proper phrase and vocabulary. Does the Minister not believe that it really is the height of hyprocrisy for this Government, which has made statements at the United Nations, and when this House has made statements by way of resolution, against any activity which would contribute to the militarization of outer space, to be preparing to become involved in that kind of research and development?
Does the Minister not consider it far more advantageous to Canadians to start looking at the ways in which we can have peaceful uses and applications of our scientists and technologists rather than becoming involved in research leading to a new defensive or war-related system?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as is customary, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry totally distorts what has been actually said by myself and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Neither he, nor I, have said that the Government is, to use his terminology, "actively considering" involvement. That has not been said anywhere.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Looking at options.


Erik Nielsen: Why the Hon. Member continues to try to distort this matter, I can only attribute to questionable motivation on the part of himself and his colleagues. The fact is that all of our options are open, and that is exactly what I said yesterday. It would be irresponsible for that not to be said.


CANADIAN POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, let us try to learn from the Minister exactly what the Government is engaged in. He says that it is considering options. Does that mean that there is review, study, or examination by the Government of ways in which Canadian industry or scientists might become involved in the research and development activities presently being sponsored by the United States? Or is he prepared to say that there is no involvement, no examination, and no consideration whatsoever of that

March 22, 1985
Oral Questions
option or that consideration? Which is it? Is the Government getting involved, or is it not?


Erik Nielsen: Again the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry distorts the facts. When he says that I, or anyone else on this side, has said that we are considering the option of involvement, he is totally inaccurate. I said that our options are open. When we make any decision with respect to those options, all of which are open, he can be sure that it will be made by the Government of Canada, which was sent here on September 4, on behalf of and in the best interests of all Canadians.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Yet another study has confirmed the wage gap between men and women. Unfortunately, the new Treasury Board committee will be limited only to discussions on the public sector, on this question. What steps will the Minister take, as Minister of Justice, to enforce actively the six-year old provisions of the Human Rights Act so that women workers can finally achieve equal pay for work of equal value in all sectors, private and public?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly assisting the Human Rights Commission in enforcing the Human Rights Act. We intend to continue to do that. We will give it every assistance when we are called upon to do so. My colleague, the Secretary of State, is doing the same. I can assure the hon. lady that by the time we are finished women will be in a position of far greater equality and equal rights than they ever were before.


REQUEST THAT COMMISSION STAFF BE ENLARGED
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. man that the Human Rights Commission needs more staff. They have only five staff members. Since he says he is going to give every assistance, will he guarantee today that he will increase the staff of the Human Rights Commission considerably to enable it to combat wage discrimination actively and work for systemic changes?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few points of clarification in response to that question. The question surprises me somewhat since the Hon. Member opposite, who is asking the question, attended the announcement of the measures we are taking in the public sector, as well as in the private sector, to deal with the issue.
A committee has been set up with a broad mandate. In that same announcement there was a firm commitment by the
Government to give adequate resources for this program to go forth.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, but in her absence I will direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Government has announced that it will count severance pay as income under the Unemployment Insurance Act, which will delay unemployment insurance benefits to laid-off workers. This is to start on April 1, which is only about a week away.
Government Members and opposition Members have all received protests from all across the country, from unions, workers, and members of the Armed Forces, saying that this is a harsh and unfair measure and that there was no prior consultation. Will the Deputy Prime Minister, in consultation with his colleagues, agree to postpone this measure until there is proper consultation and until all the implications are fully understood?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, take the question as notice, and advise my colleague accordingly so as to provide the Hon. Member with a reply as soon as possible.


EFFECT ON LAID-OFF WORKERS
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, this measure is to come into force very soon. Many laid-off workers were going to use this severance pay to re-establish themselves in employment, to relocate to other parts of the country, and even to roll it over with an RRSP into their pension provisions. They will now be forced to spend the severance pay on the basic necessities of life rather than using their unemployment insurance.
Does the Minister not agree that this is a very harsh measure which has implications not foreseen? I would ask her and any of the Ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, to consult quickly on this so that it can be postponed and so as to enable full consultation to take place before it moves ahead.


Monique Vézina: 
APARTHEID
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday South African police in an armoured truck, using semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and machine guns, killed at least 18, and perhaps as many as 43, blacks who were demonstrating in commemoration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre. Some 200 blacks have been killed since last August as the white minority Government attempts to suppress all dissent. Will the Canadian Government now get off the fence and lead an international movement for disinvestment in South Africa?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, that tragic incident of yesterday has demonstrated one more time that the injustice and violence of the apartheid system can only engender further violence. The Government of Canada, and I am sure the people of Canada, deplore this act. We believe the only long-term solution is to move to a non-discriminatory society in South Africa. We are now in the process of reviewing fully the appropriateness of Canadian policy with regard to South Africa. Events of the tragic kind of yesterday add impetus to that review.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT POSITION
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. It is not enough simply to deplore and wait for some kind of long-term solution.


John Carnell Crosbie: We will invade them, will we?


James Douglas Manly: Does the Minister not recognize that the actions of the South African Government must make it a pariah, an outcast among all decent nations in the world? What concrete steps is the Government of Canada prepared to take to put pressure on the Government of South Africa to end this tragic situation, instead of just waiting for a long-term solution?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada, under the leadership of different Parties, has given leadership to the world on this question, going back as far as the action of the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker with regard to the expulsion of South Africa from the Commonwealth. We are very conscious, not only of that tradition of governments, but of that concern on the part of Canadians.
We also think it is essential that the actions which Canada might take, or might be involved in, are actions which in fact improve the quality and prospect of life of the majority in South Africa. I have said that we are undertaking a review. We intend to complete that review as quickly as possible. We intend to take action which is consistent with the tradition of
Oral Questions
leadership of Canada with regard to South Africa, and in opposition to the apartheid regime.


PORNOGRAPHY
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. I understand that the Minister has received the Fraser Royal Commission Report on Pornography. Could he advise the House when he will be tabling that report in the House and when he will be introducing legislation to restrict pornography in Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that there are some Members opposite who wish information rather than just making cheap gibes and silly attacks.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The answer is that we have not actually received the Fraser report yet. It is in the Department in bits and pieces getting translated. One consecutive volume has not yet been presented to me so I have not received it yet. I think it should be received by the first week of April. Hopefully we should be able to make it public early in April. We will then have to undertake the matter of reviewing the law in the light of the recommendations and in the light of the Badgley report.


An Hon. Member:: How long?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentlemen opposite are not interested in the reform of the law in this area, apparently.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. It concerns the statements in an interview with the press some weeks ago on acid rain, and the evolution of arrangements with the provinces. There were some surprised statements, notably on the part of the Minister of Environment for Ontario, in reaction to the fact that for the first time the provinces seem to be expected to participate financially in the modernization of the non ferrous metal industry. Would the Minister inform the House whether the provincial Ministers of the Environment were consulted and informed about her intention to have them participate financially in the modernization of the industry?

March 22, 1985
Oral Questions


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, not only were my provincial counterparts informed, they were consulted beforehand, and they were a party to the decision at our meeting on February 5 in Montreal. If the press misreported certain comments, as I think they did, I am afraid I cannot help that, and neither can my provincial counterpart in Ontario.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO ONTARIO MINISTER
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: How does the Minister explain the statement of surprise expressed by the Minister of the Environment for Ontario at the requested participation by him in the modernization of the non ferrous metals industry, as reported in the press?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I would rather not depend on media reports to find out what my hon. colleague, the Minister of the Environment of Ontario is thinking. All I can say is that yesterday, I received a letter in which he congratulated me on the agreement concluded with the United States in Quebec City.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I have yet another question for the fiscal butcher of the Conservative Party. The Deputy Prime Minister admitted yesterday that he has led a committee of packers and choppers on a search and destroy mission-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will ask the Member not to repeat that phrase and simply to put his question.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why the Government chopped $2 million for the creation of the Northern Fishery Development Corporation in Newfoundland? Does the Minister understand that it was in fact an agreement between Canada and Newfoundland? Does he understand that it will help thousands of fishermen in Labrador and Newfoundland? Does he understand that?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's question is completely wrongly conceived. The question of what will be done to assist the fishermen of northern Newfoundland and Labrador is currently under review by the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and a decision will be made on that shortly.
Meetings are being held in Newfoundland on that issue. The matter is well in hand, so the Member need have no fear. Furthermore, of course, his own district is about 3,000 miles away from the area so that one wonders why he has this sudden interest in this problem.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Are you not concerned about B.C.?


John Carnell Crosbie: Where was he when the fishermen of that area were suffering over the last 10 or 12 years, when the election wasn't on?


Raymond John Skelly: There is certainly no justice in that statement.


FUNDING OF CORPORATION
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In fact the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced that the Department cut $2 million, and that the funding was not there.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister give us the assurance that the $2 million will be put back on the table, that the commitment to the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador will be honoured and the Northern Fisheries Development Corporation will be set up?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am the Acting Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Hon. Member may as well learn that now. When the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is not here, I am the Acting Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I am not used to this adulation, Mr. Speaker.
The answer to the question is that $2 million is not enough. We are not going to restrict the fishermen of northern Newfoundland and Labrador with the meazly $2 million that the hon. gentleman suggests. Much more than that will be necessary to implement these recommendations. Negotiations must first be concluded with the Government of Newfoundland.


CONSTRUCTION OF CARTOGRAPHIC INSTITUTE AT SHERBROOKE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct my question to the Minister of State (Mines), but first I want to tell the House that, regretfully, we have learned today that the Government is apparently about to give in under pressure by some senior officials and some Members from the Ottawa area, and to reconsider the proposed construction of the cartographic institute in Sherbrooke. All Eastern Townships residents are deeply concerned, wondering what will happen to this project, all the more so since

March 22, 1985

the Prime Minister did make a solemn promise during the election campaign to the effect that the project would be carried out.
Can the Minister allay the fears of Eastern Townships residents and tell us whether construction will go ahead? Yes or no?


Hon. Bob Layton (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the project to develop the cartographic institute in Sherbrooke, there is presently a training program for the new employees who will be required by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
This project, as is the case with many initiatives of the Government, has been reserved for a financial decision as a result of the task force whose report will be deposited shortly.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would be hard pressed to say that the answer is crystal clear. Perhaps I should attempt to elicit a clearer response from the President of the Treasury Board.
What with inaction in the Domtar file, and now in the matter of the cartographic institute, everybody in the Eastern Townships is worried. Would the Minister enlighten us about the economic development policy of the Government of Canada-if there is one-with respect to the Province of Quebec? Is the Government taking concerted action to promote economic development in Quebec?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer yes to the question, our Government is taking concerted action to promote economic development in Quebec. Indeed it might very well explain why unemployment in Quebec declined by 54,000 in the past year, more than in any other Canadian province.


TOURISM
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, as part of the already more than $5 billion CF-18 interceptor purchase, McDonnell Douglas was to undertake a tourism promotion campaign for Canada. Can the Minister of Tourism inform the House what specific initiatives McDonnell Douglas has taken?
Oral Questions


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of State (Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. To my knowledge, the company has not approached me directly, nor has it approached my Ministry. I will look into the subject for him and would be prepared to discuss it when the information is gathered.


USE OF MINISTER'S PHOTOGRAPH
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that the Minister will indeed undertake that step to which he has just committed himself. I look forward to learn what he discovers.
Perhaps he can assure us that McDonnell Douglas' advertising is of higher quality than the recent advertisements of his Department, which are not promoting tourism in Canada but simply the Minister's handsome, smiling face, and a rather insubstantial consultation paper.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his compliment. The fact is that tourism is an $18 billion a year business. Under the previous Government Canada lost one-half of the country's share of world business receipts.
We believe that we can turn that situation around but we do not believe that the Government has all the answers. Some of the answers reside in the tourism industry itself. That is why we are consulting with the industry, to seek their views through the consultative process, and that is why we published the advertisement in connection with it.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State.
The Minister is aware of the importance and value of the Government's legal aid program which has helped a number of organizations and individuals to defend their rights before the courts, and I am referring to our rights under Section 133, 93 and 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Since this program is to expire on March 31, which is in a few days from now, what kind of programs does the Minister intend to have on April 1 that will help individuals and organizations, and I have been thinking especially of minority groups, to defend their rights before the courts?


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in committee to the Hon. Member, the matter is of importance. As has been the tradition in the past, there is a

March 22, 1985
Petitions
mechanism to see that rights concerning language were fully explored and that minority views were supported. At the moment there is an on-going discussion between the Department of the Secretary of State and the Minister of Justice. Shortly the Government will announce the future program for Charter challenges.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, when Section 15 of the Constitution becomes effective on April 17 of this year, Canadians will be trying to defend their rights under this section, which covers essential and basic rights. Could the Minister inform the House whether the Government is also looking at the feasibility of expanding its legal aid program to cover not only Sections 133, 93 and 16 to 23, but also Section 15 of the Constitution?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member rightly notes, with the widened context of Section 15, there are a number of groups that are very anxious to pursue rights and to see that these are clarified. In the review that is on-going, the wider context is also being reviewed in terms of support that may be offered.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) on Thursday, March 21, 1985, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) that the petition presented by the Hon. Member on Thursday, March 21, 1985, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It concerns petitions. In yesterday's Hansard at page 3251 you, Sir, are reported to have said that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form. In Votes and Proceedings there is a similar reference.
I have not in this session of Parliament presented any petitions either to the Clerk of the House or verbally. It would appear that some mistake has been made. I rather suspect that reference was to a petition that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk), who represents the Eastern Arctic, attempted to file with the Clerk of the House. Perhaps some correction could be made.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his point of order. The matter will be looked into. It is difficult to have a petition ruled out of order if one was not presented. I will have the matter checked.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(1), I am pleased to lay upon the Table of the House, a copy in both official languages of Report No. 24 of the Law Reform Commission on search and seizure. I ask that the report be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


PETITIONS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by several dozen Canadians in southwestern Ontario calling on the Government to retain the Canadian export corporation for agriculture products, Canagrex, pointing out that this agency made a very good start in its first year and should be retained so that we can adequately market our farm exports abroad.



MEAT INSPECTION ACT


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-33, an Act respecting the import and export of and interprovincial trade in meat products, the registration of establishments, the inspection of animals and meat products in registered establishments and the standards for those establishments and for animals slaughtered and meat products prepared in those establishments.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
March 22, 1985

Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the Government has shown contempt for the House in refusing to disclose the date of the Budget in this place and choosing to do it elsewhere. To show our protest, 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
House of Commons


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Since it is now 5 p.m., the usual hour of adjournment, it is obvious it will not be necessary to vote on the motion to adjourn. Accordingly, the motion before the House has lapsed, pursuant to S.O. 8(1). I do now leave the chair until Monday, March 25, 1985 at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.01 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 25, 1985