1985-02-14

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, February 13, 1985, consideration of the motion of Mr. Masse that Bill C-20, an Act to Amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Radio Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Radio Act.
I must say 1 find it interesting and most gratifying to speak to a Bill initially tabled and introduced in the House of Commons by the Liberal Government in the spring of 1984. The Government at the time and its Minister had worked very hard to promote the development of our communications industry and its specific role in serving Canadians.
Its role is, of course, to promote the development of Canadian culture across the country while considering, and this is very important, Canada's cultural diversity.
On the basis of this experience, the Liberals proposed in Bill C-20 that the Governor in Council have the right to issue certain directives to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. This is in fact repeated by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) in clause 14.1. However, the difference, and there is a vast difference between the former and the present Governments, is that the previous Government had won the confidence of the industry and the CRTC by initiating legislation and bills aimed at expanding communications in Canada. The problem is that today, the Party opposite does not have that expertise in communications, nor does it have the confidence of the communications industry.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very difficult to win the confidence of the industry when the Government has announced an
unconscionable number of cutbacks, and nothing else. I am thinking of the budgetary cutbacks affecting cultural agencies such as the National Film Board, the CRTC, the National Arts Centre and the Canada Council.
As far as the Canada Council is concerned, the Minister of Communications has decided to close the Council's Atlantic office located in Moncton, New Brunswick. I am sure the Minister must have received, as 1 did, a number of letters from the Conseil de promotion et de diffusion de la culture in New Brunswick, expressing their dissatisfaction. Mr. Speaker, I must explain that this organization regroups 14 associations directly involved in promoting and disseminating culture. 1 would add that our part of the country is relatively sparsely populated and our culture, the Acadian culture, is that of a minority. If we did not have those cultural organizations we would lose contact with other groups in Canada and we would be unable to make our culture known in other parts of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister realized that by closing the office in Moncton, he was in fact cutting off artists in Atlantic Canada from those in the rest of the country. If our Atlantic artists are to make a career in the arts, they must go outside the Atlantic provinces and make a name for themselves in the rest of Canada. By closing the Canada Council office, the Minister is compounding the isolation of the Maritimes and their people. Mr. Speaker, if we consider that the key role of the Department of Communications is to promote Canadian culture across the country, let me tell you that the Government is not going in the right direction.
That is not all, however, since the Minister has decided to proceed with further, equally disastrous, cutbacks. For instance, the new Government slashed $7 million off budgets to promote cultural projects. And, of course, they keep chanting: Hurrah for Canadian culture! Next, we will be asking: What Canadian culture? At the rate it is being stifled, we will soon be hard-pressed to maintain our own culture throughout the country.
As a matter of fact, I am afraid I denote a growing trend towards the isolation of the various cultures. This comment is strengthened by the fact that the party in office has pared the budget of the Crown corporation whose original mandate was to upgrade Canadian culture throughout the country. I wonder how the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will be able to live up to its mandate now that its operations have been curtailed by S85 million. One cannot talk about reduced

February 14, 1985
CRTC Act
funding without mentioning lay-offs in the same breath. Most lays-offs involved the main centres, but the fact remains that back home, in the Maritimes, quite a few employees of the Crown corporation lost their job. Need 1 emphasize that reduced staff in administration and especially in programming has a direct impact on the overall operations of the Crown corporation.
[DOT]	(mo)
In a region such as ours, the Acadian region, it is essential that a corporation such as the CBC be in a position to operate without restraints. First, to us the CBC means a Canadian or national presence but, more than that, it maintains the French fact and the French culture in the Maritimes through its French network, Radio-Canada. We do have other francophone media in the region, Mr. Speaker, but not as many as we would wish. The CBC cutbacks gave rise to immediate reaction from organizations such as the Federation des francophones hors Quebec and Nova Scotia's Federation des Aca-diens. Quite rightly, those associations spoke up against the cutbacks.
People have always praised the CBC for its contribution to cultural minorities. It was Radio-Canada that opened the first francophone TV stations in the Maritimes and, to this day, there are still no private television stations broadcasting French programs in the Maritimes-only Radio-Canada does. Most local programs and productions originate from Radio-Canada.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about consultation. They used to say that there would be no cutbacks without consultation first, but I must point out that again those were empty words.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, still on the issue of consultation, I happen to have here an interesting note about-

The National Director of the Canada Council, Brian Anthony, told reporters that the arts community was never consulted about the budget reductions.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the fact that the party across the floor is still busy making further cutbacks in the field of communications, again without consulting the groups involved. I can only decry this unilateral approach and I am firmly convinced that leaders in the communications industry will never have confidence in a Government which shows so little concern for their industry.
[DOT]	(ms)
IVIrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic): Mr. Speaker, I was anxious to speak in the House today because in my riding Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic, we have a very specific problem that concerns the CRTC. About three years ago, a community group came to my office with a community radio project called Radio communautaire du nord de Montreal. In a big city like
Montreal, people who stay home like to hear local news. It is like a local newspaper. In my riding there are four local newspapers, and I know my constituents would rather read these papers than the big Montreal dailies.
With this in mind, I agreed to support the community project I mentioned earlier because it covers about five or six ridings in Montreal North, not just my own. I gave the group a "Canada Works 1983-84" of $17,292. I gave them a "Summer Canada 1984-85" of $6,424. They also received a grant from the Department of the Secretary of State in 1984, for $5,700. 1 also obtained a "Section 38" for the fall of 1984, for $11,000. Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that it is particularly important to my riding that this project be approved by the CRTC.
Radio communautaire du nord de Montreal has held several neighbourhood meetings. It launched a leadership campaign and received many programming requests. It has concluded its viability study and sent its application to the CRTC. They were ready to submit their brief to the CRTC last fall, but, not surprisingly, considering what happened on September 4 last year, everything was postponed. Last week, I met Mr. Guy Jolicoeur, the project's promoter, who informed me he was very disappointed after receiving a letter from the CRTC advising him that his appointment for submitting his brief had been postponed for one year. This kind of delay is intolerable.
Mr. Speaker, my riding has 10 homes for the elderly, and 12.1 per cent of these people are over 65, while 23.4 per cent are between 45 and 64. I also have disabled people in my riding. Among the 10 per cent that are disabled, many are blind. It is a wellknown fact that people with this kind of disability listen to the radio all day and all evening, since they cannot watch television and few are able to read braille.
When I look at the cuts announced in the paper issued last November by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), I find that $75 million have been taken away from the CBC's communications department; $7.5 million from the cultural agencies; $7 million from cultural projects, and $10 million from the CBC's high technology equipment budget. Finally, and this affects my own community project, $22 million have been taken away from the broadcasting licensing department.
I have attempted to give a concrete example of the frustration and aggravation experienced by a small community which had already given clear indication of its needs. I hope the Government will reconsider its decision, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure quite a number of other small communities across Canada are just as disappointed as I am.
I feel 1 have a responsibility to speak for the handicapped who will be severely affected by Government cutbacks in the communications area.
I was on the task force which considered the needs of the handicapped during the 32nd Parliament. At that time we had
February 14, 1985

hearings in 18 cities all across Canada; we received 600 briefs and produced the "Obstacle" Report, in which we brought forward 130 recommendations. The fourth chapter dealt with information and communications and contained 14 recommendations having to do with the needs of the handicapped in the area of communications.
Mr. Speaker, one out of ten Canadians is handicapped, and that means 2.4 million Canadians. It would be urgent for the Government to develop a national policy on their needs in the area of communications. One of the recommendations was that community radio stations should allocate time for the broadcasting of regional and local news. This is something altogether different from national news.
Recommendation 54 was that the CRTC should develop programs with subtitles, provided of course that a broadcasting permit be obtained within a reasonable time. Licensing would be conditional on the addition of subtitles.
Will the S10 million cutback in the CBC's high technology equipment allocation hinder the development of the new subtitling system? Present day technology now allows cable viewers using a special decoding device to watch information on the screen.
The spokesmen for the handicapped consider that method of communications as being essential to cope with a wide range of needs of the hard of hearing in the area of information and leisure. We should keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that all statistics point to the fact that we will have to serve an aging population in the future, and that means an increasing number of persons with hearing problems, our older people being more numerous. In 1985, the average age is said to be 72 for men and 74 for women.
Another recommendation affecting the daily life of all our people with hearing problems is the prohibitive cost of longdistance calls. Because the method for receiving the message is slow, due to the fact that the message must be typed and received on a small screen, the Government should ask provincial governments and telephone companies as a priority to apply a rate reduction as soon as possible. I must say that Bell Canada has already accepted this, but the country is served by other smaller telephone companies.
I should like to touch on the question of the CBC regional service. In 1977, less than 10 years ago, the CBC was allowed to set up facilities in a city of the Lower St. Lawrence called Rimouski. How surprising! The entire population had to get involved beginning with Mrs. Eva Cote, then president of the Liberal Association and former Member for the constituency of Rimouski. She worked in close co-operation with Jeanne Sauve, then Minister of Communications. Some eight years later, the CJBR station in Rimouski is facing cuts and lay-offs. With 45,000 residents, Rimouski is an important city. Indeed,
CRTC Act
it is considered as the economic center of the Lower St. Lawrence.
One has to wonder whether the Government opposite is not moving backwards. I could go on and on but the Speaker is now indicating that I should very soon put an end to my remarks.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to mention that I am concerned about our Canadian artists. They are also affected by this legislation. Without programs such as Les beaux dimanches, there would have been no opportunity to appreciate the works of Marcel Dube, hear Maureen Forester, or see Karen Kain dance. Some people such as Toller Cranston, Louise Marleau, Anne Murray and many others would be known only abroad. Some 20 years ago, all our Quebec artists had to go into exile in France to launch their career. 1 will not speak of Rich Little nor of Paul Anka and all the others who went to the United States to become famous. We are pleased and very proud to say that all those people are Canadians. They belong to our culture. I think that it is a good reason enough to oppose that Bill.


Mr. Desrosiers:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment if I may.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, comments are not allowed at this stage of the debate on the Bill.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-20 relating to the CRTC. It will do a number of things. In particular, it will give the Government the power to direct the CRTC to implement government policy. As we are living in a very rapidly changing world in telecommunications, especially as it relates to satellite communications, to the changing role of cable television and of direct broadcast, the Government really needs this power.
When we look at many rural areas in the country, we see a situation developing where local television broadcasting stations have a very difficult time being financially successful. Often they are owned by the local cable network which carries 10 or 12 other channels-American ones, other Canadian ones and so on. Naturally the viewers want to watch these channels. Without a cable fee each month to subscribers, the local television station broadcasting off air would have a very difficult time making it financially. We have to have policies, and the Government has to be in the position to make policies so that we can maintain local television stations and ensure that they have the power to raise money through cable systems.
In the outlying areas of the country we see a twin stick operation in many cases, where local television stations carry CBC and CTV network broadcasting; for example, we see that in Sault Ste. Marie and in places like Sudbury. It took a few years for the CRTC to recognize the necessity for the cable and local television broadcasting facilities being tied together.

February 14, 1985
CRTC Act
In a sense we have that situation because without it local television stations could not be viable economically.
Some people would say that carrying CBC, CTV, Global and the other networks does not matter. However, I think it matters for us to have locally produced programs. They increase Canadian content. They give us local information about the area or district which they serve. It is very important for the Government to continue to adopt policies which ensure strong local broadcasting capacities for our stations.
One of the great concerns of many Hon. Members, at least on this side of the House, is just what policies the Government will adopt. In the recent economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), we find serious cut-backs in all manner of the arts. With the new power being provided in this Bill, we have to wonder just what policies the Government will announce. We have already seen the following cut-backs: $75 million in the CBC, $1.5 million in the National Film Board, $1.5 million in the CRTC, $1 million in the NAC, $7.5 million in the Canada Council and $7 million in the communications department.
I am especially conscious of these cut-backs because I had the opportunity to work in the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee last spring on C-24, the Crown Corporations Bill. At that time the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) was the critic for culture and the arts. We heard very strong speeches in favour of the arts and in favour of arm's length activity with the arts. We were able to design that Bill so that in the end the independence of the artistic community and the grants to the Canada Council were maintained. However, we have to worry about the strong statements made during the election campaign with regard to arm's length dealings with the arts and with the strong financial support to the arts when we reconcile them with the speeches of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) here in November and the interviews he has given, as well as the cut-backs which took place in the artistic community announced in the economic statement of early November. For example, in August, in response to a question from the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the PC Government replied:
We are committed to maintaning federal funding for the agencies and councils in line with inflation.
It does not say anything about the $75 million cut-back that came about three months later for the CBC, the cut-backs to the National Film Board and National Arts Centre. We wonder what happened between August, 1984 and November, 1984.
In reply to another questionnaire, the PC Government replied:
We are committed to real growth in federal contributions to this sector.
A few months later we saw massive cut-backs taking place in the artistic community totalling $121 million. In response to
another Canadian Conference of the Arts questionnaire in August, 1984, the Government stated:
Our commitment to improving the quality as well as the quantity of employment in the cultural sector is firm.
After the economic statement of November 8, we found that the CBC was forced to lay off 1,100 people Therefore, we have to wonder whether these commitments mean anything.
We were very impressed with the interventions of the Hon. Member for Rosedale at the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee meetings last year in support of the arts and its independence. How that had changed by November of this year! In an interview with The Globe and Mail on November 29, the Minister of Communications said that he wanted to rethink the arm's length principle and that his Government was moving rapidly to apply direct political hands in the affairs of the CBC.
It is interesting that when the plans were being made for cuts in the CBC of some $75 million, that was not done by the CBC alone. Three outside consultants were hired to decide the fate of the CBC. We are very concerned about where the Government's policy is now compared to before it came to power.
The CBC provides a unique service, not only to the country at large but to various regions. The CBC broadcast out of Sudbury covers all the communities in north-eastern Ontario. Even though those communities are all considered to be in one geographical area, they have very little ties except through the CBC. They receive feeds from the Canadian Press, Broadcast News or whatever, but the CBC is the only organization which ties all of these communities together in a regular CBC radio broadcast mechanism.
I hope the Government will take these concerns into account and develop policies for the future, not undercut and slash the artistic communities and essential services like the CBC as was done in November last.


Édouard Desrosiers: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, Bill C-20 will help us to make things better.
Hon. Members opposite criticize the Progressive Conservative Party for the cut-backs of $75 million at the CBC, but we must point out, and all Canadians should know this, the rationale for these cut-backs was to put an end to the shameful waste of money at the CBC. This is the truth, Mr. Speaker. We should not be afraid to say so.
People today want to defend the artists. I have been a member of the Union des artistes for over 25 years, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell those who want to defend the artists today that these people have been penalized for over 20 years by the CBC. This corporation helps about 40 people. All Canadians watch television! Where are our young musicians? Where are our young dancers? Where are our great Canadian singers? They have to leave Canada to earn a living.
February 14, 1985

They now say that they want to defend the great Canadian culture. Shame on them! Shame on the Members opposite who weakened this great culture for 20 years to help their friends, who have always been the same people. You also watch television, Mr. Speaker. You will agree with me that it resembles a game of musical chairs. The programs may change, but the people remain the same. Our old actors are no longer working, Mr. Speaker. It is always the same guy, who is given a wig and told: You will play this old man. At the same time, our old actors, who have a lot of experience, are completely forgotten. And what about the young musicians coming out of our academies of music, Mr. Speaker? What will they do? They will do what they have been doing for the last 20 years: They will play their instruments in their own kitchens.
Such is the result of the former administration under the Liberal Party.
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party is in charge now and we want to correct the situation and recognize the true worth of our artists. We also want to give them a chance to really come out and to develop and promote our great Canadian culture in this country. This is the truth, Mr. Speaker. We have seen many strange things in the past. Some people today for the sake of a cause are describing the Progressive Conservative Party as terrible and sleazy because CBC's budget was cut by $75 million. Flowever, the truth must come out. We have no jurisdiction over the CBC. You know that, Mr. Speaker. There is a man at the helm called Mr. Juneau and he is the one who decided to snap off radio antennas across Canada. Fie asked no one for permission. He does not want to follow instructions. He was told to stop wasting money. There are people at the CBC who have been there for 20 years. They have never produced anything and they have five or six people working for them. They are producers who have never produced anything. It is in such instances that we have asked that expenses be trimmed by $75 million.
I can give you another example. At one time, it was decided to produce a program called La course au bonheur at a cost of $1.5 million but this program was never shown. Strangely enough, Mr. Juneau made a statement and said: Well, we were wrong, we made a mistake; it was a miscalculation. We shall try to improve the situation.
Even the Auditor General of Canada has said that CBC had the worst management. This is a fact, and I think that it is important to support legislation such as Bill C-20 to correct the situation and to restore, in the interests of our Canadian artists and all the Canadian people, the true cultural role of the CBC.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Considering the enthusiasm shown by my colleague the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers), Mr. Speaker, I
CRTC Act
could not keep silent; I should like, therefore, to deal for a few minutes with Bill C-20.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill C-20 is essentially the same as the one the Hon. Francis Fox, the previous Minister of Communications, had introduced on February 8, 1984. At the time, Mr. Francis Fox, the previous Minister stated, and 1 quote: "This bill would provide more definite guidelines for the regulations the CRTC might implement in order to ensure that the broadcasting system contributes to an affirmative representation of women and other groups".
I have no major objections to the measure which the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) has introduced, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister will come forward at a later date with the other measures which were part of Hon. Francis Fox' Bill C-20.
I warn the Minister that he must keep his promise of holding consultations. He should really hold consultations, not merely announce them . . . We hear the Chairman of the Canada Council is experiencing much difficulty trying to set up a meeting with the Minister.
My colleague the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve has launched an attack against the CBC and its Chairman, but he has forgotten a very important thing, namely, that the Hon. Minister of Communications had appointed a troika to carry out a study and investigate the affairs of the CBC, and that it was that troika which suggested or decided not to make cutbacks. I think Mr. Juneau has administered the CBC well and it is thanks to the CBC if some groups are well represented in the French Canadian culture.
In a modern society such as ours, communications are of utmost importance. The impact of a televised broadcast can be assessed. Very positive programs have a positive impact. As evidence of this, I should like to refer to the visit John Paul II paid to Canada. All those who wanted to see the Holy Father were able to do so, just as they were able to see Her Majesty the Queen and witness major events. I will never forget Prince Charles and Lady Diana's televised wedding; it was a major event indeed, the like of which we could only expect to see in movies. Yet, it was for real. The impact of such great events is positive. But disturbing events can have a major impact too. In that context, Mr. Speaker, control over our system of communications becomes all the more important. My colleague who acts as critic for the Liberal Party in the field of communications has already pledged our support for this Bill, but we hope that in future the Government will continue the work already begun by the Liberal Party. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for letting me say a few words at the last minute.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.

February 14, 1985
CRTC Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Scott)?


Mr. Prud'homme:: We will have more speakers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I know the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the fact that he could speak and close the debate. Is that what he wishes? If so, he would have to have the unanimous consent of the House. If not, I will recognize other speakers after his speech.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, there does not seem to be general agreement to give unanimous consent-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Albert Proud: Please!


Mr. Dick:: There is on this side. Trying to stall again?


George Albert Proud: May I kindly remind my counterpart that the Bill would have passed last night if it had not been for the rudeness of some of his colleagues. May I put that on the record?


Paul Wyatt Dick: You broke an agreement.


George Albert Proud: I want to be on record to say that the Bill would have passed last night if it had not been for the rudeness of some of his colleagues. I am speaking to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Scott) and he knows about what I am saying. I am not naming names but the Hon. Member knows to whom I refer.


Paul Wyatt Dick: But the Liberals broke an agreement.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. If the Hon. Member says that we broke an agreement, may I remind him that we put up as many speakers as-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Order.


George Albert Proud: I just want to say in response to the question that you asked, Mr. Speaker, that the debate has been very pleasant this morning. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is about to speak. If the Hon. Member would have listened, he would have heard that I asked that the question be put. It seems to me that he does not follow the debate.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I heard that and he wanted to speak.


George Albert Proud: He was not in the House so what do you want us to do? Do you want another speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


George Albert Proud: Now that the Hon. Member has returned, we will listen to him. If he will make the kind of speech that we expect, then that will be the end.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that there is no unanimous consent for closing debate. Therefore, I recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications, I rise to support the Minister's overview of Bill C-20. At the outset, I would like to thank Hon. Members on all sides of the House for the quality of debate that has ensued in recent days on second reading of Bill C-20. To the Minister, myself and my colleagues on this side of the House, the contributions made in the debate up to this point in time have been very useful and valuable and will contribute significantly to the committee stage to which I think all Members of the House would like to see this Bill referred as quickly as possible. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this Bill covers and awful lot of ground and there is much detail to be covered in the committee stage as Members assess the impact of Bill C-20.
The Bill proposes to reduce the regulatory burden in communications. It proposes to allow the Government to set policy directions for the CRTC and telecommunications and broadcasting policy while maintaining necessary procedural safeguards.
With regard to the Broadcasting Act, the Bill proposes to create policy objectives that give the CRTC a mandate to deal with abusive programming, and I will return to that in a moment. The Bill proposes to reduce the burden of the broadcasting regulations on the private sector. We in this House have raised a number of questions about Bill C-20. I want to assure the House that at the earliest possible moment we will get this Bill into committee and review all of the questions which have been posed by Hon. Members. In just ten minutes I do not have time to deal with all of them. One feels something like a mosquito in a nudist colony; there is so much ground to cover, one has no idea where to begin.
I will try, Mr. Speaker, to make three quick points on behalf of my Minister. Bill C-20, as I pointed out yesterday to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), is deeply rooted in the thinking of the previous Liberal administration. That is to say, the Lambert Royal Commission and a special parliamentary committee on regulatory reform became an integral part of the previous Government's broadcasting strategy as it affected directions to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. So in effect we are doing a rerun of our predecessor's policy.
The second point is that it is about time that Parliament dealt with the whole area of sexually abusive broadcasting, indeed, abusive broadcasting of any kind. This matter was the subject of a special subcommittee during the previous Parliament, the result of which was a unanimous all-Party series of recommendations. At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) for her passionate dedication to that particu-
February 14, 1985

lar subcommittee. The untiring energy and effort she put into that subcommittee, of which I was the only Conservative Member at the time, will go a long way to making some very important changes in the whole area of abusive programming. This is one area which Bill C-20 intends to deal with head on.
The third thrust, or the theme, which I could suggest to my colleagues is that Bill C-20 is indeed complex in terms of its impact on the CRTC and on the entire broadcasting industry. As a broadcast journalist by profession, I am the first to admit that the nature of this legislation does raise questions as to the role of the Government in terms of what we Canadians can see and hear. We must come to grips with the most fundamental question of all in a free and democratic society. How far is the Government prepared to go in determining what we Canadians can see and hear? Where must Governments stop if our citizens cry interference in their right to watch and hear anything they want?
When people talk "open skies", they mean deregulation and the right to pick out of the air anything they want. How realistic is it, Mr. Speaker, for Parliamentarians to try to regulate the clouds? If "open skies" means the erosion or destruction of the Canadian broadcasting system as we know it, and ultimately a Canadian cultural identity as we treasure it, then where and when does the Government step in? To what extent can or should the Government, this Progressive Conservative Government or any Government, tell Canadians what they should or should not watch or hear?
These are very big questions, Mr. Speaker, and it is up to us as Parliamentarians to try to answer them. We cannot do so in ten minutes here or even in this second reading debate, but again, with luck, when we get Hon. Members and witnesses before the committee on Bill C-20, we will be able to address the concerns about the role of the federal Government in communications policy in that committee.
There are a couple of matters with which I want to deal very quickly in the time remaining. I was impressed by the intervention during the second reading debate by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) regarding the CBC's treatment of Newfoundland's second oldest radio station, CBG Gander. Both the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate and our colleague on this side of the House, the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Johnson), while remarkably temperate in their remarks, are vigorously supported by their colleagues on the government side. It is a very important matter to the whole of northeastern Newfoundland.
Other Hon. Members have raised comments about the effect of CBC cut-backs on their various areas, but at this time I will only refer to this particular case. I Find the CBG Gander situation to be of real concern when 1 learn that for a savings of $75,000 a year, as the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate pointed out, CBG Gander will be cut off from the people of northeastern Newfoundland. The CBC in the meantime has spent at least $99,500 to redecorate and recarpet the tenth floor of its executive offices on Dorchester Avenue in Montreal. I think those kinds of situations need to be looked at a little more carefully and I intend to raise more fully in
CRTC Act
committee my concerns along those lines. I thank the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate for pointing out this discrepancy.
I would like to deal just briefly with the sexually abusive and abusive broadcasting segment because this is a matter which is dear to my heart. There are some advantages to spending some time on the opposition side of the House because one gets the chance to deal with issues and make strong recommendations in committees and subcommittees. I believe one of the most important issues I have ever dealt with since being elected to Parliament is the question of sexually abusive broadcasting and violence in broadcasting.
I believe this is something that the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture has to come to grips with in terms of a new broadcasting policy under this Government. I am one of the First to go along with suggestions made by Hon. Members such as the Hon. Member for Broadview-Green-wood, who pointed out that, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3, we should be talking about the dignity and the quality of all people. It is a good suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the Hon. Member will raise it before the Standing Committee. I have already drawn it to my Minister's attention.
Again, may I thank Hon. Members on behalf of the Minister of Communications for their worth-while and valuable contributions to this second reading debate on Bill C-20. I believe there is a feeling in the House of Commons now that we would like to see this Bill referred to the Standing Committee as quickly as possible and, Mr. Speaker, I will be there along with my colleagues to deal in a very meaningful and responsive way with the new broadcasting legislation in this country.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Like so many of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to have taken part in this interesting debate. At the request of our party critic, I will make a few remarks, first to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that we have just heard positive comments. We commend him, his criticism is constructive. Let us hope that the mood of the other Government Members will be just as encouraging for us. In a spirit of co-operation and good will, we end the debate and let the consideration of Bill C-20 follow its normal course.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Masse, seconded by Mr. Scott, moved that Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Radio Act, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
2338

February 14, 1985
Pension Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.

Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that Bill C-28, an Act to amend the Pension Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time on a point of order inasmuch as I have had consultations with the Opposition House Leaders concerning the dealings by the House with this particularly important piece of legislation.
As Your Honour will understand by reading the Bill, this legislation, and the benefits payable under the provisions of the Bill, are effective upon passage. Accordingly, there have been preliminary indications of all-Party support for the general principles of this Bill. In fairness, Sir, I have received the agreement of the New Democratic Party to allow the Bill to pass through all stages with one speaker. I was to get a response from the Liberal Party. I understood that they were receptive and that it was a question of dealing with their critic. I was wondering if it would be possible to have agreement to deal with this Bill through all stages so the matter can be referred to the Senate today.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in a spirit of co-operation, it is the intention of the Liberal Party to let the Bill go through all stages today in the expectation that, as soon as the Bill is passed, the payments will go ahead immediately thereafter.


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to confirm what my House Leader has already indicated to the Government House Leader, that my Party is extremely desirous of seeing this Bill go through the House today and be referred to the Senate, possibly by one o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Am I to understand, therefore, that there is unanimous consent for the Government House Leader's proposal?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commence by thanking the opposition Parties for agreeing to pass this Bill through all stages today. We all agree this Bill will do a great deal for veterans who deserve this kind of treatment, and putting it through today will enable it to become effective very quickly. I know the veterans of this country will appreciate the
attitude expressed by all Members of the House in their willingness to see this Bill pass quickly. I thank the two Members who have spoken on behalf of their Party for their generous and co-operative attitude which has been expressed today.
The proposed legislation, Mr. Speaker, which I have the honour to present to the House contains five amendments to the Pension Act which will be of benefit to veterans and their dependants. The first amendment deals with the annual increase in the basic rate of pension. It has been increased each year by the percentage increase of the Consumer Price Index. This amendment will provide that in future the rate of pension will be increased each year by whichever is greater, the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index or the percentage increase of the average wage of five selected categories of public servants. This change will remedy a situation which for years has been very unfair to veterans because the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index has often lagged behind the percentage increase gained by these public servants. In 1984 this difference amounted to $611. This change will benefit 90,000 pensioners plus 51,000 spouses, children and orphans.
The second amendment will continue a disability pension at the married rate for 12 months following the death of a pensioner. The reduction to the single rate now begins at the end of the month in which the pensioner dies. This change will remove the shock of an immediately reduced income at a time when the spouse is under the emotional stress of such a grievous personal loss. This change is in line with a provision of the War Veterans Allowance Act which has been in place for years. Some 6,000 widows and widowers are expected to benefit from this change. The third amendment will extend the same right to survivors of pensioners who had been receiving attendance and/or exceptional incapacity allowance. Three hundred widows and widowers will benefit from this change which can only be described as very generous.
The fourth amendment deals with the Pension Review Board, the final stop in the pension process and which is currently facing an eight-month backlog of cases. The legislation will provide for the appointment of up to four additional members to the Board. The appointments will be for six months' duration and as required. This provision will guarantee to our veterans and to the Board that the Department will be equipped to meet the challenge of speeding up our examination processes in every possible way.
The fifth amendment will permit pension entitlement boards to be composed of two or three commissioners, as opposed to the present necessity of having three. This should allow these boards to process a third more cases each year. More importantly, this change opens up the whole question of what happens on a split decision. Past practice has been to turn down the veteran's application whenever a split decision occurred. Once the legislation is passed, every split decision will go in favour of the veteran.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this legislation. Every amendment is good news for veterans and their families. Almost as
February 14, 1985

importantly, these very long overdue changes have come about within five months of our taking office. They demonstrate the Government's commitment to those who served our country so well, and they demonstrate this Government's determination to help those Canadians who need our assistance.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, as the Official Opposition critic for veterans affairs, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-28, a Bill introduced by the responsible Minister and containing amendments to the Pension Act.
Mr. Speaker, first of all I am very glad that the amendments reflect a generous measure of compassion for those who served their country during the last three armed conflicts, in 1914-18, 1939-45 and the Korean War. During these three wars, many Canadians were killed on the battlefield; 66,000 in 1914-18, 44,000 in 1939-45 and 576 during the Korean conflict. They all left behind dependents and families, and many came back physically disabled as a result of wounds received in action.
Perhaps I may recall the words spoken by Sir Winston Churchill in a message to his countrymen during the last war, and I quote:
"Never have so many owed so much to so few".
These words are particularly appropriate today, because that small band of valiant soldiers who defended the principle of freedom so well over the entire world is becoming increasingly smaller today. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am particularly happy with the amendments to the Pension Act made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) for the benefit of those who deserve to receive far more from their country.
The Bill is another in a series of measures brought in to amend the Pension Act, since 1969 and 1970, especially, and continuing, annually, up to 1984. Mr. Speaker, these reforms were made mainly following recommendations by the Woods Report, which I think provided the stimulus for bringing about amendments to the Pension Act with respect to allowances or pensions paid to veterans and their dependents, so much so that it was said, and I quote:
{English}
The years since 1970 have been the most important ones in the history of pension legislation. During this period sweeping changes were made to the Pension Act to provide Canadian veterans and their dependants with benefits that are not exceeded by any other country in the world.

Mr. Speaker, this explains very well that the eight amendments to Bill C-28 complement the work already started with the Woods Report, and also reflect the implementation of some of the recommendations of the Marin Committee. Although that Committee has not been allowed to complete its mandate for reasons of timing, this nonetheless allowed the
Pension Act
Chairman of that Committee, at the express request of the present Minister, to submit a tentative report dealing with 62 major points which Mr. Justice Marin has decided to consider before giving his answers.
Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, part of those answers are included in Bill C-28, and I hope that the other, unresolved questions will be considered more in depth by the Department in order to bring further remedies eventually.
We should keep in mind the work done by the predecessors of the present Minister. One name comes to my mind, that of the former Minister, the Hon. Dan McDonald, who was seriously wounded overseas during the war. His memory is recalled in the Hall of Honour of the federal building named after him to house the Department of Veterans Affairs in Charlottetown. To keep the memory of that worthy son of Prince Edward Island, his battle dress jacket is permanently exhibited. The material on the left side, next to the heart area, was burnt by a stray bullet which went through and glanced off the prayer book he kept in his left breast pocket. This is what saved his life, Mr. Speaker. Mr. McDonald did a lot for war veterans.
Mr. Speaker, if the present Minister of Veterans Affairs has not reached the summit of his excellent political career in other portfolios he held in a distant past on in those he was responsible for a few years ago, he can now boast of having reached it in the position he now holds. I would like to commend him for maintaining continuity in the policy of compassion developed by his predecessors, especially the late Dan McDonald.

Let us take a quick look at the historical background of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I will briefly summarize major developments and legislative changes in veterans' affairs since 1969. Prior to World War I Canada's veterans consisted of a comparatively small number who had fought in the Fenian Raids, the Northwest Rebellion, the Nile expedition in 1885, and the South African War. No particular government agency was formed specifically to take care of the needs of these veterans.
Early in World War I the Canadian Government was asked to move all its seriously wounded soldiers back to this country. In order to satisfy this demand, extensive hospital accommodation and professional and other staff were required. The Military Hospitals Commission was set up by Parliament in 1915 to react to this situation. In 1916 Parliament decided that disabled veterans should be entitled to training for a trade or profession for which they would not be handicapped. The vocational training division was organized to administer this project.
By 1918 the volume of rehabilitation work had increased to the extent that the Department of Soldiers Civil re-establishment was formed to take over the administration of disability pensions, hospital care, training, and placing in employment. Under the Soldiers' Settlement Board many veterans received

February 14, 1985
Pension Act
government loans to establish themselves as farmers in Canada.
As the rehabilitation work lessened it was combined with that of the Department of Health and a new Department of Pensions and National Health was formed in 1928. This Department continued to administer veterans' matters until toward the close of World War II, it became evident that an expanded rehabilitation organization would be required. Consequently, in 1944 the duties of the Department of Pensions and National Health were divided. Those that affected veterans were taken over by a new Department which is the Department of Veterans Affairs.
With regard to pensions, up to June, 1916 all military pensions were administered by the Pension and Claims Board of the Department of Militia and Defence under the Pension Act. In 1919 the responsibility for pensions was given to the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada, then responsible to the Minister of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment. The administration of pensions has remained under that Board, the name of which was changed to the Canadian Pension Commission. Since 1944 the responsible Minister has been the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Under the 1971 amendments of the Pension Act the Pension Review Board was established to deal with appeals from entitlement and quantum award under the Act. The Board is also authorized to interpret the Pension Act. The 1971 amendments also established the Bureau of Pensions Advocates as a separate organization reporting directly to the Minister. The Bureau is an independent agency established for the sole purpose of providing free legal aid to pension applicants in the preparation and presentation of their claims to the Canadian Pension Commission Entitlement Board and Pension Review Board.
With regard to allowances, the War Veterans Allowance Act was passed in 1930 to provide assistance to Canadian veterans who were suffering economic distress and who, because of the rigours of active service in World War I, were considered to be pre-aged or otherwise permanently unemployable or incapable of self-maintenance. Subsequently the benefits of the Act were extended to others, including veterans of other wars in which Canada had participated, to British and allied veterans, and to widows, orphans, and dependent children, and in 1962, through Part XI of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, to certain categories of civilians who had served in wartime.
The War Veterans Allowance Board was established in 1936 to replace the War Veterans Allowance Committee which had been established in 1930. The Board acts as a court of appeal for applicants and recipients who are grieved by any decision of a military authority.
I will review the major veterans' affairs developments and legislative changes since 1969. In February, 1970 changes were made to the total disability provisions of the group life insurance contract between the director, the Veterans' Land Administration and the Imperial Assurance Company of Canada, permitting a greater number of seriously disabled
veterans to take advantage of the plan. Previously a benefit clause that provided for premiums to be waived in the event of total disability for a period of at least six months had caused underwriters to screen them out of the loan insurance plan. At the above date, the disability benefit was declared optional and many who previously could not obtain coverage could then do so.
In March, 1971, there was a major change that included a 10 per cent increase in disability pensions and a 15 per cent increase in war veterans' allowance rates, and amendments granting special pension status to former prisoners of war of the Japanese.
The new legislation also created, first, the Pension Review Board, an appellant body for the appeals of veterans who are dissatisfied with the decision of an entitlement board; second, the Bureau of Pension Advocates which provides free legal assistance to any applicant or pensioner under the Pension Act.
There were some other amendments as well. In March, 1972 amendments to the war veterans allowance and the civilian war allowance legislation included the exemption as income of cost of living increases of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.
Again in 1972, cost of living adjustments in pensions and allowances paid to the veterans and their dependants provided for review of pensions and allowances each September and adjustment upward at the beginning of the following year by the increase in the consumer cost of living index during the preceding 12 months.
In February, 1973 amendments to the veterans' treatment regulations doubled travel allowances and accommodation rates for veterans reporting for medical examinations or treatment. In 1973 an amendment to the Pension Act raised the basic rate by 24 per cent and, for the first time, based the basic rate on the average compensate salary of five categories of unskilled employees in the Public Service. The amendment also provided an established relationship between the basic pension and the pension of dependants so that in future years the rates of these dependants will be adjusted in accordance with the established percentages.
In October, 1974 there were other amendments. Previously no allowance was paid for dependent children. The amendment provided for $50 a month for each child less the amount of the family allowance paid on behalf of a child of a widow or widower, or an allowance received and stipulated that the additional allowance paid to an orphan, may be continued to age 25 as long as the child continues his education.
New legislation in 1975 provided equality of status and rights for male and female pensioners. That is, a female pensioner would now be eligible to receive additional pension for husband and children. In 1976 amended legislation provided compensation on a sliding scale tied to the period of time spent as prisoners of war to those who were prisoners of the Germans, Italians and North Koreans. In addition, compensa-
February 14, 1985

tion for those who had been prisoners of war of the Japanese was improved.
Also, on October 28, 1976 approval in principle was given to relocate the Department of Veterans Affairs and related agencies from Ottawa to Charlottetown. It was estimated that the transfer would take four to five years. Agencies and programs to be transferred included the Canadian Pension Commission, the Pension Review Board, the War Veterans Allowance Board, the Bureau of Pensions Advocates and the administration services of the Department.

I know this move has caused much discussion and I wonder today whether history will not be a better judge and acknowledge that such a change, the Department's relocation, has served war veterans and the public service well.

In January, 1977 benefits payable under the Pension Act, War Veterans Allowance Act, Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act and Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act were increased. Disability, widows and orphans pensions were increased 8.6 per cent in line with the rise in the Consumer Price Index. There were further benefits each year until 1984. It is not necessary to cite all the amendments to improve these benefits for the Canadian veterans.

Mr. Speaker, as Honourable Members will realize, this brief summary reflects a gradual evolution and a constant improvement of the pensions, allowances and services provided to veterans, their wives, their survivors and dependants.
Bill C-28 introduced today will improve even more the living standards of these veterans who are the pride of our nation. The eight amendments it contains are necessary to provide a better service in processing or reviewing applications made by Canadian veterans. All have complained with reason about the prolonged delays caused by the Pension Review Board, which represents the last stage in the pension application process.
To speed up the operation of the Review Board, four new or additional members will be appointed, which should indeed reduce the deplorable delays in the waiting period, that have sometimes reached from eight to ten months.
Another provision of the Bill states that the Entitlement Boards can be made up of two or three members of the Commission, instead of requiring that three be included as is now the case, to bring some flexibility into the process and to simplify the hearing of such cases.
Another amendment would guarantee the same benefits for the survivors of pensioners who received the attendance allowance or the exceptional incapacity allowance or both. It is estimated that 300 widows and a few widowers will benefit from this amendment.
Pension Act
Another important amendment will provide that the invalidity pension at the rate of a married pensioner will be maintained for 12 months after the death of a pensioner. At the present time, the pension is brought down to the rate of a single pensioner one month after the death of the pensioner. I would describe this change as a compassionate amendment, Mr. Speaker, as it will reach 6,000 widows who will certainly find it beneficial.
Mr. Speaker, another very important change, in my opinion, is that a situation which has been quite unfair for veterans for many years will be corrected, as increases were based on the cost of living index. It should be noted that these increases were often lower than those given to the five categories of nonspecialized Federal public servants. The difference for 1984 amounted to $611.
Thanks to these new amendments, the basic pension rate will now be increased automatically each year on the basis of the highest of either the consumer price index or the average wages of the five categories of non-specialized Federal Government workers. Formerly, the basic pension rate was increased automatically on September 30 on the basis of the consumer price index for the last twelve months and the rate was adjusted on the following January 1, as was done this year.
In addition, when a ruling on a veterans' pension application is not unanimous, the benefit of the doubt will be given to the veteran and the ruling of the Board will always be in his favour.
And finally, at present the Canadian Pension Commission is authorized to pay the cost of the attendance of the applicant and his or her witnesses at Entitlement Board hearings. No such provision is provided for attendance at Assessment Board hearings. Bill C-28 will authorize the CPC to pay the cost of attendance at Assessment Board hearings.

In short, Mr. Speaker, that is the scope of Bill C-28. As I said at the outset of my remarks, I would also like to draw the Minister's attention to the health of veterans who were exposed to atomic radiations in the fifties. Apparently, some of them are seriously ill because for years they were exposed to atomic radiations at Chalk River, in the Nevada desert or in the deserts of Australia.
I hope that the Government will accept the request of those veterans who would like to have medical examinations as soon as possible so that, like their colleagues, they will be granted a pension or a disability allowance, should the Canadian Pension Commission so decide.
Before concluding, I would like to mention the beneficial effects of the Aging Veterans Program. It is a dynamic program which enables a good many veterans to continue to enjoy the comfort of a family home instead of being isolated in

February 14, 1985
Pension Act
rest homes. Still on a trial basis, I understand that this program has been highly praised by those who were able to take advantage of it. This is a comprehensive and generous program, and I hope that the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Minister will take every opportunity to publicize this outstanding program which should be readily accessible to all qualified applicants.
If 1 may, Mr. Speaker, I extend my congratulations to all organizations, voluntary or otherwise, and to all people who directly or indirectly have for so many years been advising veterans and looking after their well-being and health. Our veterans rightfully expect a lot from us, but unfortunately we have not always given due consideration to their legitimate claims.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier today my Party, the New Democratic Party, wishes to see this Bill proceed through all stages as quickly as possible, hopefully one o'clock, and thus have this measure referred to the Senate.
At the outset 1 want to say that I do not want to speak for too long, but 1 do want to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) for bringing forward this legislation. If anything, I think the Minister was a bit too modest in his remarks to the House. I have been around here since 1980 and I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Various groups, such as the Canadian Veterans Association in Canada, the Canadian Legion and others, have appeared before that committee attempting to impress upon the committee the need for changes in legislation. For the first time since I have been on that committee we have a Minister who has actually met nearly ever major proposal ever presented to that committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Neil Young: To give you some background into what I meant about the Minister being too modest, Mr. Speaker, some of these proposals have been made to that committee since 1919. One of the major proposals which the Minister has presented to the House concerns the basic rate of pensions, which will finally be increased to reflect parity with the average take-home pay of selected categories of public servants. This proposal was presented in 1972 by a joint Government-veterans' organization committee. It is quite significant that the calculations on this new formula are to be made on the basis of parity as of September 30, 1984, and the adjustment is to be made on the first day of the second month following the month in which Royal Assent is given. This is one of the reasons we are extremely anxious to have this Bill passed through the House today, so that veterans and dependants can receive the increase as soon as possible.
I could talk about the legislation but I think the Minister has adequately expressed to the House its intent and the previous speaker from the Official Opposition has given us a rather lengthy briefing on the history of veterans' pensions and
the legislation affecting veterans over the years. 1 certainly have no intention of repeating much of that.
However, it is incumbent upon me to express some concern. I hope the concern does not last too long. The Minister knows that he will have my full co-operation in attempting to correct some of the real inadequacies in the existing legislation. For example, it completely escapes me why Canadian veterans who served overseas during wars and who subsequently elected, for one reason or another, to remain overseas are denied some aspects of veterans' pensions. They are in fact required under the Pension Act to return to Canada to reside in this country for 12 months. They would then be eligible for veterans' allowances. Many of these veterans of the day are getting older. Many are suffering financial hardship and have families, particularly in the United Kingdom and the United States. These people do not have the financial resources, or their family circumstances do not allow them, to return to Canada for 12 months.
I think that situation is absolutely ridiculous and I know the Minister is concerned about it as well. I would like to see that aspect of the legislation changed. We are not talking about a large number of people or large amounts of money, but those veterans who put their lives on the line for this country deserve better treatment than they have been receiving.
There is also much concern about the Dieppe prisoners of war who in many cases suffered severe hardship as a result of capture in that disastrous raid. These individuals should be given the kind of consideration to which they are entitled.
Most of the serious problems under the legislation are corrected by this measure brought forward by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Many of the problems we have had in the past, and I have no intention of enumerating them at this time, have been administrative problems, attitudes on the part of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and 1 do not mean this unkindly. With the legislation that has been in place there has been a question of how policy was being interpreted and applied to those veterans. Unfortunately, the way it has been applied has created untold suffering for many veterans and their families. 1 am hopeful that the measure before us, which is innovative in my view, will clear up many of these administrative problems.
I notice this legislation states that the Minister will appoint additional commissioners for a six-month period. We will see how that works. The Minister is prepared to review that matter, and if it does not work we will try to do something else to make it work even better.
That concludes my remarks, Mr. Speaker. 1 congratulate the Minister. He knows the Veterans Affairs Committee attempts to work in a non-partisan way. Every member of the Committee is concerned about the interests and worries of our veterans. I hope we will continue to work together in the best interests of all of us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
February 14, 1985


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Hees, seconded by Mr. Hnaty-shyn, moves that Bill C-28, an Act to amend the Pension Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the Committee of the Whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.


Marcel Danis: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-28, an Act to amend the Pension Act. Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 2-
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the Minister, but first of all I thank him for this Bill and I can tell him that we will support it.
Some military personnel were allegedly subjected to radiation during certain tests in Australia, in Chalk River, which is not very far from Ottawa, and in the Nevada desert. I think the Minister mentioned some time ago in a public speech that these people would be examined by medical staff of the Department of National Health and Welfare and, consequently, if it is proven that they suffered injury, they could be covered under the Pension Act. Does the Minister have any intention of bringing in that sort of amendment soon? Perhaps it could be done in committee. Also, will he tell us whether it will be retroactive to January 1, 1985?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad the Hon. Member asked that question, as I have been working on this matter for quite some time. We have contacted as many of these veterans as we possibly could. We are still trying to contact more of the veterans who were subjected to radiation at Chalk River, in the Nevada desert or in the Australian desert. These veterans are now being examined, by doctors of the Department of National Health and Welfare. The Minister of National Health and Welfare very graciously and generously agreed to do this job for me. These veterans are being examined and, as I have said, if the doctors indicate that any serious illness which these veterans have developed in intervening years could have been caused by their being subjected to radiation, I will recommend very strongly that these veterans be very seriously considered for pensions. I think I can assure the hon. Member that if such a recommendation goes forward, a great deal of attention will be paid to it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I should just like to pursue the matter with the Minister because he did not answer my last question. Would such an amendment be retroactive to January 1, 1985, if indeed some people were found to suffer radiation illness?
Pension Act


George Harris Hees: I do not think it will be possible. It might. I really have not thought about that very much. First we have to find out at the time of the examinations whether the doctors consider that any serious illness they might have contracted could-and I underline the word "could"-have been caused by radiation. We are giving the absolute maximum benefit of the doubt to the veteran in this case. If the doctor says: "Well, I don't know for sure but the illness of that veteran could have been caused by radiation", that is all I need; I will recommend very strongly-and I think the Hon. Member knows that a ministerial recommendation is quite a strong one

that that veteran be very seriously considered for a very generous pension.
I think that is the quickest way to get this matter dealt with. As soon as we get that kind of an indication, that recommendation will go forward. I assure the Hon. Member that that case will be heard very quickly indeed. I have great sympathy for people who could have contracted a serious illness due to carrying out their military duty in this way.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 3-When payments to cease
Mr. Shields:: Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to compliment the Minister of Veterans Affairs on a very forward-looking and what could only be described as a very thoughtful piece of legislation. It not only recognizes the contributions of our veterans to the country, but it looks after them in the style in which they should be looked after.
I should like to ask two questions, if I may. First, how soon in the Minister's view will the backlog of pension applications be completed? I understand that there is quite a backlog awaiting decision. How long does the Minister feel, with this new legislation, it will take for them to be completed?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I have great hopes that by the end of June-that is the target date which we set, as I have told my Department-these backlogs will be cut to an absolute minimum. I assure the Hon. Member and the Committee that the Department is working very hard and bringing in a number of innovations to speed up the processes and to cut out the loss of time which has been present in the past in dealing with these matters. We are working very hard at the present time. I have set that target date. They agree that it is a reasonable one. By the end of June these backlogs in all sections of the Department in these processes should be brought down to a very reasonable level. That is something which I check very carefully with the Department each time I go to Charlottetown. I am confident that very great progress will be made by that target date.


Jack Wendele Shields: I have one further quick question. Having not been able to glean out of the Bill just exactly what I wanted to know, I should like to ask the Minister a very specific question. I have a constituent who is newly widowed but was never married to the veteran pensioner. In other words, they lived in a common law relationship. Will she be considered a widow in

February 14, 1985
Pension Act
every sense of the word? Is that covered in the Bill, or is that left to the Minister's discretion?


George Harris Hees: That is left to my discretion, and it is my intention that people in such situations should be considered as having been married to the pensioners. I would consider them in the same category.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to ask my question when Clause 1 was before the Committee; however, I join with the official critic in congratulating the Minister of Veterans Affairs for bringing forward such an advanced, forward-looking Bill with so many benefits for veterans.
1 was very impressed last November 8 when the economic statement was brought down. At that time I looked across the aisle and the only Minister smiling was the Minister of Veterans Affairs. He is to be congratulated on his ability to get money for veterans at a very difficult time, some $22 million, I understand.
Is any consideration being given to raising the amount of income which veterans can earn? I think there is a limit. I have received a number of representations indicating something like $940 per month. A number of veterans' associations have asked whether that limit could be raised to $1,500 per month. I think this would be under War Veterans Allowance Act benefits and associated regulations. Is the Minister giving any consideration to that? I wrote to him back in December on the issue. When putting through such an advanced and forward-looking Bill, not only providing the basic rate and improved benefits under the war veterans allowance, but a program to resolve the backlog of cases as well as the procedures of the Canadian Pension Commission, has any more consideration been given to the allowable limits that veterans can earn?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I have certainly taken the Hon. Member's letter to me on this matter very seriously. It is something that in the future I would like to see accomplished. As the Hon. Member well knows, in order to do these things we must have the money. As he has pointed out very generously, the Department has been treated very well in that regard. When it is apparent that more money will be available, I can assure him that this question will receive active consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 13-Where split decision
Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would like the Minister to confirm on Clause 13 that, in the event of a split decision by the commissioners, the decision in favour of the veteran will prevail. Is my understanding correct?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly how it will prevail. In making the move that has been made in this regard, that was one of the important considerations given to it. It will not only speed up the consideration process considerably, but it
will make it possible without any shadow of a doubt that the benefit of the doubt always goes to the veteran. That is a key part of our new policy. In every case the pensioner must be given the benefit of the doubt.
In my talks with veterans' associations and Members of Parliament who represent pensioners when I took over the portfolio, I received the very definite impression from a great many of those who spoke to me that it appeared that those examining veterans' pension applications seemed to be trying to find ways of not giving the pension to the applicant. That has now been changed. We now look for every possible way that we can give the pension to the applicant.
I think we all agree that we are dealing with a very special group of people in this country today. Not only are they wonderful people because they are Canadians, but they all went overseas, took a chance at being killed, and a great many of them were. A great many came back badly wounded, maimed, unable to live the happy life that the rest of us are privileged to live. Therefore, I know that every Member of this House will want to do anything they can to make life more enjoyable for them. I know that all Members, because many have expressed the view to me, are in complete agreement with this policy.
While I am on my feet, I appreciate the fact that Members are allowing this Bill to pass very quickly. I want to congratulate those who have spoken this afternoon. In particular, I want to congratulate the official critics of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties this afternoon for their far too generous remarks about my efforts in this regard. They are much appreciated.
I have been in this House for 35 years. I have never seen a more generous reception given by the Members of the Opposition to a Government Bill than I have on this occasion. I can hardly believe my good luck. I am going to be on a cloud for quite a while. I just want to thank all Members for making that cloud possible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add to the Minister's joy. As he knows, today is Valentine's Day and we thought he would enjoy having this.


Mr. Mantha:: Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the Minister of Veterans Affairs on his handling of the Bill and the passage of it. I also want to compliment the Minister on a case that I brought forward to him. This case has been around since 1976. The man in question is being operated on today. I want to thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs for his assistance and for allowing the pension.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
February 14, 1985
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that I call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in a major speech to his Party's multicultural conference last June, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) outlined five personal priorities for a multicultural policy in Canada. One of these priorities was economic equality and opportunity.
Next month the Government will be hosting a national economic conference at which time participants from all sectors will have an opportunity to share their own economic agendas. Despite many assurances, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the only national body representing ethnocultural communities, has not been invited as a participant. The Council has been asking the Government for months for a seat at this conference. Last year I wrote to the Ministers of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and Multiculturalism (Mr. Murta) regarding this very subject and thus far my representations have gone unanswered.
It is time that the Government had the courage and decency to place some much needed action behind its great words of promise. Ethnocultural leaders and organizations are becoming quite agitated at the Government's empty sing-song performance.
The Canadian Ethnocultural Council rightfully deserves to be a participant in this conference and I urge the Government immediately to ensure its involvement and contribution. For the Government to deny the Council this opportunity would be for the Government to ghettoize what is an important Canadian reality.



SOCIAL AFFAIRS


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the hysteria regarding access to abortions should be cooled. It is time the Government supported sound family planning to
prevent unwanted pregnancies, to eliminate the need for making very difficult decisions on the question of abortion, and to provide choices for women.
Planned Parenthood provides information on family planning and on safe contraceptive methods, an issue of growing concern to women. It provides sex education programs and counselling. It helps families as well as individuals. Its aim is to encourage family planning so that children will be wanted and loved, and parents will be able to provide the care that children need. It helps young people to understand their sexuality and the importance of preventing unwanted pregnancies.
Pregnant women can receive the information and help they need to make the choice that is best for them and their families. Teenage mothers may be referred to support groups for schooling and housing, or a young girl may decide not to have a child and may be referred to a doctor to discuss a legal, safe, medical abortion.
We urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to support funding for Planned Parenthood and to encourage research into safe methods of contraception. Unwanted pregnancy should be prevented. Women should not be the victims of street battles.



EXPRESSION OF GOOD WISHES TO GAETAN BOUCHER AT WORLD SPEED SKATING CHAMPIONSHIPS AT HEERENVEEN, HOLLAND

Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, a year ago, at the last Winter Olympics, Canadians saw how one of its athletes won three Olympic medals, a first for Canada. This unique achievement has been an inspiration to all Canadians and especially to our athletes and aspiring athletes. Another positive result has undoubtedly been the involvement of private enterprise in subsidizing training expenses. Mr. Speaker, thanks to the initiative of the private sector, an example being the Dairy Bureau of Canada, our top athletes can continue their training and thus be in a position to represent Canada at international competitions.
Mr. Speaker, 1 therefore invite all Canadians to join the Dairy Bureau of Canada, the people of the riding of Chambly and the Members of this House in offering our best wishes for success to our own Gaetan Boucher, who on February 23 and 24 will be taking part in the World Speed Skating Championship at Heerenveen in The Netherlands.

February 14, 1985



CITIZENSHIP


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has an obligation to assure the civilized world that Canada does not harbour war criminals, but the Government also has an obligation not to suggest in its search for war criminals that those Canadians of German descent who fought for their country during World War I and World War II are war criminals. We honour these people as citizens who have done a great deal to develop the strength, character, and expertise of this nation.
Unfortunately, in an effort to try to assure the world that we do not harbour war criminals, it has seemed to some that the Government is out to castigate the German people. This must not be the appearance of what we are doing. World War II has long passed. All wars are a tragedy. Families and persons involved are injured, and bear the scars of those injuries. However, inquiries should not be used to fan racial prejudice, to stir up old hatreds, or to settle old scores.
Old scores should be long buried. This is Canada. This is a new country, and the old scores of the old world do not belong in Canada. While we should look for war criminals, justice is not advanced for any by the revival of memories of torture, injustice, and old bitterness.
them over a very difficult period. I would hope that all Members of this House from the maritime provinces would support the Maritime Farmers Council.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was reported that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicated that the former Minister of National Defence was at worst guilty of an error in judgment, an error which we are assured in no way influenced his ability to perform his ministerial responsibilities.
Without questioning the integrity of the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay), I would say that we are of the opinion that he, too, is guilty of a serious error in judgment, the main difference between the two being that his error did in fact take place while carrying out his ministerial responsibilities. The fact that the Solicitor General decided to hold a meeting with a person under investigation by the RCMP, in advance of that investigation being concluded, for the purpose of hearing what that individual had to say about that investigation was, in our opinion, as serious an error in judgment as the error in judgment committed by the former Minister of National Defence. We would like to ask why this double standard exists.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I met with the Maritime Farmers Council to discuss a serious issue dealing with the maritime livestock industry. Since 1940, the pork and feathers industries have more than doubled. Unfortunately, as a result of the Feed Freight Assistance Program introduced in 1941, under which 90 per cent of the cost of transporting grain from the Lake-head to eastern Canada was paid, there has been little if any research, technical development, or interest in grain production in the three provinces.
From 1967 to 1976 the level of feed freight assistance was allowed to slip to 59 per cent of transportation costs. In 1976 the area to be equalized was moved to Montreal, thus eroding the maritime position.
The Maritime Farmers Council has developed a feed cost equalization proposal which it feels will greatly assist the feed, dairy, beef and pork industries. It is approaching the Government for a short-term emergency initiative to maintain the livestock industry and to develop feed self-sufficiency in the Maritimes.
The farmers in the maritime provinces do not want subsidies. Equally so, they do not want to be treated as second-class citizens. They need this financial assistance now in order to get



TOURISM


Mr. Fernand Ladouceur (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House to a very disputed question of significance to the constituency of Labelle. It concerns the Mont-Tremblant resort, and the state of this matter over the years has had serious implications for a population deriving a major part of its income from the tourist industry.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the Mont-Tremblant area has now become famous as a major international tourist center, and this is the reason why several men and women in the area, who are aware of that advantage and are anxious to keep it, have been increasingly involved in the prospect of regaining control over their economy and applying a sense of entrepreneurship of great benefit to them.
Mr. Speaker, we, the residents of the constituency of Labelle, are confident that this Government, with its open mind and its current guidance, because of its will to co-operate
February 14, 1985

and work at all levels, will finally resolve that legal and administrative imbroglio, and give the people in the area all the assistance they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, it is already assured that thanks to the cooperation of the various departments involved, at both the federal and the provincial levels, and within the spirit and letter of the general agreement and the subsidiary agreement dealing with tourism, a satisfactory solution will be found to the Mont-Tremblant issue and the residents of my constituency will remain proud of the choice they made on September 4, 1984.



NEED FOR INCREASED SECURITY MEASURES

Édouard Desrosiers: Mr. Speaker, following the embarrassing incident which occurred in the House the day before yesterday, 1 readily admit that 1 was dismayed and surprised to see how easy it is for anybody to come in with almost anything in this House. Instead of what the lady hurled on the floor of this House, it could have been a dangerous or life threatening object. We are told that there is an electronic security system which would allow to intercept the individual who would try to conceal fire-arms before coming in this House, but he could not be stopped if he came running in. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that the doors, either the main door downstairs, the entrances through the anterooms and to the public galleries are not locked or equipped with an electronic device. The access is therefore too easy.
Why should we not have such a security system? We could also have a glass partition, something that can apparently be found on the market. The security officers who are admittedly exceptionally devoted and kind would certainly have recommendations to make.
We would thus recognize, Mr. Speaker, that we are living in a period of increased terrorism-


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



EMPLOYMENT


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, according to an article published in the Le Droit of February 7, students are not quite ecstatic about the Challenge '85 Program. The Canadian Federation of Students has stated emphatically that it does not feel this will prove such an extraordinary program for Canadian students. The Montreal
Gazette of February 11 reported under the heading "Industry can't promise 10,000 jobs for students" that the officials of at least eight major corporations are unable to guarantee that they would crease their share of the 10,000 new jobs announced by the Minister. Finally, the president of the Canadian Employment and Immigration union has sent us a news release dated February 12 describing the situation, and I quote: "The Challenge '85 Program is intended for students who, through their studies, have acquired the qualifications for positions that are in great demand. Which means that the students without the proper qualifications and training are likely to be unemployed once more this summer. It appears ill-advised in that it will find jobs for those who need it the least, while ignoring those who need it the most". He stated further: "This summer, there are Canadian communities which might be deprived of services for the handicapped, senior citizens and children from low income families".
Mr. Speaker, 1 would ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to explain to the House these various reactions to her Challenge '85 Program.




Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I am now rising in this House on behalf of my constituents of Jonquiere, and it is to them that 1 wish to address my comments today.
1 am asking my constituents, our business people, our big business managers, and I am thinking of companies such as Alcan and the pulp and paper industries, as well as our students to take up the challenge our Government has put before them. I am referring to the program Challenge '85, which will create 95,000 jobs for students throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that my constituency can derive considerable benefit from the amounts which will be available under this budget item of $205 million. A single day does not pass that I do not stand up for my constituency and do not fight to get Jonquiere its fair share under the various programs proposed by the Government. However, this time, it is up to you, citizens of the Jonquiere constituency, to take up the challenge! It is up to you, businessmen, municipalities, students, non-profit organizations, to take up the challenge! The funds are there. They are available for all the regions. If you do not take up the challenge, the money will go elsewhere.
While Jonquiere has had record unemployment rates, I am asking you that it now have the record for job applications this summer to provide employment for our students.

February 14, 1985
Oral Questions



FEDERAL-NEWFOUNDLAND AGREEMENT

Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, in the Atlantic Accord which was signed just recently by the federal Government and the Newfoundland Government Clause 54 states, and I quote: "Hydrocarbons will be made available to Newfoundland and Labrador to meet the feedstock requirements of industrial facilities in place on the day that legislation implementing this accord is proclaimed, and for new industrial facilities in Newfoundland and Labrador"-
-provided such feedstock is excess to feedstock required to meet the demand of presently existing industrial capacity in eastern Canada.
In other words, Petromont is all right in Montreal. Quebec is all right for under utilized refineries and petrochemical industries, and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. But by law under this Clause, no such industries can be constructed in Newfoundland using that offshore oil.


An Hon. Member:: Shame.


George Baker: This is a rip-off of the Newfoundland people and a sell-out by both these Governments. When the legislation is introduced in this Chamber, I would strongly advise the Government to amend Clause 54 of this agreement.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister indicated yesterday that he had to ask or accept the resignation of the former Minister of National Defence because of "a momentary lapse of judgment", can the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that it was, on the part of the Solicitor General, at the very least a momentary lapse of judgment to have a secret meeting with Mr. Hatfield, not in his office, but in a hotel room, with a lawyer present who was not a departmental official? Does the Deputy Prime Minister not recognise that the Prime Minister has a set of standards of conduct for the former Minister of National Defence and another set of standards for the Solicitor General who gave him his seat in Central Nova a year and a half ago?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I resent the implications inherent in the tail-end of the question put by the Hon. Member. It is not really worthy of him. I also resent the Hon. Member's distortion of the remarks of the Prime Minister in
response to a question put by a journalist. I have a transcript of that exchange during which the journalist asked the question whether the Prime Minister felt it was appropriate "for a Minister of the Crown to be in a bar that has a reputation like that?" The Prime Minister's response was, and I quote:
As I said yesterday, I suppose if you are in a foreign country and you have never been to that place before it is probably an error in judgment-
That is with respect to the appropriateness of the location of the establishment. He went on to say:
-that you or I or any other imperfect human being could make.
That was the Prime Minister's specific response in reply to a question as to whether or not the Prime Minister felt it was appropriate for the Minister to be in such an establishment.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHETHER COMMISSION WILL INVESTIGATE PREMIER HATFIELD'S ACCUSATIONS AGAINST RCMP
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In the light of the extraordinary request made twice yesterday by Mr. Dalton Camp for a public and independent inquiry, and the extremely serious charge made by Mr. Hatfield that the RCMP had acted unlawfully in order to discredit him, does the Government intend to finally accede to requests by the two opposition Parties, by Canadian newspapers across the country and by Mr. Camp to set up a commission of inquiry that would either confirm Mr. Hatfield's statements and censure the RCMP or exhonerate the RCMP and repudiate the serious charges made by Mr. Hatfield?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, again that is a distortion, which I am afraid is becoming a habit over there, and not unexpectedly, of course. I watched and listened to the statement of Premier Hatfield yesterday and nowhere in that statement was there a direct accusation with respect to the conduct of the RCMP-or indirect, I might add-in my viewing and in my listening to that statement.
With respect to a judicial inquiry, that has been responded to by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, yesterday. I need not read his response into the record. It is to be found at page 2305 of Hansard, and it is quite complete. As the Member knows, there is an internal review now being conducted in the RCMP with respect to all aspects of the process as it was applied in this particular case. When that review is complete, it will be considered, and perhaps questions answered at that time.


REQUEST THAT SOLICITOR GENERAL RESIGN
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Solicitor General. If the Govern-
February 14, 1985

ment does not want at this time to have a public inquiry, will the Solicitor General adopt the same standard of behaviour of his fellow MP from Nova Scotia, the former Minister of National Defence, and do the right and honourable thing by either requesting a public inquiry to vindicate his own judgment, or resigning?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, may I say to my hon. friend from Saint-Maurice that, as the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated, there is a comprehensive internal review on now into this matter. In having my meeting with Premier Hatfield I exercised the judgment I thought was appropriate-


Mr. Frith:: No one else does.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: -to listen to his concerns. If the Hon. Member cannot distinguish between the circumstances involved, then I am afraid I cannot help him very much.


GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister, dealing with the resignation of the Minister of National Defence. The Prime Minister on Tuesday, and the Acting Prime Minister yesterday, indicated to the House that all information related to the question of national security was dealt with properly. How can the Prime Minister claim that a thorough investigation was undertaken when news reports today tell us that the people in the club concerned were never interviewed, that the Base commander at Lahr knew nothing about an investigation, and NATO officials deny ever being consulted?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I'll bet you know all those people in the bar; you could have asked them the questions.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: Very funny, Ray.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You're a bunch of jokes.


Erik Nielsen: -in response to the rather vague question put by the Hon. Member, I can see no inconsistency whatsoever with respect to the statement of the Prime Minister that he caused a very comprehensive and thorough inquiry to be made into the security aspects of this matter. Indeed, that was his very first concern, and I can assure the House that the Prime Minister did indeed, as he stated, cause very thorough inquiries to be made and remade and rechecked. The final report was made, as indicated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, at noon yesterday.
Oral Questions


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the cheap remarks of the Government House Leader.


Mr. Rossi:: The joke is on your side.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I understand that is the new standard of civility in the House.


RESIGNATION OF MINISTERIAL ADVISER
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I am impressed by Canada's ability to carry out international investigations without our allies' participation. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell this House if the widely reported resignation of Mr. Duncan Edmonds, senior adviser to the former Minister of Defence, on January 18, and his departure on the same day for points south, had anything whatsoever to do with the allegations raised by the Ottawa Citizen and the Minister's subsequent resignation?


Erik Nielsen: No, Sir.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Today, for the first time, the Premier of New Brunswick has given information with respect to the meeting which took place between himself and the Solicitor General. Will the Solicitor General confirm, as has been indicated by the Premier of New Brunswick, that the Premier was seeking a speed-up of the investigation by the RCMP? In particular, will he confirm that the Solicitor General invited the Premier of New Brunswick to his home for that meeting despite his earlier assurances that this meeting should be held on neutral ground?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: can say in reply to my hon. friend the Premier is wrong in his recollection that I invited him to my home. But I can confirm that the Premier, as I said before, wanted me to meet him on an urgent basis because of some concerns he had with respect to the practices and procedures. I have nothing further to say about that conversation other than that I still regard it as being a confidential and privileged conversation.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it may have been confidential, but clearly the meeting was improper in the circumstances.


REQUEST THAT SOLICITOR GENERAL RESIGN
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the standard set by the Prime Minister with respect to judgment in this matter, and in view of the fact that clearly there is

February 14, 1985
Oral Questions
at least a difference of opinion between the Premier of New Brunswick and the Solicitor General, and in view of this error in judgment which should not be repeated, does the Deputy Prime Minister not recognize that the appropriate course is for the Solicitor General to step down, at least pending an investigation?


Erik Nielsen: No, Sir, I do not-


Mr. Waddell:: Then why did Coates step down?


Erik Nielsen: -in general. The Hon. Member will have an opportunity to ask the specific question which I will be happy to answer if he gets that opportunity.
With respect to this specific question, I would refer the Hon. Member to the responses made by the Prime Minister on February 12 to be found at pages 2260 and 2261 of Hansard.


DISCUSSIONS INQUIRY
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. As you are aware, the Solicitor General has steadfastly refused to disclose the details of that secret meeting at the Chateau Laurier, and steadfastly maintained that that particular meeting was proper and above board. One can only conclude that the Solicitor General is hiding something and merely clinging to power.
Mr. Dalton Camp, a close friend and adviser of Premier Hatfield, and the Premier himself, have now disclosed details of that particular meeting.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


John V. Nunziata: In fact Premier Hatfield himself has said that the Solicitor General should disclose particulars of that meeting. Will the Solicitor General finally come clean with the Canadian public and this House and tell us exactly what was discussed at that particular meeting, and finally do the honourable thing and admit that that bloody meeting was wrong?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston talks about doing the honourable thing. This is a man who obtained confidential-


Some Hon. Members:: Resign.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: This is a man who obtained confidential information from the Department of Justice, which could not be used in open court for very good procedural reasons. Then he came into the House of Commons and used it, and betrayed his source in the meantime. I think someone on that side of the House should tell the Hon. Member that that is not the way you do things in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: He talks about doing the honourable and equitable thing. I presume he got through law school, although
I am not certain given the way he handled the affidavit yesterday, but he should remember the old legal maxim that he who seeks equity should come with clean hands. He certainly has not in this matter.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not wiretap my own office. What the Canadian people want is answers, not insults.


PREMIER'S REFERENCE TO RCMP
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, Premier Hatfield has made some extremely serious allegations about the conduct of the RCMP. He is actually accusing them of being party to a conspiracy to have him removed from office. The Acting Justice Minister from New Brunswick suggested that the RCMP has, as one of its goals, the downfall of the provincial Government in New Brunswick. Therefore, does the Solicitor General intend to stand idly by while the integrity and reputation of the RCMP are brought into question by the Premier of New Brunswick and the Acting Justice Minister of New Brunswick? In the alternative, will the Solicitor General come to the defence of the RCMP and ensure that the integrity of the RCMP is maintained by calling for a judicial inquiry to clear his name and the good name of the RCMP?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Hon. Member is as confused as ever. On the one hand he wants me to be an interventionist, and on the other hand he claims that I have been too active.
I can assure the Hon. Member and the House that the RCMP have an exemplary reputation built up over many decades. They are a police force which has inspired great confidence. They themselves requested an internal review. This internal review was promised in November and is now under way. If it is decided that changes are required in the practices and procedures of the RCMP when the review is finished, they will be announced in due course.


THE ECONOMY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister on a somewhat different matter. Interest rates have gone up again today.
I can recall when the Deputy Prime Minister was the House Leader of the Official Opposition not many months ago. The Official Opposition at that time claimed to stand against the Liberal policy of ever increasing high interest rates. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why the Government is now following the exact same policies established by the previous Liberal administration and allowing high interest rates to become the order of the day?
February 14, 1985


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. House Leader knows that interest rates in the country have been reflecting actions in exchange markets. The monetary policy has been a moderating influence in the interest rate market. We are proceeding with responsible Financial management.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am positive that you can remember hearing that same answer from the previous Minister of Finance in the Liberal administration.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Ian Deans: Can the Minister tell us why the Government cannot come up with a set of policies consistent with the view expressed by the Prime Minister that, if faced with the choice between high interest rates or a lower dollar, he would choose not to pursue the line of high interest rates?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, our financial management policy would be considerably enhanced if it were not for the blockage in the other place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that we have never appointed anyone to the Senate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Nor will you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT BANK OF CANADA GOVERNOR BE REPLACED
Ian Deans: Sympathetic though I may be with the Government in this matter, I would like to direct another question to the Acting Minister, or the Secretary of State for Finance, or whatever. I recognize you, but I can't remember who you are.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Ian Deans: Don't be silly.
I would like to ask the Minister who is answering for the Government how many people in Canada have to lose their homes, their farms, or their small businesses, before the Government will be true to the policies that it claimed it believed in, and will take the necessary action to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada and replace him with someone who cares about Canadians?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to the Canadian people that the policies of the Government are to ensure that Canadians
Oral Questions
cannot only continue to own their own homes, but that they will be able to buy homes and to have jobs. That is what the Government is working for, and I think the Hon. Member knows it.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to address a question to the Minister of State for Finance, concerning interest rates. As we know, interest rates went up once again today and we have had a larger increase in interest rates in the last two weeks than we had in the entire last year. That creates a high level of instability in the market.
It is equally disturbing that at the meetings in Regina the Premiers are asking for a response, and the federal Government has absolutely no position on interest rates. Can the Minister of State for Finance indicate whether the Government of Canada indends to put forward, in the very near future, a clear position on its policy relating to the increased interest rates which are now being experienced in Canada?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, interest rates are still considerably below what they were when the other Party was in power. We have made a very strong commitment to lower interest rates. Throughout the early months interest rates did come down, and they will be coming down again.


INTEREST RATES ISSUE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think the House deserves a correction by the Minister of State for Finance. At the time of the last First Ministers' conference on the economy real interest rates were 4.5 per cent. Today they are 7 per cent. That is the fact. That is the reason the level of investment is down.
The Government has repudiated the position it took during the election. When will the Government put forward a position so that investors and all those in the financial community will know where the Government stands in relation to the critical issue of interest rates?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Government has made its position on interest rates very clear. We are working very hard to bring down the deficit accumulated by the Liberals when they were in office so that we can have lower interest rates.


EFFECT OF INCREASED RATES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. The Minister suggests that the Government has made its position on interest rates clear. The Prime Minister stood before the House and committed himself to lowering interest rates. Now, with weakness in the dollar, the Government has reversed itself and is

February 14, 1985
Oral Questions
raising interest rates. Can the Minister explain why this damage is being done to our economy and to the 1.5 million people out of work?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have an open financial system in Canada, and interest rates respond to market forces. I think some basic economics may be in order for other Members of the Chamber. Our interest rate policy is geared toward bringing down rates by bringing some controls onto the deficit through good financial management, which we are currently being denied.


SIZE OF INCREASE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, as a professor of economics I can tell the Hon. Minister that her economics are right out to lunch. Interest rates in this country are set by the Government. They are not set by the market.
How do the Minister and the Government justify the damage to the economy, small businesses, home buyers, the construction industry, and farmers, that will be and is being created by this kind of unconscionable increase in interest rates?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, there has not been an unconscionable increase in interest rates as the Hon. Member, a former professor of economics, should know. Interest rates have been rising in response to money market conditions. They have risen very modestly. Our commitment to lower interest rates, jobs, and good financial management, is clear.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Édouard Desrosiers: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. I would like to know whether a decision has been made concerning a company in my riding which during the election campaign was obliged to lay off 700 workers and which was, of course, the second lowest bidder for repairs to the ships at Marine Industries Limited. I would therefore like to know whether a decision has been made and when a reply will be forthcoming.
(English]


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member is referring to the refit of the Saguenay which, regrettably, we have had to withdraw from Marine Industries because of the strike and the necessity for the Department of Defence to have the ship by next
November. We are in the midst of examining the question and a decision will be made by my Department very quickly, quite possibly later this afternoon, or tomorrow.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In his address to The Canadian Club yesterday, he said that it had been necessary to freeze expenditures in order to curb the enthusiasm of Ministers developing new programs. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us which Ministers have had their programs put on hold?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the report-if the Hon. Member was reading from a report-


An Hon. Member:: It's your speech.


Ian Deans: Why didn't you get a transcript?
Mr. Ax worthy: You are supposed to listen to what you say, Erik.


Erik Nielsen: -but I can tell her that her preamble and her question are a distortion of the wording of my speech. If she will take the time to read it carefully, she will find-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Boudria:: You should take the time to read it.


Erik Nielsen: Obviously, they don't want the answer. I simply commend that very excellent speech to Hon. Members. Read it, and read it carefully.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TASK FORCE REVIEW OF PROGRAMS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is also quoted as saying that he hoped his cost-cutting task force would be helpful to the Minister of Finance. If the Deputy Prime Minister admits that that quotation is accurate-


Erik Nielsen: It isn't.


Aideen Nicholson: -are we to understand that there is a split in the Cabinet between the Minister of Finance and those Ministers who wish to develop programs in such areas as job training?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Hon. Member to find anywhere in that speech the phrase "cost-cut-
February 14, 1985

ting exercise". It is not there, and those were not the words that I used.
Again, I urge her to read the speech carefully and she will see that it deals with a monumental and unique task of program review across the wide range of over 1,000 government programs.
If you read it carefully you will see that what we are after is a restoration of some kind of economic order in our pursuit of economic renewal in this country; some sort of restoration of management practices which entirely disappeared under those whom she supported in past years.


THE ECONOMY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. I watched the First Ministers' conference today where one First Minister after the other rose to say that they wanted lower interest rates to stimulate economic growth.
The Minister said a few moments ago in the House that the Government's policy was to bring down the deficit so that Canadians can have lower interest rates. Is it the opinion of the Government and the Minister that the Government must first tackle the deficit and bring it down before the Government will take any action at all on interest rates?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is not just a case of lowering interest rates because of the deficit and then bringing down the deficit, as the Hon. Member should well know. Our policies one geared to lowering interest rates at the same time as we are bringing the deficit down.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Now it is at the same time.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES-MORATORIUM INQUIRY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can direct my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister. His Toronto speech is quoted in the Ottawa Citizen, which also contains a particularly flattering picture of him. He talks about a moratorium, in his words, on spending on business services, job creation, agriculture, Indian property management, and regulatory.
The Deputy Prime Minister has talked about a nine-month moratorium on spending, and apparently there does not seem to be any action on interest rates. Could he explain to Canadians why they elected that Government which was supposed to bring about some change? Why is it a do-nothing Government? Why bother going to a First Ministers' conference if it is just going to be for show and the Government of Canada does not intend to take any action on spending or interest rates?
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member is guilty of distorting what I said.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: He holds up what appears to be a xerox copy of an article in the Ottawa Citizen. I would suggest to him that he would serve his quest for accuracy a great deal more satisfactorily if he read the speech himself. It says nothing about a nine-month moratorium whatsoever. The speech makes that clear.
It is a moratorium on new expenditure initiatives so that the first priority areas identified in program review will have the opportunity of not only being completed but, hopefully, being of some assistance in the budgetary planning process.


HOSTING OF 1987 CANADA WINTER GAMES IN CAPE BRETON
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. In recent weeks considerable concern has arisen in Nova Scotia about plans for the 1987 Canada Winter Games to be held in Cape Breton. Would the Minister explain the delay in executing an agreement with the host society, and what he is doing to resolve the matter?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that fiscal and other responsibilities were not defined when the games were accepted by the previous Government some years ago. It is for that reason that I initiated an in-depth review into the matter which resulted in an agreement between the Province of Nova Scotia and the federal Government on January 31. Since then we have been trying to accommodate the host society in the county of Cape Breton. In fact I am going to Sydney, Nova Scotia, on Monday, with the hope of signing an agreement with the county, the host society, and the province.


LUMBER EXPORTS-THREAT POSED BY PROPOSED UNITED STATES LEGISLATION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of reducing the possibility of being accused of making distorted statements, I will not direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister but to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The Minister knows that after an unsuccessful attempt in 1983 to impose countervailing duties on the Canadian softwood lumber industry, a number of U.S. Congressmen have now laid before the U.S. Congress a bill entitled "Canadian

February 14, 1985
Oral Questions
Softwood Lumber Import Control Act". If passed, it will limit the export of Canadian softwood lumber to the United States to 25 per cent. Furthermore, the Minister knows that literally thousands of Canadian jobs and several hundred million dollars in sales are at stake.
Will the Minister assure the House that at their upcoming meeting with the President of the United States, both he and the Prime Minister will seek a commitment from the President that he will announce his intention to veto that Bill if, by some accident, it passes the U.S. Congress?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I am not distorting things by saying that there was relatively pallid applause for the Hon. Member from his colleagues.
We are not waiting for the meeting on March 17 to make representations with regard to that legislation. We are acting now to try to protect the Canadian interest. If I may say so, it would be very helpful if Members on all sides of the House did what they could in relations between individual Members of Parliament and individual members of Congress in the United States to ensure that actions were not taken which would be harmful to the Canadian interest.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that they are acting now. He has not said what they are doing. Wishful thinking is not enough.


REQUEST THAT REPRESENTATIONS BE MADE TO UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the question now so that the highest level of representation can be made. Furthermore, the Prime Minister made the statement that Canada is open for business, but the U.S. is attempting to close its borders to Canadian products. His statement should be rationalized in view of these actions. Will he make the highest level contact with the President of the United States, and will he seek assurance from the President that he will veto, and announce that he will veto, any such Bill should it pass the Congress of the United States? That is what we are asking.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, just as I would not welcome the President of the United States telling the Prime Minister of Canada what the Prime Minister has to do, for example, about nuclear arms-


Lloyd Axworthy: He should tell him.


Charles Joseph Clark: -neither do I believe that it would be welcomed in the United States for us to instruct the President as to how he should use his veto.
I give this undertaking. If the matter is not resolved by the time of the March 17 meeting between the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States, it will be raised by the Prime Minister with the President.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. During the First Ministers' Conference this morning, Conservative Premiers from all corners of Canada have been sounding like opposition Leaders in urging the Government to bring down interest rates because of their concern about the effect of rising interest rates on housing, investment, and jobs. When the Government was in opposition it kept on pressing the Government of the day to bring down interest rates because of the impact of high interest rates on investment, housing, and jobs. Has the Government changed its policy now and is it abandoning its Conservative friends at the provincial level because it is now in power?


Barbara Jean McDougall: No, Mr. Speaker.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of State for Finance, since she chose to answer on behalf of the Government, say just what is the policy of the Government on interest rates? When the Government was in opposition it said "bring down interest rates". Now the Government says that interest rates are rising because of market forces. You cannot have it both ways. Which is the Government's policy?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I cannot seem to make it obvious to the other side of the House that we have made our policy very clear to bring down interest rates for the sake of jobs, for the sake of housing, and for the sake of all Canadians. We are doing that by attempting to bring down the deficit which was accumulated by the former Government. We are attempting to bring good financial management to this Government. Our policy remains a policy of lower interest rates.


Ian Deans: Notwithstanding evidence to the contrary.


AGRICULTURE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In announcing the Agriculture Task Force for program review in Toronto yesterday, whose
February 14, 1985

main job will be to slash as much as $1.5 billion worth of programs of assistance to Canadian farmers, would the Deputy Prime Minister say why there are no representatives from western Canada, eastern Canada, and why there are no representatives from farm organizations, or any farmers on this program review? All we have are civil servants from Ottawa, bankers, and food processors from big multinational groups in Toronto and Montreal, on this task force. Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain why there are no representatives of farmers and farm producers on this jury which he has constituted to bring in the death sentence on many farm programs that help farmers?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I sadly note that that is not only a distortion-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -of the speech and the terms of reference which were attached as appendices to the speech, but it also lacks any truth because the Member fails to distinguish between the ministerial Task Force comprised of myself and my colleagues, the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board, and the Minister of Justice, and the Private Sector Advisory Committee which is broadly representative of all regions of this country, business and labour. He also fails to distinguish between that function and the functions of the study teams going into the various Departments. I can assure him that the untrue allegations he makes as a preamble to this question are not the purpose of the task force at all.


AGENDA OF FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I must point out that the review team on agriculture does not contain any of those representatives from agriculture, no one from eastern Canada nor from western Canada. It really seems that the Minister of Agriculture has completely abandoned farmers this week because he announced that the Government could not really assist farmers who are facing bankruptcy and high interest rates.
More important, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why, when the First Ministers of this country are meeting in Regina, in the middle of the Prairies, there is no item on agriculture on the agenda of the First Ministers' meeting. Surely this is completely abandoning the agricultural industry of the Prairies and of Canada?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know from where the Hon. Member is getting his information. It is certain that I did not give any indication this week, last week, or the week before, nor will I give any indication in any future weeks, that I will abandon farmers' problems or that this Government will abandon farmers' problems. I think the Hon. Member had better check the record, Mr. Speaker. When he checks the record of the last few months we have been in office I am certain he will agree that
Oral Questions
that record will match any record given double the time in which the Liberal Government was in office.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, without commenting on the presence or the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, but in view of her evident inability to answwer this question I will direct it to the Minister of National Revenue.	[DOT]


An Hon. Member:: Isn't that cute.


John Edmund Parry: In previous years hundreds of American fishing guides have been allowed into Canada to work, often at the request of American owners of Canadian resorts. Campers, frequently American themselves, have asked whether there are any Canadian guides available. There are. Would the Minister look into this matter to see why this situation exists?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration is currently at the First Minister's conference in Regina where she is making a vital contribution.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: I will be pleased on her behalf to take notice of the question. I am sure she will be anxious to give it her full attention upon her return.


John Edmund Parry: I, for one, do not doubt the vitally of the Minister's contribution, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Minister enquire whether the Government allows this practice to continue, or whether it will take the necessary steps to make sure that Canadian guides will henceforth be hired on a priority basis?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, once again. I will be pleased to take notice of the question on behalf of the Minister. Obviously she is concerned about any instance where Canadian national interests are at stake, and I am sure she will take any appropriate action.


Ian Deans: How do you know for sure?

February 14, 1985
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


FINANCE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance and it has to do with rising interest rates. In her answers, the Minister seemed to try to minimize the steady but nonetheless regular increase in interest rates. In fact, she suggested earlier that the way to control interest rates is to cut the deficit, yet the Prime Minister has already rejected that option, to the obvious despair of the Minister of Finance. Would she tell us exactly what the Government is going to do to control rising interest rates?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in response to the Hon. Member's question I could quote the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry when he said in this House on February 12:
I was intrigued by his comments about interest rates. Let us be honest, the interest rate policy is in large part dictated by what happens in money markets in the United States-any Canadian Government of whatever stripe is always forced into the position of having at least to respond and be sensitive to that fact.


Lloyd Axworthy: Be responsive and sensitive.


FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE-INQUIRY WHY DEFICIT NOT ON AGENDA
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister.
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the Minister might not be practically admitting that her senior colleague, the Minister of Finance, has just lost a third battle with his Cabinet colleagues. Can she tell me why the deficit is not on the agenda of the Regina conference, claiming as she does that a lower deficit is the way to prevent Canadian interest rates from rising?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this Government is always talking and thinking about the deficit. I find it hard to believe that in two days of the First Ministers' conference it would not come up.


MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Tom Hockin (London West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. What is the Minister proposing to do to make certain that Medical Research Council funding, which in the past ten years has been very erratic, will not be erratic in the future? I am especially concerned with the past habits of the federal Government to fund the Council's five-year long-term plans with no clear commitments for years three, four, and five.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for that question. It is true that it creates difficulties when five-year plans are established and only two-year plans for funding are put into place. As I have said to the Hon. Member and to the House generally, I would like to see an increase in medical research funding, not only from the public side but also the private side. As we look at this entire question, I think we have to amalgamate the two. That does not remove the obligation from the public side.


Ms. Copps:: Ministerial statement.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I assure the Hon. Member, and those in the House who are interested in this topic, that we are looking carefully at how we can meet the objectives not only of increased medical funding but also in terms of how best to do it in co-operation with the private and public sectors.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) on Wednesday, February 13, 1985, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: I also have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) on Wednesday, February 13, 1985, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I am rising in my place to ask the usual business question of the Government House Leader.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition. In responding to the Hon. Member's question, I should like to advise the House that there have been discussions between the Parties. I
February 14, 1985

believe, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to seek unanimous consent of the House to put the following motion, that consent would be forthcoming. The order is as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates be empowered to examine and report on the advisibility of
(a)	Canada issuing a circulating dollar coin;
(b)	the raising of funds for the 1988 Calgary Olympics through assigning the seigniorage from the first issue of such coins to the Calgary Olympics; and
(c)	the size, shape, and composition of any such dollar coin if it were to be issued;
That the Committee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff as may be deemed necessary;
That the Committee submit an estimate of expenses to be incurred in the exercise of its authority to hire to the House of Commons for concurrence prior to proceeding with its inquiry; and
That the Committee report back to the House not later than June 14, 1985.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Government House Leader have the unanimous consent necessary to introduce the motion?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we were consulted and that the proposal to refer the matter concerning the coins to the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates met with our approval.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I also want to confirm that the consultation process went extremely well. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) would like me to inquire of the Government House Leader whether he would consider asking the committee to go to Sudbury in order to hold some hearings, given the need for economic stimulus.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, although I would not normally give a nickel for any suggestion made by the House Leader, I will give that one the most serious attention, especially since it comes from his hon. colleague.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, before giving consent, I should like to ask for some explanation. Usually the Government House Leader has these motions printed on the Order Paper-

Why was the House not given prior notice, on the Order Paper, of the motions the Government wishes to present?


Carlo Rossi: The Deputy Prime Minister just gave him the answer.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) in leaving simply said how much he admired the Whip of the Liberal Party. However, the answer to that question is very simple. As far as we are concerned, the practice has been to consult fully in advance, prior to unilaterally putting on a motion which may not meet the pleasure of all Members of the House. Accordingly it seemed to me to be a saving of money and a more effective way. By first consult-
Business of the House
ing and making sure that all the terms were agreeable and then presenting it for unanimous consent, there is not the cost of printing and carrying that motion for a long period of time. I do that from the point of view of ensuring full consultation with all Parties and providing them, sometimes days and weeks in advance, with these motions so that there is an opportunity for input and to make changes where changes are appropriate.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this question-


Mr. Speaker:: Now I am in real difficulty. I simply asked the House whether the Government House Leader had unanimous consent for the putting of the motion. Does the Government House Leader have unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Malepart:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) says no. There is no unanimous consent for the introduction of the motion.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The Liberals are at it again.


Mr. Speaker:: I am perfectly prepared to allow questions once the motion is on the floor. Should I try to seek unanimous consent for the introduction of the motion one more time?


Jacques Guilbault: Yes, please do.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is the House interested in adopting it?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Government House Leader has another motion.



FISHERIES AND FORESTRY


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there has been even more consultation on this issue. I can assure the House that this particular item was dealt with over a period of weeks and under the most amicable circumstances in my office.
I simply suggest that there is an agreement with respect to a request of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry to travel to the great Province of British Columbia. Therefore, I ask the unanimous consent of the House for leave to present this motion and to have it accepted. The order is as follows:

February 14, 1985
Business of the House
That the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry be authorized to travel to British Columbia between March 23 and April 3, 1985, for the purpose of holding public hearings on the west coast fishing industry, and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Government House Leader have unanimous consent for the introduction of the motion?
[ Translation]


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, we were indeed consulted on this matter, and my Party's House Leader gave his consent to the Government House Leader. We therefore agree and will give our unanimous consent. However, I do not think we should make a habit of having these committees travel across the country. In the case of this particular committee, it is necessary because our oceans are at opposite ends of the country. Generally speaking, however, it is our Party's view that committees should normally not be travelling, since the work should be done here at the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Government House Leader have unanimous consent for the introduction of the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, finally, I again seek unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:
That the members of the Standing Committee on Transport be authorized to travel to British Columbia prior to the month of April, 1985, for the purpose of holding public hearings and to visit transportation facilities in relation to their order of reference dated April 12, 1984, and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I rise with trepidation to find out whether the Hon. Government House Leader has unanimous consent for the introduction of his motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Leader a question with respect to his last motion. I would like to know whether the House Leader is acting as a travel agent to give his Members a change of scenery.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, after having dealt so expeditiously with those items, I want to carry on with the business for the coming days, I am pleased to see that we are making progress today.
I have an undertaking on the part of the Opposition House Leaders to deal with Bill C-22, an Act to establish the International Centre for Ocean Development, at all stages this afternoon. That agreement was given by both House Leaders, the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party. As previously announced, when the House concludes consideration of Bill C-22, it will proceed to Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.
As far as tomorrow is concerned, the first order of business will be Bill C-29, an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act. I spoke to both Opposition House Leaders prior to their caucuses in order to get approval from them regarding this Bill, which gives more flexibility to that Act and allows the payment to western grain producers which is so desperately needed before seeding this spring. I have received an indication from the New Democratic Party that they are prepared to deal with it at all stages tomorrow. I hope the Official Opposition will be in a position, so that we can pass it at all stages, to allow the payment to be made before seeding. Should Bill C-29 be passed before the end of the day tomorrow, we will return to the consideration of Bill C-23.
As you are possibly aware, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to our Standing Orders we will not be sitting next week. When Members return on February 25, the first order of business, if we do not dispose of it tomorrow, will be Bill C-23, followed by the commencement of debate on Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program.
I have just one other item. It has to do with a motion I have also discussed with the Opposition House Leaders relating to the matter of agricultural taxation. I have discussed these Bills with the Opposition House Leaders and I have the approval of the New Democratic Party to have this motion go forward for immediate consideration by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on the matter relating to agricultural taxation. I understand that the matter is under consideration by the Official Opposition. I am anxious to have
February 14, 1985

some indication from the Official Opposition to go ahead with that particular revision.
The purpose of the reference is so that there will be a full opportunity for consultation with the agricultural industry. I know that the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), who has a great interest in the matter and is the critic for agriculture, will be interested in having this matter referred immediately to this committee. We want to have this done before the Budget comes down.
It is absolutely essential that farmers are able to have input to the House of Commons committee. I urge the Official Opposition to please let me have their approval so that the matter can go forward and we can have the committee receive petitions and information from farmers across this country, as well as from other interested parties, on this most important question of taxation in terms of the agricultural sector of Canada.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with our commitment to the House Leader, we have no objection to dealing with all stages of the Ocean Development Bill, C-22, today. We may have a few speakers who want to express their points of view.
With regard to passing all stages tomorrow of the Grain Stabilization Bill, I believe I will have time to get back to the Hon. House Leader on that. I want to check the outcome of negotiations between my House Leader and the Government House Leader. The same is true with regard to agricultural taxation. We will get back to him some time before tomorrow.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Government House Leader now that the House has given the Fisheries Committee leave to travel. It is well known that there is legislation before Cabinet that pertains to the west coast fishing industry. This is needed very quickly to straighten out the chaos there. Can I get assurance at this point from the Government House Leader that we will not have that legislation brought into the House while the committee is travelling? It would certainly negate the whole exercise.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my information would be the opposite. If we were able to have that legislation brought forward and dealt with on the floor of the House and given second reading at an early stage, that is, prior to the committee proceeding on its visit to British Columbia, it may then be possible for the committee, as well as carrying out the responsibilities it now has under its order with respect to the whole question, to be able to deal in a very effective way with any legislation that may be brought forward.
I hope we will be able to look at facilitating the consideration of that legislation in order to allow that committee, when it goes to British Columbia, to have an idea of the intentions of the Government. Of course, it depends very much on whether we can make progress and on the progress being made within Cabinet.
Business of the House


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, there are two separate problems, one being the constitutional and legal problem the Department has on the west coast. If legislation were dealing with that, it might be easier to come to an agreement. If, on the other hand, the Government intended to push through-


Mr. Speaker:: I allowed the Hon. Member to put his question because I understood it to be important to him. The longer we get into these things, the more the House business question becomes a matter for debate and I will be forced not to allow House business at some point. I must say to the Hon. Member that he may want to make his representations through his House Leader, which is the practice we have tried to follow in the House. Does the Hon. Member have another question now that I have just said that? What is the Member's question?


Raymond John Skelly: The question is as follows: Can the Government House Leader tell us whether it deals with the one problem of the constitutional and legal dilemma, or does it deal with the complete restructuring?


Mr. Speaker:: That does not have anything to do with House business.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Government House Leader. In the last Parliament, debate was adjourned on the redistribution question. I wonder when the House Leader is going to call that item so that the debate can be completed and that material can be passed on to the representation commissioners and the various commissions across the country. Can the House Leader advise us of that?


Mr. Speaker:: I am in some difficulty. I know it is an important question. It is important to me. However, it is a question period question, not a House business question. I suggest, therefore, that the Member give these matters, as he should, to his House Leader. The House Leader will raise the matter with the Government House Leader in the consultations that go on. That is the normal practice in these matters.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, since this discussion on the business of the House started, I have been wondering why the Government House Leader cannot provide us with a more orderly procedure for debate in this House. Lately, we have been spending two days on a Bill for the elderly, and then another two days on small business. Why does the Government House Leader not present a Bill in the House and let us consider it until we have exhausted our allotted time, instead of this untidy business of spending two days on one subject and the next on two other issues?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I was going to respond by saying "the devil makes me do it," but the real response is that the Opposition House Leaders make me do it. I consult with them. Unless they have any strong objections, I call the

Privilege-Mr. Hopkins
business after I consult with them as to what would be appropriate for the House on any given day.
One of the reasons for this is that from time to time the Hon. Member, as a critic of his Party, will not be available to represent his Party on the floor of the House. I have always made a point of trying to accommodate the Opposition Parties whenever something of that nature occurs. I would not want to embarrass either the Hon. Member or his Party on any occasion. I love them!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Valentine's Day got to you?


PRIVILEGE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. During Question Period when 1 was posing a question to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) made certain derogatory remarks that not only reflected on me personally but on my character in general. I have not had an opportunity to see those remarks in print but all reports that I have heard from others indicate that I have a very definite question of privilege arising from his remarks. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you did in fact hear those remarks.
At this time I would like to ask that the Government House Leader rise in his seat and in a gentlemanlike way display the conduct that is normal for this House by withdrawing those remarks categorically from the record. Otherwise, I would like to reserve the right to raise this question of privilege tomorrow after I have seen those comments in print. I will leave myself in your hands, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the Hon. Member is rising on a mixed point of order and question of privilege. Is he making the case that unparliamentary language was used in the House or that he may have a question of privilege arising out of the language? I take it he is making the latter point?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I am stating that I have a question of privilege relating to the comments made by the Government House Leader which, if the comments that relate to me were true, would reflect not only on me as a person but on my character in general. I would ask that the Hon. Member withdraw them.


Mr. Speaker:: The reason I am asking the question is that if the Hon. Member is claiming that another Member used unparliamentary language or language that an Hon. Member may not use in this House, then that becomes a question of order with which I must deal immediately. The Hon. Member is not making such a claim. He is indicating to me that he believes that he may have a question of privilege. Do I now understand him correctly?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
February 14, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: He now has no obligation whatsoever to give me notice. He has every right to read the "blues" and to give me the proper written notice as he will find it specified in the rules, if he believes he has a question of privilege, and that will be his right once he has received the written record of today.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by one thousand residents of the parish of Saint-Rene-Goupil in my riding of Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic. Most petitioners are elderly people concerned about the fact that there is no retirement home in that part of the riding of Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic and that it is far removed from all public services. That situation does considerable harm to my constituents.
Therefore, the petitioners urge Parliament to direct that the necessary steps be taken to make that retirement home available so that those elderly people not be taken away from their familiar surroundings.
I present this petition and strongly urge the Government to give it full consideration.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition.
For many years now, the residents of Saint-Benoit Street in Longueuil have not been getting their mail. I have here a petition signed by 37 people who do not get mail delivery, and they humbly call on the House to direct Canada Post to deliver their mail, as it does for all other residents of Longueuil.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today. Nos. 37, 110 and 124.
February 14, 1985


Mr. Howie: In 1983 to date, were any studies conducted by the Department of National Health and Welfare related to marijuana and, if so, at what cost?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, from 1983 to date, the Department of National Health and Welfare has conducted three studies on the use and attitudes toward marijuana as well as contributing to two ongoing studies related to cannabis by the Department of Transport (Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine at Downsview, Ontario) and the Traffic Injuries Research Foundation.
The Health Promotion Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare carried out a study in the form of a survey of use and attitudes toward marijuana, alcohol and tobacco among Canadian young people, about one-third of which was devoted to questions on marijuana. The total cost of the survey was $73,000. The study was completed in March, 1983, and was conducted under contract by the Canadian Gallup Poll Ltd.
A second study similar to the first, but conducted one year later in January/February, 1984 was carried out wherein a few questions were addressed to parents of teenagers to determine their awareness of the Health Promotion Directorate's Cannabis Information Program. This survey was also carried out by the Canadian Gallup Poll Ltd. at a cost of $83,000 and it was completed in March, 1984.
A study was carried out to assess the effectiveness of Stay Real-a pamphlet on cannabis distributed by the Health Promotion Directorate. This survey was carried out by Currie, Coopers and Lybrand at a cost of $15,000 and was completed in October, 1984.
The Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare, through the Bureau of Tobacco Control and Biometrics is currently contributing to two ongoing studies related to cannabis. Both studies concern possible hazards due to driving under the influence of either cannabis alone or cannabis and alcohol. The first of these is being undertaken by the federal Department of Transport (Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine at Downsview, Ontario), in which the driving skills of volunteer subjects who have ingested measured amounts of alcohol and cannabis under controlled, bu naturalistic conditions, are evaluated over a closed driving course.
NH&W contribution: FY 1982-83-$10,000, FY 1983-84-$49,686.88.
The second of these studies is undertaken by the Traffic Injuries Research Foundation who are under contract to conduct analyses of body tissues of fatally injured drivers and pedestrians in Ontario to determine the presence of alcohol, cannabis or related metabolics (in blood). The study is being carried out with the co-operation of the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario and data collection was completed in 1984. Analysis is expected to be completed in 1985.
Order Paper Questions
NH&W contribution: FY 1981-82-$48,108.21, FY 1982-83-$61,464.34, FY 1983-84-$64,287.51, FY 1984-85- $22,139.94.


Mr. Skelly: 1.	Did the Government or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police implement a recruitment policy that new recruits must be bilingual?
2.	Does the RCMP have a list of applicants awaiting call up for recruitment, ranked on their ability and suitability and, if so, does the RCMP select only those who are bilingual?
3.	Is it the policy of regional RCMP recruiting officers to accept new applications and then drop further action on them or refuse to update them if the applicant is not bilingual?
4.	In (a) 1983 (b) 1984 to date, how many new members have been recruited by the RCMP and what are their provinces of origin?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: 1.
No.
2.	The RCMP has such list but does not select only those who are bilingual.
3.	Applications are initially accepted from all individuals who meet the basic requirements of the Force, however, only those who fall into one of the preferred categories, i.e., females, university graduates, indigenous people and bilingual people will be processed at this time.
4.	The detailed statistical information is provided below.
RCMP Recruiting Statistics by Province/Territory calendar years 1983-1984 (inclusive) Regular Members (excluding Special Constables)
	1983	1984 (as of 84-12-19)
Nfld.	1	0P.E.I.	0	3N.B.	1	2N.S.	1	7Ont.	4	21Que.	17	41Man.	0	4Sask.	0	1Alta.	1	4B.C.	0	5N.W.T.	0	0Y.T.	0	0Total	25	88


Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Was VIA Rail's budget cut by $93 million and, if so (a) who was consulted (b) were alternatives proposed to the Government and, if so, what were they?
2.	Will the Province of New Brunswick have additional rail links between its various cities and, if so, how many and which cities?
3.	Are the Edmonton-Jasper-Vancouver routes to be repaired in 1984 and, if so (a) will the Government undertake such repairs (b) on what date (c) with what funds?
4.	Will a study be commissioned in order to explain delays in VIA Rail's services and, if so (a) where will it be made (b) what will be its time frame?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: 1. (a)
VIA Rail's budgeted expenditures for 1985-86 were reduced

February 14, 1985
Order Paper Questions
by $93 million. The Ministry consulted VIA Rail and other Ministries on these reductions in expenditures.
(b) All this Ministry's programs were reviewed to identify where economies could be made and ways and means of achieving those economies, in response to the over-all government objective of deficit reduction. That review process formed part of advice to Cabinet and is privy to Ministers.
2.	A three-member Rail Passenger Action Force was recently established to implement policies to enhance our rail passenger system. As part of its mandate, it is to define a basic national rail passenger network including those necessary services to be restored and to review all current services.
Services for New Brunswick were examined in this context with the result, as announced on January 15, 1985, that the decision has been made to restore service between Montreal and Halifax through Sherbrooke and Saint John, the "Atlantic" transcontinental train. Information on changes to other services through or within New Brunswick were contained in a press release package issued on January 15, 1985.
3.	(a) Some infrastructure repairs and other types of improvements are required and will be carried out for the restoration of the Edmonton-Jasper-Vancouver rail passenger service which was also announced on January 15, 1985.
(b)	The upgrading will be carried out before the service is restored on June 1, 1985.
(c)	The Government is financing the required upgrading through VIA's capital budget at a currently estimated cost of $8 million.
4.	A study of delays in VIA Rail services has been carried out. The Canadian Transport Commission (CTC) has released a comprehensive report on the subject entitled Report of the Inquiry into the On-Time Performance of VIA Rail Canada Inc. The CTC study commenced in February, 1984 and concluded with the release of the report in October, 1984. It is not planned to commission further studies at this time. However, the findings and recommendations of the CTC report will be pursued through the work of the Rail Passenger Action Force, to which reference was made in response No. 2.
[Translation}


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


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-22, an Act to establish the International Centre for Ocean Development and to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation thereto, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the Committee of the Whole.


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


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister be making a statement regarding this Bill? I would like to be recognized but-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Mclnnes) is prepared to make a statement in connection with the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: My apologies. I did not see him rise. I now recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade.


Mr. Stewart Mclnnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, this Bill concerns the establishment of the International Centre for Ocean Development, which is commonly known as ICOD. I should like to make a few remarks to clarify this Bill.
We believe that the International Centre for Ocean Development will add an important new dimension to our efforts to assist less fortunate nations. Canada, a great maritime centre, will use this Centre to share its long experience and expertise in marine resource management. As we are all aware, the ocean is a potential major source of food that needs to be developed as soon as possible.
Recently we saw the generosity of all Canadians as manifested in the Ethiopian effort. This, of course, was a short-term action and it is important that we add credibility to our effort by providing long-term solutions in aid of developing and Third World countries. Therefore, we wish to take further initiatives.
Through the efforts of the Canadian International Development Agency, the International Development Research Centre and the many Canadian non-governmental organizations active in the development field, Canada is assisting numerous countries in Africa, Asia, and, closer to home, in Latin America and the Caribbean to improve their standards of living and develop their resources. ICOD will support and further enhance these particular efforts.
February 14, 1985

The abundance of our ocean resources was recognized some time ago and in December, 1982 representatives of 119 nations, including Canada, signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Individual nations now lay claim to 40 per cent of the world ocean resources through the 200-mile zones adjoining their coastlines.
I wish now, Mr. Speaker, to provide some background for my proposal today to establish ICOD through legislation in Parliament. At the 1981 Commonwealth meeting in Melbourne, Australia, Canada announced its intention to establish an international centre for ocean development to help Third World nations develop their marine assets, particularly as a source of food. In November of 1983, ICOD was incorporated on the initiative of the Government of the day as a non-governmental organization under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act. Its funding was to come from CIDA. But before making a firm commitment regarding this funding, the present Government reviewed ICOD's mandate and institutional structure. This review led to the conclusion that ICOD could indeed play an important role in helping Canada to achieve its development assistance objectives. However, we are convinced that ICOD's status as a non-governmental organization is not in keeping with its genesis or its source of funding. We believe that, since ICOD was established at the instigation of the Government and is government funded, Parliament should have the right to review its activities, its performance and its budgetary submissions.
I wish to underline, however, that since the funds for ICOD will be taken from the existing foreign aid budget, no additional expenditure will be required. It is a question, rather, of ensuring that ICOD's status is a reflection of reality, that it was created by the Government, and that it relies on the public purse for its Financial support. I would like to note here that this conclusion echoes the recommendations made by the original consultants who were hired to study and evaluate the various operational possibilities with respect to the establishment of ICOD.
The legislation before us makes only minor changes to ICOD's present structure and makes no changes to its objectives.
The affairs of the new centre will be managed by a chairman, a president and 12 other directors appointed by the Governor-in-Council. I would like to point out here that all of the Canadians sitting on the present board of directors have agreed to resign. The Government will appoint 12 new directors and, at the option of the Government, five of these directors can be non-Canadians. This is a tradition which is consistent with other programs. We think it beneficial to have the views of other leaders and representatives of other nations so that they can properly indicate to us the proper course of action so that the programs which we are offering are indeed of assistance to their countries. ICOD will continue to direct its operations from its head office in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Indeed, this may be one of the highlights of this particular piece of legislation as it is further testimony to the expertise
Ocean Development Centre
and momentum of the Maritime Provinces as a whole in the area of marine resources and development.
Why should we establish such a centre, Mr. Speaker? The answer is simple. As a major maritime nation, Canada has established a reputation in the scientific, technical and managerial aspects of ocean management, both in the public and in the private sector. Many Canadian training and research centres have already established links with foreign institutions and international development projects. In establishing ICOD, Canada will take advantage of this experience and its bilingual capacity to provide this urgently required expertise to the Third World. Many international agencies have already responded to ICOD's preliminary contact in a positive manner and have indicated their willingness to work jointly in these endeavours. I am thinking in particular of the United Nations development program, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, and the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation.
I would like to outline briefly ICOD's specific objectives. ICOD will encourage co-operation between the peoples of Canada and the developing countries in the field of ocean resources development in the following ways: First, by initiating and supporting programs in participating developing countries to improve management and utilization of ocean resources, particularly-but not restricted to-as a source of food. Second, it will encourage the development of indigenous institutions in this field. Third, it will provide training, technical assistance and advisory services. Fourth, it will ensure the distribution of information and sponsor research that is consistent with ICOD's terms of reference. In working toward these objectives, ICOD will draw on all the academic and technological resources of Canada and other countries.
Of course, ICOD will offer programs of assistance in response to the specific national objectives of developing countries but it will, at the same time, encourage a pattern of ocean resource exploitation that makes sense for all. By bringing people from developing countries to undertake practical training in Canada, we will gradually build up a group of professionals who are familiar with Canadian techniques and skills. They will form an international network of experts who have links with Canada, automatically creating new openings for Canadian business to trade with the Third World.
The gap that exists between the ocean's known potential and the present poor rate of return is a clear indication of the need for rational management of these resources. Its initial and most obvious benefits would be the opportunity to supplement food resources and increase employment. Industries such as tourism, energy, marine culture, mining and transportation will also benefit. ICOD will increase Canada's ability to make realistic and innovative proposals in a field whose importance was recognized globally during the negotiations which culminated in the signing of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. This legislation reflects the concerns of Canadians for the future of less favourred nations and reaffirms our Government's intentions of actively assisting in their development.

February 14, 1985
Ocean Development Centre
I am sure that my colleagues in this House will want to proceed as quickly as possible with this Bill and, accordingly, I commend it to them for their consideration and approval,


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, first of all,
I must say that I am happy to speak today on Bill C-22, an Act which will establish the International Centre for Ocean Development. I am happy as well, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative Government has recognized that the Centre exists, because it has been in operation, of course, since May of 1984.
In spite of the place where, as the Bill states, JCOD will be established, I would like to assure the good people of Halifax, the people of Atlantic Canada, in fact, Canadians in general, of my interest in the objectives of the Centre. The news of the establishment of ICOD has been conveyed to most countries and international maritime institutions in the world, and there has been significant interest in its operation. Indeed, there have been almost 50 requests received so far from the South Pacific, the Caribbean, Asia and Africa.
ICOD was created with the encouragement of our former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and the former Secretary of State for External Affairs and now Senator, the Hon. Allan MacEachen. Its Halifax location was certainly supported with great enthusiasm by the Hon. Gerald Regan. Of course, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) supported the concept. I am sure we would all have liked to have had it located in our own riding, but we had to look first to the proper site for such a facility.
The founders and first three members of the Centre's board of governors are, first of all, Brian Fleming, the Chairman, who is a prominent lawyer in Halifax and a recognized authority on the law of the sea and maritime law, David Hopper, Vice-president of the World Bank and former President of the International Development Research Centre, and Georges Leger, Vice-president of Petro-Canada-there is a good company-International Assistance Corporation, and former Canadian delegate to the Law of the Sea Conference.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What about the others?


George Roland Henderson: That is one of the things that concerns me about this Bill when the Hon. Member says he is going to appoint a completely new group of directors.
On November 7, 1983, Mr. Fleming announced that ICOD would be incorporated as an international, non-governmental, non-profit organization to assist developing countries in obtaining maximum benefit from their extended zones of maritime jurisdiction through the enhancement of their capacity to develop, manage and utilize the ocean resources off their coasts. The resources of the world's oceans are an obvious source of food, minerals and other things for developing nations. The ability of developing countries to use those resources is uncertain, and this point was brought forward during the 1981 Commonwealth Conference in Melbourne,
Australia, when Prime Minister Trudeau released a statement which announced that it was Canada's intention to create an international centre for ocean development as part of a three-point training program aimed at increasing Third World production. That news release stated that the Centre would focus on research, training and technical co-operation to help poor countries increase food production from the sea and take advantage of new harvesting rights expected to be gained under the Law of the Sea negotiations.
In December, 1983, the Speech from the Throne which opened the second session of the Thirty-Second Parliament included the following statement:
Economic progress is a crucial contributor to peace and stability. Recognizing the urgent needs of developing countries, the Government will maintain its commitment to overseas development aid. Canada will achieve aid goals of 0.5 per cent of the Gross National Product by 1985, and 0.7 per cent of the GNP by the end of this decade. Increased involvement of voluntary organizations and the co-operative movement will be sought in the delivery of this aid. Particular attention will continue to be given to the growing world food crisis, through existing programs, and the new International Centre for Ocean Development.
When Prime Minister Trudeau announced the objectives of ICOD he stated, and I quote:
With an operational budget of approximately $20 million over a period of five years, the International Centre for Ocean Development would seek to help developing countries get optimal return from their recently expanded marine resources with a major focus being the oceans as a source of food.
A lot of work has gone into establishing this new Centre. The previous speaker for the Government outlined some aspects. ICOD classifies the ocean resources in three general categories. We have mentioned living resources, mineral resources and other resources such as ocean energy, transportation, recreation and tourism. They are all very important. Canada has established a reputation in the scientific, technical and managerial aspects of ocean development. Many Canadian training and research centres already have strong links with foreign institutions and international development projects. ICOD was set up to take advantage of this experience and provide a base to complement the work of other national and international organizations involved in ocean development.
Over the years Canada has developed an outstanding program in the provision of food and technology to developing countries. The fisheries industry has become more important over the years, especially with the development of the 200-mile limit which gave maritime developing countries exclusive access to the riches that the ocean environment provides. The world food catch is about 75 million tonnes, of which about 70 per cent or 52.5 million tonnes is consumed by humans. The remainder is reduced to oil or meal for animal feed. So there is a tremendous opportunity for developing countries to take advantage of the resources of the sea.
Canada is not only a major producer and exporter of fish, but it is also one of the most knowledgeable of fishing nations. It is important that our specialists in both the private and public sector share this knowledge with developing nations in order that these countries may manage and use their resources more successfully.
February 14, 1985

ICOD will certainly contribute to international development, as the previous speaker mentioned. But there have been other fisheries-related programs supported through other federal departments. The International Development Research Centre has supported fisheries projects with objectives to reduce waste and expand productivity in the world fishery. In 1983-84, IDRC was allocated $2.5 million in fisheries projects. CIDA was the main channel for Canadian assistance to fisheries projects in developing countries, although other departments have played and are playing a major role in the development of some of the poorer nations, the so-called Third World countries. Non-governmental organizations also play a very important role in fisheries development. With support from the federal Government, these organizations work on projects affecting 28 countries.
Canada also continues to provide direct food aid in the form of salt and canned fish in situations of acute food shortages. That has a very beneficial effect not only on our international relations, but in some cases it has the effect of creating and strengthening the market for fish products within our own country. I think of things such as canned mackerel. That is a very difficult species of fish to process because it arrives in large quantities over a very short period of time. It is therefore very difficult for some of our processing operations to handle these quantities. One of the easiest ways to process mackerel is canning. Therefore, there are times when we have large inventories of canned mackerel, a very good food product, one that is certainly needed by some Third World countries. Over the past number of years we have contributed great amounts of canned mackerel and salt cod, as well as some more expensive fish products.
So, Mr. Speaker, obviously we have a great number of programs aimed at helping Third World countries and therefore I hope that we on this side will see this Bill go through quickly. We have probably one or two more speakers on this side who would like to make some comments on this Bill this afternoon. We hope that the Bill will go through. We would not want to hold it up in any way because we recognize the importance of the Centre. We realize that this legislation must be passed on a timely basis in order to get the funding in place. The Centre is presently operating under the broad wing of CIDA.
It is important that the Centre continue to be located in Halifax. There are several important fishery institutions in that area, such as the Bedford Institution of Oceanography. Dalhousie University has an excellent program in marine biology. In my own riding, we have Holland College in Sum-merside, which is a fisheries related training centre. There are several others in Nova Scotia which contribute in large measure to the research and effort in the fishing industry within the country and in our foreign endeavours. Halifax is a good location for that reason. It is very important that a centre of this magnitude be near such sources of information. It is equally important that these institutions be in close contact
Ocean Development Centre
with the Centre in order to maintain their own international dimensions.
The Halifax location may be a little more expensive than some others. If the Government's commitment of only $3.3 million is an indication of support for the Centre, it may be lost. It is crucial to get more funds for it. The Centre is presently a non profit, non-governmental organization. Because of the great importance of flexibility and quick reaction in times of developmental need, I hope that the change in status to a Crown corporation will not impede the Centre's objective. I am concerned about that. I hope that the Centre will be able to continue to take advantage of other sources of funding as well without reductions in federal funding. It may be able to get contributions from private sources. I would not want those contributions to be substracted from the Government funding. Funding should be maintained to promote growth rather than be impeded or levelled off to the status quo.
I hope that the people who worked so hard to create the Centre can sit back now with pride in their accomplishments, assured that the federal Government will continue to support the Centre in its objective. I was involved with the Centre a year ago. I have always had a personal interest in fisheries-related research projects. I feel that through the Centre Canada can help Third World countries. Many countries simply throw money into foreign aid. I have always been of the view that it is not good enough to simply throw money. You must increase the knowledge and expertise in Third World countries to enable them to continue to provide their own food. Those countries need better education to develop and become as productive as the more affluent countries.
I would like to wish the new Centre well. I hope that it will be run on a scientific basis and that the Government will not influence or destroy it by not getting well qualified people to direct the corporation. I hope the Government will realize that it is important to stay away from the daily operations of the program.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak in support of Bill C-22, an Act to establish the International Centre for Ocean Development. The Centre is already in some form of operation. It was inaugurated in 1983 by a decision of the previous Government, a decision which we supported at the time. I would like to speak in approval of the principles of the institution, but I will raise some questions about the trends in development we have been seeing in recent years under the previous Government and, more recently, in recent months under the current Government.
The objectives of the organization are quite obvious.

They are both obvious and praiseworthy. I quote from the Bill: '
The objectives of the Centre are to initiate, encourage and support co-operation between Canada and developing countries in the field of ocean resource development by

February 14, 1985
Ocean Development Centre
(a)	initiating and supporting programs in developing countries for the improved management and utilization of ocean resources, particularly as a source of food;
(b)	supporting the development of indigenous expertise and institutions in developing countries in order to increase the capacities of developing countries in integrated ocean use management;
(c)	enlisting the expertise of people and institutions in Canada, developing countries and elsewhere;

-and furthermore to organize and support the collection of information which would result from these activities and to organize the necessary services in relation to that.
These objectives are fine. Canada does have expertise in oceans and has a contribution to make in development. However, I am concerned that we make this a genuine contribution to development. I noticed that it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Mclnnes) who introduced this Bill in the House. We need to be a little suspicious of the motives of Canada in having this treated as a trade matter rather than an aid matter. The International Centre for Ocean Development acknowledges that when it stated:
"Canada has been a major beneficiary of the Law of the Sea. Throughout the protracted negotiations, this country has found common cause with developing coastal states and has, in turn, benefitted from their support. As a recognized leader in technology relevant to the oceans and as a donor country whose motives are not open to suspicion by recipients, Canada shares an exclusive niche with few other developed countries.
This is all very nice in theory, but how true is it? We have certainly benefited from the Law of the Sea Conference, the extension of our boundary by 200 miles.
However, the trends in development work on land and in the sea also give us cause for concern. Some countries are becoming quite suspicious of our motives because Canada is increasingly tying its development aid to trade. Canada is supporting large scale, technically advanced development projects opposed to small scale community projects with appropriate technology. These large scale projects essentially turn out to be an expensive export subsidy program for a small group of Canadian industries. Some of these industries are subsidiaries whose profits go to the foreign head office in any event. We fear that the trade emphasis is becoming even more pronounced under the new Conservative Government than it was under the Liberals. Certainly, the trend began under the previous Government and we opposed it then.
Non-development criteria are being tied to development criteria. Specifically, CIDA has imposed a requirement that 80 per cent of all bilateral aid be spent on the purchase of goods and services in Canada and that two-thirds of the value of such merchandise be added in Canada. That is excellent for Canadian business and there is no reason why Canadian businesses should not take advantage of trade opportunities that arise through development work. Obviously there are advantages through genuine expertise as well as economic spinoffs through this type of work.
However, it is completely unfair to tie aid to these requirements to make countries buy from Canada. Those countries may not get the best deal because they could be producing the goods and services locally. This is also preventing them from developing industries from which we could be buying goods and services to help them develop.
This is occurring in spite of our own government studies showing that the tied provision increases the cost of Canadian aid to recipient countries by almost 20 per cent. Those countries are forced to spend one-fifth more for the goods that they require for a particular project. In short, it is costing them money to receive aid from Canada. This policy perpetuates underdevelopment in the Third World while providing an artificial stimulus to Canadian trade.
It is our sincere hope that the International Centre for Ocean Development will not fall prey to the trend that we have already seen in other forms of aid. Canada's non-governmental organizations, which are very active in development, could supply valuable advice and expertise. That non-governmental community strongly supports separating the ties between aid and trade, and has very much endorsed small scale community projects for the benefit of the country in order to promote their independence and productivity and emphasize their objectives.
I also note that the Centre's brochure gives some emphasis to the development of tourism as an industry, which is cause for some concern. If an adequate structure for tourism is not in place, that industry could actually contribute to underdevelopment.
Let me refer to a study conducted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in 1976 by P. F. Wickenden. It states:
-money spent by tourists can have up to 90 per cent leakage. Most of the tourist dollar goes to foreign owned hotels, food importers, liquor importers and is drained right back out of the country-
This does not lead to development. Therefore, we are somewhat skeptical about tourist development because it is not appropriate for all countries.
I also want to make some observations about the sexist language in the Bill and the sexist bias in the creation of the board of governors, since there will be new directors, I hope their appointment will show some change.
The language of the Bill is sexist. We are approaching April 17, 1985, when women are supposed to become equal with men in Canadian society. However, that is not the case when one reads a Bill or an Act of Parliament. It is time that such Bills contained language which includes women and men.
I do not raise this as purely an academic point. The board of directors has a chairman and a president. All the directors who have been appointed up to now are men. The literature is entirely masculine in its orientation. Yet there are women who are active in fisheries and ocean research. I cannot believe that there are no women qualified to be on this board of directors of the Centre. Half of the new directors to be appointed will be non-Canadians. Let us ensure that a reasonable proportion of
February 14, 1985

those directors, both Canadian and non-Canadian, are women. Women have a contribution to make to development.
Let me point out that at the Copenhagen Conference on Women in 1980, Canada recommended that women be included in decision-making roles in their own Governments, and in international agencies, including the United Nations. Canada, together with women from Third World countries, stressed the importance of the involvement of women themselves in development and in decision-making.
While we espouse this view at international conferences, are we living up to it here? It has not happened yet and I hope the Government will take notice.
With respect to the extent of development aid, my Party has encouraged increased development aid up to 0.7 per cent of GNP per year. We have recommended that this take place now. This figure has been discussed and accepted as an objective, only to be postponed. The cuts in development aid in the last year represented a further step back from this extremely modest goal for international development. The cuts in CIDA and IDRC are absolutely unjustified. I suggest it is rather hypocritical to establish a new institute as an independent agency with a modest $20 million in funding over the next five years while, at the same time, the Government is taking money out of development.
We want to see a genuine improvement in development aid, because there is a great need for such improvement. It is true that Canada has economic problems and high unemployment. However, our economic problems are not as great as those in Third World countries. We cannot use that as an excuse for not being generous at this time. Other countries are suffering enormously and hunger in the world is severe. This new institution provides us with an opportunity to increase food production from the oceans. The Government should not be hypocritical by contributing to this institution on the one hand while cutting back on other aid projects on the other.
While we support the spirit of the institute and its creation, and hope that it will be able to help developing countries become self-sufficient in food production, we do not want this to happen at the expense of other development programs that are already in place.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) in speaking to this legislation today. I am pleased that the Government has seen fit to place this Bill before Parliament and that it has the support of all three political Parties.
Through the introduction of this legislation, the Government has acknowledged the efforts of the previous administration, particularly the interest and action taken by the former Prime Minister and the former Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, who is presently in the other House. I suggest it would be remiss on our part if we did not acknowledge the work of those two individuals. Were it not, in particular, for the initiative of the former Secretary of State for External Affairs,
Ocean Development Centre
the International Centre for Ocean Development would not be established in Canada, let alone Nova Scotia.
I am pleased to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Mclnnes) has brought the Bill to the floor of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, I do not share the same views as my colleagues in the NDP. I do not see anything sinister about the Member from Halifax introducing this legislation. I happen to know through a number of good sources that he is very supportive of this particular Centre, not because it is in his riding-he is not parochial-and it will create jobs or that he will have an opportunity to make recommendations with regard to who sits on the board of directors, he is not that way, Mr. Speaker. I think he is like other Members of Parliament in this Chamber. They acknowledge the concept of this entity. It will bring benefits not only to the maritime region but to all of Canada. I think Members of Parliament would do themselves well to acknowledge that and to say to the Government, which introduced this legislation to legalize it, that it ought to be commended.
All too often, we as Members of Parliament stand in the House and criticize. I am taking this opportunity to congratulate the Government. It so happens that the history of this institution was developed, conceived, if you will, by a Liberal administration. I do not find anything wrong in giving the present Member for Halifax some credit for his initiative in getting this Bill into the House of Commons.
I am concerned with the amount of money which has been budgeted for the International Centre for Ocean Development, commonly referred to as ICOD. Twenty million dollars over five years was a good start, but I am a little concerned in view of the recent actions which the Government of Canada has taken in terms of cut-backs in other departments. We have seen an about-face by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) with regard to Canada's international commitments. It was a massive reduction in terms of percentages. I am worried that this $20 million that we have earmarked for ICOD may too come under the chopping block of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). I think, in all fairness, it would be an utter shame with regard to those individuals who conceived the International Centre for Ocean Development, to the Canadian community and to Canada's reputation abroad if the moneys allocated to the Centre were decreased.
I hope the Hon. Member for Halifax and his Party will live up to the commitment that we put into this institution on a previous occasion, because it is important that these people have an opportunity to carry out their mandate.
I know the Hon. Member who spoke for the New Democratic Party spoke about the sexism of the Bill, tht we have a chairman and a president who are men. I want to tell the Hon. Member that she may be right. In fact, she is right. But it remains a fact that probably one of the most qualified individuals presently employed with the International Centre for Ocean Development is a lady, in the first sense a lady, by

February 14, 1985
Ocean Development Centre
the name of Evelyne Meltzer. She is eminently qualified and makes a tremendous contribution carrying out the goals and objectives as contained in Bill C-22. I do not want Members of Parliament to leave this Chamber today thinking that this particular Centre, as referred to by my hon. colleague, has no women involved. There are women involved and very substantially so.
I hope that the Government, in reviewing applicants to sit on the board of directors, will not only look at women as possible candidates but will look at other qualified Canadians, particularly labour representatives. I think it important that the board have a good mix of competent individuals, who I am sure will serve not only the institution but Canada both domestically and abroad and serve it in its best interests. I hope the Government will accede to my suggestion by having quality people on the board.
I am not going to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Minister has requested the resignations of the present board. Perhaps not. I hope the Minister would not be political for the sake of being political. I hope the Government will seek out qualified, competent individuals to be placed on that board to serve the best interests of the International Centre for Ocean Development.
I wish the Hon. Member over there would have the courtesy to hear my summation and perhaps we can have an opportunity to debate whatever area of the Bill he finds overly frustrating. I realize that as a member of a caucus of 212, and as he sits in the back benches, he must be very frustrated.


An Hon. Member:: There are 211.


David Charles Dingwall: There are 212, I told you. I do not know why you dispute that.


Jack Wendele Shields: It is 211.


David Charles Dingwall: The Hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent) obviously is a member of the Tory team. He gets a car. He is treated with kid gloves.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What about your Leader? He gets a
car.


David Charles Dingwall: I hope we can put that to rest. There are 212 members.
The former Prime Minister, Mr. trudeau, said in Melbourne at the Commonwealth heads of Government meeting in 1981:
With an operational budget of approximately 20 million Canadian dollars over five years, the International Centre for Ocean Development (ICOD) would seek to help developing countries get an optimal return from their recently expanded marine resources, with a major focus being the oceans as a source of food. The Centre would provide information, research, training and advisory services and would be a vehicle to ensure that developing countries receive a tangible return on the jurisdictional gains which they have made at the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea.
I think that statement tells it all. If this institution is to achieve the objectives we all want it to achieve, the Government of the day, and the subsequent government, which will be formed by our Party after the next election-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Charles Dingwall: -must live up to that commitment of $20 million, and in no way should it squelch on that commitment.


Paul Wyatt Dick: How do you spell "squelch"?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Charles Dingwall: Hon. Members opposite do not like to hear that they have made substantial cuts to international organizations and agencies. As a Nova Scotian I come from the province where this institution will be set up, and I want to put the Government on notice that all Members from Nova Scotia and all Members from the Maritimes, regardless of their political affiliations, will fight tooth and nail to maintain that $20 million commitment. If anything, Mr. Speaker, the amount probably should be increased.
The Hon. Member on the other side laughs and talks to himself. But the Government has made substantial cut-backs in foreign aid and in the CBC. The amount is $4.2 billion. That cannot and ought not to happen.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Cut back the Opposition first.


David Charles Dingwall: I urge government Members to make certain that they live up to the previous Liberal commitment of $20 million and do it forthwith, so that this Centre can carry on with the activities that we all hope to be proud of as Canadians.


Lynn McDonald: The previous speaker said he was concerned that not only women should be appointed to this board but that other qualified individuals, such as trade unions, should be appointed as well. Is he assuming that there are no women trade unionists or no qualified women trade unionists?


Jack Wendele Shields: Of course he is, he is a chauvinist.


Lynn McDonald: I would like an answer to my question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He threw you, didn't he?


Lynn McDonald: I would like an answer to my question about women and men, qualified and non-qualified trade unionists.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, there are many qualified women in the labour field. There is no question about that, for the benefit of anyone who would dispute it, whether it be the Hon. Member or other members of her Party. I cannot see why she would draw the conclusion that there are no qualified women in the labour movement.


Lynn McDonald: It was from your remarks.


David Charles Dingwall: There is no question about it. With regard to appointments to the board, I would hope that we could have qualified women, qualified labour leaders. If they happen to be women, fine. If they happen to be men, fine. That is all I am
February 14, 1985

saying. There are many qualified individuals out there. I would hope they would not limit it to a select group.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to acknowledge and thank Hon. Members from all Parties who commented on the merits of the Bill and have been very supportive. I do not think there is very much in the way of disagreement, but I wanted to indicate to the last speaker that not only does the Government intend to maintain the $20 million funding, which was the original allotment indicated by the Government in 1981, but its present intention is to make available funding at that level. In 1985 dollar terms, it will be $27 million. That is an indication of the commitment, support and interest of the Government. I hope the Hon. Member will be reassured.
As for members of the board of directors, I indicated that present board members offered their resignations. Those resignations have not been acted upon as yet. The credentials and expertise of the members presently sitting will be reviewed. Undoubtedly some will withdraw and some may be maintained. However, it is certainly the Government's intention to draw upon Canadians from all parts of Canada and, as I indicated originally, from other parts of the world, to ensure that the strength of the board is not diluted and that its integrity, because it is dealing with other countries, is fully maintained.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's intervention. I welcome his comment with regard to the financial commitment which the Government of Canada is projecting for 1985-86. I hope it will continue well into the 1990s, for many years.
With regard to board members and the selection process, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will convene board meetings very quickly. We do not want this to run on for an indefinite period of time. I hope the appointments to the board will be made fairly soon. Depending upon what present members do, whether or not their resignations are accepted, I hope the Government will not leave board appointments vacant for an extended period of time.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 are as follows: The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)-Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission-Suspension of Calgary cable station; the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) Political Parties-Toronto election campaigns- Statement attributed to Minister of Finance, (b) Request for
Ocean Development Centre
apology; the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett)- Maritime feed grain costs.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-22, an Act to establish the International Centre for Ocean Development and to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation thereto, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the Committee of the Whole.
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to spoil what appears to be unanimity among all three political Parties so far as this Bill is concerned. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) who was so instrumental a couple of years ago in getting this particular institution under way in the Province of Nova Scotia, even if it was in Halifax and outside this riding.
I listened to the speeches of Members today. When I looked at the Bill I realized that it talked about improved management and utilization of ocean resources, particularly as a source of food, ocean resource development, and supporting research related to ocean resource development. Also it referred to the fact that the Centre may carry on its activities throughout Canada. Today in the House Hon. Members talked about the great expertise and great knowledge of ocean resources which exist in Canada. When I sat and listened to the debate, I thought about the fishermen and the fish plants which I represent. If we are looking for waste in the oceans or mismanagement of an ocean resource, we need look no further than at Canada itself.
We talk about our great expertise and the fact that we will pass on our expertise to another country. I wonder whether or not in that expertise we would suggest that any country in the world should permit 60 per cent of its capelin to be thrown overboard after it is caught because the only utilization for it is to sell it to the Japanese. In fact, we can only sell female capelin to the Japanese. It is absolute dumping, absolute waste.
In the months of July and August on the East Coast of Canada we see the most incredible dumping of codfish. The excuse is always given that it is the glut season and we must have dumping. If we look at the absolute waste in the herring fishery, we realize that the main utilization of that resource is for bait. In fact, it has been encouraged over the years as bait. An Hon. Member mentioned mackerel. I can tell the House
2370

February 14, 1985
Ocean Development Centre
that we have incredible dumping in the mackerel fishery in the country. I cannot see any end to it. Also I could mention squid. An Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party mentioned women as far as development, resource management and expertise are concerned. There are thousands of women involved in the squid fishery in eastern Canada. There always have been. It was their main source of employment before the Japanese decided not to buy any more dried squid. Of course the resource itself diminished somewhat.
When I look at our resources and our expertise I sometimes wonder why we never implement our own suggestions to developing countries. Also I wonder how long all fish in our oceans can be managed by two separate administrations. One manages them on the land and the other manages them in the water. In other words, everything in the ocean is managed by the federal Government. However, what happens to the fish when they come ashore? They are managed by provincial Governments. That is the way it has always been and that is the way it will always be. This is why we have seen over the years-and we will continue to see it-the Government of Canada having to bail out fish companies.
The reason I say this is that the only utilization of our ocean resource in this country has been by local private enterprise family-related businesses. That is a fact. When we look at the problems in our ocean-related industries, that is problems in our food supply, we see that they were restricted to our exports of fish products going to another nation to be made into a finished product. That is a very interesting statement. It is interesting that those who got into trouble were the people who took the food resource from the ocean and froze it into a gigantic cod block to be exported to the United States or to another country. There it was thawed, an occupation employing thousands of people, and put into the final package. It was then sent back to us as a final product to be placed on our food shelves.
Are we going to suggest that to a developing country in another part of the world? Of course we are not. We in this country are tied into a system of divisions of authority and divisions of regulations. What happens in the fishery does not depend solely on the federal Government. What happens in the fishery and the utilization of a food resource does not depend solely on the provincial Government.
I stated a moment ago that we have one of the most serious problems of any country in the world as far as the fishing resource is concerned. In order to substantiate that, I want to read from A New Direction for Canada, An Agenda for Economic Renewal, put out by the present Government. It reads:
-the major problems lie with over-capacity in the processing sector and low and unstable incomes in the inshore fisheries ... New approaches are required . .. Consolidation of employment in the sector would have to be complemented by public and private initiatives to promote job opportunities in other sectors of the economy, as well as fair and generous adjustment programs for workers in the sector.
I suppose that is the reality of the Canadian fishery today. In effect, what the Government is saying is what every economic expert who has looked at the Canadian fishery has said for years, that is, that workers have to be displaced and that plants have to close. If we were to manage our fishing resource as we are suggesting to foreign nations today it should be managed, there would be no closures and no lay-offs. If we were to utilize the products that come out of the ocean the way that the Soviet Union does, for example, there would be no unemployment in certain regions of this country where there is chronic unemployment today.
It is not good enough in 1984 and 1985 to have massive dumping of fish in this country day after day in the months of July and August. It is not good enough either to say to a full-time fisherman that he can only sell his fish on Tuesday and Thursday to a fish plant on the East Coast of Canada. That is not good enough because the technology utilized in the inshore fishery covers some 20,000 full-time fishermen in this country. What is utilized is commonly called a gill-net. A gill-net drowns and kills the fish on the bottom of the ocean. You cannot leave that fish dead on the bottom of the ocean for three days. What do the fishermen do? They simply have to clean out their nets and throw the fish overboard.
We have systems operating in this country and regulations concerning licences. Even at this very minute there are people fishing for crab 30, 40 or 50 miles off the coast of this country. These people have a stable income. In the spring, the full-time fisherman who fishes groundfish catches crab in his gill-nets. He has to take that over the side of the boat, kill it and throw it overboard because he is not allowed to sell that crab. In the last four or five months, we have seen changes in regulations in restricted licences. We have seen lobster licences, for example, sold to individuals for a price under the table because there was a carte blanche policy initiated by the Government to allow transfers of restricted licences.
When you talk about utilizing an ocean resource, particularly as a source of food, and talk about supporting research related to ocean resource development, go to the small communities in eastern Canada and tell the fisherman that you are going to tell the foreign countries how to do it. He will look up at you, laugh in your face, and say, "That is just too bad because I have to dump my fish in the ocean every single summer".
There is a final point I want to make. There appears to be in this Chamber an attitude toward people who draw unemployment insurance. If that attitude is allowed to prevail as it relates to primary producers who fish the ocean resources of our country, I am afraid that we are going to have half of our inshore fishermen in this country not involved in the fishery in years to come.
We have a basic problem. It involves a system of almost guaranteed income. We have utilized employment opportunities and we have utilized almost a wage subsidy program called unemployment insurance. It was never intended to be a wage subsidy program or a guaranteed annual income, but it is. It is the only one available.
February 14, 1985

Another part of this Bill talks about the employment utilization of the food resource in the ocean. The danger exists in across-the-board changes in the unemployment insurance system proposed by the present Government that will virtually starve the self-employed person who draws unemployment insurance. Some may say that a self-employed person cannot draw unemployment insurance, but that is wrong-fishermen can. I pass that caution to the Government.
When cuts are announced, we must think about the food resources of the ocean as a food supply. When the Government brings in cuts, it must consider how that affects a person who is so important to this economy, who contributes perhaps more than Members of Parliament, lawyers or doctors to the economy of this country, that is, those who utilize the resources of the ocean, our fishermen.
This Bill contains some 100 cases of increases of charges to our primary producers in order to assist foreign nations. There are 100 instances where fishermen will face increased charges. These have to be looked at by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) in the spirit of assisting fishermen. I am referring to all kinds of things, from the increased price of the chart that the fisherman needs to find where he is going, to the little matter of telephoning the weather office and having to pay for it. There is also the cancellation of the fishing vessel insurance program, which will undoubtedly put a lot of fishermen into bankruptcy. I would say that 50 per cent of the fishermen in Newfoundland would be put into bankruptcy. They would lose their boats because it does not match with the regulations made by the provincial Government which has loans outstanding on their vessels.
In conclusion, the reason for my intervention was quite simple. Resources of the ocean are not being utilized in Canada today. Where they are being utilized, they are being underutilized. We are tied into a system in which governments and economists say that we are guilty of low productivity in the sector that relates to a food resource of the ocean. They say that we have a problem of low productivity in the fishing industry, not realizing that you cannot compare apples and oranges. You cannot compare people who half finish a product with people who finish a product, working in the same type of industry in a different country.
They also blame our problem of having no finished product on the tariff rate. They say that Britain has a 10 per cent tariff and the United States has a 7 per cent tariff. These experts, the economists in our country, some of them supported by corporations and organizations of the federal and provincial Governments, have been saying that since the mid-seventies when our dollar was at par with the United States. They have been saying that and they still say it today when there is a 15-cent difference on the dollar and there is only a 10 per cent tariff.
I admire the Government for doing this and I admire the previous Government for instituting this institution. However, it is very difficult for some of us in this Chamber who
Ocean Development Centre
represent poorer sections of the country, for those of us who represent people who are trying to live on unemployment insurance payments averaging $122 a week to support a family, to realize that these people have to dump most of the food products they take out of the ocean every single summer. I apologize to Hon. Members for such an intervention, but I think it is an important one. I think it is an important one for me to make if I am to represent the people who I am supposed to represent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) has brought to us an astounding revelation. I believe he said that 50 per cent of fish products caught in his part of the world are thrown overboard and wasted. One of the reasons he attributed for this waste was the split jurisdiction, fish being the responsibility of the federal Government while the shore is the responsibility of the provincial Government. Presumably, in the Hon. Member's mind, the way to help alleviate this problem would be to put fish under one jurisdiction, either federal or provincial. I wonder if the Hon. Member could tell us, in his opinion and possibly the opinion of his Party, which level of Government should take over jurisdiction from the other level of Government.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I will express my own opinion on this matter. I would say that I would not care where the benevolent dictator came from. It is probably a benevolent dictator who would be needed to straighten out the problems in the fishing industry.
Of course, there are also other problems relating to the dual jurisdictions. There is also a problem of attitude and of monetary connections between countries. We also have a problem of attitude in this country. It is interesting to hear the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) question me on this subject because I forgot to mention something that was very dear to his heart, and that is, the absolutely outrageous waste in the Arctic of seals. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, fishermen today are killing seals for the meat and throwing away the pelts.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Why?


George Baker: Why? Because they cannot sell the pelts. The pelts are discarded. The meat is kept. I am sure the Hon. Member will agree with me that in most parts of the country, the meat normally sells for about $30 per carcass. In my district, that meat is canned. In my riding, there is an industry that employs 100 people and is canning seal meat right at this very moment. Not very many people know about that. However, the absolute disgrace to those who object to the seal hunt is that the seal pelt is thrown away. That is incredible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Hnatyshyn (for the Secretary of State for External Affairs), seconded by Mr. Hees, moves that

February 14, 1985
Small Businesses Loans Act
Bill C-22, an Act to establish the International Centre for Ocean Development and to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation thereto be now read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the Committee of the Whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.
Clauses 2 to 24 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bissonnette that Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I want to wish all of my colleagues on all sides of the House a happy Valentine's Day.
First of all I would like to thank my hon. colleague, our business critic, for giving us a heart, which is something I have never found yet among the Conservatives. Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to continue my participation in the debate on this Bill. With respect to the problems that will be generated by a Bill that will increase the cost of loans for people working in small businesses, all Liberal Members have pointed out to the Government that the problem is already with us. Today we have seen that interest rates are rising. We have seen that it is already a problem to find investment capital, and especially for small businesses. What is happening is that the Government is saying it will no longer guarantee 100 per cent of the loans given by Canadian banks. As soon as this Bill is passed, Mr. Speaker, it will become increasingly difficult for small businesses to obtain loans. That I am absolutely sure of.
Anyone who has worked in a small business knows that the two main problems are cash flow and obtaining capital, especially venture capital. I fail to understand why a Government that made so many promises during the election campaign, saying that it would increase assistance to small businesses, reduce the burden of excessive reporting regulations on small
businesses .. . Mr. Speaker, there is a big difference between these promises and what is really happening.
I was shocked when this Bill was introduced, shocked at the fact that the Conservative Government of Canada was not prepared to guarantee the fees to be charged to small businesses. Mr. Speaker, big corporations like Dome Petroleum will always be able to get more capital, whether or not at the expense of small businesses. In fact it will always be at the expense of small businesses. With this new legislation it will be even more difficult for the people who elected this Government and who were promised relief from the excessive regulatory burden on small businesses.

I frankly cannot understand how, in good conscience, this Government, a Government which allegedly promised small business that it would make the load easier, that it would in fact reduce the kind of excessive bureaucracy with which small businesses are faced, would introduced a piece of legislation which will, with certainty, increase the difficulty in borrowing for small businesses and, in particular, small businesses which are entering into the market-place in the high technology fields. They are the ones who are in need of the kind of venture capital which we know is going to be necessary to bring this country into the 1990s. The Government introduces programs like Abandon Canada or Investment Canada, saying, "We will open our doors wide. Canada is not only open for business but it is up for sale". At the same time, it is tightening the screws on private enterprise which has actually made this country run. Because the Government has refused to guarantee to 100 per cent the kinds of loans which are currently being administered by our banks, we are certain there will not be the kind of availability of venture capital which exists even now. Those of us who have worked in small business will know that the situation is already tight.
If the Government, in its naivety, expects that the banks are going to tell small business that they will absorb that 10 per cent differential between what the Government is now prepared to guarantee and what a small business needs to expand and improve its business, it is wrong. If the Government believes that the banks are going to tell the small business people, "No problem. We'll cover you for the 10 per cent", then the Government has no idea of the kind of difficulty which is currently being faced in the money market by the small business sector.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that by introducing this particular Bill, the Government has abandoned its commitment to the small business sector and has abandoned the 300 promises it made. A dozen of these promises related strictly to the small business sector, and we see that this sector, like the widows and senior citizens who happen to be single or divorced, is being abandoned by this Government because its quest for power does not take into account the delivery of the promises it made before September 4.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have just a very short comment. I have been listening to the debate on this Bill since the Bill
February 14, 1985

was introduced. There seems to be some misunderstanding when the statement is made that the loan should be 100 per cent of the total cost of the project. There is no such federal guarantee. In other words, Mr. Speaker, under all of these programs the person applying for the loan has to put up a certain percentage of the total cost. In certain ventures under the Small Businesses Loans Act, he has to put up 20 per cent, and in other ventures, 10 per cent. There is no such thing as a total 100 per cent. It is 100 per cent of the loan which is given by the bank for the remainder.
The two organizations who appeared before the Finance Committee recently claimed that the fee which is introduced by this legislation should not be imposed on the bank but should be imposed on the individual businessman who is getting the loan. By some strange logic they think that that is the proper way of imposing the fee. The fee would still have to be paid. I would like to ask the Hon. Member what she thinks of imposing the fee-as the Federation of Small Business claims-prior to the loan on the individual who is borrowing and not the bank.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) for his question. He has aptly pointed out the difficulty caused not only by the Government cutting back on its particular commitment to guarantee the loan portion which is not assumed by the borrower, but the difficulty which any business person is going to have when faced with this added increase in cost imposed, whether it be directly to the business person himself or herself or to the banks. I would agree with the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate and disagree with those who would say that the banks should pass along this cost directly to the borrower in the form of an increased surcharge. I think the small businesses of this country have had enough surcharges and they do not need another surcharge.
I would also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the bank is going to be passing along this surcharge, not only to the borrower directly, but also to any others who are doing business on a surcharge basis. Whether the increase is directed specifically to the small business or indirectly through the bank in its own levying charges, the Government is in fact, through another inflationary mechanism, adding to the cost of doing business in this country.
I suspect that the best solution for small business people, and in the interests of keeping the kinds of promises which were made during the election campaign, is for the Government to respond to the criticism from this side of the House by withdrawing the Bill. I was frankly surprised earlier to hear the comments of the members of the third Party who support the Government in saying that it should not have to guarantee to 100 per cent the small business loan portion which is not being assumed by the small business person. From the point of view of the Liberal Party, I disagree absolutely and totally with the position which is being taken by the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party. We believe that small business people have a hard enough time getting venture capital in the first place and they should not be further impeded by the
Income Tax Act
kind of surcharges which were mentioned by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate, and the other kinds of punitive charges which are currently being considered in this particular Bill.


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 146?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



David Charles Dingwall: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act, in order to eliminate the hardships brought about by previous amendments, which now make workmen's compensation reportable as "income" for Guaranteed Income Supplement purposes.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am taking the liberty of introducing this motion today in the hope that I can count on the assistance of all Members of Parliament regarding the amendments I am seeking. I wish to point out that this situation is having a devastating effect on a great number of Canadians, particularly senior citizens. The situation prior to Bill C-139 being passed in the previous Parliament was that individuals completing applications for the Guaranteed Income Supplement were asked about other forms of income they may have. One form of income which was excluded from reporting at that time was workmen's compensation payments. However, that practice, which was in effect for about 15 or 20 years, was changed under Bill C-139. The contents of that Bill were not readily noticed by Members in this Chamber on either side of the House. In fact, I think it was the labour unions who brought it to our attention. I raised the matter in the previous Parliament to try to seek an amendment. Other Members from other Parties, Conservatives as well as New Democrats, also sought changes. There was some meaningful discussion in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs when Members of Parliament got together and made an oral submission to the then Minister of National Health and Welfare in an attempt to rectify what we believe was a wrong.

February 14, 1985
Income Tax Act
I want to point out very clearly that I fought against that change, as did other Members of Parliament from the Conservative Party and the NDP. I thought we were very close to reaching a decision on changing the law back to the way it was. Well, that is history now. The election came along and most of those Members of Parliament are gone, except for those on the Conservative side.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Some went to the other place.


David Charles Dingwall: That is right, some of them did. Quite seriously, Mr. Speaker, the amendments that I seek here today relate to Sections 81, 56 and 110. With those amendments we would have in effect the old legislation back in force. Because of the amendments which went into effect with the passing of Bill C-139, workmen's compensation payments are reportable for purposes of determining the GIS. As a result, senior citizens in Canada are finding a substantial reduction in income. Not only that, in some instances it has disrupted their lives.
Certain provincial Governments have programs available to recipients of the GIS. Now that workmen's compensation payments are included for the purposes of the GIS, there has been a reduction, and indeed some people have lost their GIS. We are not talking about Canadians who are making a lot of money. We are talking about Canadians who live below the poverty line, maybe just on the poverty line or just above it. These people have been in the workforce for a considerable period of time but, through no fault of their own, have received an injury. I might add that the money they receive from workmen's compensation is not 100 per cent of their wages. Not at all. It is something less than 100 per cent. In 99.99 per cent of the cases it is not through choice that these people are on workmen's compensation; it is because they sustained an injury and were unable to return to work, and they are now in their retirement years. This has had a devastating effect on those Canadians who are receiving both the GIS and workmen's compensation because the payments have been lowered.
What has been the extent of those reductions, Mr. Speaker? Has it been much? Well, When you do not earn a lot of money, a reduction of $5 is a lot. For some of my constituents the reduction has been $160 a month, or $58 or $134 or $25 or $191. When you are on a fixed income and energy costs are going through the roof, when the price of food increases-and it does not go down-for a government to come along with legislation to take that benefit away is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It is utterly wrong. My Government was wrong. The then Minister of Finance was wrong in putting that legislation through. Well, now we have an opportunity to right that wrong.
I have here a copy of Hansard which shows those other Members of Parliament who agree with me that we ought to change this provision of the Income Tax Act. I hope my friend, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), will say a few words in support of this measure. It is important. The reductions have been susbtantial. It is not as if an individual is making $100,000 a year and you are slicing off $200 a month. That is not the case. The case is that it is less than $10,000 a
year and you are being slashed by $200 a month. It hurts and we ought to change that. God knows, we have made many changes for the rich, so what is wrong with our senior citizens and those hovering around the poverty line receiving an advantage? The bureaucrats will argue that, conceptually, it has to be calculated as income for the purposes of the GIS. I say, shame on the bureaucrats. We in this country have given many tax advantages to the rich and the more fortunate, to various regions of the country, so why can our senior citizens not enjoy a privilege they had for 15 or 20 yeras?
As I said, there is support for this amendment. The former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence was supportive. The Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) stood in this House on February 22, 1984, to support this change. The Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), a Conservative Member, stood in his place on June 1, 1984 and denounced this situation, as I have done, and said he wants it changed. The then Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni, Ted Miller, a New Democrat, supported that amendment because he knew that these people are living from hand to mouth and it is difficult enough in these very turbulent times to get by.
There was support then and it is here today, but what about support outside this Chamber? The Ontario Federation of Labour, The Nova Scotia Federation of Labour and the senior citizens of this country, when they came together in convention, supported this change. The United Mine Workers of America agree that there ought to be a change. The senior citizens clubs in Glace Bay, New Waterford and Reserve Mines agree on this. Mr. Guy Brown, a Liberal MLA in Nova Scotia is supportive of this change. The Nova Scotia MLA for Cape Breton Nova is supportive of this change. He represents the labour party in my riding. There is great support for this in Nova Scotia as well as across the country.
On previous occasions Conservative Members of Parliament have echoed the statements which I am making today. This is not fair or just. It is all well and good to condemn the previous Government, as I did when I was in government. However, that does not help the senior citizens. Members of Parliament must take their responsibility seriously and demonstrate to the Canadian people the will of all Parties to right this wrong. All sorts of bureaucrats can give the legal opinion that conceptually it ought to be reported for the purposes of calculating the Guaranteed Income Supplement. We give advantages to other groups in society. Why can we not restore a benefit to senior citizens in the country?
I am hopeful that Members opposite will take this opportunity to join with me in attempting to have that wrong righted. I am not asking Members of Parliament to be entirely political. However, if they wish to be political and condemn the previous Government, that is fine. However, let us change this provision for the benefit of senior citizens. Canadians across the country want this change. Unfortunately, they do not belong to a national organization which is well-heeled like a
February 14, 1985

chamber of commerce that can come to Ottawa and give articulate presentations and documentations. They do not have that advantage, but they do have Members of Parliament. I believe that it is the duty of a Member of Parliament to represent his constituents. That may sometimes fly in the face of what the Government is attempting to do. I said then and I say now that the Government was wrong to do what it did. Let us change the provision for the benefit of the senior citizens in the country.
There would be no shame for the Government to introduce an amendment. The Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) can do that through a Ways and Means motion. He can change it in the budget, if he wishes.
I sincerely request members of the Conservative Party to amend this Act to enable thousands of senior citizens to have an extra $191 or $25 a month. This is an opportunity for Members of Parliament to ensure that this Parliament is constructive. Surely to God we can bestow upon two million Canadians a benefit which they had for 20 years. Surely the wrong that was committed can be righted. We have the means to do it.
I suggest that there is some political will within this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. I will not mind what is said by Members who rise to speak on this issue. However, I will mind what they do. It is a serious matter when you live at the poverty level and the big hand of government takes a small amount of money away from you. To those individuals it is a significant amount and it hurts. The Prime Minister talked about civility before he entered this Chamber and shortly thereafter. I hope that civility will prevail in this Chamber on this issue. I hope that government Members in particular, as well as those in the New Democratic Party, will support me in this.
The Government will reap benefits if this change is made because people will respond favourably to it. I will applaud the Government for making it. I very sincerely ask all Members of Parliament to change this provision so that workmen's compensation will not be included for the purposes of calculating the Guaranteed Income Supplement.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I have a question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions or comments on this.


Paul Wyatt Dick: If you sought unanimous consent could I ask a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No, this is Private Member's Hour.


Paul Wyatt Dick: It has been done before.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Deputy Government House Leader should know that everyone wants to speak on this. By the time we get to six o'clock I will get flak from three or four sides from Members asking why they cannot speak on this particular Private Members' motion. Therefore, I
Income Tax Act
will recognize now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Gurbin).


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) has put his arguments forward in such an eloquent and compassionate way that no one who has listened can doubt his sincerity or his very real concern for the people who have been affected by this change. We should all compliment the Member for raising a matter which has caused members of all Parties considerable concern, particularly in the last Parliament. I know from the tone of the Hon. Member's comments that he does not view this in a political manner. He is not making this a partisan issue. He has appealed to us not to make it a partisan issue either, but to put it forward for serious consideration.
My own position on this matter is equally non-partisan. On matters of tax and social policy all Members would prefer to consider things from a non-partisan point of view.
I would like to take this time to express the concern, not only of the Hon. Member but of all Members, for senior citizens throughout Canada who have been affected in a number of ways by various pieces of legislation. I suggest that a review of the situation will explain the purpose of these provisions and why it would be inappropriate at this time to support the Hon. Member's motion. Let me emphasize that I do share the fundamental concern for the welfare of our senior citizens that I know is felt by the Hon. Member.
My concerns about his motion arise from a strong concern of my own about the concept of equity and fairness to all Canadians which must surely underlie all that we do.
As Hon. Members are aware, the Income Tax Act amendments in question were first raised in the Budget presented in November of 1981. I know that the Hon. Member has freely criticized those amendments which were introduced by his Government. I do not think I could match his condemnation of the changes that were introduced in that Budget. None of us who were there at the time can forget that there were a number of other measures included in that Budget which had disastrous effects on other groups of Canadians throughout the country. The question we must ask is whether or not the Hon. Member supported that Budget when it came before the House. I would assume that he supported it and its measures, including the one under discussion today.
If I may refer to documents issued at that time to explain the proposal, it is clear that the amendments were intended to put all similar programs on the same basis with respect to the calculation of eligibility for payments under the Guaranteed Income Supplement and Child Tax Credit provisions.
Specifically, the then Government wanted to deal with cases where some recipients of GIS were already in receipt of substantial income from workmen's compensation, and yet were placed on a par with those who had no other income. It wanted also to clear up a problem in a more general area of

February 14, 1985
Income Tax Act
taxation. Previously, a person claiming the dependant deduction did not have to take into account any income from workmen's compensation which his dependant might have. But would it be right to allow eligibility as a full dependant someone in receipt of as much as $20,000 in some cases?
It is important to note that the change proposed was implemented in such a way as not to affect an individual's tax payable, as it was recognized that such a change would indeed mean hardship for a number of those receiving workmen's compensation and other payments.
Let me also emphasize a very important point with respect to this issue. The changes did not alter the special status of workmen's compensation payments, whereby they are not subject to tax themselves. We are talking about the effect of including income which is already granted special treatment.
In 1984, a number of Hon. Members, including the Hon. Member from Cape Breton, raised the matter in the House when it became clear that one effect of the change was to reduce GIS payments for certain persons. The matter was also raised by some columnists in the press. The Hon. Member also pointed out comments made by other individuals. In the debate on Bill C-40 in the second session of the last Parliament, both in the House and in the standing committee, the issue was thoroughly considered.
The committee consideration of the question now being raised was most interesting and the basic rules underlying the debate emerged from it with some clarity. One very important point was with respect to the GIS program itself; another related to the Income Tax Act and its approach to the sources from which taxable income is derived. Then there was the question of how workmen's compensation payments are viewed, whether as replacement for income or as payment for the injury itself.
Finally, the testimony of the then Minister of National Health and Welfare pointed to the question of the amount of work needed to deal with the problem, which she admitted had not been anticipated by her or her officials. I think it is worth-while to look at each of these points.
My concern in taking the time to deal with them is that I do not want the House to rush into correcting something that may be regretted by some Members, when hasty action may in fact cause greater problems or raise issues which are best left for more careful study in a more appropriate way. It would be most inappropriate to consider just one small matter without considering how it fits into the general policies being followed by the Government.
Because the motion deals in effect with the Guaranteed Income Supplement, I would first like to consider that program. It is important to remember that the GIS is a program directed to the poorest of our senior citizens, those whose income would otherwise consist solely of payments from the Old Age Security program and possibly small amounts of other income. It is addressed to those people who are not able to provide for themselves in their later years and who would otherwise be left in a very depressed state economically.
Because the Government does not want to penalize those who have small additional income, there is a threshold below which benefits are not reduced by added income. Above that threshold, GIS entitlement decreases gradually by 50 cents for every dollar of income until benefits are completely eliminated. Surely this demonstrates that the GIS is not and never was intended to be anything other than a program directed to low income members of our society. Even the requirement that persons in receipt of the GIS must apply each year is evidence that the authors of the program recognized that changing circumstances might raise an individual's income and so reduce the need for the GIS.
Let me take a moment to point out that in the current year, the threshold above which GIS is not paid is over $11,000 for a single person and over $16,500 for a couple. Obviously, those at this level are not well off and they have my sympathy and that of the Government. But there are many who are worse off. Should we be considering a change which would put those in receipt of workmen's compensation benefits in a superior position to those who have no income other than OAS and GIS?
Another important principle which comes into play in this debate is one of the basic foundations of the Income Tax Act. This Act attempts to deal with all income and to treat it fairly across the whole range of sources. No one is going to claim that the Act is perfect and that there are no possible improvements. However, we ought to be careful before we support a move which may reduce the equity of certain provisions of the Act.
It would be difficult to argue that some sources of income, such as workmen's compensation payments, should be treated differently from other types of compensation. This was the situation prior to the 1981 Budget. Other disability payments have always had to be declared as income for the purpose of eligibility under the GIS, and it is not clear why workmen's compensation ought to be different.
I know that it is urged that compensation payments are different in kind from most other sources of income. Some view them exclusively as compensation for injury in the sense that a cane is some measure of compensation for an injured leg. Surely, however, workmen's compensation is not that, at least not that in its main thrust.
Many members of the standing committee made it clear last June that they accept that workmen's compensation payments are intended to replace in whole or in part the income which an individual would otherwise have earned and on which that person would of course be liable to pay tax or to be assessed for the purpose of GIS eligibility. The fact that compensation payments vary in duration as well as in amount reflects the fact that the awarding boards realize that income replacement during a period of deprivation is a significant function. How can we state categorically that compensation payments are different in kind from other types of payment when they are not viewed as being different in kind by the very bodies which decide on their duration and amount?
February 14, 1985

I recognize with the Hon. Member who moved this motion that individuals who may have received deductions in GIS payments unexpectedly were, not unreasonably, unhappy when that happened. Equally however, I must look at the broader picture in which some people who receive quite large incomes from workmen's compensation awards, such as up to $20,000 as I noted earlier, would still have been in receipt of the entire GIS payments. I do not think that those people whose only source of income is the OAS and GIS would view as fair changes to allow some other people with substantial other sources of income to be placed on the same basis as themselves.
We should also take note of the comments of the then Minister of National Health and Welfare who told the standing committee in June of 1984 that she and the then Minister of Finance decided that to take any positive action in response to the Members' concerns would not be appropriate. They saw clearly that the implications of undertaking this action would be very far-reaching.
The current Minister of a National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has announced that his officials are carrying out a comprehensive review of which sources of income should be included for GIS purposes. This-and I think this is a very major point in my response-is an appropriate way to consider the type of proposal which the Hon. Member has made in his proposal, namely, that the Government is looking at this issue very seriously and that changes may be made, but those changes should be done in the context of the entire review and not on a piece-meal basis.
An additional complication, which might result from an ill-judged amendment along the lines of the motion before us today, concerns the implications for the provinces. Hon. Members may be aware that prior to the changes we have been discussing today, it was necessary to pass remission orders every year to ensure that certain maintenance payments made by provincial Governments were not to be viewed as income for the purposes of GIS eligibility. The changes made in the 1981 Budget in this area ensured that there was a greater uniformity of treatment for all similar payments, whether federal or provincial in origin, and did away with the necessity for repeated remission orders. Again, however, I do not want to seem to be unfeeling toward those who were affected adversely by this measure. But I have to take into account that any legislation, and perhaps especially the Income Tax Act, has to deal as much as possible with general provisions.
I take special note here of the Member's comment regarding the bureaucratic mind-set. I think that is an interesting point that has evolved over a number of years and has been shown to be unfortunate in a number of cases. It is one of the things of which I and other Members on this side are mindful and to which we pay significant attention. On the other hand, I do not want to denigrate the activities and the necessity for proper political direction for a proper response.
Income Tax Act
From one point of view it would be nice to have an Act which could be applied specifically to every individual's situation-but such an Act would be many times as long as the present one. Surely we are coming to realize that what is needed is not more complication but less, so that basic equity can be preserved as easily as possible and as few persons as possible see fairness denied by an Act which is too complicated to understand or administer equitably.
We have to take certain facts into account as well when we are considering what action it is appropriate for us to take in response to this motion. It calls for certain actions to be taken by this House to respond to what I think we would all recognize is a difficult situation for some Canadians. The amount of money involved is probably not large when compared with the current level of spending on the GIS program. This level of spending is $2.5 billion a year. I am informed, however, that although 39,000 Canadians over 65 are currently in receipt of workmen's compensation payments, all but about 2,000 of these people are considered to have 60 per cent or less disability and only about 800 are permanently and totally disabled and receiving the maximum amount. We are therefore not talking about a lot of money, but we are also therefore not talking about a problem which, on the broad scale, is as large as many others we face today.
We should remember that the people affected adversely by the sections of the Income Tax Act before us do in fact have as much income as many others, or more. Like other disabled persons they continue to have access to other provisions of the Income Tax Act, such as those which assist the disabled and other programs which recognize the special needs of the disabled in general. Finally, I would point out that even within the group of 39,000 persons who receive workmen's compensation payments and are over 65, many if not the large majority are in any case disqualified from receiving the GIS, as other pensions and personal revenue raise their income levels to above the threshold.
Let me return in closing to the comments which I made at the outset of my remarks this afternoon. I hope that I have made clear that my own feelings about the motion before us are not based on simple partisan politics. I know that the Hon. Member who moved the motion raised this question in the last Parliament and in different political circumstances than today's. I appreciate that Members from both sides of this Chamber agree that the problem he raises is one that is real for those affected and that does not need to be viewed in a purely partisan way.
I hope I have also made it clear that it is not a matter of seeing a need and responding to it in a simple way. There are questions of equity under the law which are raised by it. Do those who support this motion really intend that this one source of income should be set apart and not considered in the administration of one of our major social programs? For it must be remembered that although this motion refers to changing certain provisions of the Income Tax Act, and therefore raises the question of equity and fairness under that Act, the program which is affected is the Guaranteed Income

February 14, 1985
Income Tax Act
Supplement. The mechanism which has been suggested as a means of dealing with a specific situation involves general issues of taxation and income under one Act, but the meat of the question, the substantive issue, is one which underlies the GIS program and our approach to those citizens who have little else to support them.
I think no one can doubt the sincerity, the honesty and the real concern that the Hon. Member who put forward this motion has expressed. I know all Members are interested in this subject. It is not easy, even if there is only one Canadian affected, to see a reduction in income, particularly when that income is seen to be necessary for that Canadian. We are looking at it in a broad context, and I know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare are open to changes which are constructive and progressive. I hope that in the future the Hon. Member will be able to support them.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in the debate on this motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Gurbin) has said, no one can doubt his sincerity. He comes from a place and represents a riding that is very much like my own, predominantly a mining community. He really speaks with sincerity and sensitivity about the problems which his constituents are facing because those are exactly the same sort of problems that my constituents face with respect to GIS and having to declare workmen's compensation payments as income.
I think a red herring was drawn across the path of the debate. I do not know anyone in my riding who collects $20,000 a year in workmen's compensation payments. The word compensate means an indemnity. It means "to make up for", and invariably, in 99.99 per cent of cases, in all of the cases, to collect workmen's compensation one has to incur an injury on the job. Oftentimes it is a disabling injury which limits the ability of the individual to earn income to support himself and his family in some dignity. The compensation payment is not only a replacement for potential income, but it is a recognition that there is a handicap. From my experience, the disability results in an incapacitation and a handicap, and there is a cost involved in maintaining the person who is on workmen's compensation. To turn around and say the workmen's compensation payment has to be declared as income seems to me to fly in the face of any sort of fairness.
It was never used prior to the change in Bill C-139. I am really impressed with the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond who correctly castigated the former Liberal Government, his Government, for its chintzy and cheap approach to the Guaranteed Income Supplement. I know he did it publicly, in committee and through letters to the former Minister of National Health and Welfare, Monique Begin.
The argument I heard from the government side is that there is a fairness. The reverse argument is that other people receiving GIS will look at someone who is on workmen's compensation and receiving GIS and say that that is not fair. I
am quite sure the person on workmen's compensation would prefer not to receive any workmen's compensation payments; I am sure he would prefer to be healthy, to pursue his career and to receive an income from his labour. I am sure a person on workmen's compensation would much prefer that than to have an accident and go through the strenuous procedure to obtain workmen's compensation. Indeed, in Ontario, it is one of the most serious problems faced by workers with injuries on the job. The whole question of establishing that the injury took place on the job and the extent of the injury has created a jurisdictional jungle. To argue that a poor person on GIS would look to someone on GIS and receiving workmen's compensation and say that it was not fair, is to reduce the income of the person on workmen's compensation to the lowest common denominator. Instead of saying that we should raise the supplement for the poor person, they are saying that we should knock down the person from the other end of the scale or bring him down to the lowest common denominator. It seems to me that that is inequitable and unfair.
There is another question which I think bears some elucidation. As a matter of fact, it was debated in a committee of the House in the last Parliament. It was debated before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs of the Thirty-second Parliament in 1984. The exact date was Thursday, June 7, 1984. The former Minister of National Health and Welfare, Monique Begin, was the witness. I often see buck passing going on, and we saw it with Monique Begin. She passed the buck to the former Minister of Finance. We must remember that health and welfare came under her jurisdiction. However, in response to the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), she said:
There is an equity problem behind it. That is not easy to face. I understand very well the way the reasoning was made to me. I have it-I do not know through how many letters from Dave Dingwall himself, for example, and from members of other parties-that any additional benefit for a good cause, a disability, a special situation, is something we should protect and should not treat equally with other incomes. Right now the Canadian income tax system has never been made like that.
She concluded by saying:
In a way, that should be discussed with the Minister of Finance, not with me. I am not the Minister in charge of that, period.
The Minister of Health said that that was not her problem, that is was the problem of the then Minister of Finance. Nevertheless, it was made without enough debate or discussion of the matter. Now the Government of the day says that it would like to change it, but that it cannot just make changes because it might create an inequitable situation. Then it talks about the $20,000 per year person who is on workmen's compensation payments, it could be compared to the case of the bank president who makes $500,000 and therefore should not get family allowance. There are only 15 bank presidents in the country. I do not know if there are 15 people on workmen's compensation who collect $20,000 a year.
February 14, 1985

Also the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the previous Government is reported to have said in a debate in the House of Commons:
-that to ignore income from sources such as workmen's compensation would result in inequitably higher benefits for pensioners who have such sources of income than for pensioners without such sources.
Again we hear the argument of inequitability. How can we talk about inequitability when we are talking about couples earning $16,000 per year or about single persons earning $11,000 per year? How can we talk about inequitability in giving them a few hundred more dollars per year? This is something I do not understand.
In the last Parliament the special committee on the handicapped made no less than 11 recommendations with respect to recognizing that a person on a Fixed income with a disability has certain additional expenses which able-bodied persons on fixed incomes do not have. In fact, workmen's compensation payments beyond age 65 become very important in terms of assisting disabled persons to live with some dignity the rest of their days.
The motion of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is quite appropriate. It seems to me that we can make a change. The Hon. Member said that we were not talking about a lot of money. In fact, it is a lot of money for people living in areas such as Cape Breton and Nickel Belt. When they finally come to fill out application forms-and it is a means test-they have to declare workmen's compensation payments.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment has said that they do not pay any income tax on workmen's compensation payments. That is in fact the way it was worked out. They only receive 50, 60 or 70 per cent of their wages. This is because of the fact that there is no tax on it. If they received 100 per cent, of course they would pay income tax.
We on this side of the House in the New Democratic Party support the motion of the Hon. Member. We urge the Government to correct the mistake of the previous Liberal Government. I know that many Members on the government side in the last Parliament argued against removing this particular provision. I suggest that they should now come out of the closet and stand with us and urge the Minister to return to the way it was before.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am really happy to have been able to second the motion of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). I have had many years of experience; in fact one of the first things which brought me into politics was the question of injured workers in the Province of Ontario. When I came to the federal House I was asked by a reporter what was the one thing I would like to do in my term in Parliament. I said that one concrete thing I would like to do would be to assist in encouraging the Government to effect a change to the Income Tax Act, specifically as it related to the punitive measures taken in the previous Budget against injured workers.
Income Tax Act
Although I was not a Member of the federal House at the time I became aware of the discriminatory provisions with respect to injured workers in the Budget of 1983, I immediately contacted the then Minister of Finance as well as the then Minister of National Health and Welfare in order to put on the record my objection and the objection of my constituents to a particular piece of legislation which, while claiming to bring equity into the system, was extremely punitive toward those in our society who can least afford it.
I should like to trace a few misconceptions on the part of some Members who have spoken to the Bill, that is, the notion that somehow compensation should be considered as any other income. If we trace the history of the introduction of compensation in provinces across the country, we will know that compensation in the workplace was introduced in an effort to improve or speed-up the process faced by a worker injured on the job and in an effort to introduce an over-all scheme to cover workers. Each worker in the country has given up his or her right to sue for a safe workplace.
We see from the litigation that occurs in the United States that not many companies will want to revert to the system that we had prior to the introduction of workmen's compensation in the 1930s where each individual was forced to take his or her company to task in a direct lawsuit when it dealt with a case of injury on the job. They gave up the right to sue, which in the 1980s could result in settlements of literally thousands if not millions of dollars.
In my constituency, a worker was blinded while in the employ of Westinghouse. As a result of that incident, he will remain disabled for the rest of his life. That person does not have the right to sue. He will receive a full disability from the Workmen's Compensation Board. He has had great difficulty and a change in his life as a young man as a result of that incident. This points to the need for compensation to be more than simply a retirement or pension plan scheme.
Compensation is more than that. It recognizes the fact that the workers have given up the right to sue. It recognizes the difficulty-I am really sorry if the Members of the Government are not interested in this issue. It happens to be an issue about which I feel strongly. I am sure many hundreds if not thousands of their constituents are concerned about it.
When you talk about injured workers, you are talking about many people whose income is less than $10,000 a year. These people are living below the poverty line, according to Senate statistics and any other statistics that have been furnished. These people are not living in the lap of luxury.
When the amendment was introduced into the Income Tax Act, it further punished workers who had already been deprived of the right to a quality of life which was similar to what they had experienced before their injury. By one stroke of the income tax pen, those workers not only lost their dignity and the quality of life, which had already suffered as a result of their injuries, but they were being further punished financially. I do not believe that the equity argument is being

February 14, 1985
Income Tax Act
compromised in the amendment suggested by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. If the Government sees fit to introduce this amendment, it will receive the full support of all Members of the House. It certainly speaks to the very reasons that we are here in Parliament. As the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond said so aptly, in many respects we are here to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.
The Government spokesman suggests that most people who are on workmen's compensation are being compensated for only 20, 30 or 40 per cent. I have seen literally thousands of workers who demonstrated before the Legislature of Ontario. Those same workers-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please. I would like to hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Those same workers on the 20 and 30 per cent pensions are surviving on provincial welfare benefits. That is the level to which they have been reduced as a result of work injuries and a lack or responsiveness of the Government in recognizing that when an iron worker breaks his arm, he is not 5, 10 or 15 per cent disabled, as suggested by the current compensation system of the Province of Ontario, but is totally disabled.
Let us take the case of a factory worker in my riding. If a woman in a textile mill hurts her back, she cannot sit at a sewing machine for eight or nine hours a day. She is laid off. The Compensation Board tells her to find another job. She does not speak English, she has Grade 3 education, and she has virtually no other employment opportunities. She is pensioned off at the rate of 15 per cent. These are the people who are being hurt by this particular income tax provision.

-I am convinced that if the Government decides to support the Bill as proposed by the Hon. Member whom I have the honour of supporting myself because if there is one thing I can accomplish during my four or five years here in Parliament it will be to change this provision to have a little more justice for our workers and a little more dignity, and to restore some of the quality of life a worker loses when he or she is hurt on the job. It is a major problem for our workers, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that Members on all sides of the House will support this Bill.
I would like to go on speaking to this proposal, but since we only have five minutes left, I would like to have a chance to vote on the Bill because it is so very important for all Canadian workers.
I remain at your disposal, Mr. Speaker, but I would invite all Hon. Members, especially those on the Government side, to support the Bill as presented by my hon. colleague.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy indeed to have the opportunity to speak to this motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). I am also pleased to see so many of my colleagues across the way with their shiny noses and smiling faces. I am sure they have paid a good deal of attention to this debate because, as the Hon. Member said, it is an important debate. I agree very much with the contents of this motion.
All Parties in this House have shown their interest in this amendment. In the last several years, they have supported many changes in the Old Age Security Act. They are very concerned with the financial needs of pensioners. Special attention has been given in this House and by my Government to income-tested benefits provided under the Act because we all recognize that these benefits have been targeted to those who need help the most.
My Government has moved in this direction by moving the spousal allowance down to ages 60 to 64. That Bill is now before the committee. My Government recognizes that we are dealing with limited resources. The idea in the 1950, 1960s and 1970s that there was no limit to the amount of money that we could provide has now disappeared. There is not a nation in the western industrialized world that has not had to either cut back on social benefits or to increase the contributions of those who receive the benefits. The demands for education and medical care have to be offset by the demands for pensions.
My Government recognizes that the great question in the 1980s is to ensure that we achieve a rational pension system which will ensure that no one retires without sufficient means to lead a decent life. In that sense, pensions have to be targeted. I believe everyone recognizes that.
The previous Government introduced a measure which has caused a great deal of difficulty for one group of Canadians. That, of course, is the subject of the motion before us today. It was an amendment to the Income Tax Act which was passed during 1983. It made the compensation benefits of workers accountable as income, but not subject to tax.
The main effect of that change, which received some publicity at the time and some opposition from Members on all sides of the House, is that the recipients of the GIS, spousal allowance and OAS had to begin declaring any workmen's compensation benefits as income. In some cases this reduced or eliminated supplements for many pensioners. That is a good example of bringing in quick changes in legislation without assessing the side effect it may have on other legislation and other programs. That is the reason why my Government is examining the whole question very carefully and cannot go along with this isolated change.
The Minister in charge will do a complete review of how income for GIS recipients will be assessed and what has to be done in this regard. This is an important issue which the Hon. Member has raised. It is a valid concern. Members may have had as much concern about the way it was done as about the actual change itself. Workmen's compensation is now counted for the purpose of income tax. I am sure that in the future, we will see some changes in this area and that we might see many changes. I note that it is now six o'clock. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
February 14, 1985


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, on December 14 last, based on the decision of the CRTC to disallow a Christian program heard in Calgary and surrounding area, I asked the Acting Minister of Communications in the House of Commons on December 14, 1984, if the Minister would look into the said suspension and ascertain why the CRTC is so opposed to Christian programs and Christian music. The Acting Minister, the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean), took the question as notice and advised the House that he would personally raise this matter with the Minister as he had a special interest in the subject.
On January 16, 1985,1 received a reply to a letter I had sent to the CRTC in which I deplored the said suspension. This letter indicated that the Christian program that had been suspended would now be allowed. So the people won and the program may once again be heard in Calgary and area.
The second part of my question about the reason why the CRTC is so opposed to Christian programs and Christian music, has gone unanswered so far. 1 am very concerned about the attitude and the actions of the CRTC regarding Christian programs and Christian music. Let us look at how the CRTC handled an application made by Canadian Family Radio Limited of Vancouver.
At the original hearing in October, 1978, the CRTC questioned the applicant extensively on its religious program with the proposed concept of family programming. The CRTC was informed that like other applicants, the proposed station was a commercial venture totally dependent on its revenue from the sale of advertising and thus would have to appeal to a broad audience and that no religious group or organization would control the station.
In February, 1979, nine commissioners of the CRTC gave unanimous approval in principle to the application. However, four months later the CRTC changed its mind and called a second hearing which was held on February 12, 1980. The applicant was then kept waiting for five more months even
Adjournment Debate
though the Commission had knowledge of the mounting financial outlay of the applicant.
On July 9, 1980, a full 15 months after nine members of the CRTC had given the application unanimous approval in principle, the CRTC denied the application. The CRTC considered that there was too much religious content. Has the CRTC become a censor board?
I should mention that some commissioners of the CRTC did submit a minority report, part of which stated emphatically that the conditions that the CRTC had imposed on the applicant could not reasonably be met. Again, during the second hearing four months after nine commissioners of the CRTC had given approval in principle, the CRTC pulled a fast one by having six members present, two of whom were new, while five members who were on the panel when the approval was given were not in attendance. Even with this substantial change, there was still a minority report. The CRTC's handling of this application destroyed a lot of its credibility and, in my view, the Canadian Family Radio people were treated shabbily. That is why I ask why the CRTC is so opposed to Christian programs and Christian music. The CRTC was so determined to reject this application that even when the applicant finally offered to comply with whatever the CRTC required, the CRTC simply ignored the offer.
Time will not permit an exhaustive review of legislation, but I must refer to Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act which clearly states that all persons licensed to carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility for programs they broadcast but that the right to freedom of expression and the right of persons to receive programs, subject only to generally applicable statutes and regulations, is unquestioned.
Furthermore, the CRTC's anti-Christian and anti-religious policy infringes on Sections 1 (c) and 1 (d) of the Canadian Bill of Rights which recognize freedom of religion and freedom of speech, and Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantee the freedom of conscience and religion and freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including of the press and other media of information.
In the United States there is no bar to Christian or religious programs. If the people like what they hear, they listen and support the station. If they do not want to listen they turn it off, and the company will not stay in business very long if there is no support for the station. But in Canada, at least until now, the people have no such choice. An appointed board says in effect, "We will not license a station that specializes in Christian programs and Christian music". How much longer will the people tolerate this bureaucratic discrimination that is contrary to the Broadcasting Act and contrary to the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for

February 14, 1985
Adjournment Debate
his very persuasive comments. I know that he was pleased to learn that the CRTC took action on December 21, 1984, in Public Notice 1984-318, in which it indicated it is now prepared to allow the continued carriage of religious U.S. FM stations.
The CRTC's non-renewal of the Calgary cable system's authority to carry U.S. religious radio station KMBI as a cable audio service had been the result of a policy announced by the Commission in May, 1984 that it would not renew existing authorities for the carriage of U.S. religious radio stations. This had an impact on cable systems across Canada and in British Columbia, Alberta and Kingston, Ontario, in particular. Both the Department of Communications and the CRTC received numerous complaints from cable subscribers who found themselves suddenly deprived of U.S. Christian radio stations which they had, until then, been able to receive on their cable audio service. But as I have said at the outset of my remarks, this situation has now been corrected and the continued carriage of religious U.S. FM stations will be allowed.
I should like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to point out that the CRTC has also approved the concept of a Canadian national interfaith religious television programming service delivered by satellite to cable systems. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, an application from the Canadian Interfaith Network to provide such a service is currently with the Commission.
This application from the network was received in response to an invitation from the CRTC to all interested parties to file applications to provide a predominantly Canadian interfaith religious programming service that would be varied and comprehensive, reflecting equitably the religious practices and beliefs of Canadians. It would be delivered by satellite to cable systems across Canada. The CRTC also asked applicants to give consideration to the manner in which regional or local religious programming might be included to supplement the over-all program schedule of the national service.
The Canadian Interfaith Network, CIN, or Reseau Inter-Religieux Canadien as it is known in our other official language, was the only organization to submit an application in response to the CRTC's call, but it represents several religious groups in Canada. At a public hearing on November 27, 1984, the network appeared before the CRTC to report progress on the development of its membership structure and on other questions related to its application. Speaking at that hearing, as a representative of the network, the Hon. David MacDonald noted:
It is fundamentally important for the commission to realize that the network is not merely a collection of individuals with an interest in religious broadcasting. Rather, it is an entity which has grown out of a time consuming and difficult process of due consideration by the governing bodies of the various religious communities, amounting to a direct and formal commitment by these bodies. This fact, in itself, sets the network apart from any application the commission has ever received-or is likely to see again.
The Hon. Member will know that our former colleague, the Hon. David MacDonald, is a former and distinguished Minister of Communications. He is a man of the cloth and a man
who knows full well the importance of interfaith and religious broadcasting.


POLITICAL PARTIES-TORONTO ELECTION CAMPAIGNS- STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER OF FINANCE. (B) REQUEST FOR APOLOGY
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am pleased to participate in the adjournment debate this evening and specifically to readdress the question I asked of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on December 14. I had referred to some statements that were made in a Canadian Press interview with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). He was quoted as saying that, "The election campaigns we fight in downtown Toronto are 'don't vote for the Tories or they are going to send you back to Italy. That is what is at the door. That is the politics that people will play. It is the politics of fear'."
At that time, Mr. Speaker, I and many others from the Italian community, in fact Canadians from different communities, took offence at those statements. When I asked the question of the Prime Minister and followed it up in correspondence, it was sad to see the patronizing attitude taken by the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I will quote part of his answer:
-I thank my hon. friend for his observation. For my part and that of my Party, we have been honoured by the support that we have received from the Italian community in Canada-
There are two things wrong with that. First, it is a patronizing, off-base attitude which did not address or acknowledge the statements made by his Minister of Finance. Second, the statement is not true. They did not get support from the Canadian-Italian community. If one looks at the electoral statistics, one will quickly realize that is not the case.
These statements are wrong, Mr. Speaker, and derogatory for two essential reasons. First, he is saying that my Party, including myself, as well as the NDP, fought a campaign in Toronto based on fear. He is saying we went to the doors of Canadians of Italian extraction and said that if they do not vote for us but vote for the Tories, they are going to be sent back to Italy. That was not the case, Mr. Speaker. Neither I nor any member of my Party conducted that sort of campaign.
I challenge the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to come forward with evidence to justify those very serious allegations. They should not make those statements without bringing forward proof. If they do make them, as they did, they should be prepared to retract them and apologize for the shortsightedness of the statements.
The second thing wrong with that statement is that if those two other political Parties conducted such campaigns, which they did not, the Minister of Finance attributes low intelligence to Canadians of Italian background. It is interesting to see that in that same interview the Minister of Finance said that Canadians are not given credit for their intelligence on the issue of social programs. He then finished his interview with the derogatory statement I read into the record earlier. Is the Minister suggesting there are two types of Canadians? Perhaps there are, on the one hand, Canadians who do under-
February 14, 1985

stand the system and the mechanisms, and, on the other hand, those new Canadians who are more gullible. Well, that is not the case either, and that was perhaps the greater offence.
This is a community that has come and worked here and it understands and appreciates the Canadian political spectrum. They participate in the Canadian mainstream and the political process. They also come from a country which gave us Machiavelli, so I do not think we have to be lectured by any Minister of the Crown to the effect that one particular Canadian community is gullible enough to believe that if you vote for the Tories the political fall-out will be deportation.
We live in 1985, Mr. Speaker, and I thought those kinds of comments were passe. Obviously they are not, and so I sought from the Prime Minister an acknowledgement that the statements were erroneous, uncalled for, and that he should send the right signals to those communities to the effect that they are a well respected part of this country. I believe that the injustice that has been done is that the Minister and the Prime Minister have failed to grasp the opportunity to send those signals to those communities and to admit that those statements were in fact unfortunate and unsubstantiated.
In subsequent press articles, the Minister of Finance said that he saw no reason to retract those statements. The Prime Minister answered the letter by saying that the Italian community gave them even greater support in the last election. That is the type of patronizing attitude that will not instil a sense of confidence in the communities of new Canadians. It will not instil a sense of confidence in the promises and commitments that he and his Government made to the multicultural communities of the country and to the multicultural policy. If we are to give credit and weight to these commitments and promises, the statements made by the Minister of Finance should be taken off the record. It should be admitted that they were a mistake. If those statements go uncorrected, members of the Italian Canadian community will not look to the Government with such grace. I hope we will receive a correction and retraction of those statements in the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary this evening. I am looking forward to hearing from the Hon. Member at this time.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Signor Presidente, sone honorata di rispondere a nomme del mio collega l'onorevole Michael Wilson. I am very pleased to be here responding to this question because I am angered by the opportunism which has been shown by the Hon. Member opposite. I am very proud that in my riding there are 7,000 Italo-Canadians. That is not patronizing, Mr. Speaker. Those people are my friends, as are people from the German, Anglo, French and Hungarian communities in my riding. Some of the warmest memories I have of the campaign are of visiting with people in the Italian community in my riding, many of whom were my friends before I ran for public office and have been welcomed in my home. I resent the implication that the Hon. Member has left in his remarks throughout this discussion that somehow this is patronizing.
Adjournment Debate
The very second stamp in the first passport I ever had as a Canadian was from Italy. I spent a month in the birthplace of western culture. I have been back and intend to return again, because Italian Canadians are among the people who I am proud to call my friends. I do not regard it patronizing to say so, and neither do they.
I would like to point out to the House that our Party is committed to representing all communities in Canada. I would like to emphasize that the Party of Mazankowski, Hnatyshyn, Della Noce, Jelinek and Mitges objects strongly to such allegations. Canada's cultural communities voted in overwhelming numbers for this Party on September 4.1 see no reason that we should not be proud of that. This is a record of which we are proud and a record on which we will build in the future.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has also stated:
I want to be able to say that our country is one where all citizens have an equal opportunity to achieve their full potential; a society which strives for equality in all aspsects of life, where people applaud ingenuity and daring and reward creativity and excellence.
I am very proud to belong to a Party which stands for that kind of philosophy. I am only sorry that the Hon. Member opposite has chosen to use this as an opportunistic political topic.


AGRICULTURE-MARITIME FEED GRAIN COSTS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the occasion for my speaking this evening in the House is as a result of a question that I put to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) some weeks ago. It was with regard to whether he would favourably consider a proposal by the Maritime Farmers Council to enhance the Feed Freight Assistance Program which has been in place since 1941 to assist farmers in feeding their livestock and being competitive in the market-place.
In 1984 the agricultural community recorded record bankruptcies. Approximately 551 farmers went bankrupt. When the Minister was addressing the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, he stated that the Government had to pay attention to the 39,000 farmers who are in severe to moderate financial distress but who have a chance to survive. A substantial number of those farmers, plus a number who went bankrupt in 1984, and a substantial number who will go bankrupt if the Government does not take positive action, live and make their living in the maritime provinces.
They are facing this crisis because they are not competitive and cannot obtain a decent return for the fruit of their labours. Many of them are not competitive because of the differential in the feed grain price between the maritime provinces and western Canada, Ontario and Quebec.
The feather industry in the maritime provinces is in trouble. It currently pays a differential in excess of $60 per tonne for feed grains that are imported into the Maritimes to raise their stock. The dairy industry has seen a decrease in the amount of fluid milk demand as a result of $47 and more per tonne that it

February 14, 1985
Adjournment Debate
must pay in excess of its brothers in Ontario, Quebec and western Canada. The beef industry is also in trouble.
The pork industry is in serious trouble because of the excess $37 it must pay per feed grain tonne to import it to the maritime provinces.
In 1941, the Feed Freight Assistance Program was brought into effect by the Government of the day. At that time it covered approximately 90 per cent of the cost of transportation of grain from the Lakehead to eastern Canada. Over the years that price eroded to the point where, between 1967 and 1976, it was approximately 59.3 per cent of the total cost of transportation.
Today, farmers are being compensated to the tune of approximately 19 per cent to 28 per cent for the importation of Ontario corn and 26 per cent to 33 per cent for western grain. Our farmers cannot bear that type of depletion in their incomes.
For example, the hog producers in Ontario are receiving approximately $13.99 per market hog sold, plus an average payment of $4.90 covered under the Agriculture Stabilization Act. The average return of a market hog sold is $18.89. His brother in the maritime provinces is receiving a net farm income per hog sold of 14 cents, compared to the $18.89.
What we are looking for in the maritime provinces is the ultimate goal of self-sufficiency in the production of feed grains. In the meantime, only 45 per cent of that land available to us is under production. We have the potential for substantially more land production, but it is going to take a few years to get it into production. There is a plan in place. We expect by the year 2000, if that plan is implemented, that we can be self-sufficient in the maritime provinces. In the meantime, we ask the Government to do what it has done for Canadian farmers in the West, what it has done for the Crow rate, and what it has done through the Stabilization Act for farmers here in Ontario and Quebec, to provide farmers in the maritime provinces with only what it is providing for those other farmers in the rest of Canada, that is, the same type of assistance. What it amounts to is an immediate infusion of $13.3 million in new money which would be added to the $7.2 million already identified as dollars that would be injected into the Feed Freight Assistance Program, for a total of $20.5 million. As our agricultural land is put into production to make us self-sufficient in the growth of grain products, the amount will reduce each year, naturally. As more land comes into production, the more self-sufficient we become, the amount will lessen, and by the yeawr 2000 it will have been eliminated.
The key words are short-term. It is for the short-term period. The food and agricultural sector in the maritime provinces is vital to our economy and to our survival.
I ask this Government to approach this serious plight positively. The nearly bankrupt farmers in the maritime provinces are dependent upon feed grain importation. I ask the Government to give them every serious consideration.


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his representation on a very serious topic, one about which he is extremely concerned and one on which I know he has worked hard in the past and will do so again in the future.
I would say at the outset that this Government is committed to the survival and prosperity of the livestock and poultry industry throughout Canada. In the case of the Maritimes, we believe that the long-run prosperity of the livestock and poultry industry would be well served by increased local feed production. Indeed, the Maritime Farmers' Council has stressed this very point. To that end, two actions have been taken.
First, under the agreements with the provincial Governments, about $74 million will be spent on agricultural development over five years. Part of this money will be spent on research to develop improved varieties and cultural practices suited to the maritime conditions. Part may also be spent on improving the dissemination of information aimed at improving grain producers' efficiency and also on improving the grain marketing structure.
Second, locally produced grain was made eligible for feed freight assistance payments. This was done to ensure that maritime grain producers were not disadvantaged by the feed freight assistance payments made to assist local livestock and poultry producers.
Feed freight assistance is of course an important means of ensuring the competitive position of the maritime livestock and poultry sector. In 1983-1984, $4.8 million was paid on shipments to the Maritimes. Moreover, in the last 10 years the proportion of feed freight assistance expenditures paid for shipment in the Maritimes has increased from 17 per cent to 30 per cent.
As the Hon. Member has indicated, the Maritime Farmers' Council has proposed increasing feed freight assistance payments to cover 50 per cent of transportation costs from western and central Canada. As my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) indicated in the House of Commons on December 18, 1984, we would, of course, be willing to consider the merits of this proposal. I would, however, add a note of caution. Given the difficult budgetary position we have inherited from the previous Government, it would be necessary to identify financial resources which could be used for such a project.
February 14, 1985

[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly,
Adjournment Debate
this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 15, 1985