1985-05-23

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 21, 1985, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stevens:
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.
Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last Tuesday, we were discussing closure or time allocation for consideration of Bill C-15.
If we look at the debate on this Bill and what has happened up to this point, I must say, although the Opposition claims we did not have enough time to consider this legislation, that this is strictly the perception of the Opposition. On second reading, after six hours of serious debate, the Opposition moved a motion to postpone consideration of the Bill for six months. It was not the Government that decided not to have a serious debate on the Bill but the Opposition that decided that it was not now in a position to proceed with a serious study of the bill. In any case, we had sixteen-and-a-half hours of debate on second reading, including the Opposition's motion.
The Bill was referred to committee for consideration. The Committee heard 23 associations and more than 30 briefs were submitted and analysed. At this stage, the Opposition agreed to let us screen this information and, with the agreement of the Official Opposition, we were able to define the scope of the study to be carried out in Committee. At the stage of clause-by-clause consideration, we accepted 19 amendments, which were the result of our meetings with various associations and
of our analysis of various briefs. These amendments were mainly aimed at improving the Bill and making it respond to the expectations of so many Canadians.
The Bill has now been reported back to the House, and in addition to the 19 amendments that were approved, we have also had to examine 102 amending motions proposed by the Opposition. It soon became clear that with these amending motions, the Liberal Opposition especially wanted to make Investment Canada even stricter than FIRA. During the election campaign, however, Canadians knew perfectly well that the Progressive Conservative Government would introduce a Bill that would reflect the comments of Canadians and the changes that had to be made in the existing legislation.
If we look at the proposed legislation, it is clear that serious objections that had been made were taken into account in drafting this Bill, and that special attention was given to factors that could have an impact on Canadian culture. There is also special emphasis on the investments to be screened.
In the report stage study which the House must complete, the Opposition put up a whole slew of speakers who did not have anything new to contribute to the debate. Here we are still considering 105 Opposition motions, including 50 or close to half of them that have been rejected for being irrelevant and out of order. Every motion introduced at the various stages was meant to prolong the debate. Again last night 1 was listening to a public affairs program during which it was obvious that the majority of Canadians are under the impression that the Investment Canada Bill has long since been adopted. Only here in the House are we still facing the same opposition, they resort to delaying tactics, they are not ready, they want to hoist this measure. The Liberal Opposition is bent on delaying consideration of this Bill till kingdom come, yet it has had ten years to debate the issue and introduce its own amendments. We know that interested parties had been seeking changes for years and that the Liberals have had more than enough time to take action had they wanted to do so. They have come up with good suggestions since September 4, so I wonder why they did not think of them before.
I know what has been going on in the House, that we even had an Opposition day debate on the issue we are still considering today-and that was rather unusual-a debate which is a waste of time since we know the positions of the parties will not change, which makes this debate utterly useless. The Opposition is simply rehashing the same old arguments day after day, we are wasting time, the debate will not change anything.

May 23, 1985
Investment Canada Act


Mr. Speaker:: It being 11.09, the last seven minutes of the two hours allotted for the consideration of the motion now before the House pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 82 have now expired. Consequently, pursuant to that Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of this motion.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


FISHERIES ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Speaker:: As Hon. Members are aware, there are 12 motions on the Order Paper at the report stage of Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act. I have had an opportunity to examine the motions and have found them to be procedurally acceptable. Motion No. 1 should be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 2 to 9 inclusive should be debated
May 23, 1985

together and voted on separately, in my view. I gather there may be an Hon. Member rising on that point and I will come back to it in a moment to hear his argument.
Motions Nos. 10, 11 and 12 should be debated separately and voted on separately, in my view. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) wishes to make representations on this matter.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, in the grouping of the amendments, I just wonder if it might be possible to take a couple of motions out of that group, Nos. 2 to 9, so that we might debate them separately. There are some important matters which relate to native people which are certainly separate issues. They would not necessarily fit in with the other amendments. It strikes me that those are important matters which would be worthwhile for the House to consider separately. The debate would be part of the record, and I presume that the positions taken by various groups in this House relating to those issues would be relevant. They certainly break into areas affecting the sports fishery versus the commercial fishery and it would be useful if we were able to have a short debate on the issues affecting the sports fishery. I am particularly concerned about the native area, which is relatively unique.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the observation made by the Hon. Member, but I understand your ruling to be that while the various motions would be debated at one time, there is no question that each would have a separate vote. I think the most important thing is to find out where Members of Parliament stand on individual issues as demonstrated by their vote. I suggest that in order to have a debate which makes procedural and logical sense, your ruling allows us to deal with matters of great importance in the motions put forward, and utlimately there will be a separate vote. I think that solves the Hon. Member's problem.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to reflect for a moment on what the House Leader said in that items 2 to 9 are important amendments which flow from the Constitution. This is one of the first opportunities we have had to make the Fisheries Act comply with the wording in Section 35 of the Constitution. We heard the evidence of a large number of witnesses from Canada's native community, and a very important amendment was proposed by groups from the West Coast relating to that Section. I think it fair for purposes of debate to include the sports fishery and the others in relation to items 2 to 9, but I think it is very important, for purposes of clarity, that these amendments, particularly those put forward by the Nishga Tribal Council, be debated separately.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the arguments which have been made. That is why I indicated on a preliminary basis what my views were. I have to say that my view has not changed. Clause 2 is the purpose clause and all amendments proposed in items 2 through 9 relate to proposed amendments to that same clause. It is therefore logical that they be grouped for debate because that clause is then before the House for consideration.
Fisheries Act
It is precisely for the reasons advanced by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) and the Government House Leader that it made sense to me that they be voted on separately in order to achieve what I think the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) wished, which is that the House have the capacity to express itself separately on various matters regarding Clause 2. However, I continue to believe that it makes sense, given that it is one clause, the purpose clause, that they be debated as one group and I therefore so rule.


Raymond John Skelly: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-32, be amended in Clause I by striking out line 12 at page I and substituting the following therefor:
"(c) the eggs, spawn, spat and"
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us today has had a great deal of discussion in the House and in committee. It is interesting that the Government has not been forthcoming on the concerns raised by thousands of people about this legislation. It is unfortunate that the Government really has not, in an appropriate way, consulted people about this legislation; nor has it taken seriously the amendments put before us. The rough road this Bill has had moving through the House certainly reflects this Government's good faith in dealing with this legislation.
When this legislation was presented to us early last winter, the Minister and others indicated that the fishing industry would collapse without this legislation. It was presented, in fact, the day before the herring fishery opened and the Government indicated that that $75 million industry was in danger of collapse; there would be some very serious consequences if we did not pass this Bill through all stages immediately. The reality is that this is an old piece of legislation drafted by the Liberals when they were in power. But the Liberals found that Parliament was not willing to deal with this legislation expeditiously and immediately put it on the shelf. It is interesting to note that the 1984 fishing season passed by without a problem, despite the fact this legislation was not passed.
If the Minister were prepared to sit down with user groups and discuss this legislation in a forthright and upfront manner, certainly the 1985 fishing season would go down without a hitch. But I think the Minister has chosen to play politics with this legislation and with critical issues on the West Coast. He is claiming he does not have authority to sit down with people and negotiate and work out proper allocations and opening dates for the fishing season. But he does have this authority.
Unfortunately, we then find ourselves in a very serious impasse. Basically this is a three clause Bill which purports to change definitions in the Fisheries Act, and those definitions extend the ability of the Minister to regulate. The degree of regulation already imposed on the fishing industry is just enormous and astounding. We heard in committee that the Minister had the authority to regulate the fishing industry in an appropriate way with some checks and balances where legislators or others would have an opportunity to review the regulations and have some input. But what officials from the Minister's Department stated was that this simply makes it

May 23, 1985
Fisheries Act
more convenient for them. They do not have to continually go back and seek authority.
There comes a point when you have to question the track record of the Government and the Minister involved, as well as how his officials have performed. You have to ask yourself if you want to give these people more power and make it more convenient for them to regulate the lives of Canadians.
I know Members opposite cried from the roof-tops about the heavy hand of regulators, rule by Order in Council, and the inability of Canadians to have some proper input in the decisions which affect their lives. But no sooner are they in power than we find the absolute reverse situation. We do not have open government. It is extremely difficult to talk to people in that Government concerning user groups whose lives are affected. Not only has the Government closed the doors, it has made up its mind about how things will work. It is extremely difficult to have the Government accept reasonable changes.
Finally, through this Bill, the Government is attempting to make it easier to impose regulations without having to come to Parliament. This amendment, which would extend definitions in the legislation, also allows the Government to extend its authority. That is extremely unfortunate. We believe we should be able to question that authority and question the definitions.
When this Bill was being considered in committee the Government appeared willing to accept only one amendment which was moved by my colleague from Prince Edward Island. Late in the proceedings he noticed an enormous omission in the legislation and attempted to include larvae in this particular Section. I have serious questions about that because the Liberals and the Conservatives are in bed, attempting to have the hand of Government regulate the fishing industry even further.
On that basis, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has received the motion by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), seconded by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). Because we do have a special order today which states, "notwithstanding any other order", and because it is a Budget day, the Chair must rule that the motion is out of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On what point do you make that ruling? Motions to adjourn the House are always in order. That is completely erroneous.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member knows that the decision of the Chair cannot be appealed.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, we were discussing an amendment which would include in the
clause defining fish, "portions of fish" as defined under the new Fisheries Act. I suggest to the Minister that this further complicates the definition of fish and fisherpersons in the various Acts and regulations that are in effect in this country. For example, the fact that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will now have jurisdiction over "portions of fish" will bring into question whether it has the constitutional right to do so since a fish is the real property of the person who has landed it. Therefore, would the Department not be infringing on the provincial jurisdiction as far as portions of fish are concerned? Once a fish is landed and brought onshore it comes under provincial jurisdiction and therefore that province may regulate what happens to the portion of the fish as well. The provinces issue the relevant licenses concerning fish and generally administer the transportation, storage and processing of the product once it is landed.
I suggest that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) should examine the ramifications of changing the definition of fish as it relates to other definitions that are in effect in other legislation.
Another example is the Unemployment Insurance Act, and its definition of who is a fisherperson, fisherman, and what happens to that fish when it is brought over the side of the boat.
I raise that issue because most of the cases that are pending before the Unemployment Insurance Commission, as a result of a determination of the Department of National Revenue, involve the question of the definition of fish and the definition of a fisherman as a person who is a member of a crew and catches that fish. As a result of this amendment, will it also now include the definition of a fisherperson who handles the portions of a fish? In other words, what is the meaning of the definition as it relates to the Unemployment Insurance Act?
This is a very important subject. I am sure that Members of Parliament who have constituents with a case before the Board of Referees, the Federal Court of Canada, or have appeals to the Minister responsible for the UIC, recognize that there must be some consistency with the changing of this definition and the regulations that are in effect under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The Government of Canada has embarked upon a policy of checks and balances, examining the books of fish companies and the records of fishermen as they relate to the fish they catch. It is unfortunate that the Government, which wants to tighten up on unemployment insurance, has implemented that process. In carrying out this procedure, the investigator goes back to the regulations that were based on the definition of fish, and now based on the definition of portions of fish, to determine how that person actually established his claim.
For example, as a result of this new section of the Bill, it would be possible to classify a fisherman as someone who rakes up Irish moss, but it would not be possible to define a fisherman as someone who takes a portion of a fish and completes the processing of that fish. In other words, persons who spend their entire time salting portions of fish or working with portions of fish on shore as part of a fishing crew are no
May 23, 1985

longer covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act. Will they be covered with this new definition of fish as presented under the Fisheries Act? The obvious answer to that is no. The judge, or the Department of National Revenue in making that determination would only go by the regulations in the Unemployment Insurance Act. The need is there for the Minister of Fisheries on behalf of all of these fishermen-


Mr. Dick:: Fisherpersons.


George Baker: -fisherpersons who will in the future get into trouble with the Unemployment Insurance Commission because of the actions of this Government, to try to co-ordinate these definitions to lessen the chances of a man having to pay back $5,000, $6,000 or $7,000 as it is now.
There are hundreds and hundreds of fishermen across Canada who have to pay back this money because of a problem with definitions. In one section of Newfoundland 278 fishermen are having to pay back $7,000 or $8,000. They are appealing the decision. But why did that situation occur? It happened because of a problem with definitions, the problem that we are dealing with here today. It happened because it is the policy of the Government of Canada to remove all those people who should not be getting unemployment insurance. What they did when they threw out the net is they cut people off because of the problem with definitions. They had to draw the line in regulations. They asked, "Was this a fish that the person caught? Does this cover portions of fish? No, it does not cover portions of fish". The Fisheries Act with this amendment covers portions of fish. Why does the Unemployment Insurance Act or its regulations not cover portions of fish?
In the spirit of this amendment, and in dealing with this clause, the Minister of Fisheries with the rest of his Cabinet colleagues should examine and change the regulations in the Unemployment Insurance Act so we will not have thousands and thousands of Canadians being judged not eligible for unemployment insurance after having received it for three and four years, and having to pay back thousands and thousands of dollars because of a problem with definitions. These are poor people, people with average incomes of $7,000 or $8,000 a year. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, with this new clause in the Fisheries Act there can be some co-ordination of Unemployment Insurance and Fisheries Act regulations in order to have matching definitions.
Before I sit down if the Minister is going to say a few words, I want to make sure that he has in his statement the answer to a very important question. Is the Minister or is he not going to answer positively the request from the Fishermen's Union and every fisherman in Newfoundland and on the Quebec coast, including those in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) own riding, to extend unemployment insurance because of the ice conditions?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill, as all Members know, is to give the Minister and the Department the authority neces-
Fisheries Act
sary to manage the fisheries of Canada, especially in view of court cases last summer which put this authority in doubt.
I want to remind Hon. Members and the public, and especially friends on the West Coast, that this Bill was tabled on March 4, 1985. On March 6 second reading debate began. On March 12 at my invitation and with the concurrence of the Government House Leader the debate was adjourned.
On March 14 from 9:30 a.m. to one o'clock in the afternoon I appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry as a consequence of that arrangement-an unusual procedure. On March 20, second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry was agreed to in this House. On March 21 the committee review began with sessions with officials from my department. From March 24 to April 3 the committee, with my full endorsation and support, held seven days of hearings on the West Coast, during which time the subject of this Bill formed part of the representations heard at that time.
From March 26 to April 2, the Hon. senate conducted a pre-study of the Bill in the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry.
On April 22, the House of Commons Standing Committee heard testimony from representatives of seven industry groups and from the West Coast Minister's advisory committee. On April 24,1 appeared before the Standing Committee again. On April 29, the Standing Committee of the House of Commons heard testimony from representatives of ten native groups and the Government of New Brunswick. On April 29 clause by clause consideration of the Bill began in committee. That went on until the early hours of the next morning. On May 2, I appeared again before the Standing Committee on clause by clause study and the Bill was reported to the House with two amendments.
I would point out to my friend, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) that one of the amendments accepted was the amendment of his colleague from Prince Edward Island to include larvae in the definition of fish. That is the item which the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) is trying to remove, which is most unusual.
On May 16, the Government gave notice of amendment motions to safeguard aboriginal rights. I would remind all of those who are here to keep in mind that the Government is proposing an amendment that says nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
There has been a common misconception in the House, among the public and the media that somehow or other the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River is the only person opposed to this Bill. That is not so, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the New Democratic Party clearly concurs in that opposition as does the House Leader for the New Democratic Party-


Ms. Mitchell:: We always act as a group.

May 23, 1985
Fisheries Act
Mir. Fraser: -as does my friend, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and other friends of mine in the New Democratic Party from British Columbia. It must be clearly understood that as long as this Bill is delayed I do not have the legal authority to proceed with the allocation and disposition of fishing plans in the Gulf of Georgia. This authority is necessary and should be announced in the interests of the Gulf trailers and for the continuation of the sports fishing commercial enterprise which the Province of British Columbia is so dependent upon at this time.
I want it clearly understood, Mr. Speaker, that it is the New Democratic Party, with its motion to adjourn, that has clearly decided to do everything it can to scuttle this Bill, no matter how reckless or irresponsible the action might be. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River said he had questions to ask. He has spent hours with my officials up until recently going over all the details of the proposed spot closures which will be very difficult to implement if this Bill is not passed. The Act without these amendments is still very much at risk, because there will be a court of appeal hearing on June 28 on the substance of the decision of last summer. I ask Hon. Members and the public to recognize the difference between constructive debate and intelligent and legitimate inquiry. That has ceased and Members of the New Democratic Party have decided, no matter how careless their action may be or how it will affect the livelihood of people in my province and on the West Coast, that they want to obstruct the process.
We have to do what we can to implement the terms of the Canada-U.S. Pacific Salmon Treaty as well, which involves restrictions on catch, and we need the power in this Bill to implement that. It is clearly the New Democratic Party, and not just one member who, while conscientious in my view, is misguided and seems to lack some understanding of the purpose of all this, that is preventing us from proceeding. The New Democratic Party has decided, no matter how long it has had to discuss this Bill and no matter how many days in committee, no matter how many private meetings with officials and discussions with myself or somebody else, to wreck the process and try to keep this Bill from being passed under any circumstances whatsoever. It must be clearly understood what the NDP is doing.
I am a little surprised that the Hon. Member for Skeena is doing this. He has representatives from his riding dealing with me on a matter of very great importance to the native people on the Taku River. I am trying to co-operate with him. There is no co-operation from the New Democratic Party on a Bill of immense importance to the administration of the fisheries in Canada.
I also want to point out, because it is appropriate to do so, that Hon. Members of the Official Opposition in the Liberal Party have been very diligent throughout the entire process. They have made constructive suggestions and have helped to bring before us those problems of the provinces which have now been resolved. They argued strongly for the inclusion of a
section to ensure that there be no abrogation or denigration of native rights, and that was appropriate. They have played a full and effective part in this process. It is not Her Majesty's Official Opposition which desires to wreck this piece of legislation.
I urge all Hon. Members to assist the House in passing this piece of legislation so that the uncertainties, especially those on the West Coast, can be clarified as quickly as possible. As soon as the Bill is passed, it is the disposition of the House to co-operate, I will be able to do something very quickly to alleviate the uncertainties with respect to Gulf trailers and others.
This is not only a West Coast matter. We are not asking for powers that have not been assumed. It may have been incorrect to assume them, given the court decisions which have flowed from the challenge. Nonetheless, those powers of allocation and administration have been assumed. As Hon. Members from Atlantic Canada know, the fisheries of the Atlantic Provinces could not be managed if the amendments requested at this time were not granted.
In conclusion, I urge all Hon. Members to understand clearly what this matter is all about, and that it is the New Democratic Party, with a Leader stationed in central Canada who does not understand fisheries, which is attempting something that is reckless and irresponsible.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser), but that little puff piece he just put before the House requires some response.
This Bill was introduced on March 4. In the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry we talked for the first time in a quarter of a century about going to British Columbia and listening to sports fishermen, native fishermen, seine boat fleets, gill-netters and trailers to find out their views. We took thousands of pages of evidence from the different user groups in British Columbia. Other than commercial sports fishermen, we found no support whatsoever for Bill C-32 as it is drafted.
The Minister said it was only the New Democratic Party which was holding up the legislation. We in British Columbia have listened a long time to jiggery-pokery from the Tories about consulting and then drafting legislation to meet our needs. In fact this Bill was drafted by the Liberal Party. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans took it hook, line and sinker from his bureaucrats, either here in Ottawa or in Hull. He talked about central Canadian legislation. That is where this piece of legislation was drafted; that is from where it came.
Also the Minister said that the committee should go out and hear evidence on what the people really wanted. We have heard from fishermen in British Columbia. They do not like the Bill as it is drafted because it does not have a consultative or protective mechanism for existing user groups. We are talking about native people, the native food fishery and the commercial fishery. We are talking about existing gear types and a group in British Columbia and within other areas of Canada which is massively expanding, the sports fishermen. There are
May 23, 1985

now close to 500,000 licensed sports fishermen in British Columbia. A few small, fragmented groups claim to represent them all, but clearly that is not the case. None of the groups which appeared before us produced membership lists which indicated that they represented 50,000 or 75,000 members.
I was interested in hearing the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans say that he had the Liberal Party penned up in a room doing exactly what he wanted. The Minister accepted one amendment, the addition of the word "larvae". All scientific experts who appeared before the committee said that the addition of the word "larvae" was not necessary, that to describe it as the juvenile stage of fish was perfectly adequate.
I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is present. He knows that this was a puff piece, adding the word "larvae" to the Bill. It makes no significant change. I challenge him to produce a single scientist or biologist who said that this was the greatest and most necessary legal addition possible to the Bill.
Let me return to what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is saying. He proclaims himself as a prima donna representing only British Columbia interests. That in fact is not the case. When the fishing industry appeared before the committee, it made clear that it did not want the Bill passed in this form. The New Democratic Party takes that seriously. We have attempted to have included, as contained in Motions Nos. 2 to 9, a consultative or protective mechanism for those 500,000 sports fishermen, native people in British Columbia and those who operate on seine vessels, gill-net vessels and the troll fleet. We have tried to introduce some semblance of sanity into the legislation.
The Tories are always talking about consultation. Why did we go to British Columbia for two weeks? Why did we sit from eight o'clock in the morning until midnight, with no lunch break or dinner break, to take evidence from fishermen? I challenge the Minister of Fisheries to rise in the House today and say that he has read that evidence.
I should like to deal now with the Government of New Brunswick. When representatives appeared before the committee just a couple of weeks ago they said that the Bill was both illegal and unconstitutional. Although those representatives could not speak for the politicians in New Brunswick, they made clear that the Bill, as presently drafted, would be challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada. What does the Minister of Fisheries have to say about that? Why has he not come forward and told us how he will deal with the very real concerns of the Province of New Brunswick, going back to the 1880s and the Robertson case, the famous fly-fishing case which went to the Supreme Court of Canada? The Minister of Fisheries has not dealt with that.
Motion No. 12, in the name of the Hon. Minister, reads as follows:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
He is trying to tell aboriginal peoples that Section 35 of the Constitution is empty. That section is not empty, it in fact contains rights. What about the proposal which came forward from the Nishga Tribal Council?
Fisheries Act
1 see the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) present in the Chamber. 1 hope he will rise in the House and tell aboriginal peoples whether he supports the inclusion of the Minister of Fisheries that Section 35 is empty. The proposal which the Council put forward is very clear and supports that of the Government of New Brunswick. I always thought there was a Tory Government in New Brunswick. I guess that is not the case any longer; I guess it is just another little group to be swept aside.
Motion No. 2 is very clear and to the point. It reads:
-to provide for the proper management and control of the inland fisheries of Canada and for the allocation of those fisheries, subject only to:
(i)	the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces-
That is why the Government of New Brunswick came here and argued its case forcefully and openly. The Minister of Fisheries does not want to deal with it. Having been through the constitutional process myself, I believe we should respect the constitutional jurisdictions as put forward by the provinces. The motion continues:
(ii)	the constitutional rights of aboriginal people to the fishery;
We live in a country where rights have to be respected. We cannot just pile drive this through. The Minister of Fisheries says that we must have Bill C-32 because of the Collier decision in British Columbia. I urge the Minister of Fisheries to read the Collier decision and to look at the progress which has occurred in British Columbia with the Mac Committee. There were no problems in this year's herring fishery. There was an agreement on the part of the Department, the Minister and the existing fleet to come forward with a rational plan. Some very sensible amendments were put forward by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) to entrench within the legislation that for which people have been crying for decades-a consultative mechanism to protect existing allocations and to ensure that before the Minister comes up with a new management plan for a season he has consulted with the trollers. He cannot just say that he will give them 13 per cent this year and 4 per cent the next year. He cannot simply say that there will be "shinners cubes" for the sports industry and all that gobbledygook.
The Minister of Fisheries pleaded his case. He said that the media misunderstood him, that he was a good guy, that it was only the NDP which was holding up the Bill, and that the Liberals had their "larvae" amendment accepted. He wants to throw this bone to the aboriginal people and say that he will sort of recognize their aboriginal rights. What was the constitutional process all about? I think the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is the one Member of this House, as the Crown representative of the aboriginal peoples, who should be Fighting for them.
This is one of the oldest Acts in Canada; it was written in 1867. This is the first time in many decades that a proposal has come forward to put a purpose section in the Act for the interpretation of the courts. There are many fisheries cases involving aboriginal peoples, gulf trollers and others which will end up in the Supreme Court of Canada. We will have a purpose section without the recognition, as it should be writ-

May 23, 1985
Fisheries Act
ten, of provincial constitutional jurisdiction and constitutional jurisdiction as we see it in Section 35 for aboriginal peoples, making it clear that it is a recognition of aboriginal rights, and making it clear that provincial jurisdiction is not being tampered with. We must take these kinds of opportunities in Parliament to bring our Acts into the 20th century. It was written in 1867 and now we are adding a purpose section, with reference to marine plants, portions of fish and other new wording. If we do not take the opportunity to make it constitutionally accurate and to reflect the nature of our country, we are not doing our job in this Parliament.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) can go to British Columbia and say that the NDP is stalling the Bill. The fishermen there know that our committee went there, received a lot of evidence and came back here meaning well. They know we mean to amend this Bill to reflect the views of British Columbia fishermen, sports fishermen, native fishermen, trollers, gill-netters, seine boat operators. We want it to reflect that reality.
When the Deputy Minister appeared before the fisheries committee this morning I asked him what user groups he had dealt with in the Atlantic provinces, and he replied "Oh, none." I asked what his dealings had been with Governments in the Maritimes and he replied "Oh, none." Is this the great era of Conservative consultation? A group from this House of Commons went in good faith to British Columbia to hear evidence. We came back with logical proposals based on the evidence given by fishermen in British Columbia. The Tories say we cannot have any of that in there, but that they will throw in "larvae" and a little extra wording. They say they have to get the Bill through because of the Collier decision.
Let me deal for a moment with the Collier decision because it is the crux of the matter. The Minister says that because the Gulf trollers are fishing, he is in a terrible dilemma. He will not be able to allocate to different user groups in British Columbia. That is simply not the case. The facts are clear. The herring fishery proceeded this season.
The Minister has to deal more openly and fairly with the Gulf trollers. The rest of this season's fishing plan is falling into place. This Party does not intend to stall Bill C-32 forever and a day. We want this Bill to contain a consultative and protective mechanism for the user groups, not just in British Columbia, but for all Canadians. We want to be sure that those who have been involved historically in an industry are protected. New users of a resource such as salmonids in British Columbia must be given a protected place within the fishery.
I am a sports fisherman. I do not want to see sports fishermen excluded. The Minister plays games, saying that the NDP is trying to take away from the rights of sports fishermen or from others. The fact is that this Bill is not representative of the evidence that we heard, the constitutional evidence, legal evidence, evidence of user groups and evidence of aboriginal peoples.
The Minister does not urgently require this legislation. It should be redrafted or, during this process of debate, the Minister should put on his consultative hat and demonstrate to Canadians that he is prepared to accept in good faith amendments that are based on logical evidence. The Parliamentary Secretary knows the evidence was given in good faith. We sat early in the morning until late at night. We sat up all night dealing with this Bill. Now we only have "larvae" attached to it. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should return to this House and not carry on with this puff piece about the NDP stalling this Bill. We are holding this Bill in an attempt to make it good legislation which represents the user groups of Canada.
Mir. George Henderson (Egmont): Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at any length on this first amendment. I moved the amendment to have the word "larvae" included. I did that because the previous legislation talked about the eggs, spawn, then there was a gap, spat, juvenile stages of fish.
There is a very important stage in the development of fish that was not taken into consideration in the legislation we had before us at the committee at that time. The larval stage as far as musks are concerned for oysters, clams and most shellfish, is a critical stage. I will use oysters or clams as an example. There are male and female oysters. After an oyster develops gonads, it develops the eggs and the sperm. Fertilization takes place in suspension. There is an 18 to 21 day period that is definitely not covered under the old legislation. It is a very critical stage in the development of oysters or shellfish, extremely critical. Indeed, one-half of one per cent of oyster larvae survive to the stage of maturity and indeed come to spat. Why would this be left out of this legislation in the definition? It is a very minor technicality, but one that most biologists would certainly agree to. My understanding is that since that word has been put in, by my request, biologists in fisheries and in other areas have confirmed that it is important to have that included.
I am only going to speak to this motion at this time. We have major concerns about other motions which we will speak to at another time. We will not be supporting the motion to delete the word "larvae" moved by my friend from Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). I presume that my friend probably wanted to remove the word for other purposes. I think he understands the technicalities of it. It was probably to open debate on Clause 1, and that is fine. At this time I am going to stick to the motions we are dealing with here. We will be speaking on further motions later in this debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to follow the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson). He usually speaks with a great deal of expertise on anything he debates, especially with relation to the fisheries. In his recent speech he seemed to be an expert in the sex life of oysters. I would not want to debate that too much with him. I know the old Liberal Party believed the state should keep out of the bedrooms of the nation. The new Liberal Party
May 23, 1985

must want to get the state into the sex life of oysters. Well, Parties change. I guess they are entitled to do that.
I am a bit upset with the comments of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser). Let me say something about his contribution to this debate. When I was the shortlived fisheries critic for my Party I said in this House that I have a great deal of respect for the Hon. Member for Vancouver South, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We have been colleagues for a long time. We appeared against each other in courts in Vancouver and in other areas. However, I do not take too kindly to his comments about the role of the New Democratic Party in this debate. We are saying some real things. We are speaking for western Canada. We are speaking for British Columbia. We are speaking for the fishermen. That is what the Minister should be doing. How soon they forget.
When government Members sat on this side of the House, they acted like an Opposition Party. When they moved to the government benches they suddenly became just like the old Liberal Party. They have become centralized Canadians. They forget about the interests of the West Coast and about ordinary Canadians, the little people who really make up this country. I see that a government Member from B.C. is present. He is one of the 19 Tories from B.C. who are not really carrying on a good fight for British Columbia. They are putting out a lot of hype about what they are doing but they are not really doing very much.
I can tell the House why we do not like this Bill as it relates to the consultation process. As the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) said, the committee spoke to the fishermen's groups and the fishermen's groups told us almost unanimously that they did not like this particular Bill. They told us that they are afraid it will give the Minister too much power and will concentrate power in the bureaucracy. That is the problem with the Bill. It is a Bill which is an overkill reaction to a lawsuit with which 1 will deal in a moment.
The biggest growth industry in the fisheries sector these days is in the fisheries bureaucracy. The problem with the fisheries industry used to be that there were too many fishermen chasing too few fish. Now the problem is that there are too many bureaucrats governing too many fishermen who are chasing too few fish. The bureaucracy is growing by leaps and bounds. I have heard it mentioned that there are 6,000 bureaucrats who deal with the fisheries industry. Perhaps that figure is wrong. It is simply one that came to mind. In any event, there are too many bureaucrats.
The position we are taking is one which befits a popular western Canadian Party. The Minister should realize that the interests of ordinary Canadians and the little people ought to be protected from people over in Hull or here in Ottawa who work in fancy buildings and make decisions for fishermen who live in British Columbia. The very lives of these fishermen depend on when the fishing season opens.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) is present in the House today. He appreciates
Fisheries Act
these new kinds of arguments that come up from time to time. The latest argument being put forward by the Department of Fisheries is that it is doing this for the fish. It is easy to do things for the fish because the fish do not talk back. We are getting our instructions from the fish. The bureaucrats should be getting their instructions from the fishermen, the human beings who are participating in the fisheries process, as well as from the environmentalists and concerned Canadians, particularly members of the New Democratic Party who are fighting for the rights of Canadian fishermen.
As I said, the problem began with a court case. The ruling of Mr. Justice Collier of the Federal Court stated that the federal Government was only entitled to allocate fish on the basis of conservation. This decision interfered with what the bureaucrats considered to be their powers over opening and closing the fishing season and dealing with everything concerning the fisheries on the West Coast. That is why they were upset by this particular decision.
Another problem with the decision was that Mr. Justice Collier, in what lawyers call an obiter dictum, something which is not the law but is thought to probably be the law, indicated that the Fisheries Act was unconstitutional, that some of its provisions violated the Canadian Constitution and that the federal Government had no business putting those kinds of controls on the fisheries industry. That is a serious matter.
Rather than rushing this Bill forward in an attempt to plug the loopholes created by the Collier decision, by trying to add to the powers of the Fisheries Department without really consulting the fisheries groups, the Minister should go to court to test the constitutionality of the fisheries law provisions. If Mr. Justice Collier, a well respected and experienced judge, is right in what he said, then the Bill we are debating, the Bill which we were accused by the Minister of filibustering, will then fall and all of the debate will be wasted. We are saying that the Bill should be referred to the court for an opinion. During the course of the second reading debate of this Bill, I put that specific question to the Minister. I would refer the House to Hansard which recorded that exchange.
We think the Fisheries Department has a hidden agenda. Because of this Bill, we think there will be more users competing for a shrinking resource. We feel that no part of the legislation improves the plan for the protection of the environment. There is no plan to base enhancement on the principle of watershed management. There is no move to protect our stocks from high sea intervention by foreign fleets. In fact, we say that thousands of pages of direct testimony from experienced users of the resource have been set aside by the Minister and the Department in bringing in this Bill. That is a serious charge and demands some serious answers.
The problem with the Bill is not just with an amendment affecting larva. As important as it is and as much as my colleague from the Liberal Party likes the sex lives of oysters, although he indeed has made a significant contribution to this debate by expounding on the sex lives of oysters, there are bigger issues which the Liberal Party must address. I have

May 23, 1985
Fisheries Act
never heard the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), speaking on West Coast issues. I hope he will speak on this particular Bill today.
I would like to deal with another aspect mentioned by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena; that is the part of the Bill which relates to native people. The Hon. Member for Skeena indicated that it almost seems as though this Bill and its amendments were drafted without considering Section 35 of the Constitution. Section 35 of the Constitution establishes existing aboriginal rights of the native peoples of Canada and is an important part of the Constitution. Hon. Members might as well accept that now. We have to deal with it. It is no good to put in an amendment indicating that we will acknowledge that section. We must deal with it in more detail.
I remember when we were dealing with Bill C-48, the oil and gas measure, in the Energy Committee. At that time, the Liberals proposed the same clause that is proposed as an amendment to this Bill. It is not good enough to slip in a clause that says we will not do anything with existing rights. My colleagues, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) and the Hon. Member for Skeena, have many native people in their ridings and have specifically proposed certain amendments to this Bill. With respect to Hon. Members, I think those amendments are worth examining.
We do not apologize for not dealing with larvae amendments and for presenting more substantial amendments. We do not apologize for holding this Bill up until we can get a better deal for the fishermen on the coast. Fishermen are unique. They are the last real hunters of Canada. The fisheries industry is unique, and what these bucreaucrats do with it affects these people's lives. That is why we want to make sure that the bureaucratic power is restricted as much as possible. That is why we want to make sure that the users, the trollers, the seiners, the gill-netters, the sports fishermen and the native fishermen are consulted. That is why my colleagues were prepared to sit up all night in committee. That is why we are speaking in this House today.
As much as we like the Minister of Fisheries personally, we will not accept it when he says that we are guilty or that our Leader is only a central Canadian. We are standing up for the rights of the fishermen in Canada and we will continue to do so.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), and other Members of our Party, I was rather distressed to hear the remarks of the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) who described the actions of our Party regarding Bill C-32 as being reckless and irresponsible. We in this Party believe that Bill C-32 is reckless and irresponsible because of the kinds of powers it gives to the Minister. We feel that the Bill is irresponsible and fails to listen to what the fishermen of the Pacific Coast have had to say.
The committee went to a great deal of effort to travel to British Columbia to listen to what the actual fishermen had to
say. The committee returned to Ottawa and found that really nothing about the Bill has been changed. We are still giving carte blanche to the Minister to do whatever he wants to do.
When the committee travelled, the majority of witnesses who appeared before it made it very clear that they did not want this Bill passed in its present form. As the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway pointed out, what we have in the Bill is a form of overkill in reaction to a court decision.
I do not believe that it is reckless and irresponsible of our Party to insist that there should be proper consultation before the Bill, in its final form, is passed. I do not believe that it is reckless and irresponsible to insist that a consultation process should be built into the Bill in order that different user groups on the coast could have a say as to how the resource should be allocated. That is exactly what the Minister promised when he was fisheries critic for the Official Opposition before the election. But it would seem that elections change views. Elections not only change the Government, they change the minds of some individuals who form the Government.
I regret that the Minister has changed his view. Before the election he appeared to be very open to the idea that all user groups and all people who had a basic interest in the fisheries should be involved in making decisions. However, now the Minister is standing in the House and telling us that we are reckless and irresponsible because we refuse to give him carte blanche to make all sorts of regulations without the requirement of consultation.
I remember, as do other Members, when the Davis plan was introduced to limit the number of people who would be involved in the fishing industry on the West Coast. That plan was introduced some 15 or 16 years ago. I think all sides of the House would agree that the plan was a disaster. At that time we had yet another instance of "Minister knows best". The Davis plan was dreamed up by the Minister and his advisors. It had nothing to do with the actual people who were involved in the industry. Those people attempted to raise their voices and point out the problems inherent in the Davis plan. But, the Minister knew best and the plan went ahead. Now we all recognize that the plan was a complete disaster.
I have three basic concerns regarding the Bill in its present form.


Mr. Gass:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) on a point of order.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering to what motion the Member is speaking. I thought it was the motions to which we were speaking and not the whole Bill.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, had the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Gass) read the amendment and understood its import, he would have recognized that the Davis plan, in fact, affected the fishery in such a
May 23, 1985

complicated and far-reaching manner that even the production of eggs, spat and other things were affected. The Hon. Member was referring to the reorganization of fisheries, which touches on the matter of regulations, and the amendment deals with how closely the regulations deal with every aspect of fishing. Of course, that is what we are working toward removing.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very intently to the previous Member and he never once mentioned the word "larvae".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) will make his comments relevant to Motion No. 1.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to discuss the issue of larvae. As a preliminary, I believe it is important to recognize that the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans made a fairly lengthy speech, but he did not refer to larvae. He referred to the New Democratic Party and said that it was reckless and irresponsible. He referred to our Leader as being reckless and irresponsible, as well as the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). However, I did not hear the Minister speak on the question of larvae. I would be glad to continue, if I may, to make several prefatory comments.
I have three concerns regarding the Bill: first, the failure to consult prior to the drafting of the Bill; second, the fact that the fishing industry on the West Coast is already subjected to over-regulation; and third, that the Bill gives too much power to the Minister. My third point goes back to the comment I was making before I was interrupted by the point of order, which is that we have already seen what resulted from that kind of situation through the Davis plan.
There has been a failure to consult with the fishing industry on the West Coast and there has been a refusal to recognize that the people who are most involved in the fishery are the people who could arrive at the best solutions. One of the jobs of the Minister should be to sit down with all the people who are involved in the industry and establish a comprehensive program which would result in long-term solutions for the fishing industry, instead of telling us that the whole issue is so complex that only the Minister and his advisors can deal with it.
If we look at the treatment which Indian witnesses received, we get a very good idea about what the failure to consult in drafting the legislation meant. When the committee was considering the Bill it decided that it would not hear Indian witnesses. The Conservative Party decided against hearing Indian witnesses. However, the Indian people wanted to be heard. They sent a deluge of telegrams, letters and made numerous telephone calls to pressure the committee, together with the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River and the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).
Finally, the Conservative Party saw the light and felt that it should change its previous position. So, the decision was made to hear Indian people, but what happened? The Indian people
Fisheries Act
were brought to Ottawa and subjected to an around-the-clock process. They were required to appear all evening before the committee. Ed Newman, President of the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia, told us that he travelled some 3,000 miles to appear before the committee and then had to speak to a group of empty seats. He felt that the Indian people were being treated very shabbily. When I visited the committee 1 was surprised. Of the 11 Conservative members on the Committee only the Parliamentary Secretary and the Chairman were present. Members from the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party were present, but only one Conservative member was present.


Mr. McDertnid:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) on a point of order.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. member's remarks are completely out of order. Attendance in the House or in committees is not to be mentioned in the House of Commons. In addition, the work of the committee should not be mentioned. I would ask the Chair to rule that those remarks are completely out of order.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point or order. It has been the practice-not to single out any Member in the House, or to say that that Member was not in the House or was not in committee. But, never in my experience have I been aware of the fact that it is unparliamentary to say that Tory Members, Liberal Members or NDP Members were absent. There is nothing wrong with mentioning that. Indeed, I believe it is quite correct to mention that the Conservatives who are so concerned about the Bill have a sparse attendance in the House. There is not one Tory from British Columbia in the House. We have not specifically named anyone. I noticed that I was very careful not to name anyone. That is a very important-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member has made his point.


Mrs. Mailly:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Concerning the same question, I thought that the remarks of the Hon. Member were not altogether relevant.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Quite true with respect to the relevance of the speech of the last speaker.

May 23, 1985
Fisheries Act

I give the floor to the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). He has one minute left in his speech.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I was slightly out of order on that last issue. I simply raised the matter because of the concern of the Indian people themselves. They felt that they had been shabbily treated. However, if I was out of order, I do apologize to the Hon. members of the Conservative Party.


John R. Rodriguez: They are so sensitive.


James Douglas Manly: I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That debate on Bill C-32 be adjourned until 4 p.m. today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has received a motion by Mr. Manly, by virtue of Standing Order 50, wherein he moves that the debate on Bill C-32 be adjourned until four o'clock today. The first part of the motion technically would be in order. However, by having added a certain time limit, the Hon. Member has qualified the motion. For that reason, the Chair must rule the motion out of order.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would ask permission to withdraw the final words of the motion in order to make it in order.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has already ruled on the motion and it is out of order. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).


John Horton McDermid: Tell us what you know about fish.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Where I come from, Mr. Speaker, we do a lot of fishing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: This Bill before the House is very typical of what this Government has been doing during its few months in office. It keeps giving lip service to a large number of issues but never really gets a good hold on them. It never follows up on what it says it is going to do. For instance, Motion No. 1, the process of consultation was insisted upon by the New Democratic Party with respect to this particular Bill. We finally convinced the Government to allow the committee to travel to the West Coast-


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member is speaking on Motion No. 1, I believe, and that has to do with eggs, spawn, spat and larvae. It has nothing to do with consultation.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I find the behaviour of the Parliamentary Secretary certainly very questionable. I wonder if there is not a mechanism available to the Chair to prevent frivolous points of order so that the Hon. Member will not keep on disrupting what I think has been an incredibly good
speech. He has failed to allow the Hon. Member to develop the context in which his remarks will be made.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 7 is in respect to consultation with coastal communities. Motion No. 8 has to do with consultation with traditional user groups. I believe the Hon. Member has his speech notes mixed up and is speaking on Motions Nos. 7 and 8 rather than Motion No. 1.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, we have a problem that if the Government wishes to impose regulations on eggs, spat and larvae, there definitely has to be consultation on how this will be implemented, and the Hon. Member was moving towards that. In the limited time remaining, he will have difficulty developing his remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) has the floor, and I would ask him to be relevant to the motion.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record exactly what the definition of fish is and the need for this Bill to take a look at that definition in regard to some consultation with-


John R. Rodriguez: Fish. What is a fish?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: -so that this Bill does react to the requirements and needs of the fishermen on both coasts.


Mr. Crombie:: Three coasts.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Three coasts. Thank you, Sir. The definition of "fish" includes:
(a)	portions of fish,
(b)	shellfish, crustaceans, marine animals, marine plants and portions thereof,
(c)	the eggs, spawn, spat and juvenile stages of fish, shellfish, crustaceans and marine animals, and
(d)	such fish products and by-products as are prescribed pursuant to Section 34;
The amendment adds to that definition "larvae". I started to develop the need for consultation, the need to put definitions into the Act so that the fishermen know exactly what they are getting into.
My second point as far as this Government is concerned is that it says it is going to put less government on the people, that there will be less regulation. But what does this Bill do? It increases the amount of intervention in the fishery industry by the Government. It establishes more control in an industry where the control is probably already at maximum.
This is a Bill which the Government insists we pass without any debate. It has completely overlooked the kind of consultation which is needed by the native groups and fisherpersons across the country. Just by looking at this one Bill, I can name four areas where this Government is going back on its word. It says it will listen to consultation, yet it does nothing. It says that it will protect the native rights of the native people of Canada and it ignores them in this particular Bill. It says it will have less government regulation and it proceeds to put before us a bill which increases government regulation in this
May 23, 1985

particular industry. It says that it is concerned about all private primary industries and here we have a primary industry which the Government is devastating by putting this Bill in place. I will continue my remarks after two o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the sexual harassment case involving the former Minister of National Defence, the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates), illustrates how the procedures and practices with respect to complaints under the Human Rights Act are grossly unjust. The Member has been denied some very basic rights. Fundamental principles of natural justice, including the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, have been breached. The damaging media coverage surrounding the launching of a complaint has the effect of convicting an individual in the eyes of the public before a fair hearing has been conducted. Even though a complaint might subsequently be determined to be without merit, the damage caused cannot be corrected. Complete vindication is impossible.
The Human Rights Act does not require a complainant to swear an affidavit or provide independent substantiating evidence. There is absolutely no protection against frivolous and vexatious complaints. Reputations and families can be destroyed by the publicity surrounding the mere laying of a complaint. The media have special rights in a democracy which must be scrupulously protected. But these rights, especially in relation to a quasi-judicial body, must give way to the greater right of the individual to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I call on the Government, in the name of fairness, to bring forward immediate amendments to the Human Rights Act to prohibit the publication of a complaint by the media until a hearing and subsequent decision by the Commission.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend, the people of the Village of Alma, in New Brunswick, strongly protested against the cutbacks affecting Fundy National Park, announced by the Conservative Government last November.
Thirty residents of Alma have just lost their jobs which, needless to say, are very important to them. At least 300 residents depend on Fundy Park for employment which is mostly available only during the summer months.
First of all, in a province where the unemployment rate is very high, the Government has no right to cause further loss of jobs. Furthermore, cutbacks in our national parks also affect tourism. Admission fees have tripled, so that now it costs $12 instead of $5 to have access to a camp site.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are increasingly feeling the impact of Conservative policies that will bring the development of our national parks to a halt. Already, since the opening of the new season at Fundy, it seems there are far fewer visitors than last year.
This is only the beginning, and the worst part is that everyone is going to suffer: workers are losing their jobs, and it will cost more to visit the parks. What it boils down to is, Mr. Speaker, that this Government is trying to destroy the heritage and the economy of New Brunswick.



ENGAGEMENT OF CNIB CATER PLAN SERVICES

Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I recently learned that luncheon arrangements for school children visiting Ottawa from our various constituencies will now be accommodated through the Canadian National Institute for the Blind Cater Plan services. I understand this has been brought about by the closure of the cafeteria in the Wellington Building. The Government is to be commended, and I assume you as well, Mr. Speaker, for engaging the services of this splendid organization to cope with our present shortfall in accommodating these groups.
CNIB Cater Plan services has been in existence for 58 years. At present it employs 1,071 people across Canada, 240 of whom are registered blind. This is a non-profit organization whose main purpose is the employment of the blind in a meaningful and fulfilling occupation. In Ottawa they provide catering services in 26 federally occupied buildings.
Cater Plan is the largest employer of blind people in Canada, and in my Province of Alberta it has 39 operations,
4994

May 23, 1985
two in Calgary, and province-wide provides employment for 43 blind people.
Cater Plan has been asked to provide 28,000 meals this summer under the current Elouse of Commons program, and I believe all Canadians will be proud to know that CNIB Cater Plan services have been contracted to provide meals at a very reasonable cost to these visiting groups.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada rate fell this afternoon to 9.59 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Tupper: The prime rate is currently the lowest it has been since September, 1978. Mortgage rates are falling. The Bank of Montreal cut its six-month mortgage rate last week to 9.75 per cent, the lowest rate for any mortgage offered since 1973. The one and two-year rates at the same institution fell to 10 per cent and 10.75 per cent respectively. London Life Insurance Company dropped its five-year mortgage rate below 12 per cent for the first time since 1979.
In addition, automobile manufacturing, rail loadings, housing starts, real estate transactions, the output of several industries, and employment are all up.
Why? It relates to the fact that Canadians and Canadian businessmen are gaining confidence in themselves and in Canada. Much of that confidence relates to the initiatives of the present Government. The mood across the nation is buoyant, Mr. Speaker, as we await the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).



CANADA POST CORPORATION


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, while Canada Post applies for an inflationary rate increase, service in many areas continues to deteriorate. Constituents ask questions for which no reasonable answers can be given.
Why does it routinely take nine days for a letter to go from Galiano Island to Vancouver, less than 20 miles away?
Why is mail from the U.S. held at the border until a certain quantity is reached, so that a constituent receives four pieces of mail in one day which had been written over a one month interval?
Why is Canada Post trying to take from community newspapers their traditional business of delivering inserts and flyers? Why is it harassing these papers with excessive charges for minor mistakes in date-line? Why does it insist that all
inserts must be placed in the centre of an open newspaper, when small operations have to do this by hand?
Why does Michael Warren not answer letters of complaint?
The Government must instruct Canada Post that there will be no increase in postal rates until service has been brought to a satisfactory level.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, do you know what? Our country is in one terrible, deplorable, disgraceful, scandalous, bad, disastrous, painful, shameful, dishonourable, discreditable, disreputable, unmentionable, humiliating and ignominious shape. In other words, we have been broke since 1975, but the Liberals, aided by the NDP, pretended, bewildered, mystified, misinformed, equivocated, evaded, ignored, rationalized, subterfuged, claptrapped, quibbled, blinded and shaded the facts to fool the people, and lived high on the hog on more than $108 billion of borrowed money. But the people were not fooled, and on Septermber 4 last they elected a Progressive Conservative Government to save the country from going into bankruptcy. Now, to increase productivity, create jobs, and increase social benefits, it must get rid of the monstrous debt that is bleeding the country dry.
The PCs are working, struggling, fighting, digging, analysing, exerting, reducing, strengthening, shortening, discounting, demonstrating, converting, co-operating, tightening, collaborating, and consulting, and doing it all fairly and above the table to restore Canada to its rightful place among nations. Our citizens may bleed a little, but Canada will rise again as a united, sovereign nation, reflecting the thinking of all of its people. Canada, we stand on guard for thee!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



DANGEROUS PRODUCTS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, on a more serious note I am sure that many Canadians will be saddened today upon hearing that the Ontario Government has had to decide to make free bottled water available to those whose drinking water is contaminated by the herbicide ala-chlor, rather than ban its use. Who would have thought that the day would come in Canada when we would be reduced to handing out bottled water? Is our fascination with herbicides and pesticides so great that we would rather give up our water than seek ecologically sound alternatives to the use of these dangerous substances?
May 23, 1985

The federal Government should have had the courage to ban alachlor altogether. It would have been standing on guard for Canada by banning dangerous substances. But it has not addressed that problem, nor has it addressed the problem recently brought to its attention about the wood preservative, PCP.
Finally, I wonder if MPs could be told just what herbicide has been sprayed on parts of the Parliamentary Lawn, and why this was felt to be necessary. The ugly little yellow signs, however temporary, as well as the herbicide itself, hardly enhance the image of the Hill.



SUCCESSFUL FUR NEGOTIATIONS WITH EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, congratulations are in order for the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) and his team of negotiators who have successfully persuaded the European Economic Community not to impose its threatened increase in tariffs against Canadian fur products.
The proposed increase in import tariffs from 7 per cent to 24 per cent would have had a disastrous effect on Canada's $650 million per year fur industry. However, we must not forget that the reprieve lasts only until November, when shoe import quotas are due to expire. If Canada unrealistically imposes renewed quotas, the European Community will undoubtedly, once again, retaliate against our fur producers.
The Minister of State for International Trade must therefore not rest on his well deserved laurels but renew his efforts to keep the European market open for Canadian furs on a permanent basis.



FINANCE


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, today, May 23, 1985, will be a day that will long be remembered by middle and lower-income Canadians. At 4.30 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will smash these Canadians with a sledgehammer type of budget. It is the same type of budget that defeated the Tories in 1979. Today, for the first time, the Tory Government will show its true colours to the people of Canada as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) bows down to his friends in big business who will be the ones profiteering from the Wilson Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with those Canadians whose lives will be drastically changed by this Budget: senior citizens, farmers, workers whose money will go to fill the coffers of the
big corporations that support the Conservatives. The repercussions of this Budget will come back to haunt this Government which has always blamed the previous Government for its own incompetence.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge all Canadians to buy new shoes today, because only the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will be able to afford them tomorrow.



INDUSTRY


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, Tuesday of this week was an historic occasion for the Miramichi, the area which I am pleased to represent. A 40-year old dream came true when the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) participated in a sod-turning ceremony that marked the beginning of a $360 million paper mill project.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


W.R. (Bud) Jardine: In the words of the Minister, "it was one of the most important days in the history of New Brunswick, and especially the Miramichi".
This repap paper mill will help stabilize employment for more than 1,600 mill and woodlands workers; it will provide 1,000 person years of employment during the construction phase, and will create 125 new permanent jobs.
This is a prime example of how this Government, through the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), in co-operation with the province and private enterprise, has worked in a positive way to provide what this country needs- jobs, jobs, jobs.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, for 100 years, ever since we started building railways in our country, there has been an agreement, written or unwritten, between the employees of the railways and the company management that employees would have passes to travel on the railway lines. That benefit has been cut back as passenger service has declined.
Recently the CNR reached an agreement with its employees whereby its employees continue to get the pass privileges. Unfortunately the CPR, that poor company which has been given hundreds of millions of dollars by Canadian people, still opposes that kind of agreement.

May 23, 1985
Oral Questions
I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to use his influence with the CPR to see that it makes the same kind of agreement with its employees.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. I have a copy of the intended submission of the Department of National Defence to the Justice subcommittee on Charter equality. It was reported on this morning in The Globe and Mail.
This is a highly offensive document, and a serious insult to Canadian women, just in the same way that the Government discussion paper on charter equality was an insult. It confirms our suspicions that, whatever the Government's rhetoric, it has no intention of supporting the implementation of the goals of the Charter.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the senior officiers who wrote this document did so after scrapping a whole process that they had established within the Department of National Defence, under a consultant named Jim House, which was to provide for true consultation and participation by men and women at all levels of the Department of National Defence in the preparation of their submissions? Is that the way this report was developed?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member describes the document in his hands, I presume, as being an intended submission to the subcommittee now studying this matter. I know of no such submission in documentary form-


Some Hon. Members:: Again?


Erik Nielsen: -in documentary form that is so intended at all.
I read the press articles, including the one that the Hon. Member referred to, and others. It would be my intention to examine whatever document exists in order to acquaint myself with its contents.
The Hon. Member will be happy to know that I have written to the Chairman of the subcommittee offering to appear before the subcommittee at a mutually convenient date and time for the purpose of addressing this and other matters affecting the policy of the Department.


EQUALITY FOR WOMEN IN COMBAT ROLES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, other Canadians have and will be reading this intended report with interest. Will the Minister be endorsing this as government policy? Particularly, does he really believe that Canadian women should suffer inequality in DND because women do so in some other countries, and because mixed combat units have never been tried before in Canada?
I ask him to answer that question bearing in mind that combat roles don't just mean pulling the trigger type jobs. According to DND definition, combat roles include such jobs as pilots, sonar technicians, weapons technicians, all sea artillery and infantry jobs. Are these to be denied women on the spurious grounds contained in this report?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, who is a lawyer and who, at one time, was a Solicitor General in the previous administration, asks me to endorse something that I have just told him I have not seen. Surely even he would recognize the unreasonableness of that.
With respect to the role played and to be played by women in our Armed Forces, I think I can speak with specific and particular knowledge which is held fairly exclusively in the House. I can tell the Hon. Member of the significant contribution made by women in our Armed Forces during World War II, which was quite substantial in a wide variety of roles. I would expect that kind of contribution to continue, much to the credit of women, and much to the credit of Canada.


APPLICATION OF CHARTER OF RIGHTS TO WOMEN PERSONNEL
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, whatever the excellent role of women in World War II, I suggest it is a pretty patronizing observation to say that that is the level at which their participation will continue in the Department of National Defence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Because the Minister of Justice said recently that he does not know what the Charter will eventually be determined to imply for women in the Department of National Defence, if the view is as expressed in this document can we get an assurance that the Government will not introduce a notwithstanding clause into legislation to prevent the Charter from applying to women in the Department of National Defence, giving them the rights that were intended when the Charter was introduced?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Charter is the law of the land and will be applied as the law of the land.


Mr. Chretien:: Apply it.


Erik Nielsen: As far as being patronizing is concerned, the Hon. Member is patronizing. I have first-hand knowledge of
May 23, 1985

the extremely important role played by women both in war and in peace, a knowledge he does not share with me. I can tell him that I was very proud to have served for ten years alongside women in our Armed Forces, something which that hon. gentleman cannot say.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gauthier:: You would send kids to war?


APPEARANCE OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. First I would like to tell the Minister that it is very nice to know he worked with women in the Second World War. There were no women in the House in the Second World War. Women's roles in the Second World War were very different from today. There are some changes one has to take into account.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Finestone: The Minister earlier refused to allow the equality rights committee to hear views and to take testimony from individual members of the Armed Forces who requested to appear before the committee. Is the Minister going to allow liberty, or enforce silence, for the individual members of the Armed Forces? What possible basis does the Minister have that women cannot appear as individuals? Why is the Minister neglecting their freedom of right to speak? It is not a national security issue. Will the Minister allow individuals who wish to do so to appear and to testify before the equality rights committee?


Erik Nielsen: It is simply not true, Sir, for the Hon. Member to say to me that I have refused to allow members of the Armed Forces to appear before the committee, whether they be women or whether they be men. That is not true. That is not a fact. What I will inform her and Members of the House is that the conduct of all members of the Forces, be they women or be they men, among other things is governed by Queen's Regulations and Orders to which all members of the Forces must adhere.
With respect to that question which was raised initially by the Hon. Member for Burnaby, I am having an examination made of Queen's Regulations and Orders to see whether, for the maintenance of good order and discipline in the Forces, it might be possible for that appearance. I very much doubt though that that would be the case.


COURT CHALLENGES
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. The interpretation of the new Charter of Rights would indicate, I hope, a much more open spirit when the
Oral Questions
Minister examines those rules and regulations in those instances.
If the Government continues to show the desire to muzzle the voice of women in the military, will the Minister be prepared to support and finance those cases which will have to be challenged in the courts so women can earn their equality rights, something which the Minister does not seem ready to give?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the accusation of the Hon. Member with respect to muzzling is both inaccurate and untrue. If that were not enough, it is also false.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: To say nothing of being offensive.


Erik Nielsen: With respect to the whole question of equality, I have informed the House that it is my undertaking, my commitment, as Minister responsible, to appear before the committee and to answer all of those kinds of questions.


An Hon. Member:: Why don't you?


Mr. Rossi:: Go back to sleep.


Ms. Copps:: Zipper up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday after he tabled the Eastman report he made the observation that he was concerned an increase in the royalties paid by the generic companies would mean an increase to the consumer and he did not want to see that.
Is the Minister aware that the highest price paid by consumers for prescription drugs, and the highest profits made by the multinational companies, were in those years when the multinationals had the exclusive right to produce and sell prescription drugs?
Is the Minister not favourably impressed by Dr. Eastman's recommendation that the period for which the multinationals have exclusive rights to sell the products, be reduced to four years?

Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): In answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleague that the general recommendations of the Eastman report are acceptable to us, to the extent that they advocate

May 23, 1985
Oral Questions
research and development in the pharmaceutical industry. However, I did express certain reservations with respect to the reaction to higher royalties on consumer prices and my opinion has not changed yet.


REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE BE DISBANDED
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister. Given the fact that both the multinational companies and the generic companies have expressed opposing views with regard to the recommendations of the Eastman Commission, it is obvious that the committee he has had working with his Department cannot reach any useful conclusion. Is it not time that the Minister dissolved that committee? It must be an embarrassment to him, given the fact that his Director of Combines Investigation is investigating his Department?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that our Government initiated a democratic consultation process in September. We intend to carry on with it and meet with our provincial colleagues and the various consumer associations to see how they react to the report. We will then be in a position to implement a policy which will be in the best interests of Canadian consumers, I am sure.


DRUG PRICES
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my last supplementary question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Before 1969 when the patent laws were changed to the present system, Canadians were paying the second highest drug prices in the world. Since then we have been paying the second lowest prices. Will the Minister tell the people of Canada that he is not going to make any real changes which will destroy that favourable situation which they have enjoyed since 1969?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that we will try to promote research and development in Canada, while at the same time making sure that consumers pay as little as possible for pharmaceutical products.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National
Defence. It is nice to know the Minister is going to attend the committee, but if he is as forthcoming with information there as he has been in the House, then the Members will be better off doing something else.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I refer once again, Mr. Speaker, to an internal Department of National Defence document entitled Canadian Forces Policy on the Employment of Women, dated March, 1985. After reading that report one would think that it was written in 1885 instead of in 1985. The report makes shocking statements about discipline, emotional stability, unit cohesion, morale, and effectiveness, which would cause the majority of Canadian women to shudder with anger. Is the Minister prepared to dissociate himself, his Government, and his Party, from this discriminatory document?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I repeat the responses which I made with respect to the question originally put by the Hon. Member for York Centre in general reply to the Member. I can tell him by way of reassurance that whatever might be in that report is not government policy. When that has been set, it will be announced in the appropriate way. However, 1 find it rather strange that these Hon. Members in the Official Opposition should be asking that kind of question when it was not they, when they were in office, who forced through the provision in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to women's equality rights; it was this Party which did that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: It was those Hon. Members who had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to support women's equality rights.


WOMEN'S CAREERS
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Deputy Prime Minister is very professional-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I get the distinct impression that somehow questions and answers are not really on everybody's mind today.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Deputy Prime Minister just brought another red herring on to the floor of the House; he is a pro at it. I want to remind him of a Conservative election promise, and I quote from his own document, "to ensure the full career development of members of the Canadian Armed Forces". Is the Minister willing to assure Canadians that all the distasteful and discriminatory implications of this report will not affect the careers of the thousands of competent women
May 23, 1985

already in the Armed Forces? If he is not willing to do so, are we to assume that women are not full and legitimate members of the Canadian Armed Forces today, in 1985?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have just reassured the Hon. Member, in response to his first question, that whatever that document contains does not constitute government policy and that when that policy is formulated it will be announced in the appropriate way. Again I express surprise at this line of questioning coming from him when he describes as a red herring an amendment ensuring women's equality rights which we proposed, and which they had to accept when they were in office. We did not consider that to be a red herring. I am very surprised that he does.

[ Translation]


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday, upon leaving the House, the Minister said that Hydro Quebec had been advised of the new regulations on transporting PCBs and that it should have passed this information on to the carrier whose truck recently leaked PCBs in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Quebec. The Minister also said, and I quote: "The new regulations are very clear on the manner in which this product is to be shipped, and if there is any infringement of these regulations, charges will certainly be laid." Could the Minister inform the House today whether the Government intends to lay charges against Hydro Quebec or the carrier responsible for the PCB leak last week?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. Obviously, if it is proved that the regulations now in effect have been infringed, charges will be laid.


POSITION OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport, given that the Minister of the Environment displayed her usual passion for the environment. Could he tell us whether his Department, as the Department in charge of transportation of dangerous goods, has initiated any inquiry? There is some rumour to the effect that violations of the Canada Shipping Act and violations of the directive issued by the Minister have taken place. I am wondering whether the Minister has taken an interest in this event, whether there will be an investigation, and whether there is a willingness on the part of the Govern-
Oral Questions
ment to pursue it to the full extent of the law if these violations are confirmed?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this Minister has taken an interest in this issue. 1 indicated to the House yesterday that the matter was being investigated by a Transport Canada inspector and that tests were being conducted on the level of the concentration of the PCBs. As soon as all that information is available, and it should be available by the end of this week, a decision will be made. In so far as prosecution is concerned, that determination will be made next week. I should say as well that there has been excellent co-operation on the part of Transport Canada, the Department of the Environment, and the provincial authorities, in this whole issue.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
On a recent trip to Germany with the Canadian Forces, an officer actually told me that having five men go to battle and only one come back would be much better than having five women in the same situation and only one come back, because the man could then impregnate the women who stayed home, and it was a matter of the survival of the human race, because one male could replenish the entire stock.
Mr. Speaker, now that we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and considering the very positive experience of female cadets in the armed forces, does the Minister not think this is a decadent sign of male chauvinism and is he prepared to endorse such outrageous statements?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly not be prepared to endorse the philosophy expressed by the the Hon. Member as having come from an officer with whom she was speaking when she was in Germany without knowing what was that expression of philosophy. However, I can tell her that it is the ambition or the determination of every member of the Forces, of whatever sex they might be, in a wartime mode or in a battle mode to strive to the utmost of get back in one piece.


ARMED FORCES' MENTALITY-MEASURES TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT
Lucie Pépin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

May 23, 1985
Oral Questions
Since Government policy to promote the status of women will not be implemented unless the Government makes it clear to public servants that it is committed to this policy, why does the Progressive Conservative Government not insist on a change in attitude in the Canadian Forces, and what specific measures have been taken by the Minister to show he is serious when he refers to the rights of women and his respect for the Charter?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member would know, as one who would have cause to know, -and it must have disappointed her at the time having regard to where she sits now-that it was this Party which insisted upon including in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms a provision with respect to women's equality rights, and that it was her Party which had to be dragged into consenting to that amendment introduced by this Party.
* *
*


FINANCE
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Ministry has left Canadians with no doubt that it is determined to reduce the budgetary deficit. The Minister is undoubtedly aware that efforts in the past to do this by means of spending restraint had the effect of increasing expenditures and reducing revenue, with the result that the deficit has been larger later. Has the Government considered the potentially unfortunate budgetary consequences of a program of deficit reduction in the Budget this afternoon? Will the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Budget will be called later today as a special order of the House and, therefore, any questions with regard to it are out of order under the rule of anticipation of an order later today. Does the Member have a question on another subject?
measures he will take to promote research and development in that industry?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern expressed by my colleague. I can reassure him by saying that we will indeed give priority to finding a solution with respect to pharmaceutical products so as to boost research and development in the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario as well as in the rest of Canada.
*
* *


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. He is aware of concern about the failure of the Government to negotiate a redress settlement with the National Association of Japanese-Canadians. In Tuesday night's adjournment debate his representative blamed the failure of opposition House Leaders to respond to a letter from the Government House Leader last January for the failure to act. Does the Minister actually believe that the Opposition's failure to agree to an imposed settlement prevents him from negotiating with the National Association of Japanese-Canadians?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, we never refer to anything we are doing in terms of our conversations as negotiations with the Japanese-Canadians. I have been in discussion with them over the last number of weeks in terms of trying to reach an agreeable settlement. As the Hon. Member knows, the association is now involved in its own study in terms of the cost of redress, the cost of the loss of what the community suffered during the war. Until that study is completed, which will probably take until late summer, September, October, we intend to continue holding discussions with them and keeping the lines of communication as open and free as possible.

[ Translation]


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Now that the Eastman report on the pharmaceutical industry has been tabled, and considering that Quebec and the rest of Canada urgently need new jobs in high technology sectors, can the Minister tell the House what


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The Minister likes to talk about the Conservative record on women. We know that it is a source of continual embarrassment for that Party that, in convention, 75 per cent of the delegates voted against extending equality rights to women. That is the real face of the Tory Party. The rest of the real face of the Tory Party will emerge at four o'clock. The Minister continually in this House, with regard to documents that have been offered by him or by his officials, denies any knowledge. This document entitled Federal-
May 23, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Some day I may get to be heard by Hon. Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: It fascinates me that people would yell at me that people should be shouted down. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question. I want to ask the Minister of National Defence whether this document entitled Equality Issues in Federal Law, Canadian Forces Policy on the Employment of Women, with the seal of the Canadian Forces on the document, dated March 17, 1985, is a document of his Department. I will tell him now that his continual attempts to deny knowledge of the document are wearing thin. I do not believe you, Members do not believe you, Canadian women do not believe you. Nobody in this country believes those answers. Is this your document, yes or no?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman obviously is not listening. I did not deny the existence of any such document. What I did say, for his benefit, was that I had no knowledge of the contents of the document. Now then, he will-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With great respect to the Minister and others, it is somehow unfair to complain to me about not being able to be heard when you are asking questions and then to yell continuously when someone is answering. It just is not fair. Has the Minister completed his answer?


Erik Nielsen: I believe so, Mr. Speaker.


CONTENTS OF DOCUMENT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the Minister believes that he is Finished answering the question. Let me say this to the Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am asking a question. Be patient. Be polite. Civility. Whether the Minister believes he has answered the question and whether he acknowledges the contents of the report or knows of them, the contents of the report and the archaic attitude expressed in the report are being practised today, discriminating against Canadian women. Will the Minister call in his Chiefs of Staff? Will he apprise himself of the contents of this report? Will he instruct them that, until such time as the Minister gets on with the business of doing his job, to quit the high level of discrimination being practised against
Oral Questions
the women of Canada and the kind of patronizing attitude expressed in this report? Burn it.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is wrong for the Hon. Member to attempt to leave the impression that whatever might be in that document that he has read is the policy of the Government. I have said repeatedly today that whatever is in that document is not the policy of the Government. When government policy is formulated, it will be made known in the appropriate way.
With respect to his suggestion that I call in the Chiefs of Staff and consult with them, I intend to do just that and to discuss the matter with the Chief of Staff. There is only one now since the Forces have been unified. Perhaps the Hon. Member has forgotten that, as members of his Party had forgotten about the whole question of women's equality rights when they brought the Charter before this House of Commons and had to be reminded by this Party.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Transport is aware that a handicapped person travelling to the Sports Federation for the Handicapped was removed from an Air Canada aircraft on the grounds that the person was unattended, even though she had flown many times unattended. What redress, if any, has been made to that person, and what action is he taking to improve travel arrangements for the handicapped in transportation in general?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that of course is an issue of ongoing concern to the Department of Transport and, indeed, to the carriers. A number of steps have been taken to deal specifically with the issue which the Hon. Member has raised. I understand that Air Canada has issued an apology to the person in question. I further understand that any reparation to correct this issue will be arranged between the two parties.


ROLE OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, some time ago a special advisory committee was set up on transportation of the handicapped. They met in February. They were to meet two more times. I am advised that either the Minister or his officials asked them to cancel the last meeting. One member of that committee said that the committee has not done very much. What, if anything, is this advisory committee doing? Is it being disbanded? Is it going to be allowed to function, or does the Minister have some alternative plan for the transportation of handicapped people in Canada?

May 23, 1985
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, indeed some very important recommendations have come forth from the advisory committee to which the Hon. Member refers. We are now in the process of putting in place a plan to implement a number of those very important recommendations that have been advanced. My colleague, the Minister of State, will be taking full responsibility for that. He will be announcing a plan of action in that regard in the very near future.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of the fact that, as a result of a news report yesterday, there is a great deal of concern in the minds of judges, law enforcement agencies, and the Canadian public, regarding the date on which the Criminal Code amendments, and specifically those relating to impaired driving, are likely to go into force and effect and become law in Canada. Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us a clarification of this matter? Will he advise the Canadian people of what his best judgment is of when the Criminal Code amendments relating to impaired driving will become law?


Mr. Chris Speyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Bill is presently in the other place. I anticipate, and indeed hope, that it goes through that place in all stages within two weeks. I know that we have received the co-operation of the NDP and of the Liberal Party. I do not think there is anyone in the House who does not want to see the strengthening of the impaired driving laws. I anticipate that by late summer this particular law will be in full force and effect.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
As the Minister knows, the Quebec Government is committed to invest $30 million to upgrade Petromont facilities. Will the federal Government make representations to the National Energy Board and support Petromont's application to upgrade and extend the natural gas pipeline with a view to ensuring the profitability of that plant?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is undoubtedly aware, there are various proposals being put forth at the present time concerning the petrochemical industry, and in particular the Petromont plant itself, including a possible pipeline to transport natural gas to that facility, as well as various other conversion approaches. Naturally we are helping with the study of some of these proposals and are discussing the matter with the Province of Quebec. We are certainly cognizant of the fact that the province has indicated that money could be made available by it in the way suggested by the Hon. Member, but at the present time we believe that we must consider all the possible alternatives connected to Petromont before making a federal decision.
[ Translation]


PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY IN QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edmund Parry: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The federal-provincial committee on Canada's petrochemical industry, which is made up of representatives of the western provinces, Ontario and Quebec, submitted its report to the federal Government last January. It concluded that the three petrochemical centres-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question?


John Edmund Parry: Here is my question, Mr. Speaker. Will the federal Government use its own studies, and will it guarantee Petromont's viability so as to maintain the 250 direct and 24,000 indirect jobs on the south shore?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Hon. Members are well aware of the fact that we are indeed using such studies and other data bases. We are meeting with the industry at the present time. There is a memorandum of understanding under negotiation with the petrochemical industry that will, most important, hopefully solve some of the problems with respect to other plants in other areas of Canada. It is the Canadian petrochemical industry that we have as our concern, and we hope to restore it to a uniform viability.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs, but first I would like to say to the Deputy Prime Minsiter that the women's section of the Charter of
May 23, 1985

Rights was introduced by the Minister of Justice, which I was at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's concern. Presumably the Hon. Member would be making a preamble to a question and not simply making a preamble and then moving to another preamble.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when receiving the Minister of External Affairs for Nicaragua, Mr. Victor Hugo Tinoco, tomorrow, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs assure him that the policy of the Government is a very clear one, and it is that we do not want any intervention at all in Nicaraguan affairs, either by the United States or the Soviet Union?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to reply, both in my capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs and as the Member of Parliament who had the opportunity and privilege of moving the amendment that led to the adoption of Section 28 of the Charter of Rights.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: You stabbed him in the back at the leadership convention. You weren't applauding there.
Those are the guys who stabbed you in the back, Joe. With friends like them, who needs enemies? That's why Brian is Prime Minister, Joe.


Mr. Speaker:: Milk and cookies are later.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the opportunity of meeting Mr. Tinoco tomorrow, as does my colleague, the Minister for External Relations. I understand Mr. Tinoco will also take advantage of the opportunity to meet the Hon. Member and representatives of the New Democratic Party. For our part we certainly intend to make it very clear again that we believe that the root of the problems in Nicaragua, and indeed in that region of the world, is a socio-economic one. We intend to continue not only our aid programs but our political influence to advance that view of the problem, and to move the region toward settlements on that basis.


CANADIAN TRADE WITH NICARAGUA
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will let me reply by saying that after the five-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Of course they do not want to know the truth. When it was taken out by the provinces, it was through an amendment to a Section that I put in after November 5.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a question?
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As the former Prime Minister has had so much bad luck in his life, I will not insist on this point any longer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: 1 made a comment earlier that I can see applies to other Members as well.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question. I want to ask the Minister whether he intends to direct his department officials to grant immediate permission for the Nicaraguan Government to establish its trade office in Toronto-rather than wait for weeks-and direct them to provide immediately the list of all Canadian manufacturers and distributors who are ready to sell products to replace those which are now boycotted by the Americans.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may have had some bad luck in his life. I consider mine to have been pretty good.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Government of Nicaragua for several months discussed the movement to Toronto of a trade office which has been based in Miami. It is now proceeding to accomplish that purpose. Naturally, it, like any other client defined by the foreign investment review legislation which was passed by the Hon. Member and his colleagues, has to go through certain procedures. Those procedures will apply to the Government of Nicaragua in exactly the same way as they would apply to anyone else. Certainly I would reaffirm, in the House of Commons the determination of this Government to continue to play a very constructive role with regard to the development of Nicaragua and other countries in Central America.


CHALLENGE '85 NON-PROFIT ALLOCATION INQUIRY
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to remind the House that it was the women of Canada who got their motion in, not the Liberals or the Conservatives.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Member have a question, please?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Challenge '85 non-profit allocation-

May 23, 1985
Point of Order-Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Fair is fair. The Member's preamble was on a different subject. The Member will now immediately put his question.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Will the Minister restore the non-profit allocation to the Province of Saskatchewan, at least to the level at which it was last year, and make it possible for Saskatchewan residents to have projects in place without requiring the one-half allocation to be contributed by themselves?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy speaking about Challenge '85 and the remarkable number of jobs which it has produced both in the private sector and in non-profit organizations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am pleased to say that voluntary organizations, municipal governments, and the private sector, have all contributed to making Challenge '85 a great success.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of two, presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, May 22, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Certain petitions which were presented by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question a few moments ago, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Murta) suggested that the word "negotiation" was being imported into the discussions in dealing with the National Association-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Could the Member please come to his point of order.


Abram Ernest Epp: I have a document which was issued last December by his directorate. That document twice referred to "negotiation". The document read:
A full and frank discussion was undertaken-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Clearly the Hon. Member is engaging in debate. He does not have a point of order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to make a brief statement concerning what I believe is an important announcement, certainly for the oil and gas industry in Canada and, indeed, for all industry and Canada at large. Perhaps I should first read a press release, which was issued only a few hours ago, in which Chevron Corporation of San Francisco, California, and Olympia & York Resources Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Olympia & York Developments Limited of Toronto, Ontario, today announced that Chevron has agreed to sell its holding in Gulf Canada Limited of Toronto to Olympia & York, Subject to Olympia & York being satisfied prior to June 18, 1985, with respect to certain regulatory and other matters.
The agreement provides that Olympia & York will purchase approximately 112 million common shares, or 49.24 per cent of Gulf Canada, for approximately $22.21 Canadian per share, on or before July 16, 1985.
In addition, Olympia & York will purchase at that time an option on the remaining 25 million common shares of Gulf Canada which are held by Chevron. The price of the option is $6 Canadian per share, and the exercise price for the optioned shares is approximately $15.04 Canadian per share. The option is exercisable prior to December 31, 1985.
The press release further states:
Upon exercise of the option, Olympia & York will own 60.2 per cent of the currently outstanding common shares of Gulf Canada for an aggregate consideration in excess of Cdn. $3 billion.
Olympia & York has advised Chevron that Olympia & York does not intend to make a similar offer to the other shareholders of Gulf Canada.
If I may, Mr. George M. Keller, Chairman of the Board of Chevron Corporation, concluded the press release by stating:
Although we are sorry to lose our major position in a fine company like Gulf Canada, we feel this is an excellent arrangement for all parties. The Canadian Government's objective of increased Canadian ownership has been met; from our side, the sale proceeds will be used to significantly reduce the debt incurred last year in our purchase of Gulf Corporation. The sale of these shares will put us significantly ahead of schedule on our debt reduction program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would like to highlight the significance of the proposed purchase which, hopefully, will be closed before the end of the year. It will be the largest single Canadianization of the oil and gas industry in Canadian history and, indeed, it is the largest such Canadianization in Canadian industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We believe it is particularly noteworthy that this repatriation of Gulf Canada to Canadian ownership will also result in the repatriation of certain cash assets which are
May 23, 1985

now invested in the United States by Olympia & York, to be brought back to Canada in connection with the purchase of Gulf Canada.
To put it into perspective, Gulf Canada had assets in 1984 of $5.6 billion, and sales of $5.3 billion. As a company, it ranks third among petroleum companies in Canada in terms of oil protection, and fourth in terms of sales. It has extensive oil and gas rights in Western Arctic and off the East Coast, in the Beaufort Sea and the Arctic islands. In 1983, it spent $300 million on exploration and development. I have received assurances from Gulf Canada that their operation will be maintained as planned in the exploration and development fields.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As Members will undoubtedly know, Gulf Canada operates refineries in Montreal; Clarkson, Ontario; Edmonton; Port Moody, British Columbia, as well as an asphalt plant in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. Gulf Canada has some 9,000 employees across Canada. Again, I have been assured that those employees will be maintained and that possibly the total employment will be expanded.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would like to sincerely congratulate Chevron and Olympia & York for arranging this significant acquisition. This is an important initiative on the part of the Canadian private sector to achieve Canadianization of the oil and gas industry.
I am pleased to note as well that the transaction has been structured by the parties in such a way as to minimize the impact on the Canadian dollar. It, of course, also follows the very successful Canadianization involving Texaco Canada where we had 14 million shares of that company, worth about $485 million, sold to Canadians, which are now selling at a premium.
The net effect on Canadian upstream oil and gas assets is that where they were 40 per cent Canadian owned prior to this transaction, upon the closing of the Gulf transaction, upon Gulf coming into Canadian hands, it will mean that we are 45 per cent Canadian-owned-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -as far as that industry is concerned. In short, Mr. Speaker, this is the Mulroney Government in action. This is the private sector in action. If the Opposition would stop blocking the Investment Canada Bill, it would see that this is only the beginning of what we can do.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, we are afraid that if we let the Investment Canada Bill go through this will be the end of what Government will do in Canadianization.
1 would like to say to the Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) how pleased the Liberal
Gulf Canada
Party is that these shares in Gulf Canada have been sold to a Canadian company. And we appreciate that this has happened in keeping with the Canadianization policy of the former Liberal Government. I have quite a few of concerns, though, about this transaction. I hope that the Minister will follow through and give us the details of the bids which were made for the shares of Gulf Canada, as I asked him to do earlier, because I think it is very important that we know all of the details of all of the bids which were presented for these shares.
The Minister mentioned the repatriation of funds presently in the United States via this purchase of shares by Olympia & York. What I would like to know is, did the fact that a large portion of the moneys which were used to buy the shares was American money have a bearing on the fact that the successful bidder was Olympia & York and, perhaps, not some other Canadian company which could not put up the American money and which would have had to pay for it in Canadian funds?
I would also like to take note of something said by the Minister. He made reference to the exploration and development field, that the undertaking by Olympia & York is in the exploration and development field. There is quite a large amount of money involved when you pay $6 a share for an option on a share. That is a sizeable amount of money and an indication that one is pretty sure of taking up that option. Is it a possibility that the downstream activities of Gulf Canada will be sold by Olympia & York to another company, possibly Petro-Canada? I would like the Minister to be frank with us today on that question because it is an important one. It is not a question which is disturbing other than that there will be a consolidation of marketing and stations in this country and some stations will close. But it will mean a further endorsation of a policy of the former Liberal Government, a policy which was criticized quite severely by the Progressive Conservative Party when it was in opposition.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister will give us some information on this. I would like to know as well how many-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but I have a question to ask him, if I may. Since he is, I think, asking questions of the Minister, I would like to be clear as to whether he wants me to take this as part of the question period or part of his speech. I am happy to take it either way.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: These are concerns that I have, Mr. Speaker. We really have no objection to the actual sale itself to a Canadian company. What we want to know is what portion of this undertaking is not being disclosed by the Minister here this afternoon. This is something we would like to know. The shares which are yet to be purchased are to be purchased by the thirty-first day of December and I would like to know if the Minister is giving us an undertaking as well that these shares, if they are not picked up by Olympia & York, will in fact be picked up by a Canadian company? And will this undertaking towards increased Canadianization be ongoing in this transaction? Because we don't want to stop here. The aim

May 23, 1985
Gulf Canada
of the former Liberal Government was 50 per cent Canadian ownership by 1990. The Minister says this transaction raises the level to 45 per cent. If that is correct, which we hope it is, it is still 5 per cent short and we have a long way to go if, as he says, it is the position of his Party to likewise try to obtain 50 per cent Canadian ownership by 1990. Certainly, it is the position of the Liberal Party to try to obtain at least 50 per cent ownership in the oil and gas industry by 1990. We would want to make sure that the Minister is going to continue on in this process of Canadianization.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, we have replaced a Rockerfeller with a Reichmann now. I am not so sure whether we in fact have succeeded in doing all that much differently.
I would like to make some comments, Mr Speaker, with respect to some concerns 1 have. I am sure you know, Mr. Speaker, that in March of 1984, Chevron of San Francisco bought Gulf Corporation of Pittsburgh in a massive takeover for $13.2 billion. Buying Gulf Corporation, of course, meant that Chevron Canada and Gulf Canada were owned by the same company and, of course, they are often in competition. In my home Province of British Columbia, for example, they have competing gas stations, and so on. There clearly was a problem as to what should be done with the two companies. For instance, should there be a merger would there be loss of jobs? In a sense, the deal would be welcomed but we will have to press the Minister on what guarantees we will have that there will be no loss of employment for some of the 13,000 employees who work for Gulf and Chevron. I will be asking the Minister some questions in that regard in a few moments.
The Minister said that this was the Mulroney Government in action, that this is the private sector in action, and this is only the beginning of what we can do. Let me put this into perspective, Mr. Speaker. What the Canadian Government did with the Western Accord was to give a lot of money to Gulf so as to inflate the price of Gulf, and to give them better tax deals. It took all the old oil the corporation owned and brought it up to the value of world prices. In other words, Gulf received a huge windfall.
James Doak, an oil company analyst with First Marathon Securities Ltd. of Toronto, said Gulf Canada will gain $200 million a year from the energy agreement by 1989. And Denis Mote, a Toronto-based analyst for Maison Placements Canada Inc. of Montreal, said the pact adds $1 billion to Gulf Canada's value.
These are not NDP MPs saying that, these are energy analysts. They are saying that Gulf was pumped up in value by about $1 billion as a result of the Western Accord and the Mulroney Government giving that windfall to the oil industry.
What is happening now is that Canadians are paying an inflated price for Gulf. The Minister said it will cost something like $3 billion, and that the money will go to reduce a debt which was incurred. That money, paid by Canadians, will go
back to the U.S. to reduce Chevron's debt. So before we start falling all over ourselves with praise for the Mulroney Government, as the Minister has just tried to do, we should look at how expensive and how inflated this deal is.
As far as Canadianization is concerned, I am not sure this is the largest exercise in Canadianization. I think the largest was when the Government of Canada set up Petro-Canada and that company began to expand. I call that real Canadianization, and at a cheaper price. We want to know from the Minister what is going to happen to that inflated amount of $3 billion which was paid for this company, and it is inflated because of the Canadian Government's oil deal.


John Horton McDermid: You have to take a basic course in economics, E-100.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would let me finish. He may not be concerned about the jobs of 13,000 employees, but I am. He may not be concerned about the $3 billion and where it goes, but I am.


John Horton McDermid: Your idea of Canadianization is the Government buying a company.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will Hon. Members please let the Hon. Member finish his statement? The Minister and the Liberal Party spokesman were both allowed to make their statements in peace.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the deal is so good why are Tory members so touchy?


Mr. Thacker:: We just like the truth.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, they will get their chance in the debate.
We want to look at this deal very closely. We want to know where the money is going and how it will affect the balance of payments. We want to know what $3 billion going out of Canada will mean. We want to know whether the 13,000 employees will be protected. Finally, we want to know whether replacing the American shareholders with a Canadian family at the head of this corporation will really make a difference. I think the difference will be marginal because private Canadian companies have a better record of investing than private American companies, but I would still like the Minister to tell us that he is still prepared to have Petro-Canada as the number one Canadian company. That is our position, and it should be used by the Government to direct Canadian energy policy for the benefit of Canadians. We have a mixed system here and we are going to continue to have a mixed system. This is an interesting deal but it raises many questions. I would not go as far as the Minister has gone, and I have some questions for him.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware of any other arrangements in this transaction which would have shares of what is now Gulf Canada going to Olympia & York,
May 23, 1985

or a transfer of options or warrants or whatever? Is there another arrangement whereby the downstream activities of what is now Gulf Canada will be sold to yet another company, perhaps PetroCan?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as far as the arrangement in which approximately 49 per cent of the total shares is to be sold, firm, with an option on the remaining roughly 11 per cent, I understand the reason it is being structured that way has nothing to do with the possibility of an option being sold to some party, but more for tax planning reasons. There are certain reorganizations which have to be done, and for an interim period the Olympia & York people feel it would be more advantageous to not have a 51 per cent interest but stay at 49 per cent. However, it is certainly their stated intention to us that they want the full 60 per cent.
As to what they may do in any restructuring, to the best of our knowledge there is no agreement to sell to any other concern, either upstream or downstream.
My reference to the exploration and development commitment was that that is where most people are concerned that there be suitable investment in that field. Now, whether as a result of this transaction there are service stations sold to someone, that is yet to be seen. Contrary to what the earlier speaker had to say about employment, if some deal like this had not gone through Chevron was proposing to merge Chevron Canada with Gulf Canada, probably, and that would have resulted in a loss of Canadian jobs. We do not, as the NDP apparently do, want to see that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, let me say that that is absolutely false. We are trying to protect these jobs, and I am pleased the Minister is prepared to guarantee that these jobs will not be lost.
Can the Minister tell me why the minority shareholders could not bid on the deal? Could he also tell me whether the Government of Canada is putting anything into the deal at all, giving any tax breaks or concessions or grants or guarantees as part of the deal?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if any minority shareholder had these kinds of resources, of course they could have put a bid in. There was a very serious alternative bidder who withdrew. To their credit, the Reichmanns saw it through and they have come up with this signed agreement.
As far as any agreements with the Government are concerned, other than discussions with representatives of Olympia & York as to the nature of this deal, what they were hoping to achieve, there has been no contract between the Government of Canada and the Reichmanns or Olympia & York, and certainly no tax rulings have been given at this date.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell me whether or not the $3 billion will go to the United States to pay off debts? He said in his statement something about reducing debt incurred.
Gulf Canada
Can he also indicate to us what he means by the reference to there being no effect on foreign exchange? Would he kindly answer those two questions?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, that of course is a fair question because every time we contemplate the Canadianization of assets now owned by foreigners it means taking Canadian dollars and using those dollars to pay the foreigner, who in turn will convert the Canadian dollars into whatever is his currency, which in turn puts pressure on the Canadian dollar.
Naturally, finance is always concerned when there are huge amounts involved. We wanted to make it clear that because of the Olympia & York interest in the United States, their liquid assets in the U.S. are sufficient that they were able to call on those assets to the extent of almost half of this $3 billion purchase, which puts no pressure on the Canadian dollar. As far as the remaining $1.5 billion that must be made up in Canadian dollars is concerned, Chevron has agreed to stage the payment in a way that there will be a minimum pressure on the Canadian dollar to avoid any foreign exchange problem.
In short, the problem to which the Hon. Member has been referring was certainly contemplated by all parties and, to their credit I think, they have tried to make it as easy a deal as possible as far as Canada is concerned and as far as the value of our dollar is concerned.
The Hon. Member asks where the money goes. When speaking to Mr. Keller, he makes it very clear, and does so as well in his press release, that they incurred quite a large debt in acquiring Gulf America, the U.S. company, and they will use at least part of the proceeds to pay down the debt that they incurred. Of course, that was one of the reasons they were looking for a buyer. We asked them to seek a buyer actively. I was very pleased when they responded positively and agreed to seek a Canadian buyer before the end of April.
At the time it was felt that a Canadian buyer or consortium could not be put together because this is the largest type of transaction in our history. In order to put it into perspective, the total amount involved with the Petro-Canada purchase of Petrofina in a similar equity fashion was $1,460 billion. This transaction is more than twice the size of the Petro-Canada purchase when it bought Petrofina which, of course, was generally felt to be at a premium price.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I can appreciate the Minister's concern for the impact on the Canadian dollar. It certainly would be a consideration in a purchase of this size.
Did the Government take this into consideration in the successful bid of Olympia & York and was it one of the reasons it was successful?
If Olympia & York does not pick up the option, will the Minister assure us that he will maintain the same principle of ensuring that Canadian participation will be present in the purchase of the option shares? It is very important to continue this policy of Canadianization. Would he also make the details

May 23, 1985
Gulf Canada
of this whole transaction, the number of bidders and the various bids, public?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I know that Hon. Members will understand that we cannot have it both ways. I have indicated that this is a private transaction. It is a transaction that we on this side of the House like to encourage. It is the private sector in action.
I am not free to start disclosing-even if I knew-who all the bidders are. For example, I know of an alternative bidder because he was in touch with us. He is a very substantial all-Canadian bidder. He frankly felt that he could not justify this size of bid. Although he was close, as far as he was concerned, he had to fall out on a question of price. That was the only reason he backed off.
As far as the Hon. Member's comment about the option shares is concerned and assuring that they would go to Canadians, that is not within our power. Naturally, we will mention to Olympia & York that we hope they can complete the deal, including taking down those option shares. However, if they decide for any reason that that option could be transferred to somebody else, we would naturally hope and indicate to the Reichmanns that they give Canadians a chance to pick it up.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister talks about having it both ways. It seems to me that his statement today is clearly a case of having it both ways. On the same day that his Government evoked closure on the Investment Canada Bill and on the same day that the Government is introducing a plan that would abandon Canada rather than invest in Canada the Minister cites the increase in Canadianization of the petrochemical industry, which can be directly tracked to two Liberal programs-the NEP and FIRA-which his Government is in the process of dismantling and destroying. How can he talk about Canadianization of the petrochemical industry at the same time that his Government's future initiatives or lack thereof with respect to Investment Canada will in fact prevent the kind of Canadianization of the petrochemical industry which was fully in evidence as a result of the previous initiatives by past Liberal Governments?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is wrong on at least two scores. By referring to Investment Canada as something that would perhaps not facilitate this type of Chevron-Gulf-Olympia & York transaction, of course, she is dead wrong. If Investment Canada were in place six months ago, the type of deal that took place here would have been exactly the same. This is a reviewable transaction. The deal we have proposed with Chevron would have been very similar. Of course, the added element would have been that we would have had the power and certainly the mandate in Investment Canada positively to promote Canadian investment.
When the Hon. Member says that we will not get these kinds of deals as a result of our changes to the NEP, I find that a tremendous riddle. Although I cannot prove it, the fact is that it is very unlikely that a Canadian group-Olympia &
York or anybody else-would have found Gulf Canada interesting enough to buy if the NEP were still in place. I hope the Hon. Member will understand that. There are very fundamental matters at stake here. The National Energy Program made the oil and gas industry extremely unattractive for both Canadian and non-Canadian investors.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 will recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) on one question, and I will allow a final supplementary from the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Will the Minister not agree that as a direct result of the National Energy Program and FIRA, the Canadianization of the petrochemical industry over the last ten years has tracked the same model that was developed by previous Liberal Governments? If it were not for FIRA and the NEP we would not have Canadianized the petrochemical industry to the extent of the 45 per cent which the Minister brags about today.
I very much fear, as do Canadian consumers, that the initiatives of the Government to embrace any kind of investment, regardless of the nature of origin and any kind of job guarantees, will result in the destruction of the very Canadianization about which he speaks today. Is the Minister not at all concerned that the former increases in Canadianization of the petrochemical industry will in fact be threatened by his Government's decision to introduce a Bill with no teeth in the form of Investment Canada?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am rather pleased, actually, that the Hon. Member is asking these kinds of questions. Surely it shows how totally out of touch some Members on the other side of the House are. The fact is that since 1974, when FIRA got its teeth into our economy, the total Canadianization in Canadian businesses-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Petrochemical was the question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am giving you the whole figure.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I know what the figures are. The petrochemical industry.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, total Canadianization amounted to $16 billion. What people forget, certainly the socialists do not forget because Canadianization to them means nationalization, that is their creed-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -but the fact is that 33 per cent of that Canadianization was the takeover of petrochemical companies by the federal Government. The total takeovers were $5.5 billion.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Are you against that now? Are you against Petro-Canada?


John Horton McDermid: Listen to the answer.
May 23, 1985


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would point out to the Hon. Member in addition to that-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Are you against that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am having trouble hearing the Minister's answer.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In addition to the 33 per cent, provincial Governments of various sorts took over 9 per cent, which was $1.4 billion worth of assets, but total private Canadianization was $9 billion. In this announcement today is one transaction we have identified Canadianization involving $5 billion. I hope that is impressive enough to show that there is another and a much better way to go about this, namely, the Investment Canada way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: You hate to hear good news over there.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Investment Canada is not here yet. Heaven help us when it comes.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Does she ever stop talking?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: May I put a final supplementary question to the Minister, Mr. Speaker? It is just a follow-up on sometime he said. He will recall that I suggested in my comments that it was the Government through the Western Accord that inflated the price of Gulf. I quoted two energy analysts to indicate that the price was inflated by about $1 billion because of the money given to the oil industry. Does the Minister agree or disagree with that?
I also expressed the problem of $3 billion flowing out of Canada. He indicated to me that one-half of that would flow out of Canada but the other half would somehow be recouped in Canada by the Reichmanns selling their assets in the United States. Has the Minister had any indication from Reichmann of what kind of assets are going to be sold and whether they will be sold at inflated prices or at bargain basement prices to recoup that money?


John Horton McDermid: Do you want to buy something?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let me assure the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, that if I am going to put any money at risk, I will put it at risk with the Reichmanns as opposed to the Hon. Member-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -when he starts trying to judge whether they will be selling their U.S. assets at some bargain basement price. All they have said to us is that they do have sufficient liquid assets in American dollars that they feel about half the total transaction can be mustered in U.S. dollars. I think that is very much to their credit.
As far as the Hon. Member's other question is concerned, perhaps he could put it again.
Petitions


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Perhaps I can assist the Minister, Mr. Speaker. I indicated to the Minister that the Government had inflated the price and has given Gulf, according to two energy analysts, up to $1 billion as a result of a windfall in the breaks in the Western Accord that has just been signed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let me put it this way to the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker. He is forgetting that the PGRT benefit to which he is referring, and I think some analysts commented on it, does not fall into place until 1988.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What about the old oil?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As far as that income advantage is concerned, it would be downstream. I can assure the Hon. Member that a Canadian group would be less inclined to buy under the old National Energy Program structure than at the present time because of the prospect that they are really buying a healthy company that will be less government-fettered and a better cash flow. In truth, the Hon. Member would find that there would be no deal either at a lower or at a higher price if the National Energy Program were still in place.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to say to the Hon. Member that this is a question period like any other and that the same rules with regard to questions by Parliamentary Secretaries apply.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in the House a petition on behalf of the people of the riding of Montreal-Sainte-Marie who ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) not to discriminate against the elderly, and especially elderly people in need, between the ages of 60 and 64, who are single, separated or divorced.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Restigouche in New Brunswick have asked me to submit a petition on their behalf. They are asking the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to extend the spouse's allowance to all persons living alone who are in need, whether they are single, separated, divorced or widowed.
I also have another petition from the people of the electroral districts of Edmonton South, Edmonton West and Edmonton East in Alberta. Mr. Speaker, the men and women of these ridings are asking all the Members of this House to support their petition to the Right Hon. Prime Minister not to discriminate against elderly people in need.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from the federal riding of Hamilton-Wentworth in Ontario. These people are also seeking the support of all Members of this House for their

May 23, 1985
Petitions
request that the Progressive Conservative Government refrain from discriminating against elderly people in need.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I have a petition from the people of the federal riding of Victoria in British Columbia, who want the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada to force the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who is bringing down his Budget today, to extend the spouse's allowance to all persons living alone, between the ages of 60 and 64, and who are in need, whether they are single, separated or divorced, and these people are asking all the Members of this House to support their petition to avoid discriminating against the elderly.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by over 1,500 concerned Canadians. They are calling for the release of Mr. Mart Niklus, a prisoner in the Soviet Chistopol prison camp. He was sentenced to 10 years hard labour and five years internal exile. Mark Niklus' only crime was to speak out against the Molotov-Ribbentrop-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Member has the right to make a summary of his petition. It sounds to me as though he were making a speech about an issue that he thinks is important. It is a speech. This is the time for a summary of a petition only.


Bill Attewell: It was in connection with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939. He was forbidden to speak in his mother tongue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Member has submitted his petition. We will take it as read. Does the Hon. Member have a summary of his petition to make?


Bill Attewell: These concerned Canadians, Mr. Speaker, are calling on the Houses of Parliament to urge the Soviets for his release.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 38 people of St. Isidore de Prescott, Ontario. These people are objecting to the discriminatory provisions of Bill C-26 which would discriminate against single, unmarried and divorced people between the ages of 60 and 64,
I have another petition signed by Members of the Golden Age Club, Hawkesbury, Ontario, signed by 35 people. They object to the discriminatory provisions of Bill C-26, which would adversely affect single, divorced or separated people between the ages of 60 and 64-

-and it is signed by three residents of the village of Planta-genet who are against the discriminatory provisions of Bill C-26 under which needy persons living alone, as well as single and divorced persons aged 60 to 64 would be denied benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 150 people who are members of the Unions culturelle des franco-Ontariens and who are opposed to the provisions of Bill C-26 which discriminates against needy single, divorced or separated persons aged 60 to 64.
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by three residents of the village of Limoges, Ontario, who are also opposed to the provisions of Bill C-26 which might discriminate against needy single, divorced or separated persons aged 60 to 64.
I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, and this one is signed by six residents of Rockland's Laurier House. As you may have guessed, Mr. Speaker, these people are against Bill C-26 discriminatory provisions which would prevent needy persons aged 60 to 64 who live alone, and single, divorced or separated people persons from receiving benefits to which they are entitled.
CBC PROGRAM THE NATURE OF THINGS: A PLANET FOR THE TAKING


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present to the House of Commons a petition from the residents of my constituency of Fraser Valley East, British Columbia. They petition the House in order to express their concern that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has utilized the television program, The Nature of Things: A Planet for the Taking, to put forward the evolutionist point of view whilst ignoring the opposing points of view of creationism. The petitioners call upon Parliament to remind the CBC that it is mandated to provide balanced programs on controversial issues.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I have several very important petitions to present to the House today. The first one is signed by 36 residents of Le Club d'age d'or d'Alfred in the federal riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. These 36 petitioners are petitioning the Government to amend Bill C-26 to end its discriminatory provisions to ensure that all elderly people are treated equally.
I have another petition signed by 36 residents in the federal riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who belong to Le Club d'age d'or d'Embrun. They are also petitioning the federal Government to ensure that the discriminatory provisions of Bill C-26 are left out of that particular piece of legislation. They petition the Government based upon the inequality of that particular piece of legislation.
May 23, 1985

1 have another petition which is very similar to the first ones. It is signed by 17 senior citizens who belong to Le Club d'age d'or de St. Eugene in the federal riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, which is represented very ably by my colleague on my right. These petitioners are requesting that the Government ensure that Bill C-26 does not contain discriminatory provisions and that the provisions apply equally to all senior citizens.
I have another petition from Le Club d'age d'or de Treadwell in the federal riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. These petitioners are petitioning the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Conservative Government to ensure that Bill C-26 does not contain any discriminatory provisions with respect to senior citizens. Senior citizens have contributed immensely to the-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member is about to veer away from a summary and into a speech on an important issue, but nevertheless a speech.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am glad you agree that it is an important issue. It is for that reason my colleagues and I have presented a number of petitions.
The final petition I wish to present today is signed by 36 residents who belong to Le Club D'Age D'Or de Wendover in the federal riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. These 36 senior citizens are deeply distressed by the discriminatory provisions contained in Bill C-26, and they are asking the federal Government to ensure that those discriminatory provisions do not continue to exist in Bill C-26.
* *
*


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, question No. 326 will be answered today.


Mr. Gagliano: Have any public servants been seconded to the office of the Minister of State (Small Businesses) and, if so, how many and, in each case, what is his/her salary?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: As of April 15, 1985, one employee within the salary range $42,789-$48,076.
[ Translation]


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Fisheries Act


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A number of weeks ago I placed approximately 240 questions on the Order Paper concerning the "MacKay-Hatfield" affair. We on this side of the House have been patiently awaiting answers to those specific questions.
When might we be in receipt of answers to those very important questions on the Order Paper? If the Parliamentary Secretary intends to respond by saying "soon", I would ask him to define to the House what he means by "soon". I respectfully request that he indicate a specific period of time within which those answers might be forthcoming.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member's question, I spoke with the Solicitor General about that today and he informed me that those questions will be answered in the fulness of time.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, does the Parliamentary Secretary have any information regarding the questions which 1 placed on the Order Paper nearly two months ago, requesting that a full and detailed cost be provided to the House regarding the Quebec City Shamrock Summit, that expensive extravaganza? Those questions were put on April 1, 1985, and as yet no reply has been received from the Government. There are some 50 questions to which we deserve answers as the issue is a very important one. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to rise immediately and provide us with these answers.


John Horton McDermid: In the fullness of time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, and Motion No. 1 (Mr. Skelly) (p. 4983).
Mr. Speaker:: I suspect that someone will rise to ask me to see that it is four o'clock.


An Hon. Member:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Mr. Speaker:: It being four o'clock, pursuant to Order made Monday, May 13, 1985, the sitting is suspended until 4.30 p.m. at which time, may I remind Hon. Members, the House

May 23, 1985
The Budget-Hon. Michael Wilson
will consider a Ways and Means Motion by the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
At 4 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED At 4.30 p.m. the House resumed.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance) moved:: That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on September 4, Canadians voted for a new approach to Canada's problems and potential.
[ Translation]
They voted not only for a change in policies.

They voted for a new approach to making public policy. In doing so, they opened the way for a fresh start, based on national reconciliation and economic renewal.
Two months later, on November 8, we charted a course of action to create growth, jobs and opportunities. I set out our guiding principles and new policy directions in an Agenda for Economic Renewal. We pledged to consult before we acted. And we pledged to act fairly.
Today, I am putting before this House and the Canadian people a budget of opportunity. A budget to encourage private initiative. A budget to build growth and lasting jobs for Canadians.
This budget is designed to produce more efficient and more effective government. It contains the tough measures necessary to reduce the deficit.
The actions I am proposing are realistic, effective and fair. They represent a fundamental break with the past. For too long, government decided what is best for Canadians. Government set priorities, directed activity and subsidized effort. My budget calls for Canadians, not government, to choose what is best for Canada. And it challenges Canadians by rewarding success, not subsidizing effort.
The actions in this budget are consistent with the urgent priorities for international economic renewal affirmed by the leaders of the major industrial nations at the Bonn Summit. At home and in concert with our international partners, we are working to free up the entrepreneurial spirit of our citizens, to remove obstacles to productive growth, to lower barriers to international trade, to control and reduce high deficits, and to let the dynamism of our renewed economies produce jobs and opportunities for all.



WORKING TOGETHER

[Stage Direction]
Step by step, we have been building a clear and growing sense of harmony and purpose with our international trading partners and among all Canadians.
Since November, my colleagues and I have spoken with and listened to people from all parts of Canada. The National Economic Conference, chaired by the Prime Minister, brought Canadians together in a unique and historic forum to discuss with each other, and with government, how to achieve our shared objectives.
[Stage Direction]
My colleagues and I are grateful for the enthusiastic and positive response we have had from Canadians across the country. I have personally benefited from the most extensive round of pre-budget consultations ever held. These have had an important influence on this budget.
Canadians recognize that, in this uncertain world, we must work together with patience and determination to secure economic renewal. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has carried this message consistently, vigorously and unceasingly-to labour leaders and business leaders; to the provincial First Ministers at the Regina Conference last February; to the National Economic Conference; to President Reagan at the Quebec Summit in March; and to the leaders of our major trading partners at the Bonn Economic Summit.
And working together, we have made progress.
We have achieved a measure of federal-provincial harmony absent for many years. We have brought a new spirit of co-operation to government relations with business, with labour and with other groups. We have restored Canada-United States relations to the status worthy of two sovereign nations who are not only close neighbours but who share similar goals and ideals. And we have refurbished Canada's image around the world as a secure and reliable partner. We have begun, at home and abroad, a process of reconciliation and rejuvenation.

[Stage Direction]
We can point with pride to our record of action in the past eight months. Consider some of these achievements:
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is implementing a series of employment and training initiatives with the full support and co-operation of provincial governments and groups in the private sector. I will be committing additional funds to support these programs.
The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) has moved to establish Investment Canada in place of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. This has already provided a clear signal to investors around the world that Canada is once again "open for business".
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) has concluded energy accords with both Newfoundland and the western producing provinces. These historic agreements mark an end to a decade of federal-provincial bitterness and lost opportunity for Canada. They signal a new
May 23, 1985
[Stage Direction]
beginning that will benefit Canadians in all regions of this country.
We are acting vigorously to support our ability to excel as a trading nation. The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) is seeking the views of Canadians on how best to secure access to our traditional markets and expand our trade.
The Minister of the Environment, working with her provincial counterparts and the private sector, has made significant progress in the fight against acid rain.
The President of the Treasury Board has announced a new deal and a fair deal with the public service unions: a deal that among other things proposes to remove taxpayer subsidies from the financing of public service pensions by establishing the plan on a sound financial basis.
[Stage Direction]
The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) has proposed far-reaching and comprehensive reforms to the rules governing financial institutions in Canada. These proposals will promote competition, increase the availability of business financing and strengthen consumer protection.
We have extended eligibility for the spouse's allowance for the elderly to an additional 85,000 low-income widows and widowers. We have embraced the concept of employment equity that Judge Abella recommended to provide women and minority groups a fair chance at realizing their full potential. We have made progress in advancing the hopes and aspirations of aboriginal peoples and in eliminating discrimination under the Indian Act.
We are moving to modernize the Criminal Code and the divorce laws. And we have initiated a long-overdue study of Canadian broadcasting policy, a vital element of our cultural sovereignty.
In all these areas, and in others, we have consulted, we have listened and we have acted. Today, it is time to take further actions to secure our future.

[Stage Direction]
The outlook for sustained and balanced growth in the world economy is better than it has been in years. But that optimism must be tempered by certain realities. There are signs that the American economy is slowing. High deficits continue to put pressure on interest rates worldwide. Protectionist pressures threaten the open trading system that has done so much to increase world prosperity.
In Canada, our economy grew strongly in 1984. Real growth was 4.7 per cent, the highest since 1976. Inflation averaged 4.4 per cent, the lowest since 1971. Inflation has since fallen below 4 per cent.
Interest rates have declined. The prime rate is below 11 per cent for the first time since 1978. Mortgage rates have
The Budget-Hon. Michael Wilson declined substantially. Longer-term mortgages are beginning to appear-a sign of growing confidence.
[Stage Direction]
Investment is expected to expand strongly this year. I expect that inflation will continue to be subdued through 1985 and beyond; real economic activity will likely expand by more than 3 per cent this year-about the same as the average for the major industrial nations.
[Stage Direction]
Our recent performance and immediate prospects are encouraging. More than 200,000 jobs have been created since this government took office; the recorded increase in employment last month was the highest in five years. This is very positive, but it is still not good enough. The unemployment rate has recently fallen but remains just below 11 per cent. There are still close to 1.4 million Canadians unable to find work. We can, we must, and we will do better.
The federal government has accepted the responsibility to lead the way in meeting this challenge. But this is more than just a challenge for the government. What is needed is a national effort by the people of Canada. Everyone must participate.
Working together, we can build new confidence in the future of this country. Confidence is rising. It shows in higher consumer spending and growing business investment plans. Our job is to reinforce that confidence through our actions in this budget and to encourage Canadians to accept the challenge of economic renewal.

[Stage Direction]
To meet this challenge, I will be proposing a large number of measures in this budget-too many to mention all of them or to provide full details in this speech. Additional information is contained in the Budget Papers I am tabling today. 1 encourage Hon. Members and others to refer to this material.
The actions I am proposing are consistent with the comprehensive economic strategy that we set out last November. They are designed to deal with the two major problems facing Canada today: high unemployment and our spiralling national debt. High deficits constrain our ability to promote growth and create jobs. High unemployment in turn contributes to even higher deficits.
This budget addresses the vicious circle of unemployment and debt with a range of measures carefully balanced to support economic renewal now and into the future.
We confronted a major problem of rising deficits when we took office last September. This year, in the absence of any action by the government, the deficit would have risen to more than $38 billion. The actions taken in this budget, together with those introduced in November, will reduce this year's deficit by $4.4 billion to $33.8 billion. Next year, the deficit would have been over $40 billion. Our actions will reduce that deficit by more than $8 billion to a level of $32.7 billion.
[Stage Direction]
May 23, 1985
The Budget-Hon. Michael Wilson
I believe that larger reductions at this time would not be prudent in light of current economic conditions. Instead, I am proposing actions which control the deficit now while ensuring that significant reductions will occur over the balance of the decade.
1 am implementing a clear and realistic medium-term plan to control our debt. That plan requires tough actions to be taken now. There will be expenditure reductions and tax increases. The impact of these actions, and those taken in November, will continue to grow. Our actions will directly reduce the annual deficit at the end of the decade by more than $20 billion. Between now and then, our actions will cut a total of $75 billion from the projected increase in the public debt.
These actions represent an unprecedented response to control the dangerous trend of rising debt.
[ Translation]
But this budget does much more than restore fiscal responsibility to government finance. The strategic rebalancing of priorities in this budget constitutes a major step in the direction of securing a prosperous economic future. We will promote growth and job creation by encouraging private initiative, improving government effectiveness and controlling our national debt.

[Stage Direction]
Our priority goal is jobs for Canadians.
Maintaining the jobs we have and creating the jobs we seek requires a strong and healthy business sector. In particular we need to recognize that small and medium-sized businesses across the country are the most dynamic forces for growth and employment.
If we are to stimulate the creation of new businesses and the expansion of existing ones, we must increase our investment in productive activities. We are major savers, but toe few of us are willing to invest a part of our savings in new ventures. It is through capital investment that new ideas get implemented, new activities are generated and new jobs are created. I believe Canadians understand this. I believe they will respond to the challenge of taking a direct stake in the future if they are encouraged by government, not discouraged.
I want to encourage risk-taking, but in a way that lets the investor choose where to invest. I do not want to further distort the tax system by measures that tell Canadians where and how to invest. This government wants individual Canadians to pick the winners within a tax framework that rewards success.
I am therefore proposing a major change in the taxation of capital gains.
Individual Canadians will be granted a lifetime capital gains exemption of half a million dollars. All capital property will
qualify for the exemption. The lifetime exemption limit will be phased in over six years beginning this year.
The full exemption will be available immediately for capital gains realized on the sale of farm property. Based on my consultations with the farming community, I believe this to be the most effective way to provide the necessary assistance to this vital sector of the economy.
This measure will encourage more Canadians to invest in small and large businesses. It will help Canadian companies to accelerate their return to a healthy financial position by attracting new equity investment. It will assist smaller businesses in raising capital to pursue new ideas and new directions. It will help raise capital for research and development.
Most important, this is a broadly-based incentive that allows individual Canadians to decide where to put their money and how to create wealth, economic activity and jobs. This is central to our philosophy. The decisions should and will be made by individuals across Canada, not by politicians or public servants here in Ottawa. This is a measure designed to unleash to full entrepreneurial dynamism of individual Canadians.
With this measure we are sending a clear signal to Canadians across this country: invest in Canada's future; help build the strong and prosperous country we all seek; help create jobs. This government wants Canadians to enjoy the rewards of those efforts.
Lack of access to start-up capital has been a constraint for many small and medium-sized businesses.
I am announcing measures to encourage greater investment in smaller businesses by pension funds. Registered retirement savings plans will also be eligible to invest in private Canadian corporations with which they deal at arm's length. This will encourage the redirection of significant amounts of capital from one of the fastest growing pools of savings in the country into a sector of our economy that needs financing to create more jobs.
[Stage Direction]
An innovative venture capital initiative has been taken by organized labour in the province of Quebec, in co-operation with the Quebec government. The Solidarity Fund is managed by the Quebec Federation of Labour and has been used effectively to maintain and create jobs in Quebec, by investing in small and medium-sized businesses. Tax assistance to individuals investing in the fund has been provided by the Government of Quebec. This initiative deserves support, not only in Quebec but across Canada. Because of the unique nature of this initiative, the federal government will provide a tax credit for individual investors in the Solidarity Fund in Quebec or in any similar funds that receive provincial tax assistance.
[Stage Direction]
A further key to growth and more jobs is investment in research and development. Technological change is the driving force behind economic progress. We must keep pace in order
May 23, 1985
[Stage Direction]
to compete both at home and in foreign markets. A strong R and D performance has a vital role to play in meeting this challenge. It is an ongoing priority of this government to encourage a much-improved R and D performance in Canada.
I propose to assist small companies in a significant way by refunding 100 per cent of the tax credit which they earn on their first $2 million of qualifying R and D each year. This full cash refund will be of most use to start-up companies which have particular problems attracting investment capital.
I am also announcing changes to the definition of qualifying R and D expenditures that will respond directly to the real needs and requests of the R and D community.
The capital gains exemption will also aid the growth of high technology firms. As a consequence of these measures, I have decided that the flow-out of the scientific research tax credit to investors will be terminated as of today. There will be appropriate transition rules.
The Western Energy Accord has already led to strong signs of revival in the petroleum industry. This historic agreement will free up one of our most dynamic industries to create economic growth, new oil and gas security and job opportunities across Canada. To support the renewed growth of the energy sector, I am pleased today to table Notices of Ways and Means Motions that will give effect to the fiscal measures announced in the agreement.
In these three areas-small business, research and development and energy-the government has clearly identified the components of economic growth most likely to result in the greatest and fastest response.
The capital gains exemption will give small businesses a boost to expand. There are more than 700,000 small businesses in Canada. If each of these firms created just one new job, the impact would be dramatic.
If other Canadians start up new companies, more jobs will be created. And if our R and D incentives result in new inventions and more competitive companies, still more jobs will result. The energy sector has much room to grow, creating jobs across Canada.
The Challenge is there. The opportunity is there. I am confident that Canadians will seize that opportunity and lead the way to a competitive and vibrant economy.
As we become more competitive, it will be critical to ensure that international markets remain open to our products. More trade means more jobs. That is why the government is working hard on several fronts to improve Canada's trade position. The Prime Minister and President Reagan have opened the door to a more productive trading relationship between Canada and the United States. Canada is in the vanguard of countries pushing for the early start of a new round of multilateral trade negotiations. Here at home we are working closely with the provinces and consulting carefully with business and labour. We must develop negotiating positions which carry their full support and maximize for Canada the benefits of trade liberalization.
The Budget-Hon. Michael Wilson
[DOT] (noo)
All these actions will help to create job opportunities. As these new opportunities arise, we must ensure that Canadians, and particularly our young people, have the skills and training to seize them.
At the Regina First Ministers' Conference the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced a new and innovative approach to training and employment-an approach which will lead to career development, not just short-term jobs. This approach is based on greater private sector and local participation. It was unanimously endorsed by provincial governments and has received broad support from private sector and community groups across the country. We have allocated $900 million to these programs this year. Agreements are now being negotiated so that they can be implemented as quickly as possible. I am announcing today that for 1986-87 the government will allocate an additional $900 million to these programs. This commitment now will provide greater certainty to those designing and implementing these programs. This should help get them off the ground and operating more quickly.
I am also announcing that the government will soon launch a major review of the unemployment insurance program. Our objective is to improve and simplify the unemployment insurance system to make it fairer and to ensure that it promotes flexible adjustment in the labour market. I want to emphasize that we are not undertaking this review with an objective of reducing federal contributions to the unemployed.
Pending the completion of this review by the end of March 1986, I am announcing today that the government intends to maintain the current entrance requirements and to prevent any increase in unemployment insurance premium rates for 1986. Holding the rates to their current level will avoid imposing a heavy tax on lower-income employees and labour-intensive businesses, particularly in the small business sector.
We also need to have a hard and thorough re-examination of the corporate tax system.
There is something seriously wrong when investment decisions are dictated by the tax system rather than by good business sense. I am therefore tabling with this budget a discussion paper aimed at making the corporate income tax fairer and more effective in supporting economic growth. This paper describes how the same amount of revenue as in the current system could be raised in a simpler manner by eliminating a number of tax incentives and, in return, lowering the federal corporate tax rate by 7 percentage points. The effect would be to promote growth and job creation by allowing investment to be allocated more efficiently.

[Stage Direction]
The measures I have just announced will encourage private initiative throughout our economy and provide new opportunities for Canadians to innovate, create and build. They will spur economic growth and increase employment.
[Stage Direction]
May 23, 1985
The Budget-Hon. Michael Wilson
Canadians have been telling us for years that there is too much waste, too much inefficiency and too much overlap of programs in Ottawa. They know that a healthy and vibrant private sector must be supported by a government that is lean, efficient and effective.
[ Translation]
I will be proposing measures to streamline the operations of government, restrain its growth, rationalize a number of programs, increase fairness in the tax system and implement pension reform. I will also be proposing fundamental changes to the budget process.

[Stage Direction]
A Ministerial Task Force on Program Review, in co-operation with business and labour leaders in the private sector, is undertaking the most comprehensive and detailed examination of government programs ever carried out by a Canadian government. The purpose is to eliminate unnecessary activities, get rid of unproductive duplication and increase efficiency in government activities so that service to the public is improved.
I am tabling today, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister, the first report of the Ministerial Task Force. This report sets out the decisions the government has taken so far in response to the recommendations of the study teams.
Among other things, the study teams looked closely at the cost of tax incentives. They questioned whether particular incentives are worth the revenue loss that must be made up by other taxpayers. This is an important issue. In order to provide a basis for informed discussions, I will shortly be releasing a detailed accounting of the cost of targeted tax measures. In providing this information to Canadians, I am particularly pleased to be continuing the initiative introduced by the Minister of Justice when he held this portfolio in 1979.
The study team examining services and subsidies to business pointed out that undue stacking of benefits can result when investments receive both tax incentives and government grants.
I am proposing measures to reduce the undesirable effects of this giving with both hands.
The study team also recommended that many of the items currently exempt from the federal sales tax should be included in the tax base. The current exclusions are often imprecisely defined and lead to competitive distortions among manufacturers producing essentially similar products.
I am therefore announcing that, effective July 1, a range of items will no longer be exempt from the federal sales tax. These include candy and confectionery, soft drinks, pet foods, certain goods related to energy efficiency, and beauty and health goods. Over time, distortions were created as many of these items were excluded from the sales tax base. I will also be removing, effective July 1, the existing differential between the tax for off-site and on-site construction materials. Due to changing construction practices, the differential is no longer appropriate.
The government also places a high priority on rationalizing the current structure of Crown corporations. Crown corporations with a commercial value but no ongoing public policy purpose will be sold. The government announced last week an agreement in principle to sell the Northern Transportation Company Limited. The sale is expected to be completed by the end of June. In the near future the government also expects to sell Teleglobe Canada, Canadian Arsenals Limited and its interest in the Canada Development Corporation. Crown corporations with no commercial value and no effective public policy purpose will be dissolved and others, where appropriate, will be absorbed within existing departments. As a first step, up to 13 Crown corporations in these categories have been identified.
I am also announcing, on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board, measures to tighten the government's own belt and increase the effectiveness with which taxpayer dollars are spent. The government has already proposed that the guarantee of automatic indexation for public service pensions be replaced by a new formula. This would relate inflation protection to the earnings of the pension fund on a comparable basis to private sector pension funds, thus eliminating the financial risks to taxpayers in the future.
[ Translation]
The government is also proposing to end the guarantee of full indexation for pensions of Members of Parliament and Senators, effective January 1, 1986. A joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate will be established shortly to review all aspects of parliamentary pensions.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) has embarked on an aggressive program to improve the government's management of its cash and of its inventory of real property.
The Public Service was projected to increase by 15,000 in the next six years. Instead, action will be taken to bring about a decrease of 15,000 by the end of this period-a difference of
30,000.
These measures will require difficult decisions by public service managers. But we are confident that they will adjust to achieve greater productivity and efficiency with a minimum amount of disruption in service to the public.

[Stage Direction]
Government is not only too big, it also reaches too far into almost every corner of the economy. It over-regulates some industries and over-protects others. In trying to facilitate investment, government too often distorts it. Instead of encouraging strength, many actions perpetuate inefficiency. Too often, government frustrates entrepreneurship and discourages initiative.
May 23, 1985
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
We must re-examine a number of programs, remove obstacles to growth, cut waste, improve effectiveness and make better use of limited resources. I am announcing today a number of specific program changes to achieve those objectives.
[Stage Direction]
Transportation expenditures will be reduced by $75 million this year and $200 million next year. The operation of VIA Rail in the Windsor to Quebec City corridor will move toward full cost recovery.
In keeping with the philosophy of greater reliance on market incentives, the government is moving to reduce the use of grants and other subsidies. Industrial subsidies will be reduced by $100 million this year and $150 million next year. Agricultural expenditures will be lowered by $50 million a year.
The projected increase for official development assistance will be reduced next year by $50 million. This will not compromise the government's commitment to increase our foreign aid to 0.6 per cent of GNP by 1990. To assist the Canadian business community in actively pursuing third world projects of a developmental nature, the government will establish a new trade and development facility.
In energy, we will effect savings of more than $150 million this year and $900 million next year. The Petroleum Incentives Program will be phased out by December 31, 1987. Since the CANDU technology is now well established, federal funding for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's R and D program will be reduced over a six-year period. The priority that AECL assigns to health and safety research will be maintained.
The heavy water plants in Glace Bay and Port Hawkesbury are recognized as striking symbols of government waste and mismanagement. They cost the taxpayers of this country more than $100 million per year to produce a product for which there is no demand. We will move immediately to close the plants, but we will not abandon the people or the region of Cape Breton.
Workers at the plants will receive generous severance benefits and will be assisted in seeking new employment. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited will be announcing further details of these measures shortly.
To promote more productive, durable employment and development in Cape Breton, the government is taking two important steps.
We are introducing immediately an enriched tax incentive for new investment in Cape Breton. This will be achieved by significantly broadening the application of the existing 50-percent investment tax credit to include a wide range of investments. This will mean that almost all new investment in Cape Breton will be free of corporate income tax for 10 years.
The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) will soon announce the appointment of a private sector advisory committee to recommend new initiatives to the feder-
The Budget-Hon. Michael Wilson al and provincial governments to promote economic development and productive employment in Cape Breton.
The approach we are following in Cape Breton reflects the basic philosophy of this government with respect to the problems of adjustment in both the private and public sectors. We simply cannot afford to continue supporting non-competitive economic activity. To do so drains resources and energy from more productive, job-creating activity. But we must ensure that adjustment takes place in a humane way.
[Stage Direction]
This philosophy also underlies the approach the government is taking to assist individuals in isolated and remote communities. Tax relief for severance compensation will be offered, on a case-by-case basis, to employees affected by a company closure in isolated communities. Northern allowances are being reviewed and, after public consultation this summer, I will establish a permanent regime.

[Stage Direction]
When resources are increasingly limited, we must also adjust social programs so that benefits are targeted to those most in need and funds are freed for other social priorities. Nowhere is this more apparent than with regard to child benefits.

[Stage Direction]
I am announcing today a restructuring of benefits provided through the tax system to families with children. These changes respond to suggestions made by many individual Canadians, social groups and the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. Beginning in 1986, the child tax credit, which is delivered to low-income families, will be increased significantly and will reach a level of $524 per child in 1988-an increase of $140. The income level at which the child tax credit begins to phase out will be lowered. Starting in 1987, tax exemptions for children will be reduced over a three-year period so that the exemption for children under age 18 will equal the value of family allowances.
These changes achieve a number of important goals. The universal family allowance is maintained. Support to lower-income families will be increased and child benefits will be made more progressive. Our child benefit system will become more effective and fair but the changes will be implemented in a gradual way to ease the impact on those who will receive less.

[Stage Direction]
Adequate incentives and fairness in the structure of our private pension system are essential to ensuring that Canadians prepare for their retirement in a self-reliant manner.
After a decade of discussion about pension policy, I am proceeding to implement major reforms. These are far-reach-
[Stage Direction]
May 23, 1985
The Budget-Hon. Michael Wilson
ing changes. They will make fundamental improvements in the ability of Canadians to build decent pensions in a fair and flexible way.
1 will be introducing legislation to improve minimum standards for private pension plans under the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act. The measures improve rules for vesting, portability and survivor benefits. They will be of particular benefit to women. These proposals are the result of extensive consultations with provinces to ensure a high degree of uniformity in pension benefits across the country-another excellent example of federal-provincial co-operation.
[ Translation]
The changes that I am announcing will ensure that more workers will have the opportunity to join pension plans and the right to participate in the management of pension funds. [English]
They will provide workers with rights to their pension benefits after two years of plan membership and ensure that such benefits will be portable. They provide for equal pensions for women and men retiring under identical circumstances. Provision will be made for survivor benefits and for splitting of pensions between spouses upon marriage breakdown.
I am not proposing to legislate mandatory inflation protection at this time. There are too many uncertainties about the future costs of various proposals for inflation protection and there is no consensus on how best to achieve it. However, the Government will encourage all firms under federal jurisdiction to adjust pensions for inflation on a voluntary basis. They will be required to report publicly on the adjustments made and the source of funds used for that purpose.
The government will monitor the situation closely and continue discussions with provinces, business and other interested groups with a view to taking additional action to protect the purchasing power of pensions.
I also propose to reform the system of tax assistance for contributions to private pension plans. The current system discriminates among people in different types of pension plans. Starting in 1986 the limits on RRSP contributions will increase each year until 1990, at which time equity will be restored between RRSPs and other types of pension plans. Persons who do not fully use their allowable RRSP contribution in any year will be able to make up the difference within a seven-year period. This will provide Canadians with access to a much more flexible and comprehensive pension system.
These new measures will significantly improve opportunities to build decent retirement incomes for the growing number of Canadians in small business, farming and the professions.

[Stage Direction]
At the National Economic Conference the point was made strongly that the tax definition of disability is too narrow. I intend to broaden the definition of disability for income tax
purposes. I expect 120,000 individuals to benefit from this change.

[Stage Direction]
The arts and cultural sector plays a vital role in preserving and developing our intellectual heritage. It is not only a source of pride for Canadians, it is also an important source of jobs. I am announcing, in collaboration with the Minister of Communications, (Mr. Masse) the formation of a special task force to propose initiatives to encourage the private sector to increase its support for the arts.
In response to representations that have been made, I am also announcing tax changes to permit Canadian visual artists to write off the cost of their inventories and to assist them in donating their own works of art to charitable institutions.

[Stage Direction]
The voluntary sector will benefit two initiatives in this budget. I am proposing changes to make it easier to donate gifts of property to charities and to protect the charitable status of organizations carrying on non-partisan political activity in support of their charitable goals.

[Stage Direction]
Many Canadians have questioned the fairness of the tax system and of tax administration. This is a matter the government views with great concern. Our tax system rests on a foundation of self-assessment and voluntary compliance. If Canadians feel that the system is unfair, this foundation will erode.
[Stage Direction]
The greatest source of concern is the ability of some high-income individuals to take advantage of existing tax incentives to shelter virtually all of their income. There is no question that such tax planning is legitimate, and that the incentives serve valid objectives. Canadians nevertheless feel frustrated when some high-income individuals pay little or no tax. I share this frustration.
[Stage Direction]
I will therefore be introducing a minimum personal income tax, beginning in 1986, to ensure that high-income Canadians pay their fair share. I am tabling today a paper that explores three alternative ways of imposing a minimum tax. I will use this consultation process to encourage the provinces to adopt the same system in order to maintain uniformity and consistency across the country.
In addition, I am moving to curtail the tax-shelter financing of certain types of property, including yachts, recreational vehicles and hotels when used in certain circumstances.
Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition still has a sense of humour.
May 23, 1985

1 am also proposing to end the tax advantages of splitting income through interest-free or low-interest loans among family members. Transitional rules will ensure that the new rules are introduced fairly.
Building on the significant initiatives introduced by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty), I am proposing a number of further measures to achieve fairer tax administration consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Additional protection will be provided for taxpayers in the area of search and seizure, audits and examinations, and demands for tax information.
We will continue to move forward with necessary and effective change in the tax system in a responsible, moderate way. This approach is reflected in our commitment to a minimum tax for Canada and in the discussion paper on the corporate income tax. But I have deliberately not launched a process of massive tax reform as a solution to the problem of tax fairness or any other problem. We must not and we will not risk creating the kind of uncertainty and instability that could undermine the effort to get Canadians investing strongly in opportunities that will lead to growth and jobs.



IMPROVING THE BUDGET PROCESS

[Stage Direction]
Finally, I am tabling a discussion paper that proposes significant reforms to the budget-making process, including a fixed period each year for presentation of the annual budget. This would provide greater certainty for planning and decision-making for Parliament, for the federal government, for provincial governments and for the private sector. It would provide the opportunity for more complementary economic and fiscal policy-making by both levels of government.

[Stage Direction]
The actions I have taken will revitalize the private sector and make the federal government a more effective partner in pursuing economic renewal. For this partnership to truly flourish, however, we must restore order to our financial position.
In November, I estimated that the deficit for 1984-85 would be $34.6 billion. Final figures for 1984-85 are not yet available, but my current estimate is that the deficit will be just under $36 billion. I expect that government expenditures will be lower than projected. But revenue projections have not been met.
When I began to plan the budget for this year, I was looking at estimated deficits that would have continued to rise, even with continued growth in the economy and even after the actions I took in November. This was quite clearly unacceptable.
It is important that Canadians understand the magnitude of the deficit and debt problem and why it poses serious risks to our ability to achieve sustained economic growth.
The Budget-Hon. Michael Wilson
The public debt is simply the sum of all past deficits. It took 100 years to accumulate a debt of $18 billion. Now, less than two decades later, the debt is approaching $200 billion.
Like any borrower, the Canadian government pays interest on this debt. And like any borrower, the government has been affected by high interest rates. Interest charges have risen from about $8 billion per year in the late 1970s to $22 billion last year. They have become the fastest growing component of government expenditures.
The government has been borrowing additional funds to pay these interest charges. That is why our debt is spiralling out of sight. If we do not show the resolve to deal with this problem, the result will be paralysis of the Government of Canada.
This is the vicious circle we are now in. At some point we must begin to pay the bills for current services and not pass them on to our children.
[Translation)
If we fail to act now and maintain our present borrowing pattern, annual interest charges at the end of the decade could approach $50 billion.
[Stage Direction]
Where would we find the money?
We might try to borrow it. But that just continues to build up future problems. At some point, the bills come due.
We could simply print it. But to do so would guarantee an outbreak of inflation and rising interest rates that would damage confidence, investment and growth in the same way it did in the 1970s and early 1980s. This would be an abdication of responsibility. I will not do that.
Ultimately, we would be forced to find the money through drastic cuts in government services and major tax increases. Many government programs would be in jeopardy. This is also unacceptable.
[Stage Direction]
Some say that faster economic growth will solve our fiscal dilemma. It is an important part of the solution. And the measures I have introduced will boost economic growth. But growth alone will not solve our problem. If we are to get off this deficit treadmill, we must also slow down the debt spiral through lower deficits and lower interest rates.
[Stage Direction]
We all know that lowering interest rates is easier said than done.
It is true that interest rates in Canada are heavily influenced by interest rates in the United States. And as we deal with our fiscal problem we must be mindful of how quickly and how deeply the United States is prepared to cut its own deficit. But Canadian interest rates also depend on our own fiscal actions.
A key action to control interest rates is to maintain our vigilance against inflation. And that means acting to reduce our annual deficits, so that Canadian and foreign investors can be assured that future governments will not resort to the printing press to inflate our debt away.
[Stage Direction]
May 23, 1985
The Budget-Hon. Michael Wilson
Most Canadians agree that we must restore fiscal order. But they rightly feel that this process must start by eliminating waste and inefficiency in government, and that any further actions that are necessary must be balanced and fair.
The measures I have outlined to put our own house in order, together with the actions announced in November, represent a significant step in getting control of government spending. Program expenditures are expected to increase by slightly more than 2 per cent this year and next year-the lowest rates of increase in almost two decades. The government's nonstatutory program expenditures, excluding defence and foreign aid, will actually decline by more than $1 billion next year- the first such decline in more than two decades.
This is an impressive start. But it is not enough. Over the past decade, the financial position of the Government of Canada has worsened at an accelerating pace. As a percentage of Gross National Product, budgetary expenditures rose by 3.7 percentage points in the past decade. During the same period, budgetary revenues as a percentage of Gross National Product have dropped by 3.5 percentage points. There is a built-in structural imbalance that contributes to an everwidening gap between revenues and expenditures. With each passing year, government policies that tend to widen this gap have become less and less sustainable.
With total spending that now exceeds $100 billion, we cannot make significant saving without examining transfer programs. These programs now account for over $40 billion and are growing rapidly. One of the key factors in this growth is the automatic indexation of transfer programs to the consumer price index, regardless of the income situation of the recipient.
The purpose of indexation has been to protect Canadians from the effects of rising prices. But it has become increasingly clear that Canadians must also find a way to protect themselves against rising deficits and the soaring national debt.
Accordingly, I propose to modify indexation for old age security payments and family allowances. Beginning January 1, 1986, these payments will be indexed only for the annual increase in the consumer price index greater than 3 per cent. No payment will be reduced as a result of this measure. Any increase in inflation above 3 per cent will be fully compensated.
By maintaining the principle of indexation, we are assuring Canadians that if serious inflation breaks out again, these payments will be protected by this potent form of insurance. The government will review the adequacy of payments in light of future circumstances and will increase them as resources permit.
[Stage Direction]
Indexation to the full consumer price index will continue for the guaranteed income supplement and for payments to veterans.
[Stage Direction]
To spread the burden of expenditure reduction fairly, the government will also be seeking to limit the rate of growth of
transfers to provinces to yield annual savings of $2 billion by the end of the decade. There will be no absolute reduction in federal transfers. Even after this adjustment, federal transfers to provincial governments will grow significantly over the balance of this decade. In 1990-91, they would represent about the same share of total program expenditures as they do today.
With this budget and the action taken in November, we have reduced every area of government spending. It is only reasonable that transfers to provinces, which account for 19 per cent of program expenditures, should be included. I made a commitment to my provincial counterparts last January that I would not reduce these transfers in the current fiscal year and that commitment will be honoured. I will meet with provincial Finance Ministers this fall to discuss the full range of issues relating to federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. I will wish to discuss at that time how quickly and how best we can move to secure the savings the government intends to achieve.
[Stage Direction]
We have looked hard at areas for expenditure reduction. We have started with our own operations and we have restructured programs in a balanced and effective way. We have put in place a plan that will meet the need for sustained reduction of deficits over the medium term. We have tried to be fair to individuals to other governments. We have delivered on our commitment to take actions that will achieve net expenditure reductions of $15 billion in 1990-91. And we have done so in a balanced way that is sensitive to the regions of the country. [English]
This restructuring is very significant. But it is not enough to make a meaningful start on restoring a healthy fiscal balance. I have therefore, reluctantly, accepted the necessity of increasing taxes.
I am proposing the following changes:
The automatic indexation of excise levies on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products is being terminated. Effective today the excise levy on alcoholic beverages will increase by 2 per cent. Effective this afternoon the levy on tobacco products is being increased by 25 cents on a package of 25 cigarettes. I recognize this increase is substantial, but I have taken into account the serious health hazards and high public health costs related to smoking.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: For our own good, Michael?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I see the Hon. Member is trying to buy a package of cigarettes before the price goes up.
The Canadian Ownership Special Charge of 0.7 cents per litre on transportation fuels will be removed June 1. In its place, the excise tax on transportation fuels will increase by 2 cents per litre, effective September 3. I am delaying this increase until after Labour Day in order to avoid any impact
May 23, 1985

on the tourist season and on Canadians planning holiday travel this summer.
The rates of federal sales tax will be increased by one percentage point, effective January 1, 1986.
I am also proposing a number of income tax changes.
-The modified indexation factor applied to personal transfer payments will also apply to the tax system. Beginning next year, the indexation of personal exemptions and tax brackets will reflect only the annual increase in the consumer price index greater than 3 per cent.

-The $50 federal personal tax reduction will be eliminated next year.
-A temporary deficit-reduction surtax will be imposed on higher-income individuals and large corporations.

For individuals, the surtax will extend from July 1, 1985 to December 31, 1986. It will be levied at an annual rate of 5 per cent of basic federal tax in excess of $6,000 and a further 5 per cent of basic federal tax in excess of $15,000. This surtax should not increase tax liabilities for individuals with gross incomes less than about $40,000. For large corporations, the surtax will extend from July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986 and will be levied at a rate of 5 per cent of federal tax payable.
-A two-year tax will be imposed on the capital of large banks and trust companies, effective in 1986. The purpose of this measure is to ensure that they bear an appropriate part of the tax load at a time when deficit reduction is a high priority.
-Effective today contributions to a registered home ownership savings plan will no longer qualify for preferential tax treatment. Plans will cease to be tax-exempt at the end of 1985, but individuals will be able to withdraw the accumulated funds for any purpose with no tax liability. There is currently more than $2 billion in such plans. I am confident that, with the measures I have announced to provide incentives to growth and job creation, a substantial portion of these funds will find their way into entrepreneurial and job-creating investments, as well as providing a boost to housing and consumption.



BALANCE AND IMPACTS

[Stage Direction]
The over-all impact of the tax increases must be assessed in the context of the budget as a whole. Net tax increases will amount to $200 million this year and $1.8 billion next year. Coupled with the expenditure reductions I reported earlier, the total direct impact of our actions since November will be to reduce the estimated deficit by $4.4 billion this year, to a level of $33.8 billion. For next year, the total direct impact of our actions in November and today will be to reduce the estimated deficit by $8.3 billion, to a level of $32.7 billion. The rate of increase in the accumulated debt of the Government of Canada will drop from 23.2 per cent last year to 14.6 per cent next year.
The Budget-Hon. Michael Wilson
It is more misleading than helpful to present a precise view of the deficit five years from now. Small changes in economic growth or interest rates can have large impacts on the deficit, even in the short run. For example, a 1 per cent change in interest rates would have an impact of $1.1 billion on next year's deficit. Such effects compound over time. It would be foolhardy to fine-tune policy to precise estimates that we know are uncertain and will inevitably be proven wrong. What is important is the credibility of our medium-term strategy. Canadians need to have confidence that we will reduce deficits and control the ultimate level of the debt. The measures I announced in November and today will ensure that the annual deficit is more than $20 billion lower than it would otherwise have been by the end of the decade. About 80 per cent of that reduction will be on the expenditure side. Most importantly, these measures will cut $75 billion from the projected debt over that same period.
Given reasonable international economic conditions, these measures should ensure that the growth of the debt is brought back into line with the growth of the economy. This is a major improvement over the situation that confronted this government eight months ago. At that time we were faced with a debt that would continue to grow at a rate far greater than that of the economy long into the future. In a resolute fashion, we have taken the steps to reverse that dangerous trend and put our financial affairs on a responsible course.
On balance, I am confident that the measures I have proposed today will enhance economic growth and employment in the short run. Over the medium term they establish a sound foundation for sustained economic growth and job creation.
Pursuant to Standing Order 64(1), I table in both official languages copies of certain Notices of Ways and Means Motions relating to the Budget. I would ask that Orders of the Day be designated for the consideration of these Ways and Means Motions pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 64(2).

[Stage Direction]
If I have a preoccupation with any one economic target, it is with the good, satisfying and durable jobs that Canadians, and particularly young Canadians, want and need.
This budget is about jobs.
If I believed that higher deficits and a more rapidly rising debt would help create those jobs, 1 would gladly increase the deficit to achieve that goal. But it hasn't worked in the past and it is not going to work in the future.
[Stage Direction]
The economic problems facing this country are not easy to solve. But solve them we must if we are to succeed in this competitive world.
[Stage Direction]
May 23, 1985
The Budget-Mr. Johnston
Let us not delude ourselves. Achieving full economic renewal will take sustained effort and time.
[Stage Direction]
This budget is realistic. It is fair. It tackles our problems as they exist and as this government faced them on taking office last September. When we set out the problems and our directions for solving them in November, we were not building illusions. We were honest with Canadians. We accepted our mandate for change and we made clear that implementing and adjusting to change would test the strength and the resolve of all of us.
We promised to act, but first we promised to consult fully and openly with Canadians in reaching the decisions that I have presented to you today.
We received good advice from Canadians on a great many issues and that advice is reflected in this budget.
We have acted to control and reduce deficits in a balanced and careful way that will not tip the economy off its current course of growth. But we have acted with firmness and determination because without control of our accumulating debt, our economy would be unable to produce the satisfying jobs we need.
[Stage Direction]
We have carefully balanced the measures in this budget so that costs and benefits will be fairly shared. The budget brings forward a number of measures and proposals designed to improve social programs and increase tax fairness.
[Stage Direction]
The actions in this budget reflect our faith in people, in the ingenuity and the drive of individual Canadians to seize opportunities and to invest in their own future. We have brought forward measures which encourage Canadians to invest, on their own initiative, in the building of new existing enterprises. [Translation]
This budget is far-reaching in its impact. It is a clear break from the past.
[Stage Direction]
We Canadians understand more and more the limits of what governments can do. It is now time to show what we can do- individually and together-when the opportunity is there.
That is why the Agenda for Economic Renewal in November focused on providing the conditions for productive economic growth rather than attempting to impose or to direct that growth. That is why budget places the emphasis on rewarding success rather than subsidizing effort.
People working together provide the enduring strength of this nation. This budget builds on that strength.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) had the good sense not to come forward and shake the hand of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: She is probably one of the few people in the House who actually knows what the Budget contains. Some of us who have had the opportunity of looking at it in a preliminary way would have to agree that this is one of the worst Budgets that has ever been presented in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps Members of the House would give this Hon. Member the same courtesy that was given to the Minister of Finance.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I also want to tell my colleagues that I intend to be brief because this has virtually left me speechless, and I intend to resume tomorrow morning. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when Frank Miller was the Treasurer of Ontario, they found his Budget in the garbage before he delivered it. I can say that this Minister should have been so fortunate. The garbage bins must still wait a few days.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is here. I hope that he elects to participate in the budget debate. When he does, we expect him to rise in his place and apologize to the Canadian people for the breach of trust, the breach of the promises he made during the election campaign and the breach of commitments which he has given to Canada since assuming office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: How often have we heard from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance that there would be no general tax increase, but, putting the best complexion on it, this is one of the most massive, regressive tax increases that we have seen in this country. In addition, I remind the Prime Minister that on December 20 he stood in this House and, in reply to a question from the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), he said, "There will be no reduction in the tax exemption for families". That is something that he foresaw, and here it is.
The minimum tax that we heard so much about during the election campaign, where is it? Instead, we have a discussion paper. The measure has been lobbed offside and it will be discussed, consulted and so on. We were told that it will come in 1986, but there is no model put forward upon which any proposal could be based.
So, Mr. Speaker, he simply has failed to live up to his promises. He has imposed taxes which are unacceptable to the Canadian people.
May 23, 1985



At least, after all these months, they have finally pinned their Tory colours to the mast. There are a few seductive ideas for the boys on Bay Street.
[ Translation]
In addition, there is an avalanche of unfair and regressive taxes which will fuel inflation and increase unemployment. Well now, where are the jobs promised by our Prime Minister?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: None!


Donald James Johnston: Over the last eight months, I have come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister is a disciple of that legendary circus master, Phineas T. Barnum, who said that there's a sucker born every minute. Judging by the applause we have heard from the Tory back-benchers tonight, he is right in so far as they are concerned. However, there are no suckers on this side of the House and there are no suckers among the Canadian public.
The Minister of Finance is following the counsel of that army field commander who decided that he had to destroy a town in order to save it. The Minister of Finance is telling us that he will destroy the economy in order to save it.
We have been treated to months and months of consultation and an economic summit meeting. We all want to know who was consulted who recommended this enormous tax on middle-class and lower-income Canadians. Who were they? Can the Minister prepare a list telling us with whom he consulted? Incidentally, I am going to get the Minister of Finance a calculator. Perhaps he could tell us who recommended, by my calculations, total tax increases, personal, sales and excise, of $1.17 billion for 1985-86. Next year they will be $4,300 million. I must admit that in making these calculations, I have taken out the capital gains reference.

And I would like to inform the House and especially the Prime Minister who knows my riding very well, that the people in Saint-Henri-Westmount are not much affected by the capital gains exemption. However, they are affected by other taxes which are a very real burden: the excise tax on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products, taxes on candy and confectionery goods, pet food, soft drinks, antiseptic creams, lotions, soap, bandages, wood stoves, and so forth.

We now know that Tories hate dogs and children. They are putting a sales tax on pet food and a tax on children's candies.
The Budget-Mr. Johnston
This is a massive tax grab. Worst of all, as the Minister of Finance himself said a few weeks ago, it is very inflationary. There will be a temporary surtax on the middle class, a tax on fuel of two cents a litre, and no minimum tax on the salaries of the $500,000-per-year bank presidents of whom the Prime Minister so often reminds us.
In concluding these brief remarks, let me just say that this Budget tramples on the middle-class Canadian and hurts the poor with its progressive taxation on sales taxes. It has buried the unemployed.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks, here is another example: a married couple living on one salary and with two dependent children below the age of 18, with a family income of $20,000, pays $175 income tax. That is what it says in the paper I have here. If we add sales tax, the excise tax on alcohol and the tax on fuel, it adds up to $350 a year, at least, for this family. Mr. Speaker, this is incredible and it is appalling! [English]
I will say more about this tomorrow, but I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, in case you are interested in attending tomorrow's debate, that the deficit reductions through savings are a fraud for the most part. There are no five-year projections. It is not possible to make projections; yet we are told that there will be $20 billion taken off the deficit annually in 1990-91. That is political arithmetic in the extreme.
There is a lot of wishful thinking in that Budget. I must say that we on this side of the House will fight tooth and nail for the benefit of those Canadians who see themselves literally savaged by its provisions.
If I may, I now move, seconded by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien):
That the debate be now adjourned.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Monday, May 13, 1985, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
On motion of Mr. Johnston, the House adjourned at 6.07 p.m.

Friday, May 24, 1985