1985-05-21

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order about the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion on the Order Paper?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: I have something I was going to say about the Order Paper, but please go ahead.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Projected Order of Business, it says:
Note: Length of speeches, pursuant to Standing Order 35(1):
-unlimited time-Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition -20-minute maximum (all other speakers)
-all speeches are subject to 10-minute question and comment period.
If this is the case, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that the motion which is about to be moved by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) is not limited to a debate not extending more than two hours. Otherwise, we would certainly not find the Order Paper constructed in the way it is. As you have pointed out to us previously, Sir, Standing Order 82 calls for only 10-minute speeches. However, it is clear from the very clear wording of the Notice Paper today that if the speeches are pursuant to Standing Order 35(1), I respectfully submit that there is not then a two hour time limit on debate of this motion. I thought it was important to bring this to your attention at the very outset of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member is indeed correct that if it were a motion under 35(1) there would indeed be unlimited debate. I have a note to myself to indicate this before anybody said anything else. I appreciate the point. Therefore, before putting the question on the motion to the House, may I, for the benefit of Hon. Members, indicate that the time allowed for speeches on the motion as listed on today's Projected Order of Business is incorrect. In fact, the provisions of Standing Order 82 apply and all speeches will be limited to 10 minutes. As a consequence, two hours after
commencement of proceedings on the motion, the question shall be put to the House. The motion is properly under Standing Order 82.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the following proposed motion:
That, further to the notice given on Thursday, May 2, 1985 by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 82, in relation to Bill C-15, An Act respecting investment in Canada, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading stage of the said bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on those days, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in joining in this debate I would like to begin by saying that, pursuant to Standing Order 82, there is now time allocation which will have the effect of requiring that there be only one sitting day at report stage of Bill C-15, and one sitting day at third reading stage of the same Bill. There may be those who ask why we felt it necessary to bring in time allocation. I can only say to such people that if they had had an opportunity to sit in the House and watch the progress of Bill C-15 at second reading and at committee stage and if they had seen the stalling and filibustering tactics which the Official Opposition and the NDP Members used, they would be endorsing this time allocation motion.
I would like to refer specifically to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) made recently in this Chamber. He said, "We are prepared to spend as many hours, days or weeks in the House debating these matters as required". The unfortunate thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the Hon. Member was not kidding. If the Opposition had its way we would still be debating Bill C-15 this time next year, or even the year after that. We would be going over the same ground, hearing the same arguments, and having amendments put which had already been duly considered and in many cases voted down in the committee which made a very in-depth study of this Bill.
If Hon. Members read some of the arguments used, I think they would find them to be hackneyed, trite and, what is most unforgivable, ignoring the hard fact that there are 1.5 million Canadians out of work who would like to see investment, preferably from Canadian sources, but certainly from all sources, considered with a view to creating the prosperity and jobs which the country needs. It is beyond reason to claim that insufficient time has been allowed for debate on this legisla-

May 21, 1985
Time Allocation
tion. We have already devoted many hours to it, both in the House and in committee.
Let me emphasize again how much time has been spent. In that respect, I would like to compare the number of Members we have heard speaking on Bill C-15 with the number who spoke on the Foreign Investment Review Bill back in 1973. At second reading of Bill C-15, there were 72 speakers, compared to only 26 speakers at the second reading of the Foreign Investment Review Bill. A total of 128 speakers have spoken so far at the report stage of Bill C-15, compared to only 68 at the report stage of the Foreign Investment Review Bill.
What a contrast! When one thinks of it, the Foreign Investment Review Act changed Canada's attitude toward nonCanadian investment in a very fundamental way. It was a true policy change. If the House saw fit to pass that type of legislation, surely it is rather remarkable, ten years after the fact, when we bring in legislation that we think is improving the approach, still putting in meaningful review where necessary while making it clear that we welcome Canadian and non-Canadian investment, that those in the Opposition now feel their right is to block such legislation and delay it much more than ever was the case with respect to the original Foreign Investment Review Act.
In the House last week, my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay), and I spelled out the number of hours spent in debate on Bill C-15. Let me repeat them once again for the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry and the other hard of hearing socialists on the opposition benches. It has now become crystal clear that every reasonable point that could have been raised in regard to Bill C-15 has indeed been raised. At second reading, the Bill received 15 hours of debate in the House, a total of 40 hours in committee and a total of almost 24 hours at report stage up to and including May 2. How can the Opposition claim that we have not provided enough time for the consideration of their important and constructive amendments? This argument, like so many of their arguments, is simply ludicrous.
It has now become crystal clear that every reasonable and constructive point to be raised with regard to Bill C-15 has already been raised. Several opposition motions which were rejected in the committee were still put forward here in the House. Obviously it was a stalling tactic. Furthermore, several of the opposition motions put forward in the House have been ruled out of order.
Opposition Members may be smug in the knowledge that their attempts to obstruct passage of this vital piece of legislation has worked so far. Are they equally smug in the knowledge that at the same time they are obstructing the economic progress of the Canadians who elected us all? I can tell you of one group who do not appreciate this smugness. They are the workers who are looking for jobs in this country. They feel that such stalling on a meaningful approach to future investment in Canada is not what the Parliament of Canada should be a party to. In short, they believe that it is time to allow the will
of the majority of the electors, as evidenced in the last election, to be recorded in the House of Commons and presumably in the other place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In short, it is our view that we must start facing the facts. We must remove needless obstacles to investment in this country in order to bring to Canada the capital, the technology development, the industrial growth and, above all, those new jobs to which I have been referring this morning.
To remove needless barriers to investment here is precisely the way we have drafted Bill C-15. By proposing this legislation, the Government of Canada is saying to Canadians, "Let us try out new ideas and technology. Let us work together, federal and provincial Governments, public and private sectors, to put Canada on the road to economic recovery. Let us demonstrate the Canadian edge in energy, technology, markets, growth, people, and ideas". The time has come to put an end to the Opposition's endless talking about this Bill. The time has come for action. The time has come to pass Bill C-15.
Canada needs the benefit that this legislation can provide. It is our responsibility to bring the benefits within our reach by passing this Bill as expeditiously as possible.
May I remind all members of the Opposition that the Progressive Conservative Party made a commitment to Canada, to the Canadian electors during the election, to replace the Foreign Investment Review Act with a simpler, less restrictive investment policy. We were elected to carry out the will of Canadians. We intend to see it carried out with precision and purpose. We will not be held back by an Opposition bent on disruption for the sake of disruption. That is why I have introduced this motion to limit debate at this point. We will not see this Bill and with it Canada's economic recovery put on hold.
In short, any Member who decides to resist, to vote against this legislation, is contributing to the lack of investment in Canada and, unfortunately, to the ultimate lack of jobs for Canadians.


Mr. Langdon:: Nonsense. Such total nonsense.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister in introducing this closure motion said that the time has come. I think that was his resounding refrain. That is the one statement with which I can agree. The time has now come when the Canadian people will see this new Conservative Government exposed for what it really is, namely, made up of a group of hypocrites.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: They are a group of people who have in the past stood in the House of Commons with the most self-righteous indignation, proclaiming the right of Parliament to open and free debate about the important issues of the time. These
May 21, 1985

are the people who held up parliamentary debate for two solid weeks on the Constitution with bell ringing tactics. On the debate on the Western Grain Transportation Act they maintained close to nine months of debate. We had a report stage that lasted 15 weeks, and they introduced over 100 amendments. At that time what they did was an exercise in democratic right. Now when we get to the foreign investment question which deals with billions of dollars of economic development, this Government is no longer prepared to tolerate Parliament exercising its rightful role.


An Hon. Member:: What about jobs?


Lloyd Axworthy: The most supercilious proposition put forward since this Government came to power is contained in the statements made by the Minister that the reason for this thrust is only that the Conservatives want to help the working people, or the people who want to work, the 1.5 million who are unemployed. Everyone in this House wants to help them. The problem-and this is what the Minister does not understand- is that he has not made the case. His problem is that, because of the weakness of his own arguments and the lack of presentation by members of his own caucus who refuse to debate, they have not made the case.
The poll done last night was prime proof. The majority of Canadians do not want further foreign ownership. You have failed, Sir, to show and to demonstrate how this Bill in any way, shape or form will be able to assist: Canadians to get jobs. The problem is that we have a basic fallacy on our hands. Parliament is being asked to pass a Bill based upon pure fiction. Time after time witnesses appeared before the committee and gave arguments that the Bill would make no difference and there would not be a great onrush of new capital as a result of it. When representatives of the New York money markets were interviewed and asked whether it would make a big difference, they said: "No, of course not".
[DOT] (M20)
Last year we had $4 billion worth of foreign investment come into the country. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) is a man who lives totally in mythology; he has no reality about him. One of his great mythologies is that somehow this is night and day; that there was no foreign investment before and there will be foreign investment now. He does not read the reports of his own agencies, which indicated that last year there was close to $4 billion worth of foreign investment coming into Canada. The difference is that that foreign investment came in to create jobs in Canada. Repeatedly in the course of this debate we have indicated that with total free licence and lack of any kind of bargaining power, the foreign investment which the Minister is inviting into the country will take away the jobs and opportunities of Canadian workers. He should ask the workers in Canadian Porcelain whether they think foreign investment is a good deal. He should ask one of his own Members who jumped to his feet in high dudgeon last week to ask: "What about Irwin-Dor-sey?" A foreign owner closed down that plant in his riding and
Time Allocation
took away 35 jobs from that area. Time after time we have seen the same example.
Without conditions being negotiated, without some agreement on the part of foreign investors that when they come to Canada they will provide a clear commitment to secure jobs, to provide an opportunity for the Canadian-based subsidiary to conduct research and development and recognize the right of that Canadian subsidiary to get into the world export market, without those kinds of guarantees, the Canadian economy is the poorer for foreign investment. The one hard, clear, undeniable piece of evidence which was repeatedly raised was that unless we are able to secure those guarantees, Canadian subsidiaries will perform far less well economically for Canadians than Canadian-owned companies. They import much more, which substantially affects our ability to sell and our balance of payments. Their mandate in export markets is far less, and they conduct far less research and development. That is the evidence which this Opposition has been trying to impress upon the Minister. The problem is that the Minister is so close-minded, so obdurate, so insensitive and so absolutely disdainful of the role of Parliament that he does not bother to listen or to respond.
The Minister does not care about what other people have to say. We have seen this time and time again. Even when there are partisan differences, the primary role of the committee structure and report stage is to try to make the Bill better than that which the Government initially presented. Parliament is not here as a rubber-stamp. It is not here for government Members to flap their wings in wild applause. It is here to do an honest and effective job in trying to make a piece of legislation more effective and more useful. The Minister does not understand that process.
There is no question that the other side was given a mandate in the last election to bring about a change in the Foreign Investment Review Agency. That change should have been subject to the salutary, beneficial effect of a proper parliamentary process, but we have a Minister who does not believe in it. Therefore he refused to accept any amendments, refused to conduct any negotiations and refused to deal with the kinds of representations we heard. He is a Minister who does not care about Parliament, and that is part of the case we are making. Of course, we must bring forward a number of amendments because those brought forward at committee stage were totally rejected and there were only 14 sessions of the committee.
[DOT] (D25)


Mr. Gormley:: What about you?


Lloyd Axworthy: One of the hand-clappers has asked what about us. I would remind him that in the case of the Western Grain Transportation Act, we accepted over 22 amendments put by the Opposition. He should read his parliamentary history before he flaps his lips. The fact of the matter is that Parliament is here to provide judgment and assessment in order to make the process more constructive.
4898

May 21, 1985
Time Allocation
While trying to make his definitive case, the Minister said that there were fewer speakers when we debated the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Why is that? It is because there was more consensus in the House on that legislation than there is on this legislation. The Minister does not understand Parliament. Other Parties were supportive of that legislation and were prepared to give it a try.
This Minister has not been listening very well. He has not even listened to some of the key questions. For example, we asked a question regarding the arbitrary discretionary power of one Minister to make billions of dollars worth of investments. We asked if he should not be required to consult from time to time with his colleagues in caucus. We saw what the Minister did regarding Domtar. We know how he had to have his wrist slapped by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and members of the Quebec caucus so that he would change his mind. We will see a repetition of that case time and time again.
We have a wilful, headstrong Minister who does not care about the opinions or judgments of those in other regions. We know of the Minister's history in western Canada. He was the great creator of the Bank of Western Canada. We know how much he cares about regional interest in that area of the country. We know how much he cares about Domtar in Quebec. We are simply saying that for the sake of God, Parliament should put some restraint on the wilful arbitrariness of one Minister. However, the Minister has not bothered to listen to us. That is okay with us because we know the kind of hot water in which he and the Government will be time and time again.
This debate is about the fact that the Minister and the Government do not care about Parliament. The Government is not prepared to use the parliamentary process the way it was designed to be used. That will tell the Canadian people far more than anything else about just what kind of Government they elected. They elected a Government that is presidential rather than parliamentary in style, and that will be its downfall.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is a sad and shameful day when the Minister can stand before the House to claim with self-righteousness that he is somehow meeting the needs of the Canadian people by closing off debate on this Bill. I want to-


An Hon. Member:: We've even got the babies squawking.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: It is obvious that the voices of our youth are shouting out in terror as they see what is happening.


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


Steven W. Langdon: If my speech has the capacity to strike terror into the heart of the Minister, I will be pleased indeed.
If we could, let us talk about honesty. Let us talk about what has actually occurred with respect to this debate. I would
like to review those facts for the House because I think there must be Members of the House who are not aware of them since they applaud so vociferously what this Minister is doing.
First, let us talk about the committee hearings which were held with respect to this Bill. The Minister likes to suggest that somehow those committee hearings gave everyone across the country a chance to comment, to have input and to consult, to use the favourite phrase of the Government. The reality is that at least 28 witnesses who wanted to testify before that committee were prevented from doing so. Most of those witnesses were the kind of disinterested witnesses who would have been able to offer a great deal in terms of non-partisan advice with respect to this Bill. The Director of the Research Centre at Queens University and-dare I say it-the son of the Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Layton), people such as they who have a certain perspective based on detailed study and a lack of access to grants, did not approach the subject with the extreme prejudice of the Minister. They were cut off and not permitted to testify.
We could move from the witness stage to the stage at which amendments were reviewed. Again, the Minister tells us that the committee was able to study with care and diligence all the suggestions which were made by opposition Members. That was not so. There were only three days of debate. At least half of the amendments which were put before the committee were not debated. Then the Bill, at report stage, came to the House. Again the Government is suggesting that a filibuster is taking place.
If we look at the debates which have taken place on each of the sets of amendments which have been brought forward, we Find that there has been a reasonable number of speakers. There are 30 people in the NDP caucus, but in no case have we offered 30 speakers. In most cases we have not come close.
These are key items. The Minister spoke about his mandate to see the Bill through the House. Indeed, he has that mandate. In principle, the people of the country supported the notion of Investment Canada, but they did not vote last September to have no public input to the hearings which are held on Investment Canada. The people of Canada did not vote to have ineffective criteria on which to judge companies. For instance, there is no criterion to look at the financial viability of the parent companies of the firms which are taking over Canadian companies. The people of Canada did not vote for a definition of assets which is totally confusing. It will provide a bonanza for lawyers, but it will not give Canadians the protection which they deserve when takeovers occur.
In report stage on the Bill, we are dealing with key technical points. Surely to God each of those points is worthy of some debate. Yet the House will be given only one day to look at the important amendments which remain.
The Minister claims that what he is doing is designed to protect workers in Canada and to find jobs for the future. There are many points of view concerning the question of foreign investment. On the basis of experience I would hold

May 21, 1985

that the Minister's view is faulty and that the analysis which lies behind it is mistaken. But that is something on which we can differ. That is not what is at debate at report stage. We are not debating that broad principle at report stage. We are debating a whole set of crucial amendments, such as amendments concerning changes which would ensure that branches of U.S. companies, if they change hands, are subject to review. If, for instance, the Iron Ore Company of Canada changed hands, which threatened jobs for Canadian workers, there is no capacity in the present Bill to review the takeover, because of faults in the organization of the Bill. Branches are not included, but subsidiaries are. That is one example of the kinds of technical but important points which deserve careful scrutiny before the House votes on the important amendments brought forward.
There are several cases which have come before us since September, such as those of Black & Decker, Mitel and Canadian Porcelain. In each of those cases, the importance to Canadian workers in being able to turn to the Foreign Investment Review Agency for protection or to safeguard their positions, has been an important ingredient in the economic future of Canada. This Bill will eliminate that protection for many workers. In that sense, it is absolute and total nonsense to say that this Bill somehow meets the needs of the 1.5 million people who are unemployed. In fact, those people are threatened by the rationalizations that may take place as takeovers occur and foreign investments leave Canada as branch plants shut down and subsidiaries restructure. The Minister should remember this day in the future when he faces case after case of shut-downs of Canadian subsidiaries and of the rationalization associated with North American free trade. Day after day he will face the sense of loss which his Bill leaves among the workers and the communities.
On election night we had a sense of hope. Instead of hope, today we have a sense of shame as the Government uses its large power to stifle debate. We see a sense of dishonesty as arguments are brought forward which are not appropriate to report stage of the Bill. We feel a sense of sadness. The Government controls all power in the House of Commons. It can do what it wants to do. But on behalf of my Party I want to register the sadness and the sense of regret which we feel as this Government adopts the arrogance, the sense of overweening pride, and the sense of dominance and concern with its own policies and beliefs at the exclusion of ideas and input from opposition Parties which so marked the Government voted out of office last September.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few comments on the motion to limit debate on this Bill and to respond to a few of the assertions which have been made by the two previous speakers. I found it interesting to listen to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) and the obvious sincerity, albeit very often misguided, with which he speaks. The remarks of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry certainly speak for themselves and will later be addressed.
Time Allocation
There are several obvious reasons for this motion to limit debate on Bill C-15. The time which has been spent on this Bill has been addressed by previous speakers. As the Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) previously stated, the time spent on debate in the House and in committee is now approaching 80 hours. I believe that Canadians who are watching the proceedings of the House of Commons can appreciate what 80 hours of discussion should be able to generate and accomplish. There has been extensive participation in debate by all Members in the House and in committee. It was interesting that one of the member of the Opposition commented on, in his words, the "stifling" of people in committee. There were 23 representations made in committee for a total of 26 hours of discussion. There were 30 additional briefs and 19 amendments accepted by the committee. These amendments, briefs, submissions, and representations dealt exhaustively and extensively with the Bill.
There has also been concern expressed, as mentioned by the Hon. Minister, about the obstruction of popular will. On September 4 the Government received a massive mandate from Canadians who had many desires and aspirations for their Government. The people of Canada look toward the Government for some new and innovative approaches to the economy. The Minister's Bill has drawn a very sensible and equitable balance between the Government and those Canadians and non-Canadians who wish to invest in our country. The needless number of amendments proposed by the Opposition would have reinstated FIRA and gone much further to undermine the popular will of Canadians.
What did Canadians want on September 4 in the area of investment by non-Canadians? They clearly showed that they did not want the intervention exercised by the past Government. The over 90 amendments moved by the Opposition went even further than asking for the reinstatement of FIRA. The Opposition debate to this point has been repetitive, to say the least. As Canadians watch the parliamentary proceedings, they find it sad that the House of Commons has become a "talk shop".
The NDP espouses a philosophy and point of view that is, to say the least, unrealistic. I hearken back to my province of Saskatchewan. When one grows up in the only province which has had over 40 years of New Democratic and CCF Governments, one learns very quickly the extent to which that Party wants the state involved in the lives of all people.
It is unfortunate that the opposition Parties have used the number of hours that they have. Liberals have spoken 82 times in the House on Bill C-15. New Democrats have been on their feet 72 times. These interventions made simply reiterate tired and meaningless amendments which waste the time of Canadian people who are watching the proceedings of the House. Debate in the House is often compared to a freeway. There are all sorts of Bills affecting farmers, native people, and other Canadians in the merge lane trying to get into the House of Commons. Yet debate in the House is taken up by an Opposi-

May 21, 1985
Time Allocation
tion which makes many interventions and amendments which border on the frivolous. For that reason, the House of Commons is not being used in the responsible fashion in which it should.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Kenneth Gormley: As well as being obstructive the debate which we have heard creates uncertainty. The uncertainty and lack of confidence which was spread by FIRA is now being perpetuated. Those who wish to invest in Canada look at the positive aspects of the Investment Canada Bill and wonder why it cannot clear the House of Commons. They wonder why the Opposition is causing such a delay. We are not doing a service to the people who wish to invest in Canada.
For that reason I speak in support of this motion to limit time for debate. Owing to its sense of democracy, the Government has allowed the fullest airing of opinions on this Bill. The committee has dealt with this matter extensively and it is now time to move on to other pressing matters that are before the House of Commons.
I would like to address some comments through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), who speaks about hypocrisy. It makes the heart flip and the stomach turn to hear that Member talk about hypocrisy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Kenneth Gormley: The pot calling the kettle black had nothing on the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. Unction oozes from every pore of his little body. He speaks with a sanctimonious air about what his political Party stands for and what his Government did. After the years of pitiful, sad performance by his Government, with him as a Minister, this is neither the time nor the place for members of the Liberal Party to discuss hypocrisy.
It was interesting to hear Liberal Members saying that we should leave FIRA as it is because it did not prevent anything; that the majority of proposals were simply rubber-stamped. They wanted FIRA because they could use it as a political football. The Liberal Party wanted to use people's hopes, concerns and views about investment as a political football to play upon feelings of economic nationalism from time to time. When it got a little too repressive it would simply back off on FIRA and economic nationalism. The blatant political overtones of FIRA were seen for what they were on September 4.
I call upon Members of the House to support the proposal to bring Bill C-15 to a vote and to move on to the other important issues which await the people of Canada. For that reason I support this motion of time allocation to enable the House to move on to other serious matters which await us.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day when one must get up to speak on time allocation and look at the laughing faces of the Conservatives who introduced only one original piece of legislation before the House, that is, Investment Canada. How many of those bookends and surfers have we seen-a surfer is a guy who comes in and goes out at the next election. We have heard none of them debate this issue. The last speaker must have been a surfer who came in with the tide. He talks about the meaningless and needless number of amendments. He says that the Official Opposition has undermined the will of the Canadian people. He says that the Government came in with a strong majority and should therefore rule and govern as nobody else can, and no one should question it. Well, I remind him that fewer than half of Canadian voters voted for the Progressive Conservatives, God thank them.


John Kenneth Gormley: How many voted for you?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It doesn't matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I got my majority, don't worry. You can come into my riding any time, Sir, and I will take you on, you and any others. I do not have to worry, I have a comfortable majority. What I am telling you is that you do not have that kind of majority from Canadians. Call an election tomorrow on this issue, show that you have guts. But no, they would not do that.
What were we talking about? About amendments. Because we had a combined total of 94 amendments, the Government says, "Hey, enough. The Government says it has an agenda, but it spent six days last week and the week before on opposition days. The Government said we should tell it what to discuss. Well, we did, for six whole days. I heard the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) get up and say we are taking the time of the House. The Government gave the Official Opposition six full days, and we used it.


John Kenneth Gormley: What did you do with it?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We used it. Interestingly enough, we raised subjects that were of interest to the Members of this House and to Canadians at large. It was a good debate on all the issues we raised. But that is not my point. My point is that the Conservatives did not have an agenda, they did not have anything on the books. All they had was Investment Canada. And when we said, let's work together and improve this legislation, they said no. They said they were going to cut off debate, have only two hours of ten-minute speeches following which we are going to vote, and of course, "We have the majority", as they put it so well. "We are 211. We are the bullies on the street, we are going to tell Canadians how we run this country." Watch out on Thursday. Every night for the last two weeks we have heard that it is going to be a tough Budget. Be careful, Canadians, you are really going to get it. But on Thursday they will say, "We are a bunch of nice guys". Such beautiful marketing, but what a bunch of nonsense!
Let us look at the amendments and what the Minister called the obstructionist Liberals. We proposed that the Minister
May 21, 1985

should give policy direction to the agency. Did he accept that? No. It is going to be another part of his office. No direction there. They will do whatever he decides. And if some foreign company comes over and wants to buy anything in Canada, it is welcome to it. The Minister is the only one who will decide. He will not even have to consult his Cabinet colleagues. Great. Well, I say that is not the way things should be. Motion No. 6 suggests that finding Canadian buyers should be a duty of the Minister. Sure, we want foreign investment, but we should ensure that Canadians buy into their own economy. Last week I heard a Member saying that in Canadians' minds FIRA is not important any more. But before they start to snap their suspenders, as we say in French-peter les bretelles-I would remind them that the reason Canadians-

-the reason why Canadians are not concerned about FIRA is because the agency has been a good thing for Canada. For instance, in 1970, as Canadians are aware, the manufacturing sector was 61 per cent foreign-owned. By 1980, this percentage had dropped to 53 per cent. We had recovered 8 per cent of our economy. The same thing was true-


An Hon. Member:: You closed the shop!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is not true. We did not close the shop but we made Canadians take an interest in the shop.
In 1970, 76 per cent of oil and natural gas interests were in foreign hands. By 1980, this was 51 per cent. Why? Because we gave Canadians the challenge of becoming the masters of their economy and increasing their participation in the economy by buying back our resources and our companies.

In mining and smelting foreign ownership decreased from 80 per cent to 48 per cent in the period from 1970 to 1980. I thought that was pretty good. So FIRA was useful. Of course Canadians said in the latest poll that they are not too preoccupied with FIRA being modified. I can understand that because we reached a certain level of Canadianization with FIRA; you have to admit that. We reversed a trend which was quite disquieting to many of us, where foreign ownership was becoming a threat to our economy. As the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) said, they are companies that are welcome, but we know from observing their practices that they do not do the same amount of research and development as do Canadian companies in Canada.
We would like to develop our high-tech industry, we would like to think that the Mitels and the Gandalfs and the Nabus and all these small companies will some day be able to compete in the international sphere, but with Canadian ownership being guaranteed. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. What is there in this Bill to encourage Canadians to invest in their own economy? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. What is there in this Bill that will interest foreigners to come in and invest in Canadian manufacturing industries and the
Time Allocation
Canadian economy? Nothing. Except that the Government, through a campaign of-

"Denigration", I do not know the right expression in English, so I use this one, a campaign to denigrate FIRA. They spread the view around that the agency was a threat to this country's economy, that it was responsible for the economic crisis we experienced following the recession of 1980, 1981 and 1982. But that is just not true! It was the international economic situation. In order to finance a very substantial deficit, the Americans increased interest rates in the U.S. to such high levels that foreign capital flooded into the United States. I remember last year when, in three months, $40 billion were invested in the United States. Why? Because they were paying 13 and 14 per cent, that is why. So this money was not going to Canada, and Canadians with money to invest were going to put it where? Where they were likely to get the best return on their investment, and this was happening on an international scale.
You do not have to be an economic genius to understand that all this was not FIRA's fault, that it did not cause the economic recession. Of course the agency was affected in recent years, but last year, 97 per cent of FIRA applications were approved in Canada. This means $4.1 billion worth of foreign capital was invested in this country, created jobs, and breathed new life into an economy that needed a boost, so that today, Canadians are capable of defending themselves and fighting their own battles. It seems that the responsible Minister who is going to be the czar or the big boss of the new agency is going to be the only one to decide what goes. It seems he will not have to consult with his Cabinet colleagues and will be able to do what he wants, when he wants. I say this is very disturbing, because there are companies like Mitel which received as much as $30 million in grants from the Federal Government for the purpose of expansion, and I am thinking of Renfrew and Buctouche, and there is going to be a lot more said about this matter. They got grants! I say that a Canadian company that gets federal grants should be screened by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, but now, the Minister will not have to bother about that. He will not do that anymore. He will choose who he wants. Come on in, we are for sale, and we are a terrific bargain!
Mr. Speaker, so much for my comments. I will get back to the amendments later on.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: At the outset of his remarks, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) was talking about calling an election on this issue. I would suggest that going to the electorate in such a case would signal the ultimate demise of the Liberal Party. On the mere strength of Canadian voter reaction in the face of policies advocated by this Government, I think it would be doing them a disservice, particularly so to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.

May 21, 1985
Time Allocation
Mr, Speaker, my colleague from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) said earlier that I am a new Member of the House of Commons. Well, so is my colleague and we were not used to hearing the kind of verbiage we have had to listen to for a few weeks now, particularly concerning this Bill-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The word is "persiflage"!


Pierre Blais: Persiflage is what you call it, is it? Perhaps I was used to work differently, in other surroundings more conducive to efficiency. That is precisely what the Progressive Conservative Government has been trying to restore in this Parliament and in this unprecedented majority administration-getting Canadians back to work and building up their confidence. We are not yet quite reconciled to watching the Opposition blowing up a storm in a teacup in an attempt to block the adoption of a Bill supported by most Canadians who want progress-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Not true!


Pierre Blais: -and job creation in this country. The Opposition refuses to admit that the mood of Canadians has changed and it shows disrespect for the clearly expressed will of the people. The Government and the Progressive Conservative Party have been defending that position for a long time, for months in fact, even before the election. FIRA had to be changed and made into an organization to promote job creation here in Canada. Canadians were at one with us on this point and I think that the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party are duty-bound to support our position because Canadians asked for that when they gave us a majority.
1 have heard lots of speeches in the past 15 days and all Members of the New Democratic Party invariably begin by saying: Today is a very sad day . . . Had Canadians been able to hear that litany, not only children but hundreds and thousands of people throughout the land would have been squawking. We must stop feeling sorry for ourselves, being in the dumps, forever afraid to take a bold economic approach. Our Prime Minister sent a clear message when he said in New York: "The Canadian Government is now open for business". And he meant just that. We must now regain our confidence and give Canadians something to look forward to.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we are just coming out of a long tunnel. We have restored the confidence of Canadians in their Government. There is still the odd resistance movement-I can see evidence of it from here-but one does not wipe off twenty years of deception overnight or in a week.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Stop making personal remarks!


Pierre Blais: It will take a few months. We understand that. But in my opinion the former Government-and particularly your leader at the time-tried to make Canada find new
markets the world over, but it backfired. We withdrew into our own shell and, by trying to open up to all the nations of the world, we closed the door to our best friend, the United States of America. It is our neighbour, it is our friend, it is with its Government that Canada does most of its business, and I think it was the wrong approach.
Mr. Speaker, our approach is what I want to stress at this point, because that is what I wanted to deal with from the beginning of my remarks. Members of the Opposition simply have to understand that our Government has taken an approach which markedly differs from what we were used to. There lies the essential element, and Canadians from every region of the country got the message. A new Government came into office with a solid majority, so it gave a sense of direction: My friends, we will roll up our sleeves and come to grips with the problems of the nation. Quite obviously, FIRA has proved to be an obstacle in the way of economic growth, so we will change it. We want to make it into a driving force and if we are successful in restoring a climate of confidence among foreign investors, particularly the Americans with whom we have a special relationship, I suggest that investors from the four corners of the world, Americans included, will no longer hesitate to come here after seeing our climate of lasting stability and freedom.
Mr. Speaker, 1 tried to follow the second reading debate on this Bill as best as I could and I heard other comments as well. Among others, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) said that if there is one thing which the Liberal Party left behind and of which we should be particularly proud, it is to have managed to Canadianize our economy.
I do not think I can share the Hon. Member's pride in a legacy of a million and a half unemployed, a $35 billion deficit for this year and a cumulative deficit of $225 billion. I do not think there is much to be proud of there. I suppose the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) was referring to some kind of private legacy, because as far as what we inherited- thanks but no thanks! I would much rather start from scratch instead of having to work with what the previous Government left us, that is pretty obvious.
I would say that the Opposition parties, especially in this debate, do not seem to realize there was a change on September 4 and that the Government received a clear mandate. They should not be wasting time obstructing a Bill for which we have received a mandate. I think it is time we got to work and dropped this useless and time-wasting exercise.
Ninety-four amendments were considered in committee, all of which the Opposition wanted to consider again here in the House, just to make the debate drag on and to postpone the passage of this Bill for I do not know how long. All that is obvious. The Minister said so earlier, and my hon. colleague as well, that we have other legislation on the agenda. This debate has gone on long enough. The will to act is there. The public's reaction is positive. That is what counts. It is a matter of
May 21, 1985

attitude and confidence. We have restored that confidence and we must go on. Mr. Speaker, the Government cannot tolerate... of course, they say we are taking advantage of the situation and of our majority. That is just not so, Mr. Speaker. When one has the majority one must act accordingly. To do so is to respect the will of Canadians who elected us on September 4 and who told us: Go ahead with your policies. We believe in them and we agree with you.
Mr. Speaker, I have finished my comments and I thank you. [English]


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker-


John Kenneth Gormley: It is a sad day.


Ian Deans: It is not a question of being a sad day.


Mr. Crosbie:: Try a black day.


Ian Deans: I was interested in the comments made by the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley). I yearn for the days when his predecessor said intelligent things here. In fact, I hear from those who normally vote Tory in Saskatchewan that they can hardly wait for the next election to return the former Member to his place in the House.
I do not want to make any apologies for what we are doing. The Government does not have an agenda of programs to bring forward. If it had programs, we would not have had six consecutive opposition days in the House. I tell the government Members not to give us that malarkey. Don't give us that malarkey about the Government wanting to get on with the business of Canada by bringing forward its programs to solve the very serious problems confronting the people of Canada.
The Government does not have programs to bring forward, and this is why we were forced to put up speaker after speaker to give our views on how the country ought to be run. The Conservative party was either afraid or unwilling to put up speakers to demonstrate its ideas. That has been the problem with this Parliament. I do not heap that abuse on new Members because I do not expect them to have particularly good ideas. Most of them did not expect to be elected in the first place.
With respect to the Government's present action, I believe that it is fundamental that we take every step necessary to preserve the integrity of this nation economically and socially. It is on our shoulders in this Parliament to do whatever we can to ensure that there will in fact be the kind of economic opportunities and social integrity that Canada has fought and struggled so hard to maintain for many years. What this Government is doing through this legislation is undermining that very purpose. I think that is what makes it so offensive to us on this side of the House.
It is true that FIRA was not all that it could have been. It is true that FIRA did not measure up in many ways to what
Time Allocation
some of us had anticipated it might do. It is also true that although FIRA was in place, there were a large number of takeovers about which I had some serious reservations and about which many of my colleagues had serious reservations. These were takeovers of what were good, viable operations in Canada that fell into foreign hands, the end result of which was that the viable operations ceased to exist. They were run down and ultimately closed. The end result of that was that the foreign competitor in his own country of origin was able to ship into Canada products that used to be made here because the competitor had successfully worn down the opposition right here in our own country.
I hold no particular torch for FIRA. I do not think that FIRA was a particularly useful mechanism in its over-all capacity to deal with the problem. It is certainly head and shoulders over what we now have before us, and it is for that reason we fought so hard. It is for that reason we took so long. It is for that reason we want to continue the debate on the Investment Canada Bill. It is a vital part of Canada's future.
This debate speaks to what Canada will be ten, fifteen, or twenty years from now. It speaks to whether we will allow almost total foreign ownership of the valuable resources of this land. That is why we are not at all eager to see this Bill dealt with expeditiously.
It is not a question of whether the Government got a mandate on September 4 last. Of course the Government did. However, that mandate did not extend to the dismantling of the very economic structures here. That mandate was more or less given because of the-


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mismanagement.


Ian Deans: -mismanagement, thank you, of the Liberal Party over a number of years prior to 1984. I do not want the government Members or the government supporters in the House to walk around with the misguided notion that somehow because the Conservatives won an overwhelmingly large number of seats in the September 4 election it automatically gives them the right to destroy the very substance of the country. It does not. It gives Conservatives the right to be a Government; it gives them the right to bring forward proposals to Parliament. But the parliamentary system is set up in such a way that Government proposes and Parliament disposes. That is what it is all about. The Government brings forward its ideas. Having those ideas put before Parliament, Parliament then decides at what point in time and in what way those ideas should be dealt with.
I suggest that in this Parliament, even with a combined 80 hours of debate on a Bill, its being of such a crucial nature, it is simply not long enough. There is other legislation. There is other legislation that we are quite prepared to deal with reasonably expeditiously, and we have said so. I have brought to the attention of the Government House Leader a list of legislative proposals that we would be prepared to deal with in a way that they should be dealt with, that is, expeditiously and speedily. We have pointed out that there is a need to deal with some of them immediately, but that there is no need to deal

May 21, 1985
Time Allocation
with this Bill now. There is nothing requiring this piece of legislation to be dealt with right away. There is already a process in place. The Cabinet does deal with proposals from FIRA. They come to Cabinet. Cabinet has the opportunity if it so desires, to review the reasons that FIRA thought it was good or not such a good idea to accommodate a takeover request.
Mir. Stevens: It will still have that.


Ian Deans: It is not as if this change in itself will make it easier. I am suggesting that there are other important matters. There is the whole question of the 1.5 million who remain unemployed notwithstanding the promises of this Government. There is the whole question of the economic direction the country will take as a result of this Government's views on the economy, and since there are serious environmental questions still to be dealt with, and since there are any number of other issues that, combined, made for the reasons people defeated the Liberal Party, why do we not get on and deal with those things? Why must we put in place legislation which has the capacity to undermine the future economy of Canada? Why run the risk of passing a piece of legislation now that would enable the takeovers to take place that until now we have had some serious reservations about? Why pass legislation now to accommodate that, knowing full well what the past history has been and knowing full well that we have, in the main, found it extremely difficult to establish an economic path for Canada when we have had to deal with head offices located in any other part of the world but our own?
The Minister is well aware, I am sure-if he would take off his ideological blinders for a moment and think a little about what has happened in the past-he knows as well as I do of the numerous times when major corporations have made it impossible for their Canadian operations to enter into the world market and to seek out markets for the products they manufacture. He knows of the numbers of times when takeovers have been effected, the cost written off against taxpayers' dollars in Canada, and the company has then closed its doors, become a warehouse for the distribution of products manufactured in some other part of the world, the only purpose of the exercise being to eliminate competition. He knows of the takeovers, using any test one might want to use, that could not be shown to be of any significant benefit to Canada. Recognizing that all of those things have happened in the past and recognizing that as a country we have never been viewed with any great concern, other than for the purpose of monetary return to the investor, by the vast majority of those who would invest in Canada, why would we want to make it easier?
I always think of a conversation I had in Washington. I think it was a Senator who said to me that he did not understand why we were concerned about foreign investment.
I asked him how much foreign investment there is in the United States. It might have been, let us say, 10 per cent of the total number of dollars. It is down about 2 per cent, so I am being generous. It might be around 10 per cent of the total.
I said to him, "Suppose that foreign investment got to 30 per
cent of the total, how would you feel?" He said, "We would never allow it". I said, "Suppose it got to 40 per cent, how would you feel?" "We would never allow it", he said. "It could never happen in the United States". He was telling me that the conditions we have in Canada would be totally unacceptable to the very people who are arguing that they want to impose their conditions on us.


John R. Rodriguez: They have a Congress.


Ian Deans: The various people who are demanding, threatening, bludgeoning us into giving up the last little bit of protection we have are saying to us at the same time that if the situation in Canada were to be identical in the United States, they would not tolerate it. Yet this Government, misguided as it is in its direction, is prepared to give up the last little bit of protection for the Canadian economy.


Mr. Boudria:: That is the Tories.


Ian Deans: That is why we fight and that is why what the Government is doing is wrong.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we have reached the point in this debate on Bill C-15, which is to kill the Foreign Investment Review Agency, at which the Government has allowed us two hours to conclude debate.


Mr. Blenkarn:: You have been here before.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I have been here before, and I have had the opportunity to speak on the Bill before. I do not want to use all the 10 minutes available because there are many Members on my side who have more they want to say about the Bill. However, I want to make a couple of points.
Before September 4, it was difficult to find members of the Conservative caucus in the House of Commons who believed that closure was ever justified. They were wrong. Closure is sometimes justified. Although they never recognized it in opposition, they certainly recognized quickly in government that closure or time allocation can be a very valuable instrument for the Government to bring the House to a vote on Bills where it is really necessary to deal with them and get on with the public business. I am rising to point out that this is surely not that kind of case. Although the rules permit time allocation now, I think time allocation now is wrong and that the Government has made a mistake in applying it. It has become even more important for us in the Opposition, in the couple of hours we have, to make the point to Canadians that something very valuable will be lost when the Foreign Investment Review Agency is shut down.
For one thing, there is more to be said on the question of foreign investment review. It is a subject in which this country became involved very late. We entered the policy area of foreign investment review long after foreign investment became very far advanced in Canada. While it was largely beneficial to Canada to have the foreign investment we had,
May 21, 1985

while we used it well and we grew as a nation from it, we also paid a higher price than we had to.
I became a Member of Parliament shortly after an intensive review began by the Government of the nature of foreign investment in our country and the question of whether foreign review could be controlled or directed in a way which would still encourage it to come to Canada but in a way that would provide more benefits to Canadians and still be worth-while from the point of view of the foreign investor than had been the case in the past. The Foreign Investment Review Agency was established in that spirit. It is bureaucratic by nature. It is an agency which reviews the plans of business and negotiates with business interests.
Naturally, there may be business interests which would prefer not to have foreign investment review at all. However, on the other hand, any multi-national firm in the world market is aware that almost every country in the world has foreign investment review. Even the United States has it in one way or another. The idea that multi-nationals or others interested in investing in Canada would be deterred by that bureaucratic step was never really proven. I am not satisfied today that any serious business proposition which had wanted to come to Canada would have been deterred by the kind of foreign investment review established by the former Government and in effect in Canada. In fact, if anything, one might have seen a continuation. In fact, there was a continuation of foreign investment in Canada. For all the criticism made of foreign investment review, it appeared to me that most of it was political, most of it was partisan, and most of it was done to design part of the election campaign of the Progressive Conservative Party in the course of the last election.
What has to be remembered in deciding whether the Foreign Investment Review Agency is really the obstacle which the Government says it is is that the Government controls it now. The Foreign Investment Review Agency is an instrument of the Government of the day. It eventually determines whether investments are to be approved. So the argument that we have to proceed here and that we have to collapse this debate because otherwise FIRA will continue inhibiting investment in the country, is wrong on two grounds. It does not inhibit investment and it is controlled by the Government, in effect the final say is at the Cabinet table. On that score the Government is not able to convince the House that any kind of limit, especially the two-hour limit it is seeking to impose on us today, is justified.
A second reason which might be advanced to justify imposing closure today is that this is about the only initiative which the Government has. If we look at virtually all the other legislation on the Order Paper, the other legislation that has gone forward, it is either legislation of a straightforward housekeeping nature or it is legislation that was on the Order Paper when the election was called. I am thinking of all the Bills in the justice area, in particular the one with which I am most familiar. These were initiatives, for the most part, which were well under way when the election was called. The one thing we can say about Bill C-15, the Bill to establish Invest-
Time Allocation
ment Canada, is that it is the legislative program of the Government of Canada today. To my way of thinking that in itself does not justify forcing the Bill through the House any faster than it would be carried by the normal parliamentary process. If the argument is that the Government wants to move forward and put its stamp on the public administration of Canada by bringing forward its first real Bill and getting it enacted in legislation, I do not think it washes as an argument.
I reject it, and I consider on that ground as well that there is no justification for bringing in closure or time allocation to force the House to settle the Bill now.
The third argument which was often used in the past when time allocation was brought forward by former Governments was that there was a heavy legislative backlog, that there was a lot of legislation waiting on the Order Paper to move ahead, and that the Bill before the House, although important, it would be argued, needed to be dealt with so that we could get on with other business. Again, if we look at the Order Paper and at the legislative timetable of the Government, there is nothing else which has to be brought forward on an urgent basis to be considered now. I know our House Leader would be willing to sit down with the Government House Leader, if it were a question of finding time for the rest of the Government's pitifully short legislative program, to permit us to do that according to the Government's timetable and get back to this Bill. I think that kind of agreement could be worked out. On this third ground there is no reason demonstrated for imposing time allocation now. We do not know with what the Government will want to fill the legislative timetable or the time of the House when we have finished consideration of this Bill. In fact, last week and the week before we had something like six days, nearly one after the other, dedicated to opposition business because there was no government legislative business other than this Bill to move forward on. Why can we not give it all the time it requires?
In closing, I want to point out that this is a very important subject. It is not a subject which should be dealt with by time allocation. The way in which foreign investment is to continue in Canada, a country which requires a great deal of foreign investment, is a very important subject, not one which should be wrapped up in the course of a two-hour debate. We should have time to explore all aspects of it. The Government should take the time to try to bring forward the evidence, if there is any other than the anecdotal statements of some businessmen around the world who oppose any kind of government intervention or participation in the activities of an economy. I know the Government can obtain a lot of evidence like that. There are various types of businessmen around who will come forward and say that they would rather not have to deal with Government than deal with Government. However, that is not real proof that the economic development of this country has suffered because of FIRA. We think the case can be made on the other side. The records are there in every FIRA application which went ahead of the kinds of concessions and commitments that were made by foreign investors to ensure that the Canadian economy and the Canadian people would be the

May 21, 1985
Time Allocation
clear beneficiaries of every foreign investment made in our country while the Foreign Investment Review Act and the Foreign Investment Review Agency were in place.
I think the Government is making a big mistake. Investment Canada will not do the job that the Foreign Investment Review Agency was there to do. The Government will be too removed from the examination of proposed investments in our country under the new system. It has not proven that anything was lost through the Foreign Investment Review Agency and in fact, as I have said, there is a great deal of evidence to show that very specific benefits were obtained for Canadian workers and the Canadian economy from the existence of the Foreign Investment Review Agency.
I for one am more determined than ever that the story be told to the Canadian people of what has been lost here today. They should know about the very great damage that can be done if the doors are thrown open wide to any kind of investment in this country without any adequate oversight to ensure that the public interest is protected.


Mr. Norman Warner (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, for some time, the public has been quite aware of the discussions surrounding FIRA and what would replace it. What the Government was going to do was discussed thoroughly during the election campaign. It was recognized by Canadians that they wanted a change.
Debate on this Bill commenced in the House over five months ago. During that period of time, almost 40 hours of House of Commons time and almost 40 hours of committee time has been used to discuss this Bill, potential amendments to it and the possibility of going back to a form of FIRA. I believe that the time has been well spent but that we have used enough time.
The fact is that unemployment is at a high level, even though it has dropped somewhat. An unemployment rate of 11 per cent is still too high and the need for new jobs and job-creation measures has never been greater. We are looking forward to bringing $100 billion worth of new equity investment to Canada between now and 1991. As this is what is required, it is the target the Government has in mind. Passage of Bill C-15 is one of the steps that will help us bring into this country that new equity that is so badly needed to help create jobs for the many unemployed.
Encouragement of foreign investment can take many forms. It can be a partnership, a joint venture or a minority interest. In changing this climate, we hope that Canadians will once again have renewed confidence in Canada and Canada's future so they too will be encouraged to provide much of that $100 billion worth of new equity which is required.
In Stormont-Dundas, my home riding, there is an unemployment rate of about 15.5 per cent. However, the riding of Stormont-Dundas also has one of the lowest rates of participation in the country, being slightly over 60 per cent. This means that a great number of people have simply given up, are not
looking for work and have lost hope in finding work. Although the published unemployment rate is around 15.5 per cent, if we had a participation rate similar to that of the rest of Canada, the unemployment rate would actually be 21 per cent. If we had a participation rate similar to that of the rest of eastern Ontario, the unemployment rate would be 26 per cent. These figures have been hidden from a public that is very concerned. However, they do emphasize the problems with which we are faced. I am sure that in the near future, not only will we create new jobs but the participation rate will begin to rise as people have more confidence in our ability to create jobs.
Business confidence rose in the first quarter of 1985. The latest Conference Board survey of business attitudes and investment spending intentions indicated the following:
-a growing confidence in Canada's short term economic prospects. An increased proportion of senior managers now see the near-term economic outlook characterized by lower unemployment rates, stronger sales and improved profits. Business confidence in the current investment climate continued to climb following the significant gains registered in the fourth quarter survey.
This confidence is continuing to grow. Passage of Bill C-15 will indicate to the rest of the world that we have confidence in our community, our businesses, our ability to create jobs, and our investment opportunities which are probably the most outstanding investment opportunities available to international investors anywhere in the world.
We recently had the privilege of having a large American company locate in Cornwall with the intention of creating in excess of 200 jobs. We welcome this company. We welcome more Americans, we welcome Europeans and we welcome the entire international investment community. Stormont-Dundas will welcome investors, not only foreign investors but Canadian investors, and it will show some of the negative-minded opposition Members that we can create jobs and we can create them without government intervention.
Perhaps in the next few years we will see the unemployment rate in Stormont-Dundas drop dramatically. I hope and wish that members of the Opposition will join me in a positive thrust to create new jobs. Get behind the people who are unemployed. Rather than pushing them down, help lift them up. We have a new era ahead. I invite all Hon. Members to join us.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, hundreds of thousands of people, indeed millions of people from industrialized countries like the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, France, Belgium and Holland have lost their jobs in recent years. They have lost their jobs partly because of the development of new technology requiring fewer workers and partly because the new technologies are being exported to formerly under-developed countries like South Korea and Brazil where the most modern manufacturing plants are being set up. These plants are producing the manufactured goods which in the past were produced in industrialized countries while paying workers a fraction of what workers from the industrialized countries formerly made.
Workers in this country are facing the same problems as workers in other industrialized countries. However, our situa-
May 21, 1985

tion, is probably worse than that of workers in other countries because so much of Canada's manufacturing industry is owned and controlled by companies with head offices and owners located in other countries. These head offices and owners are located mainly in the United States, but there are also some in Japan, Germany and Great Britain.
When foreign-based companies make decisions, those decisions will not necessarily be made taking into account what is good for Canada and Canadian workers. Very often, decisions will be made taking into account what is good for shareholders and management, and also because of pressure that is put on these companies by their Governments. Why should that not be so? Why should the American Government not be concerned about the unemployment rate in the United States? Why should it not be putting pressure on multi-national corporations to create as many jobs as possible in that country rather than in Canada?
There is another problem which we face. Every day of the week we are being told by business leaders, by Government and by academics that in order to survive and to provide jobs, we must be more efficient and productive and that to do that, we must put more effort into research and development. We know about Canada's record in research and development. We know that of all of the OECD countries including countries in western Europe and the countries of the United States and Japan, Canada is at the bottom of the list when it comes to the effort we put into research and development. When other countries are spending 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent, sometimes more, of their GNP on research and development, we are spending half of that. The Conservatives, in their run-up to the election, promised that by 1990 we would be spending 2.5 per cent of our GNP on research and development. But we know what has happened. The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon), has made it very clear that we are not going to reach that figure because the Government has to cut back. We also know that among the worst offenders, the companies which spend the least on research and development, are the multi-nationals.
I do not know if what I am going to illustrate today is still a fact, but I know that several years ago Ford Motor Company, which was doing about $500 million worth of business here a year, did not have a single Ph.D. graduate working on research in this country. That is the situation and that is why we believe and have believed for many years that it is important that as much of our industry as possible should be Canadian-owned. The Government, working with those industries, could then ensure that they develop policies and follow objectives that were good for Canada and Canadian workers. That is why we were so insistent when the Liberals were in power that we get legislation which would encourage Canadian ownership. That is why we kept the pressure on the former Liberal Government to pass legislation establishing FIRA. As so often has happened with Liberal Governments, it took steps to give the appearance that it was doing something when in fact it had no real intention of seeing that real steps are taken. So we have
Time Allocation
the situation where, particularly in the last few years, 95 per cent or more of all the applications to FIRA by multi-national companies to take over Canadian companies were approved. So that FIRA became something which was to a large extent ignored. It really did not work.
We have always believed that the Government of Canada has to protect the people of Canada. It has to see that the industrial development which takes place in this country is of benefit not just to the shareholders but to the Canadian people. That is why we have opposed the present Government's proposal to do away with FIRA and replace it with Investment Canada.
Let me give just a couple of illustrations of the kind of thing we believe could very well happen if we did away with the present legislation and opened the doors to any foreign company that wanted to come in. The Government now owns two of the largest aerospace companies in this country, namely, de Havilland, which has its main operations in Toronto, and Canadair, with its main operations in Montreal. These two companies employ thousands of workers. How is it that they are now Crown corporations? After all, originally, and for many years, they were privately owned. I want Members on the Government side to remember that it was not some socialist Government which believed in public ownership of everything which took those companies over. What happened was that, as in many countries, the aerospace industry was going through a period of recession and the private owners of those two companies said they could not continue, they were losing too much money, and they were ready to close down. The former Liberal Government of Canada said that every industrialized country in the world has an aerospace industry, that Some of the most important inventions used in all kinds of industry were made originally in the aerospace industry, so it cannot let the aerospace industry disappear. If the private sector will not continue to operate Canadair and de Havilland, then the Government of Canada, on behalf of the people of Canada, is going to take these two companies over.
Now I am not going to defend the way in which those companies were managed, but I certainly believe, and 1 think the people of Canada believe, that we need to have an aerospace industry in this country. The Government now proposes to privatize those two companies. It may be that they could be privatized by virtually giving them away, but I hope that not even a Conservative Government would do that. However, it may be that right now the aerospace industry world-wide is on an upturn and they can be sold at a fair price. But I ask the Minister, what if four or five years down the road the industry is again in brouble and the new owners want to sell these companies? Will the Government let the aerospace industry disappear, or will we again go through the process of taking them over?
This makes no sense to us, and that is why we believe this legislation is wrong. That is why we believe the Government of Canada has to have the power and authority to be involved in the decision-making concerning what happens in the continu-

May 21, 1985
Time Allocation
ing development of a healthy manufacturing industry in this country.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the motion before this House because it is obvious that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) is really on a power trip. He obviously wants to get rid of the Foreign Investment Review Act and get all the power in his own hands in order to deal with the few applications which will come to the Government for review. I suppose he wants to do that because he has really had a dismal record of bringing new investment into this country in the six or eight months he has been the Minister.
Let us look back to the time just a year ago to the situation when the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, during a period of about three months, announced something like $2 billion worth of new automobile plant construction in Ontario alone. I will recite the list of plants created because we tend to forget these things. We listen to the Mulroney malar-key and to what the present Minister has to say, but we forget that they have not really been able to bring in any major new automobile assembly or parts manufacturing plants. Looking back we see that a Honda plant, worth $100 million, creating 350 jobs, was approved. Then there was the AMC Renault assembly and parts manufacturing plant, worth some $700 million, going into Brampton, with 7,000 jobs being created. There is also a General Motors steel production and parts plant in Oshawa that is worth $1 billion. There is another General Motors plant in St. Catharines which manufactures engines that is worth $255 million. Those plants amount to over $2 billion and represent some 10,000 jobs. We only have to look at press clippings since that time to realize that the Minister, who talked about bringing in more automobile assembly plants in the fall, has not accomplished very much in that regard. Obviously, the Minister wants to have all the power, for whatever reviews there will be, in his own hands. He does not even want to have to refer them to Cabinet. We could look back at the number of applications which went before FIRA. In 1983, there were 860 applications which did not require review. If applications under Investment Canada are to take over a Canadian company, is the company going to be shut down? Will they also take over the sales force and lay off people? Those are the concerns which many Canadians have with respect to Investment Canada.
On this side of the House we find it incomprehensible that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), before he met with the press and before coming to the House, ran to the United States and made the commitment to do away with FIRA without holding negotiations. Surely, even the Tories agree that it is very useful to have a Foreign Investment Review Act, when new funds are coming into the country or foreigners propose to take over a Canadian company, to be able to negotiate and to ensure that the jobs will be kept, the plant will continue to run, that research will be done in Canada, and that a reasonable
share of the international market will be maintained for Canada.
The American foreign control legislation is just as extensive as ours, however , the United States does not have a one-stop shopping situation such as FIRA. People wanting to invest in the United States are required to comb through a whole list of frederal and state legislation. Federal legislation in the United States has 17 Acts which restrict foreign investment. Six of those Acts provide restrictions as to who can invest and participate. Eight of those Acts provide a total prohibition of ownership. The legislation covers many fields. For example, coastal and fresh water shipping is totally prohibited under The Jones Act and the Merchant Marine Act. Dredging and salvage operations are restricted under the Regulation of Vessels in Domestic Commerce legislation. Shipbuilding is barred from government benefit programs under the Fishing Fleet Improvement Act, the Merchant Marine Act and the Merchant Ship Sales Act. In the fishing area, countries which have reciprocal agreements are restricted, and others are prohibited, under the Fish and Wildlife Act and the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. There is a long list of legislation concerning restrictions and prohibitions which cover activities such as those of domestic air carriers in which investment is prohibited under the Federal Aviation Act. International air carriers are restricted under the International Air Transportation Fair Competitive Practices Act. Activities such as radio, television, telegraph and telephone licensing are prohibited under the Communications Act. Radio and television operators are prohibited under the Communications Act. In addition, nuclear power is prohibited under the Atomic Energy Act. Hydroelectric facilities are restricted under the Federal Power Act. The transmission of natural gas and electricity are permitted or restrained under the Federal Power Act. Yet the attitude of the Tories is that Canadian ownership is not necessary or desirable.
I think Canadians believe that Canadian ownership is desirable. In fact, during the first three years of the National Energy Program, Canadian ownership rose from 28 per cent to 40 per cent. That is an amazing performance for a three-year period. During that same period of time we increased our reserves in natural gas to a 33-year horizon and arranged for reserves of oil which will last until the end of the century. Yet the transmission of natural gas and electricity is on the list of American restrictions and prohibitions.
I would like to continue dealing with U.S. legislation. The transfer of federally-owned lands is prohibited unless it is by reciprocal agreement under the Small Tract Act. Mineral rights, such as to oil and coal, are prohibited, unless there is a reciprocal agreement, under the Mineral Land Leasing Act. In addition, the mineral leases on the continental shelf, which include oil, gas and sulphur, are restricted, and in practice are prohibited, under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
The Americans have a whole list of restrictions and prohibitions which the Tories want to throw wide open in Canada. If the Government is to bring in an Investment Canada Bill, we cannot understand why the Prime Minister and the President
May 21, 1985

did not sit down to negotiate. Instead of throwing Canada wide open with no restrictions on investments under $5 million, we might have negotiated away some of the restrictions concerning Canadian ownership in the United States.
I believe the Tories are putting a hammer to our heads by forcing the vote today on Investment Canada.


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, since it is almost one o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 8(4)(a), I would ask that the House be allowed to continue to sit past one o'clock today in order to complete consideration of the business now before the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to send the motion to the Chair, please.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Opposition House Leader on a point of order.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly my point. We have not seen the motion that was presented to the House. I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Standing Order 8(4)(a), which reads:
When the Speaker is in the chair, a Member may propose a motion, without notice, to continue a sitting through a lunch or dinner hour or beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a specified item of business or a stage or stages thereof subject to the following conditions:
I particularly want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to subparagraph (i) which reads:
The motion must relate to the business then being considered-
The Parliamentary Secretary, in her haste to chop off debate on this very poorly conceived and constructed Bill, which would benefit greatly from further consideration in the House, has not presented a motion which has been proven to relate to the business before the House. Therefore, I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to strike down the motion as being defective and ask the Government to go back to the drawing board, both with respect to the motion and, in particular, on this poorly conceived Investment Canada Bill.
I would like to call it one o'clock. I would like to suggest that the Business of the House be considered after two o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair must rule the proposal out of order because it mentions the words "complete the consideration", and it should have read "continued".


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to deal with the business of the House. I would like to advise the House that following Routine Proceedings today we will move directly to consideration of Bill C-25 with respect to agricultural stabilization. That will be followed by the amendments to the Fisheries Bill. The third item in the sequence will be consideration of the divorce legislation. Therefore, following Routine Proceedings, we will move directly to Bill C-25. I understand that that will be an item of legislation.


Ian Deans: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to say that we will not be completing the order that we were dealing with prior to one o'clock?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, because the Opposition is blocking the taking of a vote-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The question was asked of me, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You do not have the numbers.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We have the numbers and we are prepared to continue on with unanimous consent. I have just announced the order of business for this afternoon. What I have said is quite clear and we will continue this debate on another occasion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to make representations here, as well as in writing, to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on behalf of pensioners and , senior citizens who | receive lumpsum pension payments.
I am referring to lumpsum payments made either under the Canada Pension Plan or by foreign Governments with which

May 21, 1985
we have international agreements, when an application usually requires several years before it is processed and concluded.
1 urge the Minister to consider the merits of introducing a measure in the Budget permitting pensioners who receive a lumpsum payment to average it over the number of years for which the payment is being made. In doing so, the taxation burden would be spread in accordance with the years covered by the lump sum payment and would be applied in a fair manner. I hope that the Minister will give this representation positive consideration.



HUMAN RIGHTS


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that on this day when the International Conference on Human Rights is resuming in Ottawa there is a disturbing development in the case of the world famous Soviet dissident, Andrei Sakharov. Attempts by his step-daughter in the United States or reach Dr. Sakharov have proved unsuccessful today. There are suggestions that this internationally known dissident has resumed a hunger strike over the denial to his wife, Yelena Bonner, of permission to receive medical treatment in the West for her serious heart condition, treatment not available to her in the Soviet Union.
It is shocking in this age of instant communication that a simple telephone call between a relative and an international figure famous for his scholarship and human rights activities is impossible to arrange. Therefore I ask the Government to make immediate representations to the Soviet Government, first, to permit Mrs. Bonner to leave the Soviet Union to receive treatment that is not available in the U.S.S.R.; second, to permit the family to establish contact with relatives in the United States; third, to permit representatives of western Governments or the news media to visit Gorky, which is a closed city, in order that Dr. Sakharov's many supporters throughout the world can be informed of his condition.
I am sure that this statement has the support of all Members in the House, and that the Government will act promptly in expressing Canadian concerns.



VETERANS' VISIT TO THE NETHERLANDS AND ITALY

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, this month thousands of Canadian veterans returned to the battle zones of the Second World War to attend the 40th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands and of Italy where the Canadian Forces played a major role in driving out the Nazis. For a few days the veterans relived the horrors of war and vividly recalled the fatigue, the hunger, the thirst, the noise, and the agony of seeing their comrades die as they climbed the mountains and crossed the rivers under heavy gunfire. The Canadians could not be stopped, for they fought for the freedom of the people and for the sovereignty of the nations.
Typically, as in other places, in Wageningen where the Nazis unconditionally surrendered to the Canadians, thousands of people of all ages lined the streets and cheered the veterans as they marched; hundreds put out their hands to touch a veteran while shouting "Thank you, Canada!"
During the impressive commemorative services held in the war cemeteries where the bodies of Canadians lie beneath grave stones carrying the Maple Leaf, wreaths were reverently laid, and while the R.C.N. Brass Band and Bagpipes beautifully rendered "Amazing Grace", hundreds meditated and prayed. In front of the grave of a 21-year old Canadian, a lady with her family exclaimed: "Thank you . .. because of your sacrifice we are free!" And they all bowed their heads and thanked God for the Canadians who cared enough to offer their lives, and even to die, so others could be free and so their nation could be sovereign. Holland and Italy say, "Thank you, Canada".



DISARMAMENT


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, a new coalition has formed in Canada to disseminate inaccurate, alarmist propaganda. Known as the Toronto Disarmament Network, this left wing advertising co-operative has drawn together an interesting group of infamous Canadians.
In a full page newspaper advertisement published yesterday, this group attempts to convince Canadians that the U.S. Strategic Defence Initiative Research Project will somehow make Canada less secure. In fact Canadians know that this is a gross misstatement.
But one only need to consider where this inaccurate propaganda originates. The group that signed this particular misleading ad includes none other than the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and 15 of his caucus colleagues; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), and his fellow Liberal, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia); the Communist Party of Canada; the Karl Marx Club of Winnipeg, and the Young Communist League of Toronto, to name just a few. It is interesting to see this polarization of like minded people.



FUNDING OF NATIONAL SOCCER TEAM

Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, our Canadian national soccer team is doing extremely well in its march to next year's World Cup finals in Mexico City. The team has fielded a young, dynamic, and able selection of Canadian
May 21, 1985

talent. All Canadians take pride in these sports' ambassadors, and all wish them well on the international sports scene.
However, a projected deficit of close to $500,000 is seriously plaguing their efforts. In response, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) has committed total and full support, but no money. This kind of action will not score any goals with anyone.
The team needs more than words of encouragement. This year alone over $600,000 of federal money was provided to the Canadian Sports Association, but because of some unrealistic, outdated restrictions, not a single penny reached the national team. I urge the Minister to remove these impediments immediately so that this and other national teams may receive the financial assistance they rightfully deserve.
In addition, the Minister, in typical fashion, has passed the buck to the private sector. However, the corporate sector has already committed more than $1 million in sponsorship for the team.
It is clear that it is the Minister who must now act, and toward this end I challenge him and the Government, from today on, to match any private or corporate donations to our national soccer team. This would show leadership and commitment, and offer an incentive that would be responsed by those very Canadians whom the Minister is asking for financial help.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, in the recently released annual report of the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association, the lack of the Conservative Government's commitment to the Canadian shipbuilding industry is evident. It is clear that the Canadian shipbuilding industry is in need of government attention.
Government statistics show that the number of people employed by the industry has decreased rapidly over the past few years. In 1982, 12,000 were employed in the Canadian shipyards. In 1984, the number is down to 7,000.
At the same time there was a dramatic increase in the number of foreign built vessels registered in Canada. Canadian ship transport companies are going offshore to purchase their vessels, and Canadian workers in the industry are suffering from the Government's inaction.
The Conservative promises to the industry appear to have been forgotten. Where is the extension of concessionary financing terms to Canadian customers of Canadian shipyards? Foreign customers can already obtain such terms through the Export Development branch.
Where are the incentives to increase the Canadian content in vessels used to export Canadian natural resources? Where is the promised doubling of the rate of duty for the temporary importation of foreign vessels when no suitable Canadian vessels are available?
These and other promises were made by the present Government. Instead, the Government has cancelled the SIAP Program and has left the industry to fend for itself. The Canadian shipbuilding industry is hopefully awaiting the Conservative's Budget. However, given the Government's past inaction, we on this side of the House believe that it will be sorely disappointed.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my outrage and indignation over an unconscionable slight to Canada and Canadians by our neighbours to the South.
A special 114-page issue of Life Magazine features stories and pictures about the heroes and battles of World War II, highlighting veterans from the United States and most, if not all, of our other Allies. The magazine had enough space for a section highlighting heroes from Germany and Japan, but apparently not enough space even to mention Canada's part, which is said by others to be a greater part per capita than any other Allied country. It was a valiant and heroic role which is well remembered and honoured in Europe.
As a veteran, I had the honour this month to be a member of the Canadian delegation which travelled to the Netherlands and Italy to commemorate the fortieth anniversary of VE Day. Our delegation, composed of many distinguished veterans, including a recipient of the Victoria Cross, visited more than 20 war cemeteries where more than 10,000 Canadian war dead are buried. In both the Netherlands and Italy we participated in ceremonies organized by their respective Governments to pay tribute to Canada and to the Canadians who liberated their countries 40 years ago, and to the thousands of Canadians who gave their lives in doing so.
That a major American publication can obliterate Canada's important role in World War II, by failing to acknowledge our presence, is an inexcusable omission.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.
* * [DOT]



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: On May 14 last, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) tabled in the House his green paper entitled "Competi-

May 21, 1985
tiveness and Security: Directions for Canada's International Relations".
Mr. Speaker, more than 15 years have gone by since Canada's foreign policy has been reviewed and, in light of the radical changes which have occurred in this country in recent years, it is only normal that a new Government would want to take a fresh look at our relations with the rest of the world. The year 1970 marked the beginning of our unending economic slump and, in September 1984, our Government was saddled with a huge deficit which stands as a major obstacle in the way of economic recovery. This period of economic decline has taught us to what extent our nation and our economy are ever more dependent on other countries. As the Canadian economy lost steam, other countries witnessed our diminishing political clout.
The green paper offers a challenge: we have to make choices and decide what kind of privileged relations we want to have with other countries with a view to increasing our productivity and securing our future. International political experts have expressed enthusiastic support for this reflection and consultation tool.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I humbly call upon the leaders of the Opposition Parties in the House-although I can see that the principle of consultation is anathema to them-to stop pussyfooting and agree to sit on the joint committee which will seek the opinion of Canadians on the green paper, an approach which would be more constructive and positive than the criticisms heard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan).

[English}



OIL PRICES-POSITION ADVANCED BY MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES

Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell the people of Canada that the Government has been had. The Government gave into the demands of the multinationals in exchange for new investment, but the Government is coming up short.
Three of the five major multinationals have said that even with the money that has been given to them by the Government, they want more. Gulf Canada President Keith McWal-ter says: "Higher real crude oil prices will be required in the 1990s to warrant the development of new supply sources". But in March the Energy Minister told us her prayers were answered.
Texaco Canada President James Dunlap says the pending federal fiscal policies will help decide how much new investment will be made, and where. He is waiting for the Budget before spending more money, and says: "The best business decisions will be made in response to market forces rather than government regulations". But the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) told us 300,000 jobs would be created because in the past the industry always invested. She forgot to think about prices.
Shell Canada's President, Jack MacLeod, says that: "Our greatest concern is too high expectations by Governments and the public about the speed of the upturn. Balance sheets have to be rebuilt and there must be increased profitability for new long-term projects".
The Minister of Energy told us that oil companies promised her they would invest more if she removed the Government's taxes. But now the oil companies want more tax concessions and higher prices. The Government has been had, and the consumer has to pay for it.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, last week one of the most successful federal and provincial conferences ever was held in Winnipeg. I refer to the federal-provincial conference on multiculturalism. It was the first time such a conference was ever held in Canada. Because of the positive progress made in Winnipeg, more such conferences are slated for the future.
The Minister of State for Multiculturalism, the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), by his sincere dedication and hard work at the conference has greatly strengthened and furthered the cause of multiculturalism in Canada, and by his leadership and emphasis has shown that multiculturalism is indeed for all Canadians, regardless of their country of origin, regardless of their colour, their language, and their religion.
There is no question that we have some distance to go in Canada in combating and trying to overcome those basic problems that are anathema to most Canadians but which some Canadians, unfortunately, vehemently pursue and promote, which are the practice of wholesale discrimination, prejudice, and racism, often to further their questionable and obscure reasons for undertaking unwarranted and vicious attacks on fellow Canadians and others.
Through the co-operation of the provinces, the federal Government, the Department of Multiculturalism, and, equally important, Mr. Speaker, by the changes in attitudes in people, treating every citizen in a way they would like to be treated themselves, I believe if we do this we will become an even greater country, a greater, compassionate country, with citizens who are equally compassionate and understanding of their fellow man.
May 21, 1985



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. I hope that perhaps he can clarify some confusion, apparent or otherwise, on foreign policy issues arising from his Green Paper.
The Minister knows, I think, after some of the bargaining that went on on the floor of the House, that the Opposition will take part in the parliamentary committee to review that Green Paper and the foreign policy issues deriving from it if the issues of free trade and the Strategic Defence Initiative are considered and reported on by the parliamentary committee before the Government takes a decision on either of those issues.
Would the Minister not agree that a House committee could be set up, that its terms of reference could be drafted in such a way to include a date for a report by the committee on the Strategic Defence Initiative and bilateral trade with the United States? At the same time, could we have an undertaking by the Government that no decision on either of these issues will be taken before the committee reports on these two issues?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that the Official Opposition is now back in a position of supporting the idea of letting the public of Canada and the Parliament of Canada discuss foreign policy matters. I am a little surprised that a parliamentarian of the experience of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would want to negotiate these matters on the floor of the House, particularly when he knows there has been a House Leaders' meeting called for immediately after this Question Period to discuss precisely that question. We intend to continue to be reasonable-


Mr. Broadbent:: Continue? That is a new approach.


Charles Joseph Clark: -but we intend to safeguard the right of the people of Canada to take part in debate of Canadian international policy, and not to have that right stopped by the stubbornness of opposition Parties in the House of Commons.


Ian Deans: That is not a good negotiating position.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is not entirely the climate or tone the Minister would want to set if he wants terms of reference that are acceptable to this side of the House. He knows that if the Government insists it can set up this committee with its own terms of reference and take its Conservative members across the country. No one is trying to block any discussion. We are trying to insist on meaningful discussion.
Oral Questions


TRADE WITH NICARAGUA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my second question is as follows. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is no doubt aware that, in his answer to questions in the House on May 6, 7 and 8, concerning the U.S. embargo on trade with Nicaragua, he gave the impression that Canadian companies, including Canadian branches of American firms, could continue to trade unem-cumbered with Nicaragua. Why then did the Minister give the opposite impression in Washington in his discussions with U.S. Secretary of State, George Schultz, on the subject of Nicaragua's new trade office in Toronto? Can Canadian branches of U.S. firms continue to trade, thus filling the void left by the American embargo, and sell medical products, farm machinery and similar goods?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, first of all, if I understand correctly the position taken by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, the Liberal Party is now prepared to give its agreement, without expensive debate, to referral of the Green Paper to a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate, even if only part of the document will be discussed. That is not the procedure we prefer. We prefer to have an all party debate in the House, and we continue to hope this will be possible.
Regarding the situation on relations between Canada and Nicaragua, the situation is today what it was before and as I described it here in the House. Canadian companies are not affected by the U.S. action. That has not changed. It will not be changed by the Canadian Government's attitude with regard to the office to bet set up by the Government of Nicaragua in Toronto.


CANADIAN POSITION AT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman should read the "blues" and he will learn that what I set forth might be acceptable terms of reference.
Many Canadians are concerned that the Minister's Green Paper on foreign policy contains only 17 lines on human rights. At the international human rights conference being held currently in Ottawa, apparently the Canadian delegation is refusing to raise formally cases of specific individuals who have been abused in various countries for expressing their political opinions. I know the Minister has a very strong personal commitment to human rights, so why is the Government soft-pedalling on individual cases? Wouldn't a strong public stance be in order here, particularly when other countries are taking that type of stance?

May 21, 1985
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: 
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. This weekend in Calgary the Prime Minister, in his typical forthright, candid style of speaking, addressed the Canadian Japanese business Association, and failed to mention the most important issue affecting that group, namely, the question of quotas on Japanese cars. At the same time we have had reports that the Japanese now refuse to deal in any way with the issue of voluntary restraints, and there have been no negotiations whatsoever since the first week of May.
Could the Minister confirm that the Japanese Government has not agreed to any acceptance of voluntary restraints on Japanese exports? Could the Minister tell us when new negotiations are scheduled, and whether the Government still affirms its position that there will be quotas unless the Japanese Government agrees to firm commitments on investment and sourcing in Canada?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to tell the House that I agree with the Hon. Member, for perhaps the first time, when he says that our Prime Minister is candid and forthright.
In answer to his question about the auto import situation with respect to Japanese cars, the Hon. Member will be interested to know that a senior associate Deputy Minister from my Department is now in Japan talking with the Japanese about the ongoing relationship between Canada and Japan in connection with the auto industry. In short, discussions continue, contrary to his statement, and I am very
hopeful that a suitable arrangement will be worked out that will ensure that there will be proper sourcing and investment by Japanese concerns in the Canadian auto industry.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in case the Hon. Minister did not quite understand the nuance of the question, the Prime Minister was not being forthright and candid, because he refused to deal with the most important issue. In case he does not comprehend the subtlety of such things, I will try to remind him.
In that same speech the Prime Minister said another curious thing. He said that in his own personal opinion, not the opinion of the Government, the whole question of Japanese investment was purely up to private business arrangements, and that the Government would take no stand. When will the Government take an official stand? Will it do the same kind of thing its good friends President Reagan and the Americans did? They made actual direct representations to Japanese leaders which resulted in some $4 billion worth of investment? When can we expect the Government once again to say clearly that any question dealing with automobile quotas is tied specifically to commitments on sourcing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is very long for a supplementary question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member will read in Hansard tomorrow the answer to his first question, he will see that I did exactly that. I said that we were urging the Japanese to invest and source in Canada. As has been stated by myself and others earlier, in the meantime, until a suitable arrangement is worked out, we have asked them to stay within the 18 per cent penetration level they enjoyed last year as far as the Canadian market is concerned.


INCOME TAX
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister. On the weekend the Prime Minister said that when it comes to the Budget which will be presented later this week, the Government intends to be "tough but fair". Also on the weekend we learned that the substantial majority of Canadians believe the Government's efforts on unemployment are totally inadequate.
Considering that while in opposition the Conservative Party said that deindexation of our income tax system would cost us at least 30,000 jobs in the economy, which most Canadians would regard as being unfair right now, does the Acting Prime Minister agree that such deindexation at this time would in fact be quite unfair?
May 21, 1985


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the Hon. Member knows that we are looking at a number of measures for the Budget, and that it will be fair and it will be tough, as we have outlined before.


STATEMENT MADE IN 1980
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask what was in the Budget. It was very thoughtful of the Minister; she has returned from the weekend to say a few words to the House. I will return to the Acting Prime Minister and get him to answer a question.
In 1980 the Acting Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the Opposition, said that deindexation of the Government's income tax program-of course the Liberals were then in Government-would result in profiteering on inflation at the expense of "the lives and hopes of Canadians". Now that the Acting Prime Minister is a part of the Government once again, does he hold the same views in government as he held in opposition about how pernicious such a policy would be?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat. I have answered the Hon. Member's question. The Hon. Member started off with a quote about being tough and being fair. That is what we have been repeating and repeating. We will be tough, but we will be fair.


Mr. Speaker:: A supplementary question.


John Edward Broadbent: That would be nice, and it would also be nice if he would answer the questions.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 know the Acting Prime Minister sometimes gets in trouble for what he says in the House, but I give him this last occasion. He himself in opposition was responsible as Leader of the Conservative Party for the Conservatives spending $30,000 on an ad campaign denouncing deindexation. Does he hold the same views today as he held back in 1980 when he was Leader of the Conservative Party and presumably authorized that campaign?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has been in the House of Commons long enough to know that he will not get the Budget revealed in bits and pieces, or comment on the Budget, before it comes down.
I was interested that when he referred to the Minister of State for Finance he spoke about her activities over the weekend, and that when he referred to me he spoke about an advertising campaign. I happen to know what he was doing over the weekend as part of an advertising campaign which ran in the Toronto Globe and Mail.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: A good ad.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Leader of the New Democratic Party says it is a good ad. It was signed by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, by the Karl Marx Club of the Communist Party of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Let us not do this.


An Hon. Member:: That's the Government.


Mr. Speaker:: The pot calling the kettle black. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and concerns the four senior civil servants who are partners in the recently incorporated company known as Mystl Management Incorporated. The company offers, for a fee, insider information to businessmen on how to do business with the Government. In its brochure, Mystl promises to give "information the bureaucrats won't give". These civil servants are in clear breach of the Treasury Board conflict of interest guidelines. There is also a probable breach of Section 110 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Does the Acting Prime Minister agree that the seriousness of this matter requires the immediate dismissal of these individuals? Second, will the Acting Prime Minister request that the RCMP conduct an immediate investigation to determine if criminal charges should be laid in this matter?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could respond to the Hon. Member's question in my capacity as Acting President of the Treasury Board. I can indicate to the Hon. Member that at least three if the members of this corporation have resigned from the organization. The seminar which had been planned by the company for the weekend has been cancelled. At the present time the Treasury Board is undertaking an investigation.


GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Mystl affair is an example of how the Government has lost control of the civil service.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 21, 1985
Oral Questions


John V. Nunziata: It clearly illustrates that the conflict of interest guidelines are meaningless and useless. Did the Minister of Transport, the President of the Treasury Board, or the Minister of National Revenue know about this matter? If not, why not? If so, why did they not do anything about it? Will the Government conduct an immediate investigation to determine how widespread is this activity?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we are in the midst of conducting an investigation right now. I guess what this indicates is the difference between the Hon. Member and us. The Hon. Member is in favour of a fair trial, but only if we have the hanging first. We would like to ensure that there is a fair and proper investigation of all of the circumstances underlying this matter, and we will take the appropriate action when the time comes.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister who is well aware that in the last few years thousands of Canadian upper-income earners paid no income tax as a result of the many loopholes available, and is also well aware that a bank president who is earning in the range of $500,000 per year, if his financial affairs were to be arranged appropriately, would pay no tax either. If a tax of, say, 1 per cent were to be levied on the income of that bank president who is earning $500,000 per year, would the Acting Prime Minister consider this to be a fair minimum tax?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Hon. Member had a distinguished career in the classrooms of the country before he came here. That is where that question belongs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


APPLICATION TO BANK PRESIDENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is again directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I suppose this time I will get my name put on the long list of people who oppose the star wars research program, along with the United Church, many other distinguished parliamentarians, and many other leaders of the country.
During the Leaders' debate the Prime Minister stated that if the Progressive Conservative Party was to form the Government of Canada, one of the first things it would do would be to introduce a minimum tax so that upper-income earners who pay no income tax at all as a result of loopholes would pay a fair minimum tax. Does the Acting Prime Minister believe that if a bank president earning $500,000 per year were to
have a 1 per cent tax levied on his income, it would be acceptable as a fair minimum tax?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid that is simply the same question repeated. As well, it is hypothetical.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He did not answer the first one.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister may choose to answer, but it is the same question.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port-au Port St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, the Acting President of the Treasury Board has just indicated that the Department is investigating the four principals of Mystl Management for apparent conflict of interest. I commend him for taking swift action.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: However, I fail to understand the logic of taking swift action today when only a few weeks ago, in the case of Mr. Doug Robson, who also had access to insider knowledge and who may have profited from that insider knowledge, the Government argued that there was no conflict of interest. In light of today's action by the Government with respect to career civil servants, is the Minister prepared to reconsider the Government's inaction with respect to a temporary, "political friend" civil servant, to ensure that justice is applied equally with an even hand and a blind eye? Is he prepared to reopen the investigation into the Doug Robson affair?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the two questions are absolutely unrelated. It stretches the boundaries of the responsibilities of this House for him to attempt to relate them.


DEPARTMENTAL EMPLOYEES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it stretches the comprehension of anyone who is listening anytime that Minister speaks. My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Will the Minister tell the House if he or any of his colleagues in Cabinet responsible for the activities of the four principals of Mystl had any knowledge of the operation of Mystl prior to the story being broken this morning by The Toronto Start Further, was he or any of his Cabinet colleagues asked for a ruling by senior public servants after each of the principals had allegedly notified their superiors of their apparent potential conflict of interest? The Minister knows that his own employee is responsible for a quarter of a billion dollars worth of government purchasing and is president of Mystl Corporation.
May 21, 1985


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I can only speak on behalf of myself. I was first apprised of this by the Deputy Minister of Transport. Since that time I have ordered a full internal investigation into the matter. As has already been indicated, Mr. Spinks has resigned as director and officer of the corporation in question. As well, both Mr. Spinks and Mr. Cottingham, as of this morning, asked for and were granted leaves of absence pending the outcome of the investigation so that the investigation can be conducted in the most unfettered way possible.


CANADIAN OWNERSHIP CHARGE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does the Minister believe it would be fair if an attempt were made to recover the lost revenue-


Charles Joseph Clark: Order, Mr. Speaker. Order.


Ian Deans: Order? You got a problem?


Charles Joseph Clark: "Believe it would be fair"?


Ian Deans: Having a tough day?
Does the Minister believe that it would be appropriate to replace the nearly $900 million lost to the Government of Canada as a result of the elimination of the Canadian Ownership Charge, with a tax on consumers?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is well aware that the kind of question he has asked is, by its very nature, a budgetary question. I urge him to wait until Thursday to see if his very hypothetical question is answered.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister now saying that she has changed her mind from the position which she took on March 29, 1985, when she said that it was entirely possible that the revenue, which would be lost as a result of the dropping of the Canadian Ownership Special Charge, would be passed on to the consumer?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, it must be a very dull day for the Hon. Member. I know he is not a dull Member. But, my previous answer stands. That is a matter to be adjusted in Thursday's Budget. He should know better. He should not be taking up the time of the House with that kind of question.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


SALE OF NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Given that the decision to sell the Northern Transportation Company to the IDC Trimac group is viewed with alarm in southern Mackenzie, could the Minister explain why he selected that purchaser when, according to his press release, there were no differences in the various bids? Will he ensure that the people and town of Hay River will not suffer as a result of the sale?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that the proposed sale to the group in question was heralded with a great amount of accolades and acclaim. I am rather surprised to hear the Hon. Member make that comment.
Of course the service will be provided adequately, and all the communities which are presently affected by NTCL will continue to have the same level of service. That is one of the commitments which has been undertaken by the principals who are involved in the purchase of the company.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting President of the Treasury Board. The Minister will know that Section 5.2 of the Conflict of Interest Guidelines for the Public Service instructs public servants with respect to the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Is the Minister satisfied that the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Treasury Board and others were properly notified? If he is satisfied that they were properly notified, what action does he intend to take, due to the fact that those people have failed to inform the three or four public servants in question about that conflict of interest?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as I previously mentioned to the Hon. Member's colleague, the Treasury Board at the present time is conducting an investigation. We want to get all of the facts. As soon as we have the facts, we will be glad to give the results to the Hon. Member.


MYSTL MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the people doing the investigation are part of the process. 1 would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue, who told my colleague, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, not to prejudge the case, if he would agree with me that if there is nothing wrong in the whole issue, why did at least three of the four officials resign from the board of Mytl Management

May 21, 1985
Oral Questions
Incorporated. Also, why were the seminars cancelled if nothing was wrong?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my knowledge of English may be faulty, but I do not know what the Hon. Member meant when he asked would 1 agree with him why would they have resigned if there was nothing wrong. I do not understand what he means. If the question is are we determined to look into this to ensure that high standards of propriety are being following by the public servants, the answer is yes.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Small Businesses).
Is the Minister prepared to confirm that several applications for financing submitted for the Native People's Economic Development Program have been affected by delays of six months or more between the steering committee's recommendation and departmental approval, and that 25 per cent of fund directors positions have been vacant for several months?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member that applications under the Native People's Economic Development Program are submitted to a committee for consideration. They are then routed to my office, where they are processed in the usual way and as efficiently as they have been in the past.


INQUIRY WHY NATIVE PEOPLE MUST TOLERATE DELAYS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. As president of a successful small business, would the Minister have tolerated such delays at his bank? If the answer is no, why does he think native entrepreneurs must put up with this kind of delay?


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, I do not see the connection. I am taking very good care of this particular program. I even went to meet with native communities about a month ago and I got the impression that people were satisfied with the service they were getting. If there are any complaints, 1 would be happy to hear them directly, or at least with names or something like that. Furthermore, the Hon. Member is always welcome to see me at my office.


IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The refugee status determination process is to be reviewed shortly. Both because of the Supreme Court decision in the Singh case and the great many pending applications, could the Minister advise us whether it is true that the Refugee Status Advisory Committee will be abolished or shelved without any consultion of the groups working with refugees?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker, that allegation is not true.


RECOGNITION OF REFUGEE STATUS
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Employment and Immigration indicate to the House when she will announce the necessary review to the refugee status determination process. Moreover, I should like the Minister to confirm the vital importance of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee and to promise not to abolish it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is confusing the decision which was announced by the Supreme Court: it refers to the Immigration Appeal Board, not to the Refugee Advisory Committee. The Government and I will be proposing steps to the House to improve the workings of the Immigration Appeal Board in order to respond to the Supreme Court decision in the Singh case. I will be making those proposals before the House rises at the end of June. I trust that we will have the co-operation of the opposition Parties in order to have those proposals carried out.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment who will know that recent tests show that the total pollution which is entering the Niagara River has increased substantially. Since the Niagara River Toxics Committee calculated that 11 per cent of pollution sources are here in Canada, can any part of the increase be attributed to Canadian sources? If so, what will she do to control it?
May 21, 1985


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: I thank my hon. colleague for his question, Mr. Speaker, and 1 want to emphasize once again that our preliminary studies were focussed on only two types of pollution, namely industrial and municipal wastes. Obviously, there are other sources of pollution, and we are currently looking into them, including those originating in Canada.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for housing, I would like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. My question concerns a housing project in Fort Frances, Ontario, which is known as Flinders Park. That project was badly mismanaged and ran hundreds of thousands of dollars over budget. It finally went into receivership last August. CMHC has dealt very harshly with the secured creditors, ultimately promising them only 50 cents on the dollar. Will the Government intervene to ensure that the good work which was done on this project will receive full compensation?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Labour I will take the Hon. Member's question as notice and have the relevant information given to him.


UNSECURED CREDITORS
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, only to underscore the point, when she speaks to the Minister will she ensure that the unsecured creditors, who trusted CMHC, and who did not file liens, will be taken into consideration as well?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will ensure that the Hon. Member's representations are properly communicated.


QUEBEC STEEL INDUSTRY-PRERETIREMENT-LAID OFF WORKERS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, last week, I had questions addressed to the Government, asking them to help the Quebec steel industry now in difficulty. I
Oral Questions
specifically asked the Minister of Labour whether the people who were laid off or might be permanently laid off could use the pre-retirement provisions of the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act. The Minister pompously replied that she was not answering hypothetical questions.
Since more than 400 families have been affected, people have been laid off, would the Government have the kindness to consider the suggestion I put forward last week?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member, with regard to the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act to which he referred, and under which older workers would be covered, when the closure of these three plants is complete that situation will be monitored to see if they meet the criteria of that Act. If so, then that decision will be taken.


Jacques Guilbault: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
It is about time the Government should start looking at the issue. When they do consider the matter... I must remind the Hon. Minister that Stelco has made large investments in Ontario and intends to make its Hilton site, and 1 quote:
-a world class steel complex.
This implies that Quebec will be set aside, no more, no less, and its operation also will finally be downgraded.
I would ask the Hon. Minister whether those facts will be taken into account when a decision is finally made, whether the employees may use the pre-retirement benefits under the Act I mentioned earlier?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that all relevant data will be taken into consideration to see if the criteria are properly met.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for External Relations. In less than two weeks the Minister will be leaving for Central America and I want to know if she has received representations from a number of non-governmental organizations experts in the field of Central American affairs, requesting to meet with her prior to her leaving. Has she agreed to meet with representatives of such organizations, the InterChurch Committee for example, and, if not, will she agree to meet with them before going to Central America?

May 21, 1985
Oral Questions


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer my hon. colleague. Two political assistants are already in Central America to arrange preliminary meetings. I have planned some meetings with political authorities, non-governmental organizations and voluntary groups working on our behalf in the international development area.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER VISIT CONTADORA PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister is planning to meet with these groups when she is in Central America. However, I have asked her whether she is meeting with those who have recently returned from Central America to Canada and who have asked to meet with her.
While she is answering that, would she also inform the House whether she is going to take the opportunity of this visit to Central America to visit some of the nations, at least two or three, involved in the Contadora process?
[ Translation]


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, we know quite well that a trip as important as the one I will be undertaking in two weeks should be thoroughly planned. Therefore, during the past two weeks, I have met with various groups to become better acquainted with the needs and experience of those people and I will try, as a representative of the government, to learn what goes on there and to report on my return.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Last January the federal Environmental Protection Service released a study on the very dangerous polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, in the city of Sydney, Nova Scotia. The study strongly suggests that one could be exposed to a high level of PAHs at certain sites in the city. It also suggests that 15 to 20 years of exposure to coke oven emissions containing PAHs might lead to a high rate of cancer. What steps are being taken to remove this very serious health hazard?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I am considering the results of that study and I will be in a position to answer my hon. colleague in a few days.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, when this matter was raised in the Nova Scotia Legislature the Government undertook to do another study. However, studies have been done, and what is needed is some department, federal or provincial, to take the lead in dealing with this very serious problem. Will the Minister give her undertaking today to have her Department take the lead in correcting this problem?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious question to which I give all due consideration. I can only repeat that I will be in a position to better inform my hon. colleague in the next few
days.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation. On April 2, 1985, an agreement was signed between Canada Post Corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers which stipulated a reduction of 53 sub-post offices. Within the past three weeks I presented to this House two separate petitions, containing over 1,000 names of citizens of Saskatoon East who are concerned about postal facilities in a new subdivision.
Could the Minister explain how Canada Post Corporation will fulfil its responsibility to ensure adequate postal facilities for residents of new subdivisions, particularly in cities like Saskatoon which are growing at an above average rate?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question, and also for diligently presenting petitions as he did last week.
As part of the agreement with CUPW, the Post Office agreed to open up new post offices run by postal employees and reduce the number of sub-post offices, a number of which close their doors every year. One of the things which the corporation will be doing, obviously, as the opportunity arises, is looking around to see in which communities new facilities are necessary. I think, because of the Hon. Member's diligence, it will be very much aware of the need for facilities in Saskatoon.
May 21, 1985


THE ADMINISTRATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Earlier this afternoon the Acting President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Transport attempted to give the impression in the House that there had been speedy action on this question, despite the fact that Assistant Deputy Ministers in both their Departments have known about this but not acted for some time. Ministers are responsible for the actions of their officials. We have had an impression of fast action involving public servants, but my question is, given that the Prime Minister promised me on April 24 that he would table conflict of interest guidelines related to Ministers, are we going to have speedy action affecting Ministers?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will. I have not inquired into the exact schedule planned for tabling that information, but I give the Right Hon. Member my undertaking that we will have that information acted on, and tabled, and made available just as quickly as possible.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of International Trade. The Canadian Government has indicated that it wants to limit Japanese auto imports to 18 per cent of the Canadian market, but the Minister must be aware that the Japanese have rejected such a level. Will the Government move urgently to impose, through legislation, a level of that kind to protect workers and the Canadian car industry until such time as an agreement is established with the Japanese?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I think if the Hon. Member checks my answer to the question put to us by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, he will see that question has already been put in the House.


John Edward Broadbent: No. Listen to him.


CONDUCT OF NEGOTIATIONS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, why has it taken the Minister such an inordinate length of time to carry this agreement through with the Japanese and report back to the House, as he promised to do three weeks ago with respect to this negotiation process?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the House before,
Petitions
the previous Government took until June 12 to get a satisfactory agreement with the Japanese last year. We are getting close, but as I indicated before, negotiations continue. In fact the Japanese car dealers were in to see me on Friday afternoon. They are complaining that the Japanese manufacturers have indeed been holding up deliveries of cars. Perhaps our request for Japan not to exceed the 18 per cent level is being complied with.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal may ask one short question.


CHALLENGE '85 STUDENT ENTREPRENEUR PROGRAM
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On May 10 I asked her to explain to our youth why the $30 million Student Entrepreneur Program was not off the ground. In response we were treated to a totally irrelevant answer. Our office in Quebec was advised on Friday that students' requests were to be in by July. If the students are only going to be accepted in July, and they must pay back in October, when are the students supposed to earn money?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Challenge '85 Program, which has been very successful, has a number of-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Members in the Liberal Party may not think it is successful, but some 60,000 students already have jobs under that program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the entrepreneurship program is part of the over-all Challenge '85 Program and it works differently in different povinces due to the arrangements which have been entered into with the provincial Governments. It started in some provinces before others. However, it is now under way in all provinces.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Friday, May 17, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) does not meet the requirements as to form.

May 21, 1985
Petitions


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on Bill C-39, without amendment, in both official languages.
* * [DOT]


PETITIONS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a number of petitions signed by many Canadians exercising their rights as Canadian citizens. The petitions relate to the situation of Ida Nudel, a Soviet Jewish woman who has been waiting for an exit visa for 12 years. She has now been diagnosed to be suffering from pancreatic cancer for which she requires immediate medical treatment. I humbly request and call upon the House of Commons to direct the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) immediately to call upon the Ambassador of the Soviet Union to demand that Ida Nudel be given an exit visa to join her sister in order to receive adequate medical attention. This woman is in her late sixties.
Mr. Speaker, in the interest of Ida Nudel I have another petition asking that she be allowed to join and be reunited with her only living relative, her sister in Israel. She has served three years in internal exile and Ida Nudel has been living under the most horrendous conditions in Soviet Siberia. I plead with the Minister of External Affairs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Member should be reading a summary of the petition. In fact, it sounds to me as if she were making a case directly to the Minister herself. I take it she now has another petition to summarize.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I have a third petition which is in the same instance and about the same issue. It is again a plea to-I am reading what is on the petition, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Member should know that that is precisely what is not allowed, to read what is on the petition. Members are allowed to make a summary for the House. Please go ahead.


Sheila Finestone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The summary of the petition is that Ida Nudel, a woman in her late sixties, is ill, needs treatment, cannot receive it in the Soviet Union, and should be allowed, for compassionate reasons, to leave that country. If the Helsinki Accord were agreed to, she would be allowed to leave.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of Canada who also petition the House on behalf of Ida Nudel who is awaiting the opportunity
to be reunited with her only living relative, her sister in Israel. In this petition the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to direct the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to call upon the Soviet Ambassador to demand that she be given an exit visa to join her sister in Israel immediately.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a very long petition signed by 785 students from the CEGEP and universities in the Montreal area who are asking the Parliament of Canada to take a stand against the Cruise missile tests in Canada and that Canada be declared a nuclear weapons free zone.
Mr. Speaker, that very important petition has been brought from Montreal to Ottawa by 8 students who travelled by bicycle to present it on behalf of the Canadian people.



EXCISE ACT


Michael Morris Cassidy: for leave to introduce Bill C-239, an Act to amend the Excise Act (exemption on home-brewed beer).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member is familiar with the rules about displays in the House of Commons. Before he introduces his Bill I might ask him to come to order, however he chooses to do that.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I will retire my display, Mr. Speaker. That was a bottle of Wilson's Wallop which would be available to you, and which I could extend to you, Mr. Speaker, were this Private Member's Bill to be adopted by the House of Commons. This Bill will amend the Excise Act which presently requires written consent from Revenue Canada before any Canadian can legally brew beer at home for his own use. At present, if a person brews beer at home and offers it to a guest or someone outside of his home, he can be liable to a Fine of $250 or to hard labour. The purpose of this Bill is to change that and to put home-brewed beer on the same basis as home made wine.
I have had the support of the Campaign for Real Ale Canada-

May 21, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As the Hon. Member knows, as with petitions, the summary should be short.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 200 and 336.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	How many Canadians are now serving under the United Nations (a) Truce Supervision Organization (b) Disengagement Observer Force and, in each case, what is the cost?
2.	How many Canadians are now serving under the United Nations Force in Cyprus?
3.	In 1983, what was the cost to Canada for the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus and what was the cost to Canada since its inception?


Mr. Robert Wenman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) Twenty Canadian officers normally serve with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), but this year, at the request of the United Nations, Canada has provided one additional officer. The estimated cost to Canada in FY 84/85 dollars is $1,436,390.
(b) Serving with the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) are 223 all ranks. The estimated cost to Canada in FY 84/85 dollars is $8,538,883.
2.	There are 515 all ranks currently serving with the United Nations Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP).
3.	The cost to Canada in 1983 in FY 83/84 dollars is estimated at $25,126,046. The cost to Canada since inception of UNFICYP in 1964 to the end of FY 83/84 is estimated at $228,346,000.


Mr. Ouellet: Has a one man task force on the activities of Canadian National in Pictou County, Nova Scotia been struck and was Mr. Joe Stewart appointed as the person and, if so (a) what qualifications and experience does he possess which makes him suitable for the position (b) what are the terms of reference of his commission (c) what is his rate of remuneration (d) on whose recommendation was his appointment made?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: (a), (b) and (d) Yes. An internal management decision was taken by CN to engage Mr. Joe Stewart as a consultant to determine
Agricultural Stabilization Act
means of improving the community perception of Canadian National Railways. Similar studies by consultants are undertaken throughout Canada when deemed necessary by senior CN management.
(c) Remuneration is regarded as proprietary information to Canadian National.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask 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


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 17, 1985 consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski (for the Minister of Agriculture) that Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, 1 am delighted to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak on Bill C-25 and to comment on the remarks made by the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary last Friday when he introduced the Bill in the House.
Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, is clearly a very important piece of legislation. It was first introduced about one year ago as Bill C-50. I am not sure why the Government has taken so long to introduce it in the House. There is a great deal of concern in the red meat industry about the current difficulties and problems faced by that industry.
We are pleased that the Bill is now before the House. The purpose of the Bill is to provide a stabilization program for red meat under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. It is a tripartite red meat stabilization program in which the provinces, the producers and the federal Government jointly and equally participate in the establishment of a uniform stabilization program. This would prevent top loading by some provinces because many provinces already have their own stabilization program.
The provincial stabilization programs have caused some concern in the country because the United States has imposed a countervail on pork and hogs going into the United States.

May 21, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
Therefore, one of the objectives of this program should be to establish and provide funds for a uniform tripartite red meat stabilization program. In fact, five funds will be established in this regard, one for cow-calf operators, one for backgrounder cattle; one for slaughtering cattle, one for hogs, and one for sheep operations.
The Bill provides that the three participants would share equally in the funding of the program and the Government's contribution would not exceed 6 per cent of the gross receipts of the participating producers.
A number of changes were made to the Bill that was originally introduced in the House in January. These changes, which would be retroactive to January 1, provide that stabilization could take place for less than a one-year period as provided in the former legislation. The price support formula for stabilization programs would be different from the one in the existing legislation. It provides for the establishment of a fund within the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the federal Government.
The greatest difficulty facing the Government with respect to this legislation is the problem of whether it will get full participation from the red meat sector. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario have indicated their willingness to participate, and this represents a very significant proportion in terms of the total share of the production of red meat. With respect to slaughtered cattle, it represents approximately 94 per cent; approximately 88 per cent with respect to cow-calf production; 94 per cent for backgrounders; 79 per cent for lambs; and 57 per cent for hogs.
The question remains whether British Columbia, Quebec and the three Maritime Provinces will participate. Unless they support this legislation it is questionable if it will meet the objectives of preventing the balkanization of the Canadian production and market-place for red meat which seems to be taking place under current circumstances.
Last summer, the federal Government was very careful not to provide stabilization for the number of hogs that were sold into the Canadian market. Clearly, we do not want to contravene our GATT requirements in the American market-place because stabilization of production going into the international trade subjects us to countervails. That is the reason for a countervailing duty on pork production in Canada and the investigation which is taking place by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
This legislation will establish a national program which could take into account some of the production of red meat that goes into the United States and other markets in order to prevent the contravention of our GATT commitments.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could indicate this afternoon how much progress has been made in getting the co-operation of the other provinces that have yet to join the program. Unless the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) is willing to work out the details necessary for negotiation with those other provinces, the program will not be as effective and desirable as we would like.
That uncertainty is apparent in a Canadian Press story dated May 8. The Minister of Agriculture from Alberta expressed his concern about the proposal and his wish that the proposal not be changed if his province is to participate. He also expressed concern that many beef producers in this country believe that the federal Government has sold them out by increasing the quotas to the European Economic Community countries. The House will recall that in September, quotas were set at some 5.9 million pounds for 1985. It certainly appears that the Government will increase that quota to over 20 million pounds. That will have a devastating impact on the industry. I am sure it prompted the Minister of Agriculture in Alberta, as reported in the Canadian Press story on May 8, to say;
We keep getting traded off in agriculture all the time. We have import levels of meat coming into this country. We don't mind competing with them, as long as it's not subsidized.
I suggest that that underscores the concern in the industry as a result of those increases in beef quotas from the European Economic Community.
The purpose of this Bill is not to provide a continual production subsidy but, rather, to provide assistance when the price drops dramatically. The price of pork has dropped dramatically in the last few weeks as a result of the countervail imposed by the United States. That countervail will remain until late July, at which time we will know if it will be imposed for a full year.
This legislation will be very beneficial in eliminating the wide fluctuation in prices for red meat. It is clearly not a marketing tool in itself because it is not designed to provide a market for red meat commodities. It is designed to provide stabilization when there are dramatic drops in price. I think in that regard it will be interesting in the committee hearings to hear the details of how the legislation will work. The Committee on Agriculture must find out exactly which provinces are prepared to participate in the program, because otherwise we will end up with a very balkanized situation in the production of red meat, with Quebec having a massive program of stabilization payments, some of the Maritime provinces having a very rich program, whereas many of the other provinces, the ones that have indicated they want to participate, not having similar type legislation and assistance available.
Those are some of the concerns that I have with the legislation. I hope the Minister will be successful in getting all the provinces to participate. I hope that we will be able to get a clear indication of support and participation from those other provinces. Clearly, the red meat industry today is probably in one of the most desperate situations we have seen in many years, not only because of the continuing level of low commodity prices, but because of high interest rates and, as we have seen, the dramatic drop in the last couple of years in the value of land, which has wiped out the equity many young producers have in their farms. All of those things, combined with the continuing increase in input costs, plus the countervail
May 21, 1985

that we have seen put on pork and hogs during the last couple of months, have had a devastating impact.
That is the reason for the dramatic report last fall of the Farm Credit Corporation which indicated that a large percentage, over 17 per cent, of our farm operators, especially the young ones, are facing serious financial difficulty. The situation has worsened since then with a drop in prices of pork and hogs by some $10 or $12 per animal. We have seen the increase in the European Economic Community quota which the industry has already recognized even though the Government has not made a formal announcement of that massive increase, but all in all it makes for a very difficult situation, one which requires government action.
I hope that besides working this legislation through the committee, improving it and making it functional, we will look at other ways to assist the red meat industry. I hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), on Thursday night when he stands in his place to deliver his Budget speech, will adopt at least some of the recommendations, hopefully all of the recommendations, of the Finance Committee which recommended, I believe, a $96 million agri-bond program, which is designed to assist some of the 39,000 young farmers who are facing very serious financial difficulties. Many of them will lose their farms this season.
Last week I was in Alberta. I was talking to one of the people responsible for the Alberta Agriculture Development Corporation. He indicated that many of the young farmers who have been in production for only a few years have a large capital debt, and with the reduction in the price of hogs brought about by the countervail they are facing a very short time period in which to recover their financial stability. In his opinion they will be facing the loss of their farms within a period of two or three months.
This legislation, within its limited scope, can be beneficial to the agricultural community. It is essentially the same Bill as the one introduced last June by Mr. Whelan when he was the Minister of Agriculture. I hope the Bill will move on to the standing committee where we can call witnesses with a view to making the Bill as functional and as beneficial as we can. Hopefully, the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to indicate to us this afternoon how much success there has been in getting the support and assistance of the other four or five provinces which have not until now indicated they would be willing to participate in this legislation.
1 hope the Bill will go to committee in the next couple of days and that we will be able to go on with more detailed study at that time.


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Speaker, the beef producers in Canada are in serious trouble today as a result of the neglect of the previous Liberal Government over a period of six years. The present Government is now trying to correct the problem. It has cut the import of European subsidized beef by over 50 per cent this year. The job would have been much easier had the homework been done by the previous Liberal administration and, instead of 50 million pounds of beef coming in last year,
Agricultural Stabilization Act
had that amount been 10 million, 15 million, or 5 million. The job would have been much easier for us this year had that been done.
Was the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) aware that the present Government has cut that importation of subsidized beef from the EEC by over 50 per cent this year? Is the Member prepared as a member of the Opposition to contribute in the best way he can to solving his problem so that the red meat producers will be able to get out of the serious difficulties in which they now find themselves?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that last September 4 representations were being made by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association to trigger the meat import law. It took the Government three months to trigger that meat import law. By that time we had actually gone beyond the allotted 145 million pounds. Had the law been triggered on or about October 1, we would not have gone beyond the 145 million pounds, which is the historical guaranteed minimum access level. Finally, belatedly, after three months in power the Government did trigger the meat import law. It restricted the United States to 21 million pounds. The Government restricted the EEC, especially Ireland and Denmark, to 5.9 million pounds and Nicaragua to 600,000 pounds of meat. Other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, were restricted to more traditional amounts. It is with great chagrin and concern that a few weeks after the Government established the quotas for the 1985 period we learned what the Government had done. It had secretly negotiated with the United States to increase its quotas from 21 million pounds to what I understand will be 65 million pounds. Also we heard that negotiations were under way for Nicaragua to increase its quotas from some 600,000 pounds to close to nine million pounds, and it may even be higher. There is as well the question of the United States embargo which was imposed recently. With regard to the EEC, we do not know exactly what it will come down to, but we understand that it will be 23.5 million pounds.
I asked the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) why he and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), when they were in Europe a few weeks ago, did not take this matter up with the heads of Governments-with the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Presidents of France and Italy, and the Chancellor of West Germany. If they were unable to raise it together, they could have done it on a bilateral basis as it was an important question. The Minister for International Trade indicated that there was not time or there was not concern on the part of the Government to maintain the quotas imposed under our meat import law.
I am aware of the import levels. I am aware that the Government triggered the meat import law on December 21 but did not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the EEC. As a result, we have not only an increase of some 17 million pounds of beef coming into the country, which works out to about 1,000 carcasses per week of additional meat coming to the market at a time when commodity prices are

May 21, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
low, but we have also upset the Australians, our traditional trading partners. They are very concerned about an additional 1,000 carcasses a week coming to the Canadian market of subsidized beef at 48 cents per pound, subsidized by the Treasuries of European countries. Australian is very concerned because it has had an historical access of a very large amount of beef, lower quality cuts. This is very harmful to our agricultural community.
I hope the Hon. Member will be able to make strong representations in caucus to the Minister for International Trade and to the Minister of Agriculture as I have been making in the House since January when it became apparent that the Government was planning to cave in to the pressures and threats of the countervails which the EEC was putting on the Government.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member suggested, the basic Bill is very much like the one which was brought in by the Liberals last year. However, the situation with which farmers are faced is relative to income rather than to the price of commodities. Would the Hon. Member comment on a particular weakness in the Bill? They can stabilize the commodity price, but the farmer will still go bankrupt if he does not have a product to sell or if the five-year price is still lower than the cost of production.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, those are the kinds of questions which we will certainly want to delve into in committee. The Bill contains certain conditions about the amount of commitment that Governments can make. I think it is 6 per cent of the gross receipts for individual commodities. Also the fund must have fiscal integrity. In other words, it is not as if the Government would bail out the fund or producers would have to put more into it. We clearly have a serious problem in the red meat industry. We certainly want to save the industry. We want to see it continue to function. Certainly the formula will be one of the things we will want to examine in committee.
I know of the concern of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) in this regard. I would like to look at those aspects of the Bill at committee stage. As I said earlier, I do not believe it is possible under this legislation to solve many of the farm debt problems. They will have to be dealt with in the Budget on Thursday night. I hope the Minister of Finance will do that.
My other concern at this stage is how we get hog and beef producers to pay their premium with the industry being in such a devastated position this year. That is another matter we will want to consider in committee. I have had hog producers telephoning me and saying that they hoped this legislation would be in position immediately. Certainly we want to expedite it, but I am not sure that it can be moved forward rapidly enough to have pay-outs or even that the formula would trigger pay-outs over a short period of time, given the depressed state of the industry right now.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on Bill C-25. I represent a mixed
community of urban and rural people. In fact, in the rural sector I represent a fair number of hog and beef producers. One does not have to represent rural areas to know that there is a severe crisis in agriculture today. Canadian farmers face a very uncertain future. If they look back over the last few years, they see that the prices for their commodities have either fallen or else have not kept up with the ever increasing cost of production. The squeeze in which they find themselves is forcing many people off the farms and is creating real stumbling blocks for young people to get into farming.
We have only to look at the statistics to know how serious the situation is. For example, in 1979 there were 125 farm bankruptcies in Canada. In 1980, there were 222; in 1981, there were 261; in 1982, there were 410; in 1983, there were 488; and in 1984, there were 551. Every year for the last number of years the number of farm bankruptcies has increased, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. In 1979, the estimated farm debt outstanding from all sources-that is, short, intermediate and long-term-was $14.6 billion, carrying an average interest rate of some 11.6 per cent. In 1981, the outstanding farm debt increased to $18.5 billion at an average interest rate of 15.46 per cent. In 1984, the Farm Credit Corporation reported in its survey that outstanding farm debts amounted to $20.7 billion, with an interest rate well in the two digit level.
We can look at some of the other problems. For example, in its 1984 farm survey report, the Farm Credit Corporation shows that one in five of a total of 37,000 Canadian farmers are in serious financial trouble with debt costs exceeding 40 per cent of income. There were 551 farmers who declared bankruptcy in 1984, a 20 per cent increase over 1983. The FCC estimates that another 1,700 farmers are on the brink of immediate insolvency.
We know that the situation is becoming much more difficult, particularly for the younger farmers. The younger section of the farm community has the weakest equity position and is most vulnerable to escalating interest costs and hence to foreclosure and liquidation. Unless decisive action is taken, Canada stands to lose a whole generation of its most efficient and productive farmers.
The FCC report went on to indicate that one-third of the farms carried about 80 per cent of the $20.7 million in outstanding farm debt and that about half the food produced annually in Canada came from these farms. In other words, of a total agricultural debt of some $20.7 billion, 80 per cent of it was carried by those farmers who produce about half of Canada's annual farm produce. Therefore, lack of productivity is not at issue, but income certainly is.
Let us take a look at income. Net farm income in 1984 is no higher in actual dollar terms than it was in 1974, and has fallen by a staggering 30 per cent in real terms over the past four years alone. We have a case of increasing costs and decreasing prices. It certainly does not require an economist or a farmer to realize that we cannot continue operating under
May 21, 1985

these conditions for too long. As the figures demonstrate, more and more farmers are being squeezed off the land. They no longer find what their parents and very often their grandparents did to be a productive activity.
The crisis in agriculture is not merely an economic question. Surely it is also a social question. Can we as a country afford to lose our agricultural sector? Can we afford to see ever-increasing numbers of farmers go into bankruptcy? What are the social implications of this? Surely a reasonable minded person would find that this situation is unacceptable and that our agricultural community must be kept viable.
We have to maintain the part of this country that is inhabited by farmers. Statistics indicate that there are fewer and fewer family farms and that these family farms will be replaced more and more often by large corporate farms. That,
I believe, we all find unacceptable, regardless of political Party. I think we are all committed to maintaining the family farm as a viable economic unit and we all recognize that it is in the best interests of this country to maintain a viable agricultural community. For agriculture to be taken over by large corporate agri-business is not socially desirable. In fact, it will essentially lead to a new type of feudalism. In feudal times, feudal lords owned and controlled large tracts of land and the people who worked the soil were in essence the peasants or salaried agricultural workers, not the people who owned the land.
We must all recognize the seriousness of the problem that faces this country. This problem is not one that is faced by farmers alone; it is a problem that must concern us all. If we do not have a viable, healthy agricultural sector, everyone in the country will suffer. When farmers in Saskatchewan do poorly, the people of my riding of Regina East do poorly. The small shopkeepers and manufacturing and service centres that service the agricultural community do poorly. That means that there are more layoffs and less economic activity in Regina. The entire city and the entire province suffer. The same is true for Ontario, Quebec and other industrial areas. If farmers do poorly, farm implement companies cannot sell their products and they in turn must lay off workers. Manufacturing, servicing, retailing and wholesaling interests in Ontario, Quebec and the larger industrial regions suffer. The wellbeing of our agricultural sector is important to all men and women across this country.
What we are facing today is not simply a farm crisis, but a national crisis. It is a national crisis that must be addressed. Unfortunately, there is very little in Bill C-25 to address the issue. The Conservative Government has done very little so far to indicate that it recognizes the seriousness of the problem and that is capable of doing something about it. Despite the promises that we heard made during the election campaign, we have not seen much action.
During the election campaign, we heard Conservative Members denounce years of Liberal inaction, and promises to safeguard the future of the independent family farm. More specifically, we were told that a Progressive Conservative Government would establish a farm finance review board to
Agricultural Stabilization Act
adjust farm debts. At that time, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) told the Empire Club and the Canadian Club that new expenditures of $100 million would be made available in 1985-86 for farm mortgage financing. We heard many good promises being made last summer. It is too had that we have not seen them put into action since the summer. It is too bad that we are not seeing legislative action being taken today on the promises made by the Conservative Party during the election campaign.
Government Members have certainly had plenty of time to bring forward measures that would help strengthen the farm economy. Instead, we have Bill C-25. As everyone admits, it is essentially the same as the Whelan Bill, Bill C-50, which was introduced almost a year ago. It does nothing to solve the basic problem facing agriculture. It provides for stabilization based on market returns, but that will be insensitive to future cost increases. It will do nothing to raise price and net farm incomes. It is lacking because it does not offer a stabilization program that actually meets or begins to meet the real costs that farmers must face in order to produce red meat products.
By averaging out market returns over time, the Bill does take a very small step forward. However, that step is inadequate when the market itself has failed to generate a return to the farmer which covers his or her costs of production and a reasonable return on capital and labour. It is a stabilization plan based on prices which have been in effect for the last number of years. Those prices are inadequate in meeting the real costs of production. What we have is stabilization based on unacceptable prices.
We have been urging the Government to recognize that there is a need for a cost-based insurance system or a stabilization program. It is that type of program which we wish the Government would introduce. We want a program which is based on the real cost of production one which will ensure our farmers a sensible rate of return on their capital and labour investments in order that Canadian farmers and producers can carry out their important functions with a sense that there is a Government and a nation which cares enough to ensure that they will get an adequate rate of return on what they produce.
It is not an outrageous proposal. Everyone recognizes that agriculture in Canada is the least subsidized when compared to any other part of the world. American agriculture is subsidized through a variety of programs. The European Economic Community subsidizes its farmers in all sorts of different ways. Canadian farmers are the most efficient in the world, but faced with subsidized foreign competition, our farmers do not stand a chance. They stand a chance if they compete on a one-to-one basis with a farmer or a cattle producer in Ireland, France, Germany, Iowa or any other part of the world, but they do not stand a chance if they are competing against a farmer whose Government is standing behind him. Is it not time for us to stop expecting Canadian farmers to stand naked and alone in the world when competing against farmers in other parts of the world who have their respective Govern-

May 21, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
ments standing behind them? Is it not time to begin to guarantee to farmers in Canada a fair rate of return on their activity? It is not that the farmers are asking much; they are only asking for a fair rate of return.
Farmers do not have the clout which other players in the economy have. If a manufacturer of goods and services discovers that his costs have increased, he is able to jack up the price and recover the increase in his costs. When banks have to pay more interest to attract savers, they charge higher interest rates to the borrowers. Many working people in the organized trade union movement are able to recover increases in their cost of living the next time they bargain and achieve a wage settlement. However, I must say that the trade unions have been losing their clout over the last number of years. In fact, actual wages have declined as a percentage of the increase in the cost of living. Working people are discovering a reduction in their standard of living something farmers have been experiencing for a number of years. Farmers cannot pass on their cost of production increases. Therefore, farmers depend upon a collective action, whether it be a marketing board or a collective action taken by the federal and provincial Governments. Otherwise, farmers do not stand a chance in Hades of surviving.
I am certain that the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), who has a number of cattlemen in his riding, understands that. Even though he is a free enterpriser, I am sure he will admit that as far as agricultural production in Canada is concerned, there are limits to the free market. Given what Governments are doing in other parts of the world, there is a need for some collective action.
We believe that Bill C-25 is inadequate. It does not deal with the basic problem which farmers face. Neither does it deal with the whole question of front-end loading. The Province of British Columbia, the Province of Quebec and the Maritimes have offered certain forms of subsidies. The Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario do not provide subsidies and object to front-end loading. The present legislation will not help producers in British Columbia, Quebec and the Maritimes. That is not entirely fair. The Province of Alberta has what could be called "bottom-end loading". The cost of production in Alberta might not be the same as in other provinces because Alberta does not charge a tax on gasoline.
A co-operative approach is needed. Ministers of Agriculture and producers from across Canada should sit down with the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to discuss these matters. A system should be established across Canada to eliminate the possibility of price wars between provinces. What we need first and foremost is leadership from the Government and the Minister of Agriculture. We have not seen that leadership, therefore the farm crisis in Canada will get worse and worse. Until we have leadership, Bill C-25 will not provide a solution.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the House Leaders which will involve, after one more speaker of the Official Opposition, a change in the order of business. The change will involve the calling of the Bill relating to divorce for second reading. Therefore, we will deal with second reading of Bill C-25 and then move on to the divorce legislation which will be moved by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie).
There have been discussions in the House with respect to the divorce legislation. Bill C-46, Bill C-47, and Bill C-48 are related to the area of divorce. Therefore, the House Leaders have proposed an arrangement, and are seeking the unanimous consent of the House to deal with those three Bills in one debate.
I have a draft order, Mr. Speaker, which I believe the House will receive with unanimous consent. The order is as follows: That when the Order for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-46, an Act to amend the Divorce Act, is called, notwithstanding any Standing Order, the following orders shall also be deemed to have been called:
(a)	for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-47, an Act respecting divorce and corollary relief; and
(b)	for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-48, an Act to provide for the release of information that may assist in locating defaulting spouses and other persons and to permit, for the enforcement of support orders and support provisions, the garnishment and attachment of certain moneys payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this is satisfactory to the Official Opposition and, therefore, we certainly consent to this order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, the three Bills named in the House order are dependent one upon the other, and it makes eminent good sense that the House should deal with all three in one debate. Therefore, the House order which is before us is certainly agreeable to us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the Government House Leader propose a draft order. Is there unanimous consent for the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski (for the Minister of Agriculture) that Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, be read
May 21, 1985
[Stage Direction]
the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will resume the question and comment period on the speech of the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) with the Hon. Member for Lambton-Mid-dlesex (Mr. Fraleigh).


Mr. Fraleigh:: Mr. Speaker, by and large I agree with everything the two previous speakers said. Regarding the speech of the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), I would simply say that although Bill C-25 may not be the panacea that he foresees, where we look after the farmers from the cradle to the grave, 1 think he would agree that it is a significant small step forward. I think we are doing the farmers of this country a great disservice if we do not move this Bill into committee very quickly so we can bring together the important players in this industry and try to resolve many of the problems which the two previous speakers so ably outlined in their remarks.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the Hon. Member has just stated. As I understand it, I am the last speaker from my Party, so we will get this Bill into committee. I hope we will get the committee to deal with it quickly because I would like to see more legislation coming down, and the faster, the better. The Hon. Member agrees that this is just a small step, and I think what we need are big steps. Therefore, we will allow this small step to occur but, for heaven's sake, get some legislation ready so we can take some big steps.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member made a brief reference to interest rates without elaborating very much. I think one of the very big problems farmers are having right now are high interest rates. I spoke in the House on Friday and read off the increase in bankruptcies of farmers over the last four or Five years. It has gone up by leaps and bounds. One of the major problems in this country is the fact that we need to bring down interest rates. This was promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he was campaigning as Leader of the Conservative Party, and it seems to me we should be doing more about that. I would like to ask the Hon. Member what ideas he has for bringing down interest rates in Canada.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, historically interest rates have generally been around two points above the inflation rate. We now have an inflation rate of around 3 per cent or 4 per cent. I am willing to give them 7 per cent, three points above the inflation rate. At 7 per cent, a lot of economic activity in this country all at once becomes viable. A lot of farm activity and small business activity all at once becomes viable. It becomes viable to think about putting out some money on a new home.
One of the central problems we have to address ourselves to is that of interest rates. I could stand here for a long time and talk about that issue, but my essential position is that as long as we have an arms race which sucks in around $1 trillion from the total amount of world capital available, we will have a shortage of capital. We are paying the price for the arms race. The total amount of U.S. savings is not enough to pay off the
Agricultural Stabilization Act
American deficit. They must maintain a strong dollar and high interest rates in order to attract capital to pay off their deficit. We have to compete and also maintain a high interest rate in order to keep some of that capital here. Given that, we begin to realize that the farmers, workers, consumers and small business people are the people who are paying for the arms race. As long as the arms race continues to suck this capital into non-productive activity, farmers are going to be in trouble, as they are in the U.S. and here in Canada; small business will be in trouble; we will have slow economic growth. The real solution has to come through stopping the insane arms race, which I am sure is destroying the Soviet economy just as it is destroying our economy.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is always with pleasure and interest that I to rise to take part in the debate in the House. Today, the House is considering Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act. Stabilizing the prices of agricultural commodities is a matter of vital importance for Canadian farmers, and especially for farmers and producers in the Maritimes. The former Liberal Government understood this when it introduced Bill C-50 last year, and now, after seven months in power, it is high time the present Government introduced a Bill that meets the expectations of the groups concerned. Unfortunately, however, Bill C-25 is not what Maritime producers and farmers expected it to be. It is disappointing because it provides no solution to the increasingly serious problems being caused by the differences in agricultural prices among the various provinces.
This Government is talking about stabilizing agricultural prices. But what kind of stabilization? Does the Bill allow for the diverse problems facing each of our ten provinces individually? Does the Bill take into consideration that production costs in the Maritimes, for instance, are higher? It does not, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about a national tripartite plan for red meat producers without even looking at the specific situation in each province.
Before further considering this policy, I would like to recall the reasons that make it necessary to have coherent legislation on farm price stabilization. This legislation provides for stabilization payments for a certain number of commodities referred to as designated commodities when prices fall below previously set levels. Similarly, most provinces have, at some time or another, introduced their own price support or income insurance programs in response to the needs of their farmers. In some provinces, the role played by the provincial threshold is essential. Since the Agricultural Stabilization Act is aimed at providing adequate support levels for all producers when necessary, and since this is a goal that is difficult to achieve, the role played and the assistance given by the provinces becomes even more crucial.
However, under this legislation, the Federal Government has paid about $200 million to red meat producers since 1978.
4930

May 21, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
For ten years, the federal and provincial governments have been working on an income stabilization program for red meat producers. Recently, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta agreed to participate, together with the federal administration and national producer organizations, in setting up a new contributory stabilization program in the red meat sector. In the Atlantic Provinces, however, producers felt that the provinces should also be able to provide financial assistance. Producer associations in the Maritimes would like to see the solution on a regional rather than provincial basis. I think their position is quite understandable. Their position is that additional funds provided to producers would help the Eastern Provinces to remain competitive on national and international markets.
Finally, in New Brunswick, as in other Maritime Provinces, there is agreement on the concept of setting up a national farm price stabilization plan. However, if the plan is to be effective and fair for all Canadian farm producers, the Government must include the provinces and give them the option of adding financial funding if necessary. This way, should there be a difference between sale prices and production costs, agricultural products will still be competitive on the markets.
In fact, that is the crux of the problem. For instance, if we compare the cost of producing one hog in Ontario and in the Maritime Provinces, we are astonished to realize that producers in the Maritime Provinces spend $6.67 more on each hog. Multiply tht figure by the impressive number of hogs in our provinces and you will see why our pork producers pay thousands of dollars more. Obviously, our production costs being higher, the product has to sell for more to be profitable. Given the difference in production costs from one province to the next, the losing province has to make up the difference by giving additional assistance. This way the provincial stabilization program restores proper balance.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure other people realize as I do that Government Bill C-25 falls short of the mark. The problems faced by the Maritime Provinces are there, they exist, they are real, and something has to be done to solve them. I know what the problems are and, for their part, the various Maritime Provinces producers associations deplore them and fully expect the federal Government to take action. For instance, here is what the Pork Producers Association of N.S. said to the Government in a recent document:
The Pork Producers Association of N.S. cannot support the proposed Tripartite Red Meat Stabilization Plan until such time as the regional differences in the cost of pork production unique to the Maritimes are recognized and alleviated. Nova Scotia producers are extremely reluctant to give up their provincial program for the Tripartite Plan.

I do not see how it could be clearer, Mr. Speaker. According to the same association, quarterly instead of weekly payments
as provided under Bill C-25 represent a losing proposition of producers.

Even with the same support or stabilization price, a weekly administered plan provides higher support than one based on average prices for the quarter.

This means that under the provincial program, the producer receives three times the amount received under the tripartite plan.
Admittedly, the difference in funding is very substantial indeed. With figures like these, it is understandable that Maritime Producers are very disturbed at the prospect of total elimination of provincial programs.
In fact, the Hog Producers Association of the Maritime Provinces insists that regional differences in production costs in the Maritimes must be acknowledged and considered when developing a stabilization program. It is absolutely essential, since the difference in production costs between Ontario and the Maritimes continues to increase very significantly.
The hog grower associations are not the only ones dissatisfied with Bill C-25. There is also the Maritime Farmers Council, an organization that represents 80 per cent of farm producers in the Maritimes and which also represents the three provincial farm federations and co-operatives in the Atlantic Provinces.
However, before discussing the demands of the Maritime Farmers Council here in the House, I would like to emphasize the importance of feed grain and the cost of grain used to feed livestock and poultry in the Maritime Provinces. First of all, feed represents about 70 per cent of the cost of raising one pig. Consequently, feed costs are the single most important factor that determines whether or not the hog growing industry will make a profit at the end of the year.
Aware of the impact equitable grain prices would have on all provinces, in August 1984, the previous Government revised the Feed Freight Assistance Program by granting $2 more per ton of grain being shipped from Western Canada to the Maritimes.
This decision by the former administration had been greatly appreciated by the agricultural producers, but there is still a lot of ground to cover because the feed grain cost difference between the Maritimes and the rest of Canada remains an unsolved issue. If the Government does not take immediate action, within a few years we stand to lose from 4,000 to 5,000 jobs in industries related to cattle breeding in the Maritimes. Otherwise, with a coherent policy, those industries might well create 4,000 to 5,000 jobs.
To be perfectly frank, the pork industry is ailing, particularly in the Maritime Provinces. In other words, it will vanish from the market before the end of next year unless preventive measures are taken as soon as possible. For example, close to
May 21, 1985

20 per cent of New Brunswick producers are practically bankrupt as it is. The first explanation for this situation, of course, is that pork prices throughout North American are depressed. The second reason is the fact that there is a wide gap in feed grain costs between the Maritimes and the rest of Canada, particularly Ontario.

On February 1, 1985, according to information provided by the Livestock Feed Board of Canada, the average cost of hog grower ration in Ontario was $207 per tonne, compared with $254 in the Maritimes, a difference of $47 per tonne. These food cost disparities between the Maritimes and central Canada are growing wider every year. Continuation of this trend will eventually threaten the survival of all sectors of our Maritime livestock industry. In the Maritime Provinces we produce 45 per cent of our annual requirement of feed grains and less than 5 per cent of our vegetable protein concentrates. The remainder is imported from central and western Canada.

So as to balance the costs of feed grains throughout the country, in 1941 the federal Government set up the Feed Freight Assistance Program under which Ottawa paid 90 per cent or more of the cost of transporting grain from Thunder Bay to the various regions of Eastern Canada. Since they did not have to worry about grain transport costs, eastern producers remained competitive on the markets. The price of feed grain was then the same for all Canadian producers. That is what the then Liberal administration wanted to achieve, as the Hon. Maurice Sauve said at the time when he was the Minister responsible.

The policy has been to pay the transportation costs of grain from Port Arthur to eastern Canada, leaving no balance of cost to the producer. This is what we have called equalization. It is an equalization or elimination of transportation costs so that the normal cost of feed would be the same as if the feed has been purchased at Port Arthur.

In 1976, federal feed freight assistance dropped from 90 per cent to 60 per cent. Even worse, in 1985 the Government is reducing feed freight assistance from 60 to 28 per cent on corn from Ontario and to 33 per cent on grain from Western Canada. This reduction is unacceptable to Maritime producers. The Government must change its feed freight assistance policy as soon as possible and allocate additional funds. Federal aid must be revised upward to 60 per cent in other words, to its 1976 level. Meanwhile, producers in the Maritimes are monitoring the situation and taking steps in the hope that by the year 2000, the provinces in Eastern Canada will be self-sufficient in feed grain. The Government will, of course, have to promote this self-sufficiency by introducing assistance and research programs. Unfortunately, all this Government is proposing to do is to cut subsidies and, most recently, to
Adjournment Motion
increase the cost of inspection services for potato, pork and beef producers.
Mr. Speaker, the Government should act quickly and effectively to help the pork industry in Eastern Canada compete with the industry in other provinces and in the United States. This kind of policy is urgently required, because the economic situation and the financial resources of farm producers make it impossible for them to make a profit. Farm producers simply cannot cover the additional cost without this threatening the existence of a number of farm operations.
Finally, if our Canadian farmers are to supply the domestic market and be competitive on international markets, we must first resolve the problems I have mentioned throughout this debate. I say yes to a farm price stabilization plan, provided it is fair to all provinces and the provinces will be able to take part in setting up the program.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments on the speech made by the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud)? If not, is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Wise, seconded by Mr. Bisson-nette, moves that Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


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


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 Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Trade-Beef import quotas, (b) Prime Minister's role; the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp)-Visible Minorities-Internment of Japanese Canadians during World War II-Compensation inquiry, (b) Government Action, (c) Deadline inquiry; the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-National

May 21, 1985
Divorce Acts
Defence-Maritime command-Restoration of navy blue uniforms.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-46, an Act to amend the Divorce Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-47, an Act respecting divorce and corollary relief, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-48, an Act to provide for the release of information that may assist in locating defaulting spouses and other persons and to permit, for the enforcement of support orders and support provisions, the garnishment and the attachment of certain moneys payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move second reading of all three Bills that you have just mentioned: Bill C-46, to amend the Divorce Act; Bill C-47 and Bill C-48, the Family Orders Enforcement Assistance Act. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so. If the House adopts the legislation that is placed before it and once the Justice Committee has dealt with it, and perhaps made some improvements or changes if it appears to be required, I believe that we will have significantly improved the social legislation of Canada in this area.
The principles of the three Bills are based on the view that in the past there has been too much emphasis placed on the grounds for divorce and too little emphasis placed on what the consequences of divorce were or are for the parties and their children. It is based on the view that the divorce laws should be part of the solution rather than part of the problem in the difficult area of family relationships and family law.
It is also based on the view that once a marriage relationship has broken down irretrievably that we should sever the legal relationship with as little stress and acrimony as possible. Those are the principles that lie behind this legislation. We should stress any possibility there might be for reconciliation or mediation.
It is a fact that marriage breakdown occurs in our society. It is an unfortunate fact of life, but it is a fact. Therefore, legislation is required to settle the issues that arise once a marriage has broken down. It is the need to update and modernize our laws in this respect that leads to the introduction of this legislation.
The Divorce and Corollary Relief Bill seeks to update the 1968 Divorce Act by modifying the grounds for divorce, by improving provisions relating to support and custody and divorce procedure. The Family Orders Enforcement Assistance Act will provide additional remedies to help enforce support and custody arrangements made in the case of separation or divorce.
I might mention that legislation along these lines was introduced last year by Mr. Justice MacGuigan. The divorce part of this legislation is based in large part on that with what I believe are significant improvements, taking in mind the objections and criticisms that were made last year when that Bill was initially introduced. Among the major improvements I believe will be found the Family Orders Enforcement Assistance Act to provide for the better enforcement of support and custody orders.
Let me deal first with the reform of the Divorce Act. That was a priority outlined in the Throne Speech of the Government. It is a priority because there is mounting pressure to modernize the law. The pressure comes from the public, the legal profession and various women's groups. The provincial governments, which are generally responsible for the administration of justice, have also urged us to proceed with divorce reform. These pressures are due to the conditions that have changed since the law was last reformed 17 years ago.
Last year in Canada there were approximately 69,000 divorces. There were 179,000 marriages. That is a ratio of 2.5 marriages for every divorce. Canada's rising divorce rate and the declining marriage rate have led some people to declare that the institution of marriage is in decline. Some believe that what they call shorter divorce will only contribute to a further weakening of the family. In my opinion, that is not so. If I thought that were so, I would not be introducing this Bill.
Let us look at some of the facts. Although people are divorcing in greater numbers, they are also forming new relationships. Statistics Canada estimates that three-quarters of all divorced couples remarry at one time or another. We know that of the marriages that took place in 1983, 27 per cent were composed of couples where at least one of the spouses had been previously divorced. The family is not disappearing in Canada; it is taking on new forms. People who get divorced usually wish to be remarried, to form families and carry on the family relationships.

May 21, 1985

Marriages in Canada are under the same economic and social pressures experienced by those who live in all western nations. However, statistics show that our divorce rate is modest when compared to our neighbours. The United States, Denmark and Sweden experience much higher rates of divorce. The divorce rate in Canada is similar to those in the western Commonwealth nations, such as the United Kingdom and Australia.
As members know, according to the present Act, grounds for divorce are fault oriented. The commonly used ones are adultery and cruelty. The grounds of sodomy, bestiality, sexual aggression or homosexuality are largely ignored. When a fault ground is used directly, no period of separation is required at all. For separation to be a basis for divorce, the parties had to be living separate and apart because of the conduct of the respondent at the time of the presentation of the divorce petition. The only neutral possibility in the present law is that the spouses will be separated for three years by mutual agreement before they file a petition for divorce. Otherwise, the ground is fault oriented.
A major criticism of the present system is that it focuses overly on the alleged fault of the spouse or spouses. It polarizes a conflict situation. It creates increased tension. It discourages reconciliation. The present law does all of those things. The present system denies social realities because in more than 90 per cent of all divorce actions, the issues are uncontested at the time the divorce petition is heard and the divorce is the outcome of an agreement between the spouses. That is the actuality.
In addition, an accusation of fault is certainly not conducive to mediation of the possible consequences of divorce. If we want divorce to occur in the proper kind of atmosphere and in the proper circumstances, where the parties think what is the best way of dealing with the problem, what is the best way of looking after the children for whom we are now responsible, then we need to remove the fault grounds and deal with the consequence that a particular marriage has broken down. The legislation proposes that reform should focus on the consequences of divorce rather than on the possible grounds. If we are not going to use fault direclty as a ground for divorce, then the requirement of a long separation period as evidence of marriage breakdown simply forces the parties to build separate lives and minimizes any chance of adjustment or reconciliation.
Parties who agree to divorce tend to use at the present time the fault grounds so they do not have to wait three years. Yet if they choose to complete three years of separation, one spouse still has to petition against the other. It is still an atmosphere of conflict-antagonism and fault. If one has to petition against the other, they both need separate lawyers to negotiate a settlement of the consequences. That will be done away with if this legislation is approved.
Under the present system the granting of maintenance to a spouse is often based as well on fault considerations that have
Divorce Acts
no connection with the real needs of the non-wage earning spouse. These fault considerations are used mainly to deny or decrease the right to or the amount of maintenance awarded to a dependent spouse who is found to be at fault. It is never used to increase the maintenance obligations of the wage-earning spouse who is at fault. There is an unfair application of fault considerations in this event in any case. If you are at fault but you are the wage or income producing spouse, your maintenance payment is not increased. If you are found to be at fault and are the dependent spouse, you either do not receive maintenance or your maintenance is reduced. It is not a fair situation. Mediation is not provided for.
At the present time if the divorcing spouses cannot agree upon maintenance, custody and access arrangements for the children, the issues are resolved by the court. There is no mention in the present legislation of the interests of the child. In the present legislation we are proposing, there will be only one basis or one ground for divorce, that is, marriage breakdown.
I believe the law should promote the philosophy that divorce laws are not for happy people. It is not a happy situation for those involved in a marriage breakdown. No one who is happy proceeds to a divorce. It is a remedy for an unhappy fact, that the marriage has broken down. A divorce or the grounds for it should not be a reward nor a punishment for conduct or misconduct. What is crucial is what evidence is needed to prove marriage breakdown and the most effective ways to address the consequences of the divorce.
In this legislation, we are proposing that marriage breakdown is the only basis for divorce and that it can be established in two different ways. You can prove separation for one year, or you can prove adultery or cruelty.


John V. Nunziata: That is fault.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will come to that in a moment.
Many people condider that if their partner has committed adultery, the marriage has broken down. The hon. gentleman might not consider that to be the case, but there are many many people, in fact the majority, I think, who happen to believe that if there is adultery or cruelty, the marriage has broken down.
The legislation we are discussing has to take account of the diverse views in this country. There are many who for religious or moral reasons believe that withholding a divorce decree where a spouse has committed adultery or cruelty is immoral. There are others who are concerned for the well being of a spouse who suffers physical or mental cruelty at the hands of the other spouse. Why should some woman, for example- usually a woman-have to stay married to her mate for a year if she is being treated with great physical cruelty or whatever? Why should she not be able to apply for divorce immediately? This Bill provides for that. There are two ways of showing marriage breakdown under this legislation. First, that you have been separated for at least a year, that the marriage has broken down despite any efforts of reconciliation. Second, if there has been physical or mental cruelty or adultery. That is a

May 21, 1985
Divorce Acts
change, by the way, from the legislation that was introduced last year.
Divorce on the basis of a fault ground provides for quicker relief from the other spouse and offers a chance to ventilate feelings, often a beneficial process. Shortening the separation period to one year from the present three years is in line with the desire to reduce the conflict between the spouses. It will also allow them to rebuild their lives more quickly. At the same time, we believe it long enough to allow for second thought and it is long enough to avoid rash and hasty divorces. If the two parties to a marriage have been living separate and apart for a year, they have not been able to patch up their differences and there is no reconciliation, the relationship has broken down and a year is certainly sufficient time to establish that. I do not think it is necessary to force people to wait another two years in addition before they can move to deal with the consequences of their marriage breakdown.
In addition, the possibility of proving marriage breakdown by fault is necessary for several reasons. First, many religious groups feel that divorce should be available immediately for moral reasons to a spouse victimized by the other. Religious beliefs and moral standards are such for certain individuals or groups that withholding a decree of divorce when it is pursued by a spouse who is the victim of adultery or cruelty would be considered immoral. For practical reasons, Mr. Speaker, we know it offers to a petitioning spouse the chance of ventilating frustrations while obtaining a judgment of divorce immediately or being granted immediate relief in the form of maintenance and or custody. That is why these grounds are being left in the legislation.
To those who favour a pure no-fault system, I answer that adultery and cruelty have long been considered valid proof of marriage breakdown and, therefore, they should stay. I can also point out that alternatives will exist and that the reduction in the separation period as an alternative means to prove marriage breakdown will render the use of fault less appealing or necessary. My guess would be that in four or five years time the use of the fault grounds will be very rare.
In addition to modifying the grounds for divorce, the principles upon which support will be provided are set out in the legislation. These do not include criteria under the present law of the conduct of the spouse. The Bill outlines the principles upon which you can obtain support. The principles do not include the conduct of the spouse. Fault is not a criteria for maintenance, nor should it be. Maintenance should be to meet the needs of a spouse, and retaining conduct as a criteria would encourage conflict between the spouses and run counter to our desire to reduce the adversarial nature of the proceedings.
In addition, this criteria has been unfairly applied in the present law. It was used to reduce maintenance received by a dependent spouse found at fault. As I mentioned before, it was never used to increase support payments owned by a supporting spouse found at fault.


John V. Nunziata: What is your evidence?


John Carnell Crosbie: With regard to the criteria to be applied in awarding maintenance, many groups and individuals have advocated that reference should be made specifically to the duration of and the functions performed during cohabitation in order to assess the need and quantum of maintenance. This will ensure that married people will still be free to organize as they wish the division of functions during a marriage. In the eventuality of divorce, the Divorce Act will recognize their different contributions through a maintenance order. The duration of cohabitation should be one of the criteria. If one is married for 30 years and has looked after the home for 30 years without an outside career, certainly that is a function which should influence the need for maintenance. If one has been married only two years and has been a homemaker for just two years, that would not be as significant, though it should be taken into account.
One of the problems which the Supreme Court of Canada outlined in the 1983 de cision of Messier v Delage was that the Divorce Act, that is the present Act, did not provide any guidance as to what a maintenance order was supposed to accomplish in the case of a divorce. The present Act has no objectives. It does not say whether it is to provide maintenance for life to a dependent spouse who divorces or is divorces after two or five years of cohabitation. It does not explain whether it is to provide means for a dependent spouse to become economically independent again. None of this is dealt with.
The criteria for determining what a maintenance order shold state have to be the conditions, the means and the other circumstances of the parties including the duration, the functions or the responsibilities which they performed during their cohabitation.
Our Bill proposes the following objectives for maintenance; first, that it recognize the advantages and disadvantages which arise from the marriage and the breakdown of the marriage, that it recognize the sharing of the economic burden of child care, that it recognize the relieving of economic hardship, and that where particable it lead to the achieving of economic self-sufficiency within a reasonable time. These objectives are not mutually exclusive, and they have no particular order of priority. A maintenance order should accomplish all those objectives unless one of them cannot apply.
We should note that the objective of economic self-sufficiency is a desirable one, but it is restricted in two ways. If it is not practicable, it should not apply. If it is practicable, then economic self-sufficiency should only be required to be achieved within a reasonable time. Under the present Divorce Act, the court can impose such terms, conditions or restrictions as it thinks fit and just regarding a maintenance order. For years the courts have imposed a fixed duration for maintenance in appropriate cases when economic self-sufficiency was possible. In my view, they should have that express power. It would seem to be inconsistent that such award should be
May 21, 1985

varied or revised indefinitely, but we also had to be careful of the words "fixed term".
Bill C-47 proposes certain exceptions which will alleviate injustices that such situations might create. In situations where economic hardship arises through changed circumstances related to the marriage which might have resulted in a different original order if they had existed at the time of the original order, then an application to change the conditions of the order should be received. This is an attempt to obtain a solution to a weakness which was felt to be in the legislation last year. The Bill will provide that applications can be made to change an order if the conditions change in the way that I have related. For example, there may be an incapacity on the part of an ex-spouse to become economically self-sufficient even after a fixed maintenance award term expired because of some kind of change in circumstances related to child care which could not have been contemplated at the time of the order. The Bill tries to provide for that.
With respect to children, Bill C-47 recognizes the view- and I believe it is widely accepted by all Hon. Members-that any arrangement regarding children should be according to their best interests. To give effect to this, the Bill recognizes the possibility of joint custody and that after divorce, children should have maximum access to both parents. That is the policy expressed in the Bill. The law stresses that maintenance of the children is a joint responsibility of their parents after a divorce. I think these are all steps forward.
Finally, since the present Divorce Act gives a court the power to deal with the custody of children only on the basis that the petitioner can have a divorce granted by that specific court, and since the children involved can be living somewhere else, the new legislation proposes to give a discretion to the court to transfer proceedings to the place where the children have the most substantial connection. That appears to be the most logical solution.
Under the present legislation, a divorce cannot be granted except, and I quote, "after a trial which shall be by a judge without a jury". There must be a trial under the present legislation. A costly court appearance is inappropriate in many cases, especially where both parties wish a divorce and where all the corollary issues of relief, custody and maintenance are settled. If everything is settled in a satisfactory manner, it should not be necessary to have a trial before the divorce order is granted.
Ontario has already adopted rules of procedure which will dispense with the need of a petitioner to appear in an uncontested case. The evidence then has to be in writing and supported by an affidavit. If the court is satisfied with that evidence, it can issue a decree of divorce with the appropriate maintenance or custody order. Other provinces may soon follow Ontario and, if they do, there may well be a reduction in the cost of divorce proceedings. The Bill now before the House will allow this and will give the discretion to provincial authorities.
It often happens that spouses are living in separate provinces at the time of divorce proceedings. In order to avoid the
Divorce Acts
possibility of courts in two different provinces proceeding on two actions for divorce relating to the same couple, a copy of every divorce action has to be sent to the central divorce registry here in Ottawa. This registry conducts a computer search to check to ensure that there has been no duplication of divorce proceedings. In this way, couples are ensured that the dissolution of their marriage is granted by one court with proper jurisdiction to grant the decree and to award any other relief.
As part of the Government's expenditure reduction and revenue generation initiative, a $ 10 fee will now be charged to divorcing couples for the services performed by the central divorce registry.


John V. Nunziata: Shame.


John Carnell Crosbie: I think that is a fairly modest fee which people should be able to afford.
Any law which concerns itself with divorce also has to concern itself with the preservation of marriage whenever it is possible. We naturally want marriages to be preserved, and we believe in the preservation of marriages whenever possible. That is why the legislation now before the House continues the provision which was in the 1968 Act, that lawyers are required to encourage their clients to reconcile, unless that is clearly inappropriate, and they are directed to refer their clients to reconciliation services.
In addition, the Bill now before the House will replace the present provision which allowed for one 90-day period of cohabitation for the purpose of reconciliation and did not jeopardize one's status of living separate and apart. We want to take a more flexible approach, designed to encourage several attempts at reconciliation. The new Act will allow any number of attempts at living together and reconciling the total 90 days, cumulatively. In the year unfortunate couples are separated, they will be able to try to reach a reconciliation by living together again during that year for a period of up to 90 days without doing away with the fact that after the year is expired and if there is still no reconciliation they can proceed to have a divorce decree. Where a marriage is truly broken down and reconciliation has failed, we are encouraging the use of mediation to settle the questions of support for the dependent spouse, support for the children, custody and access. The use of a neutral third party trained as a mediator can often resolve those matters with less conflict and with a great deal more satisfaction than litigating them in court. The new Act will require lawyers to encourage their clients to mediate their divorces, unless that is completely inappropriate, and to refer their clients to mediation services.
We are promoting the use of mediation in ways that go beyond this Act. For example, we are providing funding for three years for a national association of mediators and others who are interested in promoting mediation. That association, known as Family Mediation Canada, is going to seek to improve communications and the exchange of ideas in that

May 21, 1985
Divorce Acts
area across Canada. It is going to seek to increase the availability of mediation services and to develop education and training standards and a code of ethics for mediators.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I hope there is a good Tory candidate for that job.


John Carnell Crosbie: This might be an area for some people I could think of to use their well honed skills.
As my time is limited, I would like to move on to the Family Orders Enforcement Assistance Act. The need to improve the enforcement of support and custody orders is acute, as I am sure all Members of the House know. I have said this elsewhere, but the default rate for support payments in Canada is a national scandal. Between one-half and three-quarters of all support orders in Canada are in arrears in whole or in part. This is an intolerable situation and is the case despite the fact that research shows that a reasonable estimate is that 80 per cent of defaulting spouses can afford to make support payments. They can afford to make them, but they choose not to. That is a situation that cannot be permitted to continue. If the House passes the legislation that is now before it, that situation will continue no longer, or at least it will not continue as easily as it has heretofore.
The wholesale flouting of custody and support orders brings the authority of the courts into disrepute. It places a tremendous emotional and financial burden on the dependent spouse and on the children of the union who have to exist without the unpaid support payments. As we know, all too often most families are forced to turn to welfare, thus placing the financial burden of the defaulters on the shoulders of the taxpayers. The estimate is that $1 billion is spent annually by governments to support custodial parents and their children. One-half of that is contributed by the federal Government under the Canada Assistance Plan. Obviously any law that permits this situation to continue would be a poor law.
In some cases, a defaulting spouse is also a missing spouse. He or she cannot be located so that a support order may be enforced. Too often children are taken by the non-custodial parent in violation of a custody order and the criminal law and they disappear beyond the reach of the parent who is supposed to have custody. In such instances, the dependent spouse or custodial parent often does not have the financial resources to trace the missing spouse or child in order to enforce the support or custody order. We all know how difficult it is to enforce these orders in a country with 10 provinces, all having different court systems and different laws. We have had to develop initiatives to improve the enforcement of such orders and these initiatives have to meet the constitutional conditions that govern us in Canada.
Canada operates under a federal system. There is one federal Government, 10 provincial Governments and two Territorial Governments. Both levels of government have their respective jurisdictions. The federal Government has jurisdiction over divorce and corollary matters to divorce, but the provinces have jurisdiction over all other incidents arising out of a marriage. Both levels of Government have an interest in
improving support and custody orders. However, the provinces are primarily responsible for the enforcement of those orders. They have the constitutional responsibility for the administration of justice and over half of such orders are made pursuant to provincial family law. They are not made as a consequence of a divorce action.
We have been consulting with the Attorneys General of the provinces to improve the enforcement of family orders. They have been very co-operative. It is with this in mind that the Family Orders Enforcement Assistance Act and the Divorce and Corollary Relief Act seek to improve enforcement.
First, the Divorce Act will allow support and custody orders to be registered in any court designated by a province. That will simplify enforcement. The new Act also allows the assignment of support orders to the federal or provincial Governments so that they can enforce the orders. This is a considerable improvement. The Act will allow the courts to order a spouse both to provide security for and to pay lumpsum or periodic payments. Under the new Act, the spouse can obtain a provisional variation of a support order in the province in which he or she habitually resides and have it confirmed by a court in the province in which the erring spouse resides. That will be an advance.
The companion legislation will improve the situation pursuant to both federal and provincial laws. The Family Orders Enforcement Assistance Act will provide two new remedies for the enforcement of these matters in addition to what already exists under provincial law. The first remedy will allow the release of information from designated information banks of the federal Government in order to trace a missing spouse or child where there is a breach of a support or custody order or an access right or where a charge has been laid of child abduction in contravention of a custody order pursuant to Section 250.1 or 250.2 of the Criminal Code.
The second remedy will allow the garnishment or attachment of designated federal moneys due a support defaulter for payment to the dependent spouse or other creditor. That remedy is available to enforce a support order or a support provision of an agreement where the agreement can be enforced under provincial law by garnishment or attachment.
The federal information banks that will be opened up include designated banks of the Health and Welfare Department and the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. One will not be able to search any other information bank nor will one be able to search income tax files. However, those banks that can be searched provide information on 16 million adult Canadians and can be searched if the person's name or social insurance number is provided. We are looking after the right to privacy. The Act requires court authorized to apply to the federal Government for the release of the information. The information can be released only to authorities and services responsible for enforcing the orders, including the courts, provincial enforcement services and police officers. They must keep the information they receive confidential. Only information sufficient to trace the missing person will be
May 21, 1985

released. The information to be released is his or her address and the name or address of his or her employer.
The second remedy will be available for garnishment or attachment of income tax refunds, provided the provinces agree to that, interest in Canada Savings Bonds and unredeemed matured Canada Savings Bonds, the training income supplement, unemployment insurance payments, Canada Pension Plan payments, excluding children's benefits, Old Age Security payments, Guaranteed Income Supplement payments and agriculture, dairy and grain stabilization payments. Next year we will complete a review to see if there are any other federal moneys which might be added to the Act by regulation.
A court will already have found that the spouse who was ordered to pay can afford to pay. That spouse will have been given notice of these applications. The creditor spouse will have to prove the existence of the debt default and the amount of the default. The debtor spouse will have to be notified of the proceedings. All of these safeguards exist. Once the safeguards are complied with, the attachment notice can go into effect. The garnishee summons will bind Her Majesty for one year. Numerous summonses will not have to be submitted every year in order to intercept payments. The original garnishee will be good for one year.
Some have criticized this measure by saying that there should be a national enforcement service. That would be compelling in its simplicity, but it ignores the reality of the provincial constitutional authority in this field. We believe that the improvements that are to come in provincial enforcement services such as those already in place in Manitoba and Quebec, provinces which are leading the way, together with the federal legislation, will deal in a very effective manner with the problem of defaulted support payments or child abduction arising from separation or divorce.
OO)
In conclusion, I would like to say that I believe the legislation is well deserving of the support of Members of the House. I believe the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party are supportive of the legislation in general. We know that there will be a few carping criticisms, which are bound to come from some, and that there may be legitimate criticisms from others. In any event, whether carping or legitimate, we hope that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will pay adequate attention to everyone's views and report back to the House, if we pass second reading, in order that this major reform and improvement can be put into effect before the end of June with the help of all Members in the Chamber.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Private Members' Business



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

["Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired."]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Private Members' Hour is scheduled for this time, but unfortunately the Member in whose name the motion stands is not present in the House. There are two alternatives. Either we can adjourn for the day until tomorrow or, if the House wishes, it could continue with Government business. It is up to the House to decide.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) on a point of order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, for my part, I wish to co-operate with the Government in seeing the legislation expeditiously moved forward to committee, but I would prefer to continue the debate tomorrow at the appropriate time.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if that is the wish of the Opposition, I believe that we should agree with that. If opposition Members wish to wait until tomorrow, that is agreeable to our side.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, we are also prepared to facilitate passage of the Bill to committee and to continue the debate tomorrow. However, if it is the will of the House to proceed this evening, I would certainly be prepared to hear the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). If he is not prepared to proceed now, we are agreeable to proceeding tomorrow.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, as there is not consent on the matter and other speakers are not prepared, move that the House do now adjourn.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I understand, with respect to the Member whose motion is before us today, that this is the second time in three weeks that the matter has been on the agenda and the Member has not had the common courtesy to appear in the House to speak to his motion. I would expect, Mr. Speaker, that you would take disciplinary action with that Conservative member, who has shown not only disrespect for the Chair, but disrespect for each and every Member of the House. We have important and urgent business to conduct in the House, and when a Member is on the agenda to speak during Private Members' Hour and does not appear, it shows contempt for the Speaker and for the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is a motion from the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council that this House do now adjourn. Is there a seconder?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I have just been informed that the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) is on his way and will be in the Chamber in a moment.

May 21, 1985
Private Members' Business


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the House agree to wait for the Member?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Translation)


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have no objection to the House waiting for the Hon. Member to arrive, but his allotted time would have to be shortened accordingly rather than being taken off the time of Liberal or NDP Members who want to speak to the motion. They are entitled to 20 minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is a motion to adjourn the House which was proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council. Is there a seconder for the motion? The motion is not debatable, but I wonder if there is a motion.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw my motion as there is no seconder. I believe that we should debate the motion in the absence of the Hon. Member for Athabasca, as he can be the second or third speaker on the motion.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There must be unanimous consent to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That cannot be done without the unanimous consent of the House.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The motion has not been seconded.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I do not have a motion, I will have to read every Private Members' Motion which is on the Order Paper.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would propose that you go ahead with the motion which is listed for today in the name of the Hon. Member for Athabasca. My understanding is that the Hon. Member will be here and be prepared to speak. However, under the circumstances, he could speak at a later stage. As a matter of fact, I understand that the Hon. Member has just arrived in the House. Perhaps we can proceed with Private Members' Business.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) on a point of order.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) has just appeared in the House. It is now eight minutes past the hour. He was required to be here at five o'clock to present his motion. Could I have a ruling from the Chair with respect to whether the Chair intends to deduct from the Members' allotted time the eight minutes which he has irresponsibly kept this House waiting?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair cannot deduct the time from the Member's speech, but certainly Private Members' Hour will expire at six o'clock.
It being a little bit past five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 132?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca) moved:: That, in the opinon of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of establishing a toll-free telephone line which would enable citizens to report cases of government waste and misuse of funds.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to apologize to the House for the delay in starting Private Members' Hour. However, I would suggest that the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), who indicated that I was irresponsible, should have had the courtesy to check-which would not be in keeping with his mode of operation in the House so far-with me prior to making the allegation which he made. If he had done that, he would have discovered that the reason I was late was because the buses which service the Confederation Building were all up at this end of Parliament Hill. I waited for ten minutes and then ran halfway up the hill to get to the Chamber. That is why I am out of breath. But, I would suspect that the Hon. Member is not very interested in the reason-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I ask the Member to please speak on the motion.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the House to consider the advisability of establishing a toll-free telephone line which would enable citizens to report cases of government waste and misuse of funds. It is a suggestion which I received from a constituent a number of months ago.
I did some research on this question as it applied to the United States. They have a hot line program which has been operating for about five years. It is used to ferret out the misuse of Government funds.
All citizens of our country are vitally interested in how their dolars are used or misused. Through use of this hot line an individual, whether he works in a government department, out in the field, or even a concerned taxpayer, could pick up the phone and say that such a problem exists. They might say that such and such a problem should be looked into because they think there is an abuse.
May 21, 1985

How do these abuses come about? This House authorizes the spending of millions upon millions of dollars in grants for projects to various groups or individuals in order to create jobs. There may or may not be some abuses, but if there is, a concerned citizen or civil servant could alert the Auditor General's department of that fact through this line and save the Canadian taxpayers a great deal of money.
In the U.S. a request was made for a summary of what had happened through this program after it had been operating for five years. The program had not been formally advertised, but it got a good deal of news coverage. Over a period of five years, the hot line had recorded 53,000 calls, of which 10,600 were referred to the Comptroller General. Of those 10,600, about 1,100 were substantiated; there was enough evidence to proceed to investigate and recover funds that had been misused. In fact, they were able to identify situations where $20 million to $30 million had been misspent. They projected savings of another $24 million through tightening up on improper practices.
I cite that example because I think there is a good possibility that a proportionate saving could be made in Canada. We all hear stories about the misuse of government funds. I am sure that each one of us in this House can recount stories of constituents coming forward and making certain allegations. Because of the workload we have as Members of Parliament, while we may be able to alert a department about an allegation, we are not able to carry through with an investigation on our own. That is why I am asking that a program like this be set up in Canada.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a small department of the office of the Auditor General could set up this hot line across Canada in order to receive information from the taxpayers who do not ordinarily have access to the right kind of people to lodge their complaints, and from civil servants who are afraid to say anything because they might lose their jobs. Given the experience in the United States and the amount of taxpayers' dollars which have been saved, this could well be a worthwhile program here.
If we were to establish this hot line, it would also make the taxpayers much more interested in how their tax dollar is spent. The way it is now, the taxpayer feels he has no opportunity to speak up or change in any way what is happening. All they see is big government spending big dollars. They might shake their heads about it, but the vital interest is not there because they feel they cannot do anything about it. This line would give them a chance to do something about it. As well, I think it would clearly indicated to civil servants that they are charged with a special responsibility to jealously guard taxpayers' dollars. Therefore, I think if this is done, over a period of years we would see a much more responsible attitude on the part of the Public Service toward the public purse. We would also see a much greater concern expressed by individual taxpayers over how their tax dollars are being spent.
I know that others might wish to comment on my suggestion, so I will close by giving the House some indication of the types of calls which have been received by this hot line in the
Misuse of Funds
U.S. See if this is not familiar to us all. One caller alleged that space rented by the General Services Administration in a New York City office building had been vacant for months. That certainly reminds me of some of the accusations that were made in this House by Members on this side when we were in opposition, and indeed by members of the Opposition today. There is space being rented by government agencies and departments right across this country which has remained vacant for months or years. Yet we here do not know how these allegations are being investigated. As another example, an anonymous informant claimed that two university professors in Wisconsin had extorted money from trainees in a federal program and converted federal funds to their personal use. I know that there are federal funds being used in training programs across the country. There is potential for the same type of abuse as in this example.
An anonymous caller said an employee of the Department of the Interior in the State of Virginia was using a Government account with a local auto dealer to embezzle money. These things would never come to light unless taxpayers who see an abuse of trust or of the spending of tax dollars have the ability to pick up the phone and report such abuses. Another informant sent a photograph of a veteran, who was on full disability, operating a commercial fishing boat in Texas. That informant, who was a taxpayer, did not agree that the veteran should be ripping off the system. An informant alleged that a Major General, the commanding officer of an army installation, bought an interest in a nearby hotel after being advised by the Department of Defence of a planned troup increase and possible housing shortage at the installation.
I am sure that other Members could think of examples of misuse of Government funds. Such a system would give taxpayers the opportunity to more actively participate in the correction of abuses. Public civil servants and Crown corporation employees would become much more attuned to the concept that they are indeed spending taxpayers' money and that they are accountable for it. I hope that Hon. Members will take a positive attitude toward this suggestion. The results could be well worthwhile and show a considerable saving to the entire country.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for giving me this golden opportunity to speak of Government waste. There could be no more valuable occasion, outside of Question Period, to raise such issues. I am very pleased that we have this motion before us today. I shall have to introduce such a motion myself in order to bring up all the incidents of Government waste in the country.
One of the first issues of Government waste that I would like to deal with is the fact that the House wasted eight minutes waiting for the Hon. Member. Members are paid roughly $30 an hour. You have told us in the past, Mr. Speaker, that all Members are always present in the House. Therefore, we can only assume that every other Member was

May 21, 1985
Misuse of Funds
here. Therefore, multiplying $4 by 281 other Members, we see that it cost the taxpayers of the country $1,124 for the eight minutes that we waited for the Hon. Member to show up here today. Two weeks ago the Member did not show up at all. We wasted one hour which cost $7,858. Add that to the $1,124 wasted today, and we have a grant total of $8,992 of wastage caused by the Hon. Member for failing to show up to debate his own issue in the House of Commons.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Shame, shame.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member across the way said that we should raise other examples of Government waste in the House. As much as I hate to, I am about to do so. Let us start at the top, Mr. Speaker. The Leader himself increased the budget of his own office by 57 per cent this year after telling everyone else in the country that it was time to tighten the belt. We can see that there is an awful lot of slack in the belt of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
The Government handed out a number of jobs, some 1,200 of which are listed here in this black paper. They were mostly given to Tory friends and relatives. Two of those jobs are particularly notorious. One was given to an individual by the name of Lawrence Hanigan, the defeated Tory candidate in the riding of Laval-des-Rapides. The other one was given to Mr. Roy McMurtry, the former Attorney General of Ontario. Both of these individuals were appointed to high paying Tory rewards. That is enough to make some Conservative backbenchers in the House wish that they had lost so that they too could have partaken in such rewards. However, unfortunately for them and for us, the Tory back-benchers were elected and could not receive the high paying rewards of $100,000 each.
Well, the $100,000 salaries were not enough for Mr. Hanigan and Mr. McMurtry. The Government decided to help them make ends meet in their budgets. The Government gave them pay increases of $38,000 each to ensure they had enough money to pay the grocery bill at the end of the month, which likely comes free with that kind of job to start with.
We have since nicknamed Thursday, November 8, "Black Thursday." On that day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) perpetrated his vicious attack on the people of Canada. He decided that he would cut just about everything for the poor people of the country. The Minister of Finance decided to send copies of this notorious statement to his colleagues, the Tory Premiers of the country. It cost $23,850 in jet service to deliver a speech that should not have been read to start with. That would have cost $105 by Air Express. The sense of economics of the Government led it to believe that the proper thing to do was to waste $23,850 in order to do a $105 job. That is an example of Government waste.
Let us talk about the Shamrock summit in Quebec City. It cost us $525,000 to hear about the Irish eyes that were smilling. Notwithstanding that the singing was not much to start with, the price of the affair was enough to give indigestion to everyone who ate the caviar and quail that was served. The total cost of the event was $1 million to the taxpayers of the country.
The summit was supposed to be for good Canada-U.S. relations. Well, no sooner had the President of the United States flown home than there were countervail duties on Canadian pork and other products. That was the effectiveness of that endeavour. It was another waste of taxpayers' dollars.
Around Christmas time the Prime Minister decided that he should take a little holiday to Florida. Maybe he was right and he should have taken that holiday to Florida.


Sergio Marchi: With a one-way ticket.


Don Boudria: My friend says that perhaps he should have taken a one-way ticket. While he was there, he wanted to see what the Opposition was up to. Every day he had video clips flown to Florida. The cost of flying the video clips to Florida to enable the Prime Minister to watch the Opposition on television was $1,000.
Let us talk about another Member of the House. Perhaps-

-we might mention the "national air draft", Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) who was described in those terms when he was a Minister in Quebec. He took it upon himself to take off for various destinations at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. The Minister chose to fill a jet with relatives, department officials and what have you and fly to the Middle East for a ribbon-cutting ceremony for which Canadian taxpayers had to shell out $57,000, Mr. Speaker.
Those are examples of waste of funds by this Government. [English]
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) decided to take a trip to Vancouver on board a government jet. She arrived there three minutes ahead of Air Canada. The cost was $17,000. It cost us $5,000 a minute to send the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to Vancouver. That is a prime example of Government waste.
Let us talk about renovations to the offices of Cabinet Ministers. They are the ones who tell the people of Canada that it is time to tighten the belt. Let us hear about Government waste. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) decided that it would require $10,000 to renovate his office on Parliament Hill. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) required $22,327. That will buy a lot of wallpaper and paint.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), the cutting man himself who is the watchdog of our tax dollars, requires $7,887. The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek), or the amateur Minister of Fitness and Sport, as he is sometimes called, required $13,496. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) required $7,950. The Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Layton), whoever that is, required $17,712 to redo the inside of the Parliament Hill office.
May 21, 1985

As if that is not enough, add $173,000 worth of new limousines which make the West Door of the House of Commons look like a used car lot. They are added to the ones that were already there. Of course, one cannot have limousines without chauffeurs. One cannot have chauffeurs without political commissaires and chiefs of staff, which every Cabinet Minister has. They are paid the mere sum of $80,000 each, courtesy of the taxpayers of our country.
What about car rentals? It is not enough to have that used car lot outside the West Door, in the first three months of this year the Government had to rent another $30,000 worth of cars to make up for the shortage of cars to drive Cabinet Ministers around.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is Government waste. How about the $36 million of Government waste in order to colour our military differently because the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen), who has lost his coat over this issue, cannot differentiate one person in the military from another? It seems that everyone else could, but he could not.
Let's talk about chiefs of staff, about staff for the Prime Minister. Let's talk about nannies and about Ministers who spend $496,000 in their first few months in office on jet travel alone. My colleague, the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), reminds me that not all was wasted. The Prime Minister himself paid $1.50 for every meal that he ate at his house. He reimbursed the people of Canada. Let me remind the House that most citizens of this country would gladly change their grocery bill for $1.50 per head per meal. I wish I could, frankly, and I am sure that most of my constituents could not feed their family on $1.50 a meal.
Last week we heard that the Government spent $103,000 in advertising a program which was signed in 1981 and took effect a year ago. The Government believes that now is the time the program should be advertised. What did it do? It gave a contract to the R. T. Kelley Advertising Agency, which is run by a former Ontario Conservative Cabinet Minister and former defeated Tory candidate in the riding of Hamilton West. They gave this $103,000 contract.


Mr. Schellenberg:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is Private Members' hour. The discussion is about easier access for Canadian citizens to the Government of Canada. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), although he is very interesting, is rambling far off the topic. Perhaps he could stick to the topic.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion mentions a toll free line to report cases of Government waste. It is a question of debate about whether the items being mentioned by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) are a question of Government waste. The Hon. Member has not mentioned the toll-free telephone line. Presumably he will do so at some point in his speech.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It would be my hope that everyone would report these Government wastes by means of whatever telephone line. I do not blame the Member for
Misuse of Funds
Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg) being embarrassed by these examples of Government waste. Were I Tory right now-heaven forbid-I am sure that I would be as embarrassed as the Hon. Member.
For him to try to stifle debate like this is quite normal. It is normal for a Conservative backbencher who cannot partake in most of this waste. That Hon. Member who just spoke cannot have any of those expensive cars that were rented. He does not have a limousine or any other part of the Government waste that we have raised. I am sure that he wishes he could fly on a JetStar.
All that said and done, let me give the most glaring example of Government waste. The toll free phone line that the Hon. Member suggests today would cost $4,065 a month to operate. That is nearly $50,000 a year that would be wasted for a telephone line so that the Member could be in contact with his constituents the way he should be already in order to find out about Government waste. It would cost us $50,000 a year so that that Member and other Conservative backbenchers could do their jobs.
I have an easier solution. I invite all people to contact me at area code 613-996-2907. They can report all Government wastes at 996-2907.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to sit in the House and hear the comments by the Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) who introduced this motion and to the comments by the Liberal spokesperson, the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). It is interesting to hear the Liberals and Tories debating about who is the most gross when it comes to getting into the trough.
I listened with some interest to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell talk about renovations, nannies and advertising. We must mention the extensive renovations carried out by the former Liberal Prime Minister. We must keep in mind the extensive renovations to Stornoway that are now being considered. We are intrigued when we hear about nannies. We recognize that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) needed a nanny. We certainly understood that the previous Prime Minister needed a nanny.
We heard talk about advertising. I remember well, during the Constitution debate, the Liberal geese flying across our television screens. In fact, I think most Canadian people felt, after seeing these geese, that they were being goosed. I believe that that perception by Canadians was quite accurate.
The Hon. Member for Athabasca is proposing this resolution in the midst of the flowering of Tory patronage. He does so without a blush, just as the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell reads his list without blushing. I believe that the Liberals, with their long experience, have become experts at going to the trough. Perhaps the only difference between the Liberals and the Tories, who have been away from the trough for such a long time, is that the Liberals had developed some table manners. At least they wore a bib when they were at the trough. The Tories have been away so long that they are madly rushing to the trough to distribute what they can. I

May 21, 1985
Misuse of Funds
suggest that Canadians are upset at the method of Conservative patronage.
I think Canadians have become a bit cynical about political parties generally. I wonder what they must feel about the Prime Minister who, during the election campaign, wrapped himself in such righteous indignation. He condemned in ringing and eloquent terms the patronage in which the Liberals indulged just before the former Prime Minister left and the ascendency of the new Liberal leader. When the former Opposition Leader became Prime Minister, gone was the cloak of self-righteousness. He and his fellow Tories jumped into the trough. It is hoped over these next four years at least that some table manners are developed by the Government.
I think Canadians are concerned about the type of waste that does occur on a patronage level, but this is nickel and dime stuff really and is something Canadians generally expect. I certainly expect a certain amount by any political party that forms a Government. I think it is a question of degree. As well, it is a question of ability. If you are a Conservative government and appoint a Conservative person to a board, I will stand in my place right now and say there is nothing particularly wrong with that. The sin is if that person is not capable of carrying on the proper function to which he was appointed. It is on that level we must question some of the appointments which the present Government has made. We must also question some of the appointments which the previous Government made. Mr. Mackasey, for example, was appointed to Air Canada and other various spots. Surely some secret moments were enough to make even Mr. Mackasey blush. It is not political affiliation but the lack of ability in carrying out the function which is the biggest sin.
When we are talking about Government waste, the big item, it appears we have lost over $2.5 billion to $2.8 billion on an R and D tax credit scheme. Originally when this measure was introduced by the Liberal Minister of Finance, it was to cost the treasury $500 million in lost revenue. Everyone agrees it has become a scam. It is as though the doors of the treasury were flung wide open and we lost $2.8 billion. This is a big money item, Mr. Speaker. Nobody in this House will claim that we have had $2.8 billion in extra research and development here. If we had $2.8 billion more in research and development, we would be in quite a different situation today. It is apparent to all of us that the only research and development which this tax measure has created is research and development by accountants and tax lawyers.


John R. Rodriguez: All Tories.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Here we have a big budget item, $2.8 billion, which is $2.3 billion more than was estimated. It is "Oops", a $2.3 billion "oops". Then we have Mirabel Airport. Another billion dollar "oops". This was thought out by some bureaucrats in the Department of Transport who really like thinking in tremendous Technicolor screens, the same people who are destroying agriculture in western Canada by the Crow Bill
which the Liberal Government was so stupid to push through and which the Tories have not revoked. These same people are the ones who projected the need for this tremendously large airport outside of Montreal which is a disaster. Everybody admits now that it is a billion dollar "oops" in lost change that fell out of a pocket.
The money on these two programs, the R and D tax credit and Mirabel, would do a lot to alleviate the hardships in which unemployed people are finding themselves. It amazes me that Governments, whether Liberal or Tory, are quite willing to nickel and dime people who are poor, sick, or elderly. They are quite willing to restrict the eligibility for unemployment insurance so they can squeeze $200 million out of the scheme.


John R. Rodriguez: The tough Tories.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Yet do we find the same concern when we lose $2.3 billion in this R and D tax scheme? No, Mr. Speaker. There is hardly a word about it. We do not talk about these welfare bums, or the lazy people who, if you only give them an extra squeeze, would get off their fannies and find a job. There is none of this rhetoric. It seems that we are quite willing to lose $2.3 billion in this mad hatter R and D tax scheme. There is not a ripple of protest. Yet we have all the wrath, fury, and self-righteousness directed at the poor soul who is on unemployment insurance. There might be some odd cheat in the unemployment world. Human beings are human beings, but the rip-offs that occur in unemployment insurance are nothing compared to the rip-off now occurring with the R and D tax credit scheme. All the focus is on the poor soul who is trying to get by on a few hundred bucks a week.
When the Hon. Member suggests that we set up a hot line so people can report on Government wastage, are they going to report on the guy next door who someone might figure should not be eligible for his welfare or his unemployment insurance cheques? After all, it is Government wastage. Will this be something like a crime watch, except it is on the civil service? Is this part of the extension of the civil service bashing in which Members opposite seem to indulge? Who are they going to phone? What are they going to phone about? Are they going to phone about government wastage in terms of advertising? What about the Liberal flying geese?


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has become increasingly evident that my motion, a pearl of an idea, should not have been cast before political swine.


John R. Rodriguez: That is great language for a parliamentarian.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has used unparliamentary language. I have had a chance to look at Beauchesne. To call Hon. Members swine is quite unparliamentary. I know the Hon. Member, being a gentleman, would want to withdraw that remark. We have had a very heated debate, but I do not think that justified calling members of the Opposition swine. I think this is a matter of some gravity for
May 21, 1985

the House of Commons. I know the Hon. Member would want to withdrawn that remark.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, 1 think it is absolutely deplorable that a Member of this House would use that kind of repartee, using the word swine. It is not just an indirect reference. I made a mistake in this House and one has to have the courage to get up and admit that one has made a mistake. I think the Hon. Member should get up and withdraw that remark. It sets a certain tone. He is not the only one who can use that kind of language. I think he should take it back.


Mr. Crosby:: Mr. Speaker, I heard very clearly what the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) said. As a Member sitting in the House and hearing the remark, I must say, contrary to my friends in the New Democratic Party and in the Liberal Party, that I took no offence from the remark. It was a simple expression, often used in ordinary parlance, not intended to apply to any individuals. If Hon. Members are so paranoid that they respond to the least remark, I think they should take their problem elsewhere.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has heard the remarks of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) and believes that they are certainly inappropriate and do not help the level of debate. However, the Chair does not find that the words are strictly unparliamentary. Therefore, the debate will continue with the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I am not a bit upset by the remark of the Hon. Member. Certainly he is not a pearl, and everyone recognizes that his fanciful Bill is not one either. If it was, he would have made certain that he was here at the beginning of the debate. It was supposed to be dealt with a week or so ago and he did not bother showing up, and he showed up late today. Obviously it is not a pearl with which we are dealing. I recognize the general level of intellect of the Hon. Member in politics and so forth. What he said to me was of no great surprise. I do not feel insulted. That type of insult by that type of Hon. Member reflects rather well on me and identifies the Hon. Member and what he is all about.
Let me return to the Bill which is before us. It is sort of a crime stopper Bill on public servants which the Hon. Member is requesting Parliament to consider. The first question I would ask is: On what are they reporting? Can they pick up the telephone and say that there is government wastage as a result of the proposed renovations to the summer residence of the Prime Minister or to the residence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), or that they think there is wastage as a result of the R and D tax credit? On what will they report? My second question is: To whom will they report?
If we have a system which works properly, and if we have a Government which recognizes the important role that Members of Parliament can and should be playing, it is the role or job of Members of Parliament to get those telephone calls. They should hear from their constituents and from the
Misuse of Funds
Canadian public that they believe there is government waste on some project or other.
Public waste is an important topic. All Governments should be concerned about curbing waste and about running a tight and well administered operation. However, to do what the Hon. Member is asking will not accomplish that purpose. In fact, the result will be that public servants will be afraid. They will have the sense that they are being spied on all the time and that they have to account for policies and programs for which they are very often not responsible. Very often public servants are just people who are carrying out the duties and directions of their political masters. If things do not go right, they are the men and women who get blamed. They are the people who are held up to ridicule. They are the victims of public servant bashing. Very often the political masters who are really to blame escape it.
Possibly this becomes more odious under Tory Governments, in that the Tories really enjoy public servant and bureaucrat bashing. Very often when they form the Government, it is the directions which they give to the public servants that create the mistakes for which the public servants are blamed. Back home in Saskatchewan we see this time and again. Even though there is a Conservative Government in the Province of Saskatchewan, they continue to bash public servants; they continue to bash their own employees and blame them for their own mistakes. That is the most deplorable part of all.
I should like to turn to the role of the Auditor General, who is really the watch-dog on government waste. I believe the Auditor General should have a firm mandate. He should have access to all pertinent documents in order to make a decision as to whether or not there is gross government waste. When the Conservatives were in Opposition, they were all in favour of that concept. Unfortunately, now that they are in Government, with perhaps documents they would rather not have the Auditor General see, they do not want to give that power to him any longer. Perhaps they want a free telephone line to Ottawa with some bureaucrat at the other end taking all the complaints. Then perhaps they can feel they have done their job in terms of accountability for public expenditures. The Auditor General has the capacity, the mandate, the technical know-how and staff to do the job properly. If it is serious about government waste, one of the first things it should do is strengthen the role of the Auditor General.
Another question I would have if the service is set up is: How would the complaints and comments be responded to? Will someone take a complaint and pass it on to another person, to be passed on to a third person, so that it is eventually lost in a labyrinth of memos and cross-memos? Again I return to the role of Members of Parliament. We should receive those telephone calls. The Canadian public or our constituents should fee, regardless of whether their Member of Parliament is a Conservative, a Liberal or a New Democrat, regardless of whether he or she is a member of the Government or of the Opposition, free to pick up the telephone to tell us that they think there is a case of abuse or a case of

May 21, 1985
Adjournment Debate
gross wastage. I am not referring to petty stuff, but to gross wastage. Then we should have the ability as Members of Parliament to follow through on the complaints. We should be able to talk to Ministers and to Deputy Ministers to obtain an understanding of what is going on and to get to the bottom of whether or not it is a legitimate complaint. This means a strengthening of the role of ordinary Members of Parliament. As well it means a strengthening of our role in committee and a touch less bipartisan politics. When government or opposition Members come across instances of government waste, they should not be out there to score political points. They should help to make Government more effective and work better for the public of Canada. We should all be able to co-operate in that effort. If we receive suggestions from our constituents on how to make Government more effective, we should have the ability and capacity to see that those suggestions are followed through and implemented. However, it means a different concept of what this place is all about and what we as Members of Parliament are all about. It means a different concept of how Government, Parliament and the committees work. Lacking that, I am afraid the Private Member's Bill which is before us is quite inadequate. I tend to think it is a Mickey Mouse public relations gesture. I see that it is six o'clock. I assume the Bill dies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: 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.

Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, on May 14, I put a question to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) concerning the press reports indicating that the Government had agreed to increase the quotas of European Economic Community beef coming into Canada from 5.9 million pounds to some 23.5 million pounds. On December 21, the Government triggered the meat import law and imposed a quota on European meat of 5.9 million pounds. This quota was well in tune with the amount of meat which had been coming into Canada in the previous four or five years. It was a sharp reduction for the EEC, but was certainly well within historic averages.
Some time late in January or February, we heard that the Government was considering caving in to pressure being put on
it by the EEC. I do not know why it would do so. Clearly the beef which came to Canada last year was meat that was surplus within the European Economic Community. It was highly subsidized to cover the cost of transportation into Canada. In spite of this, we heard reports that the Government was going to cave in and abandon the red meat producers of this country by increasing those quotas.
I put the question to the Minister for International Trade. In his response, he indicated that the Government had initially an agreement with, I assume, the negotiators. However, he could not reveal the amount of the agreement. I think the Minister has a responsibility to come clean with the House of Commons and the industry which has suffered so much in the past six months by revealing exactly what is taking place.
Many of the agricultural producers of the country feel that they have been let down by the Government. The Government did trigger the meat import law. However, it took the Government three months to make up its mind, even though strong representations were made all fall for it to trigger the meat import law. In spite of that, no action was taken for this calendar year until December 21.
We must put this matter in perspective. The Government has already raised the United States quota from some 21 million pounds to some 65 million pounds of meat. There are rumours that a secret agreement has been reached to increase the Nicaraguan quota from some 600,000 pounds to over 9 million pounds and that even that estimate may be low due to the trade embargo placed by the United States on Nicaragua.
Naturally, agricultural groups, farm groups, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture are just appalled at the prospect of the federal Government backing down and knuckling under by agreeing to an increase of some 17 million pounds of additional beef coming into the country. This amount of beef would represent at least 1,000 carcasses of meat which is subsidized by 40 cents to 48 cents a pound.
I would like to read into the record excerpts of a letter from the Bruce County Federation of Agriculture dated April 30, 1985. This letter was addresed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and a copy was sent to me as Liberal agriculture critic. The letter reads:
We, as members of the Bruce County Federation of Agriculture, live in the foremost beef producing County in Ontario. To say the least, we are more than concerned about increasing the allotment of EEC beef into this country.
We find it very difficult to understand at a time when the red meat industry in this country is in an unfathomable financial crisis, with a record high number of bankruptcies, why a supposedly concerned and caring government would allow even one single pound more of beef into this country.
At a time of decreasing beef consumption and low commodity prices that don't even come close to covering the cost of production, it would hardly seem like a prudent financial move.
With all of this in mind, we respectfully request an explanation from your office outlining the reasons for such a decision being made when we all know the result would be another disastrous blow to our Canadian beef industry. Doesn't our government care?
We look forward to a reply-
May 21, 1985

Well, I am not sure whether Wayne Robertson, the President of the Bruce County Federation of Agriculture, has received a reply, but, clearly, Members of the House of Commons have not received a reply from the Government on the question.
During the same Question Period, I asked the Minister for International trade if, during the recent visit of the Prime Minister to the European Economic Community countries, he had raised the question of the massive increases in beef quotas with the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Chancellor of West Germany and the President of France. I think, because the matter is of such importance to our agricultural community, that the Prime Minister should use the prestige and power of his office, either as a group or on a bilateral basis, to raise matters which are of fundamental importance to producer groups. The response which I received from the Minister for International Trade was very high-handed. He said that the Prime Minister was not there to negotiate beef agreements. Of course he was not. But, when he was meeting with senior heads of government of the European Economic Community, he should have seized the opportunity. It is a very important issue to the red meat industry in Canada. There is no reason why he could not have raised the question with the heads of government. I think the Canadian farmers and beef producers of Canada are appalled by that type of attitude.
There is more to be concerned about in this matter. Press reports have told us that Australia, which has been a traditional trading partner with Canada in red meat, and which has large access to our markets, is very concerned about the subsidized beef which is coming into Canada. The Australians feel that it will drop the price of their exports to Canada. The Australians have a very important stake in their beef exports to Canada. They are upset. In fact, I am told that Australia had offered-if the Canadian Government had summoned up the courage and gone to GATT to fight the issue rather than being a pussy-cat and backing down to the EEC-to assist Canada and fight the issue at the GATT tribunal. It is a matter of great concern. I hope the Government will not sell out the beef producers of Canada.


Mr. Stewart Mclnnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the Hon. Member that the matter of beef imports from EEC countries is one of great concern to Canadians. It is because of that that the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) has been giving a great deal of attention to that issue. He has also been giving attention to a corresponding issue; that of the threat which has been made by the EEC to impose substantial quotas or tariffs on other sectors of our agricultural community-that group which intends to export to the EEC community. Both sides of the question must be taken into consideration, and that has been done.
I am happy to report that a tentative agreement has been reached with negotiators representing the European Economic Community and that the agreement has been secured. Only outstanding at this time is the ratification and formal approval
Adjournment Debate
by the Council of EEC Ministers. It is anticipated that that will come within a reasonable length of time.
It is necessary for the Minister to be sensitive to and have regard for the interests of the beef industry, which has suffered unduly because of the subsidized beef imports from the EEC. We are very much supportive of their position, and indeed the Minister has said so in the House on a number of occasions, especially on April 29 and May 14. However, the prolonged negotiations have now concluded and we hope to be able to make a more formal as well as full and final report in the very near future.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was just wondering whether, with the consent of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), we might reverse the order of appearance in the Adjournment Debate. He might be able to get a more full answer that way.


Abram Ernest Epp: That is agreeable.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-MARITIME COMMAND-RESTORATION OF NAVY BLUE UNIFORMS
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, in November, 1984, I received confirmation in the House of Commons from the then Minister of National Defence that the Government intended to take action to restore navy blue uniforms to Canada's Navy, and to accomplish this change in time for the celebration of the Canadian Navy's seventy-fifth anniversary, the major events of which will occur toward the end of June or early in July. I hope the Minister's representative, in commenting on this matter, will bring us up to date on the Government's and the Minister's plan for implementing the change to navy blue uniforms in Maritime Command, and also other changes in uniform which are contemplated by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen). But I come here with what I believe will be a more important message. Let me begin by reviewing very briefly my involvement in the campaign to have navy blue uniforms restored to Canada's Navy.
Early in 1983 I became aware of the desire on the part of many members of Maritime Command, Canada's Navy, to again wear a navy blue uniform. I brought the matter to the attention of the House of Commons early in 1983. Then in July of 1983 Vice Admiral James Fulton, when he turned over command of Maritime Command, indicated in that ceremony that he, as a member of Canada's Navy, desired a restoration of navy blue. In a ceremony which was attended by literally thousands of people at CFB Halifax, he said that he would like all people present there to know that those in the Navy would like to be dressed in blue and look like sailors.
I review that situation by way of saying that quite often a Member of Parliament who hears a message from a constituent, and from an important constituent such as Vice Admiral Fulton, representing as he did the personnel of Maritime Command, is prepared to take action. I think we who were

May 21, 1985
Adjournment Debate
interested were effective in bringing before the House of Commons that desire for change. Let me say very quickly, because I heard the remarks today in the House of Commons by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), who deplored the Government's action in bringing about a change of uniform for Canada's Armed Forces, even though that appears to be the overwhelming desire of the personnel in Canada's Navy, that we, and I hope I speak for all Members of the Progressive Conservative Party, want to react to the desires and needs of the personnel of Canada's forces.
We cannot deliver all that they might desire in the way of equipment and facilities, but we can at least recognize those needs that we can fulfil. It was in response to that kind of request from those personnel that I think our Government acted to restore the navy blue uniform to Maritime Command and to consider other uniform changes.
This is relevant today in the House of Commons because the same person, now retired from the Canadian Armed Forces, Vice-Admiral Fulton, has made the suggestion that the Navy must make its voice heard in Ottawa. I want to tell him and all people interested in the Canadian Armed Forces that that is exactly the case. The Canadian Forces in all three commands must make their needs known to parliamentarians and public officials. They must get the message to us so that we, in turn, can get the message to the public that the Canadian Armed Forces has to be a developing institution. It cannot stand stagnant and let the world go by.
We must all take Admiral Fulton's message to heart, particularly those of us in the Progressive Conservative Party who want to support the Canadian Armed Forces. I draw a distinction between our own position and the position of the socialists in the New Democratic Party who would have us withdraw from organizations such as NATO. They would have us cut back on National Defence expenditures and destroy the spirit and capacity of our Armed Forces as though it were not part and parcel of the Canadian fabric, the Canadian nation, and the national way of life.
Admiral Fulton must convince his own colleagues in the Armed Forces, and those who have retired from the Armed Forces, that there is a need for public education. The Leader of the New Democratic Party compares National Defence expenditures to other kinds of social programs and claims that National Defence expenditures adversely affect social programs. We cannot allow such an erroneous message to go to the public. We must fight for attention for the Canadian Armed Forces. The role of those involved in the Canadian Armed Forces in this exercise is of vital importance.
I want to say to Admiral Fulton, through the medium of the House of Commons, that his message is heard. It is recognized that in the national interest we must bring to the attention of all Canadians the need for improvement in our Canadian Forces. It is part of our sovereignty and way of life. It has been since the beginning of Canada. With our conscious attention to
the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces, it will continue to be part of our national life.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to respond to the Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) on behalf of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen). I am able to stand and give this response today in good part because of the efforts over many years of the Member for Halifax West. So often in the House of Commons we start with an idea, bring it forward, and then have to wait and wait for its fruition. The Member's patience and hard work has been rewarded.
I can understand that he has exerted pressure for a distinctive blue uniform for the Maritime Command. He can realize that this is only one small part of the Government's decision to provide new, distinctive uniforms for all three elements. I am sure the Maritime Command on the East Coast is pleased, as it is on the West Coast. As east meets west across the country, we will find a whole new sense of pride and increased morale in our Armed Forces.
It would be remiss of me not to mention specifically the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates). This Member came to power in Canada with a very firm decision and a strong sense of connection with the Navy from his own home area. He recognized that morale is all important in the initial stages of the rebuilding in'which the Government is currently involved. I want to pay credit to the former Minister of National Defence today.
Keeping in mind the seventy-fifth anniversary of Maritime Command, for which the main celebrations will begin in late June and early July of this year, I am pleased to inform the Member that new uniforms will be available in appropriate numbers when the first public tatoo is presented on June 27. Indeed, we hope that the same situation will prevail for all three services. This is what we are aiming for. Accordingly, 50 per cent of the change-over will be completed by the fall of 1986. Specifically, by July 1 this summer, Naval will be in 750 winter uniforms and 500 summer uniforms. Land will have 750 winter uniforms and 400 summer uniforms. Air will have 750 winter uniforms and 400 summer uniforms.
That very tight target is in fact being met and Canadians will have their first view this summer. I am sure the Member for Halifax West will be standing at that tatoo with a very special sense of pride as he will know that his efforts have resulted in the Armed Forces marching in different uniforms.
In closing, let me stress that this is just the beginning. It is a symbol of better things to come. We have had North Warning, low level defence, new frigates and a communications system. A major policy review is under way with respect to manpower and the regulars and reserves. In spite of the economic conditions, we are maintaining our commitment to the Armed Forces, and this move is symbolic of that particular concern.
May 21, 1985


VISIBLE MINORITIES-INTERNMENT OF JAPANESE CANADIANS DURING WORLD WAR II-COMPENSATION INQUIRY. (B) GOVERNMENT ACTION. (C) DEADLINE INQUIRY
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, almost four months have passed since I raised questions in the House regarding the Government's plans to redress the injustice done to Japanese Canadians during the Second World War. At the time there was a real sense of anxiety about the possibility that the Government might act unilaterally to impose what it saw as a settlement on the Japanese Canadian community, not matter what they thought. Expectations of negotiation were raised while at the same time deadlines were suddenly imposed and unilateral action threatened. I raised questions about that and the need to achieve an agreement, as well as the possibility of early deadlines being used to cut negotiations short.
The months that have passed since then give us reason to bring this issue into focus for the nation and reveal the extent to which the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Murta) has failed the Government, his leader and the Canadian nation. It has been a little over eight months since the Minister took office. In the first weeks of May, we heard some strange remarks from the Minister. On the one hand, in a radio interview on May 5, he declared that when he took office and found the slogan, "Celebrate our Differences" being used in his directorate, he scrapped that right off.
Inevitably, when he convened the Multicultural Conference in Winnipeg on May 14, that kind of suggestion forced him to deny that he was in fact thinking of Canada in melting pot terms. He said, "This country is never going to be a melting pot. I don't think Canadians want Canada to be a melting pot".
When he held a press conference to wrap up proceedings after this conference, he suggested that the fight against racism falls outside the jurisdiction of his Department. He said that although his Department is concerned about racism, it "really falls outside our jurisdiction". His concern would be to sensitize Canadians against racial intolerance.
Inevitably, that kind of statement led to questions in the House. Just this past Thursday, in response to questions in the House, the Minister stated:
-I and the multicultural Department have a major responsibility for the area of race relations in Canada. If you take the very narrow definition, in terms of legislation it falls in our area. We have a major thrust in terms of fighting racism at every level of society.
This evidence of indecisiveness and lack of clear leadership is nowhere more clear than in the matter of the Japanese Canadians. I call upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to very carefully consider the current situation. If the need for leadership is not obvious, surely the Prime Minister's pledge to address this issue makes its attention urgent.
What we have seen over the past month, after expectations of negotiation had been clearly raised, was a press release under the heading of the multiculturalism directorate. It clear-
Adjournment Debate
ly referred to a negotiation process, the process of negotiation. What we found in January was a refusal on the part of the Minister and his officials to negotiate with the Japanese Canadians. We saw the attempt to impose deadlines to arrive at an apology and a redress formula. We saw a resolution for apology being presented to House Leaders that was not the final resolution that had been discussed in these non-negotiations. We saw a refusal on the part of the Minister to consider compensation, either individually or corporately for the Japanese Canadians. We saw a rejection of any action on the War Measures Act, on criminal charges and other concerns which the Japanese Canadians have had in years past. A variety of those items were not considered.
The Japanese Canadian community, which has been clarifying its own mind on these matters, has in the last week felt driven to undertake a consideration of the costs of the losses suffered during the 1940s. This is being done by the firm of Price Waterhouse. The process presumably will be at the expense of Japanese Canadians themselves in order to clarify their needs. The Toronto Star pointed out in the last days that the Prime Minister said last year that Japanese Canadians need assurance that:
-this kind of heinous action will never again take place in Canada and, if it does, that we will have the nerve and the courage to stand up and apologize for it and deal with it honourably.
The Prime Minister recognized they, the Japanese Canadians, were not looking for overwhelming compensation, but symbolism and reassurance. He said:
-I feel very strongly that Canadian citizens whose rights were abused and violated and trampled upon indeed should be compensated.
That very clear statement has not been acted upon by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and the honour of the nation which has been demanding redress action for months and months continues to wait. How long is this charade to go on?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the Government views this matter as a moral issue, not an economic issue. This has been stated in a letter addressed to the Government House Leaders of the two Opposition Parties sent to them on January 28, 1985, outlining what the Government is proposing and seeking the views of the two Opposition House Leaders. As yet the Government has not heard from the two Opposition House Leaders and has not been able to go ahead.
The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) indicated that he was worried at the initial stage that this matter would be forged ahead unilaterally. Obviously his initial concerns were wrong and his present concern is wrong. It has not been forged ahead unilaterally. It has never been threatened that it would go ahead unilaterally.


Abram Ernest Epp: That is wrong.


Paul Wyatt Dick: There has not been any agreement, Mr. Speaker. That is the reason the matter has not gone ahead. Before the Hon. Member was suggesting that there should not be artifi-

May 21, 1985
Adjournment Debate
cial deadlines to bring it to conclusion, but he is now asking in his statement this evening to bring the matter to a conclusion. That in itself is a contradiction. I would suggest these matters continue in discussion. Hopefully all Parties will find a consensus to allow this matter to be resolved. On Wednesday, May 15, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism met with Mr. Miki. They had amicable discussions at that time. At that time they agreed that an apology was necessary. Discussion at the present time centre around what appropriate redress, if any, there should be.
Compensation was not originally considered as the appropriate word and we have now heard various descriptions of what compensation may be, which defies any definition which is precise. We do not want this matter to go into an auction. The
Government wants the matter to be dealt with as a moral issue and to give some emphasis to the people who have suffered and to the Japanese Canadian community that matters of this type will not happen again in Canada.
Other than that, I would suggest that the Hon. Member should read the letter dated January 28, 1985 and perhaps encourage his House Leader and the House Leader of the Official Opposition to respond to the letter of the Government House Leader.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 22, 1985