1985-06-14

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is totally without shame. It has misled the senior citizens of the country. Like the rest of Canadians who were promised all sorts of goodies during the election campaign, the senior citizens saw the Tory Government do an about face following its election. One of its members even had the nerve to say that the Government is not committed in any way to respecting the promises that were made.
It is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, for two Tory losers like Roy McMurtry and Lawrence Hanigan to be appointed to fat cat government jobs and have their salaries increased by almost $60,000 per year, while senior citizens of my riding will each be losing $100 this year. The salary increase for those two Tory appointees is enough to restore the full indexation of OAS to every one of the 6,000 senior citizens in my riding.
I urge the Government to cancel the salary increases of these two Tories, and to restore immediately those benefits to the senior citizens of my riding. I am sure there is enough money wasted by the Government in every other riding of the country to restore full benefits to everyone.
* [DOT] *


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, sports fans across the country, and I, have a great deal of concern. I rise today because many have called upon us to express our concern about the rumoured trade talks about the true blue Liberal Leader. The Liberal Leader has made it clear that he rejected Conservative Party advances in 1975, indicating that he did not want to trade sweaters in the middle of the game. However, what about after the game, or in between seasons?
All sports fans find that the rumours do persist. Is it possible that a blockbuster trade is in the offing for the coming summer recess? Is it possible that Team Grit will send their leader over
to the Blues for future consideration? Why not Filmon from Manitoba, or Miller from Ontario?
Finally, questions have to be asked of the Blue Shirts. What about the rumour that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) was one of the 40 who begged and pleaded with the captain of the Grits to jump ship? I suppose we will have to reflect on the words of Yogi Berra, Mr. Speaker. "It ain't over 'til it's over".


PETROLEUM RECOVERY PROJECT, SARNIA, ONT.
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, a giant step has been taken by officials of Devron Petroleum Limited, Shell Canada, and officials of the Departments of Finance, and Energy, Mines and Resources. Devron Petroleum Limited is now ready to commence a major research and development project in Sarnia Township to recover petroleum that was left in place after usual recovery methods were exhausted in the early 1900s. This innovative recovery scheme to develop an abandoned oil field further is possible due to the diligence and quick action of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in amending Part I of the Income Tax Act to accommodate new technology in the oil and gas sectors.
Devron is a small Canadian business, and the success of this project has already meant the employment of 75 people and could result in the implementation of the recovery method in heavy oil fields and sand deposits in other parts of Canada. The Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources and Finance certainly did much to get this uniquely Canadian project moving. It once again reaffirms the Government's commitment to support the small entrepreneur oil producer with tax incentives rather than government grants, which represents a fundamental break with the old way of doing things.
This is a positive example of what the May 23 Budget can, and will, accomplish. A medium-sized Canadian business is investing in Canada, helping to create jobs, and generating growth with new activities.

June 14, 1985


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, our Government has restored a climate of confidence among Canadian investors by making decisions conducive to economic growth. Last January, for instance, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) announced a $38 million investment to fund the construction of the gas pipeline to supply the cities of Drummondville, Acton Vale and Saint-Hyacinthe.
This financial injection will create 675 jobs over three years and, between now and 1987, generate $125 million in over-all capital expenditures in those three municipalities.
Dominion Textile and the Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil Agropur cheese industry-it ranks first worldwide and is owned by 1,350 farmers-have decided to switch to natural gas, which means that each company will invest $500,000.
Last June 3, Celanese plant management announced their intention to convert to natural gas, again an investment of more than half a million dollars, proof positive that they have confidence in the future and will create permanent jobs in my riding.
Mr. Speaker, those projects spell economic recovery. They show that the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the economic policy of this Government have restored confidence.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Commons the NDP tried to bring pressure to bear on the silent Tories, the silent majority of back-benchers, on the pension issue, by giving out their phone numbers and asking people to call them. We now find that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) met with his caucus leaders at breakfast where they cooked up plans to stiffen the resolve of the wavering Tory back-benchers. Apparently the Prime Minister was told that deindexation was only an issue with the NDP in the House of Commons.
On the contrary, we think it is an issue with all old age pensioners in Canada today, and all ordinary Canadians who are approaching pension age. If people are not going to call the Tory back-benchers, or cannot get through, they should call the Prime Minister collect at (613) 992-4211. That number again is (613) 992-4211.
1 would like to point out that the ordinary Canadian who is 50 years old today and will retire in the year 2000 will lose $36,000 in purchasing power. Therefore, the salt and pepper group, the 50-year olds, should also phone the Prime Minister and demand an end to this terrible scheme.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
*
* *

Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the American Government imposed an outrageous tariff on dried and salted codfish moving into the United States from Canada. Fifty per cent of our exports of dried and salted fish go to the United States. Ten thousand fishermen and fish plant workers are affected in Canada, most of them in Newfoundland.
There is one riding which is affected just as much as mine, and that is the riding of Manicouagan which is represented by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). There are 700 workers in that riding, and 700 workers in my riding. Perhaps that is the only thing we have in common.
Is this the definition of free trade? It is free for the United States, but costs residents of the ridings of Gander-Twillingate and Manicouagan 20 cents on the dollar. We ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to get the lead out of his shoes and do something. We will give him until next week to produce some results.


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on an issue which I believe to be of great importance not just to small businessmen in Canada but to every Canadian. The Canada Post Corporation has asked the Government to approve a 2 cent hike in the price of first class postage. This would place Canadian rates at 47.8 per cent higher than their U.S. counterparts.
Canada Post justifies this request on the basis of its need to reduce its deficit. Yet how can I, or any Member of the House, justify such an increase to our constituents when daily we receive letters of complaint, and hear numerous horror stories about the operations and poor service of Canada Post?
Independent businessmen are incensed by the proposed increases, and rightly so. They must depend on the mail for their cash flow, yet they know the system has proved unreliable time and again. Now we are once more asked to subsidize this edifice of inefficiency. Canadians know that if they ran their households or businesses in this fashion, they would soon be out of business. But that is not the case for Canada Post.
Mention the Post Office to any person on the street and you can be guaranteed to hear a story of frustration and anger over continued poor service.
On behalf of the constituents of Parkdale-High Park, I ask the Government to deny Canada Post this increase, and I urge
June 14, 1985

that a full review and investigation be made into the operations of this Crown corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to complain about the proposed postal increase. A recent constituency case comes to mind. However, it deals with early, as opposed to late, mail delivery service.
My constituent, Mr. Day, asked that his mail be held for five weeks while he was away on holidays from May 3 to June 6. He asked for delivery to resume on June 7.
Being the efficient service that it is, Canada Post delivered his mail on June 6, one day early, and not to his mail box but to his milk box. This resulted in his mail being stolen, with a loss of cheques in excess of $2,000.
Every week I receive numerous calls and letters from my constituents who are clearly not satisfied with the service provided by Canada Post. Time and time again their major complaint concerns the consistency in mail delivery.
Millions of ordinary Canadians, business people and charitable organizations rely almost exclusively on a dependable postal system. Inconsistencies in service have serious consequences for these individuals.
1 recognize the present financial position of Canada Post, but this in itself is not enough justification for another postal rate increase. Canada Post needs to examine seriously the efficiency of its operations and the level of service being provided to Canadians. Once efficiency and service have been improved to an acceptable level, I would wholeheartedly support a postal rate increase to tackle its financial difficulties.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, today we learn from newspapers that the first meeting of substance between the two acid rain envoys took place in Ottawa yesterday, three months after their appointment. That is a rather slow start which reflects poorly on the degree of commitment and urgency of the two envoys. In other words, it is three months lost.
The meeting was over in just a few hours-a real quickie- which allowed only a few people an opportunity to speak to the envoys. We do not get the impression that the envoys are spending a lot of time on their assignment-on the contrary. But you get what you pay for from dollar a year men.
It is worth noting that the United States envoy, Mr. Lewis, is quoted as saying: "President Reagan is interested in more than continuing studies". If that is so, why did he not say so in Quebec City at the Shamrock meeting? If that is so, why is President Reagan not taking the initiative of launching a control program? If that is so, why has the United States not yet announced that it is going to Helsinki to sign the international acid rain agreement?
We hope that Mr. Lewis is not raising false hopes with the statement he made yesterday. Canadians are watching the public pronouncement of the acid rain envoys very closely, and do not want to be led down the garden path.


THE BUDGET
Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, because the Opposition has been telling us that senior citizens were concerned about the recent Budget, I sought out various seniors within my riding last weekend. They expressed satisfaction with their present care and most did not mind contributing to the reduction in the deficit. Some were very concerned, but they spoke only the Opposition buzzwords. When they learned the facts, most were satisfied.
S)
One 80 year old lady was difficult to convince Mr. Speaker. She had all of the Opposition's buzzwords, but was a little annoyed when "I had all of the answers". She felt that neither she nor her family should pay for the deficit. She called me on her family's urging. I should tell you, Mr. Speaker, that her son-in-law was a Liberal candidate in a previous election. She has a son who has a Ph.D. Beyond that she has a son who is a member of the Opposition. Any "anxiety, heartache, uncertainty", and I quote the Hon. Member, are products of an organized attack on seniors by the Opposition for purely political motives. I call on the Opposition to stop this cowardly attack on the seniors of Canada.
*


Mr. Speaker:: Before we begin Question Period, may I advise Members that, for some reason, there appears to be a delay in the distribution of Hansard and we will have that corrected as quickly as we can.

June 14, 1985
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the Prime Minister back from his press conference. I did not see it, but I understand he talked about a considerable amount of flexibility in terms of the Budget, that it is not necessarily here for all time, and that it may change.
In light of that suggestion, and the statement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare yesterday that these are proposals that are not yet in effect in this document we have here, can he tell us here in the House, right now, whether these are really proposals and not decisions? If so, why on earth have we been taking the time of the House debating and voting on them, as we have done in the past? Would the Prime Minister do one other thing for us? Would he tell us who is the official government spokesman on this Budget? Is it the Minister of Finance? Is it the President of the Treasury Board? Is it the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Is it the Minister of State for Finance, or is it somebody else, because there is a tremendous amount of confusion and contradiction? Would the Prime Minister help us by having one person who can make definitive statements on what the Budget really is?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as is always the case in a British parliamentary democracy, all Ministers of the Crown and all members of the Government speak, and are quite capable of speaking, on behalf of the Budget at any time.


Mr. Deans:: I would not bet on that.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The matter to which my hon. friend refers, the Budget, clearly represents major changes. We have tried to come to grips with overwhelming economic problems. We have a lot of catch-up to do because of the very difficult financial situation we were left by the Liberal Government, to the point where the credibility of some important social programs was placed in jeopardy, and we have tried to undertake that in a fair and in an honourable way.
I acknowledged at the press conference, without hesitation, that one of the issues affecting the elderly poor clearly is a source of concern for all of us, which was why a provision was inserted in the Budget that we would monitor that very carefully. One of my concerns was that, although this measure does not take effect until 1986, the portrayal of it by some members of the Opposition, and transposed across the country, is that pensioners today have lost some benefits. Nothing could be further from the truth. That was a distortion of the truth and reality. That is why we wanted to monitor it very carefully, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT PENSION PROVISION BE WITHDRAWN
Donald James Johnston: would definitely take issue with that, Mr. Speaker. 1 do not think we have made any misrepresentations about the impact of the Budget.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: I want to say to the Prime Minister that we do have a certain amount of sympathy for him as he picks his way through the damage that has been strewn across the country as a result of the Budget.

However, we sympathize more with the victims, and especially the elderly. In this case, it would in fact seem more appropriate, and since the Prime Minister has caused anxiety to take hold of the elderly in this country, could he give the House the assurance today that he will withdraw this proposal here and now, in order to provide a measure of security for individuals who are being adversely affected in this way and who are unable to protect themselves against inflation? Could the Prime Minister do that for us here in the House today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the elderly in Canada would be more inclined to believe in the Hon. Member's sincerity if, as a member of a Liberal Government, he had not been involved in severely cutting back benefits for the elderly in 1982. And since the Hon. Member, who was a Minister at the time, took that kind of action, it is clear his credibility has suffered as a result. The provision has had no negative impact on the elderly. According to the Budget, this measure would and will become effective on January 1 of next year, but also according to the Budget, we are monitoring the situation on a regular basis to ensure, as far as possible, that no problems will result for the neediest in our society.


REQUEST FOR EARLY WITHDRAWAL
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have one final, short supplementary question. The Prime Minister has called an emergency caucus meeting this weekend to consider-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: There is the evidence; there is the evidence. At least subtract that from my time, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously the issue is one of damage control and how to cut losses. Will the Prime Minister assure us that he will not listen to the counsel of those who wish to hoist this issue and postpone the decision until autumn in order to save political face? Will he do the right thing and resolve the problem of deindexation before Parliament rises? That is the right thing to do and we all know it. Monitoring is nonsense. Let us get it
June 14, 1985

out of the way right now, so that we can move on to discuss other aspects of the Budget, and at least people will know that they will be protected.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, at least there is one person in the Liberal Party who knows that no damaging effects will take place to the elderly and that they will only take place, if it comes to that, next year, and that is the Leader of the Liberal Party, who has not been here this week four days out of five. Clearly, he is not very concerned about the kinds of points which are being raised.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that is unparliamentary-


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister should not comment upon the presence or absence of Members in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Points of order cannot be raised during Question Period. It is true that Hon. Members are not supposed to refer to the presence or absence of other Members in the House. However, that applies equally to all Parties.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, and I will not say a word about the Leader of the Opposition not being here.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Gauthier:: Where were you yesterday? You were in hiding.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Both here and in press conferences, we have responded to what were clearly questions about the Budget. The Budget is widely perceived as an excellent job-creating Budget and has met with wide favour across the country. I will acknowledge that there is one element which has caused concern. We are not unmoved by that concern, and that is why we will continue to monitor it very carefully. A concern about the elderly poor must always be a concern of ours. We will monitor it intimately to deal with it as soon as we can.


APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Is it a new thesis that everything announced on the night of the Budget is just a proposition if it is not applied that night? Are they telling Canadians that the tax on gasoline might not come into effect in September? Are they telling Canadians that the sale tax, which is to come into force on January 1, might not be there? Are they telling Canadians that the deindexation of the income tax exemption might not be there? The type of Budget with which we are faced today-is it an economic statement or a joke? Will the Prime Minister give some certainty to Canadians about the Budget, a Budget which took
Oral Questions
nine years to prepare and which was, after nine years, an absolute flop?


Some Hon. Members:: Nine years?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Nine months. I am sorry.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: It would take nine years for the Liberals to do it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was only off by eight or nine years, and what's that? On the question of disintegration of the Budget, that was all resolved with the Liberals and Mr. MacEachen in 1981.
All that I have said is that in a massive Budget like ours there was one area of particular concern, and we made reference to it in the budgetary papers. It was that special kind of concern for the elderly poor. I have no hesitation in telling my hon. friend that I never intended to imply that any document, or any group of positions, could be perfect at all times. We put it in the Budget because we had that concern. That is why we placed in the Budget our intention to monitor it very carefully.
I know that my hon. friend will not hold a sense of compassion and concern for the elderly against me.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, could the Right Hon. Prime Minister inform the House whether he intends, and I hope he does intend to very soon, to announce to the elderly in Canada that the Government will not eliminate indexation, and since the amount the elderly will be losing as a result of only partial indexation over a period of five years is practically the same amount the Conservative Government is giving the oil companies for the next five years, does the Government, if the elderly get this money back, intend to withdraw the $12 billion present to give the oil companies?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member astonishes me. As a former Minister of Finance who was widely respected, he knows perfectly well that his statement is sophistical in the extreme. On this point the Budget papers indicated that we would be monitoring the situation very closely because we share the country's concern for the neediest in our society. It seems to me there is nothing here to disturb the serenity of anyone in Canada. We are showing a normal concern, as human beings, for the elderly, and that is why this was put in the Budget papers, and as soon as we can possibly do so we shall take steps to help the elderly again.

June 14, 1985
Oral Questions


PENSIONS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister too that flows from his press conference, where he indicated that for the first time he understands that the overwhelming majority of pensioners understand that they are going to be severely hurt by the Government's Budget. He also indicated that he might be prepared to take action before the end of the present calendar year to correct this injustice to pensioners, but refused to answer a specific question about that.
Is there a possibility that the Government will take corrective action concerning Canada's pensioners before the end of the present year and, if so, what kind of action does the Government have in mind?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that I acknowledged for the first time that there was concern about this. On the contrary, the acknowledgement did not come today. The acknowledgement is right in the budgetary papers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: While the Hon. Member was busy peddling the line that harm had come to the pensioners, which was misleading, he should have been reading the budgetary papers which indicate that any program would only take effect next January in any case. It was because of our sensitivity that we put it right in the budgetary papers that we ourselves were concerned about this kind of action, that even as we were contemplating it ourselves with a view to restoring health to the economy, we were concerned about it to the point where we indicated that we would want to monitor it and improve it at the earliest possible moment.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the only people in Canada who have tried to be misleading about the Budget are on the government side of this House. Pensioners, opposition Members, business people, farmers, and workers all understand one thing: the Government is out to wage its battle of the deficit on the backs of the pensioners.
Once again, as was the case during his press conference, the Prime Minister did not answer the question. Since he indicated that the Government may take corrective action before the end of the present year, and since pensioners are living in a state of anxiety right now, will the Prime Minister tell us if he does plan to take action before the end of the year, and what that action might be?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we indicated in the budgetary papers that, at the earliest
possible moment, pursuant to an intensive monitoring of the situation, we will take appropriate action to be helpful to the people affected.
I hope my hon. friend does not take great pride in going to meetings with elderly citizens to give them only a part of the story. There is not a single elderly person in this country today who has been impacted unfavourably by this Budget. The only cheques seniors will receive will be cheques for larger amounts of money, and that is a fact of life. I think my hon. friend does himself and his Party a grave disservice by indicating the contrary.


REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the Prime Minister that we will tell pensioners exactly what the Government is doing. We tell them that the Prime Minister is giving a $500,000 capital gains gift to the wealthy and $2 billion to the oil companies, while taking away $2 billion from the pensioners. That is what we tell them, and that is the truth.
Will the Prime Minister show respect to his obligations to the House, to Members on all sides, to the people of Canada, and particularly to the pensioners, and deal with pensioners' anxieties by answering the question that I will now put to him for the third time? Will he tell us now that the Government does plan to take corrective action before the end of this year, to remove the anxiety with which pensioners are living? Will he either restore indexation, something which we want, or announce fully equivalent measures for Canada's pensioners?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I find quite appalling the fact that this should come from the Hon. Member who has been trading on and exacerbating the anxiety of senior citizens, with no good reason. That is what they have been going around the country doing. I exclude from that comment my hon. friend from Toronto whose appearances at elderly citizens' rallies have been marked with what I thought was great dignity. We have indicated in the budgetary-


John Edward Broadbent: Ha!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now the Leader of the NDP finds that funny.


John Edward Broadbent: I always find you funny.


Martin Brian Mulroney: You do.


John Edward Broadbent: A joke, actually.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He has never been the same, Mr. Speaker, since we put him in a limousine with a driver.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is what I call a cheap shot.
June 14, 1985


John Edward Broadbent: The master of the cheap shot.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is his new civility.


John Edward Broadbent: When you have no argument, reduce yourself to abuse.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, you can tell by the level of exchange that the Prime Minister has returned to the House. I welcome him back because-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: How would you know?


Lloyd Axworthy: Because we are here all the time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Just compare records, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday we were looking for some clear direction from the Government concerning the very important, historic decision made by the Supreme Court regarding Manitoba. We are pleased to have the Prime Minister back in the House so that we may get a more forthright answer than the one we received yesterday.
Mr. Pawley, the Premier of Manitoba, has indicated that his Government intends to follow the invitation of the Supreme Court to make a specific submission on what kind of timetable will be followed in implementing the recommendations of the Supreme Court. Does the federal Government also intend to make a submission to the Supreme Court setting out what it would consider to be a minimum time to meet the requirements?
Is the Government also considering the proposition of working with the Government of Manitoba to develop a constitutional amendment that would be based upon the principles of those resolutions that were passed unanimously by this House in 1983 and 1984, so that we can give better effect to the basic spirit of that decision and provide for a full range of opportunities for the language minorities in Manitoba?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises two items. First is the decision of the Supreme Court. I was somewhat taken aback by his observations because I thought the Deputy Prime Minister responded fully and very well yesterday in the House of Commons. Perhaps the Hon. Member is gearing up to politicize a sensitive national issue, but I must say that I was taken aback by his comments on this important matter.
Oral Questions
There has been a decision by the Supreme Court which, of course, the Government of Canada will respect fully. We will work closely with the parties to ensure its full implementation. With regard to any other matters, I spoke with Premier Pawley to assure him of the support of the Government of Canada regarding any technical assistance that might be required on this matter or any other matters. I think my hon. friend knows full well my position in regard to the provision of minority rights in our country. That is the position of the Government, and it will always be the position of the Government and, I hope, of the Parliament of Canada.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Prime Minister would fully recognize that all Members of the House treat this matter with deep seriousness, and that we are all trying to find the best solution. That is why I would like the Prime Minister to answer my question. Is the Government considering making a submission, or is it considering the other option which would be to provide for a jointly arrived at constitutional amendment? Will the Prime Minister meet with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in Manitoba to determine whether or not they are open to such an option?
Will the Government also indicate whether or not it is prepared to provide financial assistance, not only for technical services and translation but for the enhancement of the provision of French-language services in the Province of Manitoba as the Prime Minister appeared to offer in his press conference this morning?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. It has been the position of the Government to protect and enhance-


An Hon. Member:: We didn't hear that yesterday.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I beg your pardon? You didn't hear it yesterday? That is the specific question that my hon. friend-


Lloyd Axworthy: Will you be specific? What about services?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Absolutely. The Government of Canada is supportive not only of the decision but of any initiative or meetings that might come forward in which the Government of Manitoba or others would bring forward ideas that would be helpful to minority rights. We would be in favour of that.


PENSIONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Pensioners across the country fully understand that the budgetary proposal will not come into effect until January 1 of next year, and that is precisely

June 14, 1985
Oral Questions
why they are now organizing. Senior citizens have sharpened their pencils and they know very well, because of the way they have to live, what the impact of this proposal will be.
If the Prime Minister is seriously concerned about how pensioners feel, I suggest to him that there is no need to monitor the situation between now and the end of this year, because the effects of the proposal will not be felt until 1986. I would ask the Prime Minister if he will not say to the pensioners that he promised them during the election campaign, and following that, that he would not touch Old Age Security benefits, and that he will rise in his place today to fulfil that commitment.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say, on behalf of all Members, that no Member of the House has made more compelling presentations in this regard than my hon. friend from Beaches, and I salute him for it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We indicated that one of the responsibilities of a Government was to listen to people, to reasonable debate in the House of Commons, and to criticism. I do not take it as a sign of weakness to acknowledge that we are, indeed, listening to people such as my hon. friend. One of the reasons for which the budgetary document was so framed was in anticipation of the kind of difficulty which has been raised by many people in the House, and particularly by my hon. friend. We will act as quickly as we can. We will continue to pay very close attention to what he and others say.


PENSIONERS' ANXIETY
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. There is absolutely no question that there is a level of anxiety amongst seniors which I have never seen before. Will the Prime Minister respond to that anxiety by saying to the pensioners: "We will let you know as quickly as possible, perhaps over the weekend, that we will not proceed with this budgetary measure in response to your concerns"?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the observation of my hon. friend, there is nothing inconsistent in what he has said with what is in the budgetary document. I am happy to reconfirm that, at the earliest possible moment, if and when we have the kind of news that would be helpful, we will make it known.


STATEMENT BY PREMIER OF NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I would say to the Prime Minister that senior citizens do not want concern from him; they want positive actions. One of the most damaging comments which has been
made in the debate with regard to the deindexation of Old Age Security came from a source which 1 will quote. The source stated:
-it was a wrong move, I am very disappointed, 1 am totally against it. It was the wrong thing to do to our senior citizens. That part of the Budget was not compassionate.
That statement was made by the Premier of Nova Scotia. Does the Prime Minister agree with him? If he does, will he have the dignity and the respect of our senior citizens at heart and make the changes today which will mean the full indexation of Old Age Security?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I heard the comment which was made by the Premier of Nova Scotia in regard to that budgetary provision. I heard it from leaders of the business community, the BCNI, leaders of trade unions, and my hon. friend from Beaches. I indicated at a press conference this morning that only a very foolish individual would be insensitive to that kind of comment and analysis. With regard to the question, I think we have been prudent. I hope, at the earliest possible moment, that we can make a statement which would be consistent with the intentions set forward by the caveat which was placed in the Budget.


REQUEST THAT BUDGET PROVISIONS BE WITHDRAWN
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I suggest, respectfully, that the Prime Minister is wavering on the issue. He talks of monitoring, when he knows by the outcry in the country that Canadians are against the budget measure, and when he knows of the uncertainty and anxiety with which senior citizens are faced. Will he not take the opportunity to stand in his place and end the measure, unequivocally, today on the floor of the House of Commons?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the reason that I made the distinction between the Hon. Member for Beaches and my hon. friend was because the Party, of which he is a member, brought in measures which did more harm to the senior citizens than any other Government in the history of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is a fundamental distinction to be made between a thoughtful member of the NDP-who opposed both the measures which were taken by the Liberals and this Government on this particular issue-and the Hon. Member whose Party chose to go through with it. That Party did not even have the decency to say that it would listen. We are acknowledging that we are listening to the Canadian people, which is infinitely more than the Liberals ever cared to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 14, 1985


BUDGET STATEMENT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. There is some question as to whether the plan to deindex pensions is a proposal, an idea, or a possibility. On May 23 the Minister of Finance said: "Beginning January 1, 1986, these payments will be indexed only for the annual increase in the consumer price index greater than 3 per cent." He said "will be indexed". Is the Prime Minister saying to us today that "will be" really means "may", and that the Government is considering changing that terminology in the Budget?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have responded to that question in half a dozen different ways, and the Hon. Member knows it.


TEXT OF BUDGET
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is very important at this point. The Prime Minister has indicated that what the Minister of Finance said was a commitment of the Government, that it will do this, and that this will be done. He is now saying that this may be done-


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


Nelson Andrew Riis: Is the Prime Minister suggesting that the Budget is now being changed and that the word "will" will be changed to "may" or "possibly"?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member suggesting that the sentence to which he referred in the Budget ought to be read in total isolation from the rest of the contents, including the phrase which goes on to say that the matter will be watched very carefully and at the earliest possible moment the Government will act to be helpful? That has been said many times by the Minister of Finance and by the Prime Minister. That is the sentiment which motivates this Government.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. News reports in the last two days on the front pages of major newspapers have confirmed examples of the scandalous abuse of the scientific research tax credit, which the previous Liberal Government initiated. When our Government took office the Minister of Finance immediately stopped the "quick flip" within the SRTC program.
We have reports of individuals literally taking millions of dollars from Canada. Will the Prime Minister initiate the necessary action to undertake a full investigation into how this
Oral Questions
was allowed to develop without the proper safeguards, and why this was not stopped when Mr. Lalonde knew that it would cost Canadian taxpayers in excess of $2 billion? I feel that the people of Canada deserve an explanation.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of National Revenue perhaps I could respond and indicate to the Hon. Member that one of the very first steps which was taken by the Minister of Finance upon assuming office was to put a stop to this sort of haemorrhage of taxpayers' funds. The Hon. Member is absolutely correct. Certainly there are signs of abuse. Some of the money which was spent in that way went to useful projects. However, it is akin to flying a transport plane across Canada and dumping bushelsful of money, so that some dollar bills would land in deserving yards. We put a stop to that. My Department will be auditing to ensure that, where abuses have taken place, the law will be fully pressed against the individuals in question.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM CHINA
Mr. Speaker:: May I bring to the attention of the House the presence in our gallery of a delegation from China, led by Mr. Rong Yiren, Chairman of the Cina International Trust and Investment Corporation and Vice-Chairman of the National People's Congress. He is accompanied by Mr. Ma Yi, ViceMinister of the State Economy Commission, and Mr. Yu Zhan, the Chinese Ambassador to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue which is about another, admittedly smaller, haemorrhage of public funds. Yesterday the Minister of National Revenue refused to answer the question about the very strange decision of National Revenue in its treatment of the bank account of Crosbie Offshore Services Limited. He indicated that Section 241 of the Income Tax Act prevented him from answering the question. That Section is there to protect the confidentiality of the taxpayer. I would remind the Minister, in this case, that the taxpayer waived that confidentiality by making information public. The Minister of Justice has also made the information public about that tax account, so I feel justified in asking him again why this very strange behaviour. Why, when Revenue Canada could have paid itself that debt, did it release the funds, and it now stands at least $332,000 short, possibly more?

June 14, 1985
Oral Questions


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr,
Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Member, who is a former Solicitor General and should know better, that Section 241 of the Income Tax Act forbids me or any of my officials from:
(a) knowingly communicate or knowingly allow to be communicated to any person any information obtained by or on behalf of the Minister for the purposes of this Act-
Therefore I cannot, as much as 1 would like to do so, particularly in cases where unjust innuendoes are being spread by people who should know better.


An Hon. Member:: And in the absence of the Minister. MINISTER'S POSITION


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of National Revenue refers to unjust innuendo he is characterizing the secret information that he has. That is very unfair.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Look who is talking about fairness.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Here we have a taxpayer who has gone public, and I think it is clear-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Supplementary question, please.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I want to ask the Minister to consider the taxpayer who has gone public and the importance of the integrity of the system of tax collection being preserved by an honest answer to the question 1 have asked, and I ask it again.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I gave a fully honest answer to the Hon. Member. I want to say to him that, notwithstanding the fact that a former Solicitor General of Canada would ask the Minister of National Revenue to break the law, I have no intention of breaking the law; I intend to enforce the law.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MEDICAL CARE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Late last year we had the Minister of Finance suggesting that we might have to consider at least a change to universality if not an end to it. Then the Government is moving to partially deindex old age pensions and social benefits. Yesterday the Minister of Finance indicated that it may be necessary for hospitals to look for private funding in order to provide the services that Canadians need. Is it the intention of the Government, now or in the future, to move toward the privatization of the hospital system in Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Science and Technology and concerns the scientific research tax credit program which became a bonanza for fraudulent use. This program was initiated by the Liberals in 1984, and terminated by the present Minister of Finance. Because the good name of Canadian science has been darkened, is the Minister going to have an investigation so that those at fault will be punished?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, because the responsibility for this program would be that of the Department of National Revenue, not of my colleague, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, perhaps I can answer in his stead. Yes, we will fully audit claims made under the SRTC program. We intend to ensure that, where abuses have taken place, the law is fully enforced. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, has changed that program, one which will end up costing Canadian taxpayers approximately ten times as much as was predicted by the Liberal Minister of Finance when he introduced the program.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last March his Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion said that while discussions continued for a new agreement with Japan on the export of Japanese cars to Canada, the situation would be monitored to ensure that the provisions of the previous agreement would be respected. Yet in April exports of Japanese cars to Canada jumped 20 per cent, and 27 per cent in May. Yesterday his Minister told the press that he was dropping the requirement of the previous agreement that the total number of Japanese cars exported to Canada not exceed 170,000.
1 ask the Prime Minister why his Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has not carried out his commitment to see that the previous agreement was respected, and why has he dropped the key provision of that agreement without getting anything in return by way of either a new agreement at previous levels, or new commitments on Canadian content, jobs, and production for Canada.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has put a lot of figures into his preamble and I would want to examine them very carefully to make sure they are in conformity with the facts. In the absence of my hon. friend, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, who is conducting negotiations both with vigour and, 1 think, effectiveness, I would say that I think that when my hon. friend was the Minister responsible in a previous Government the documentation was concluded towards the end of June. So
June 14, 1985

we are still working towards a deadline and an agreement which will be beneficial to Canada and Canadians.


CONDUCT OF NEGOTIATIONS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that his Minister is pursuing the negotiations with vigour and effectiveness. Can he explain why the Minister first set a target date for a new agreement of June 12, a date which has gone by, and is now talking about August, while at the same time he is unwilling to send a firm signal to the Japanese by way of necessary direct action to make sure they realize that Canada means business that either there is a new agreement for quotas in place at previous levels or there is a new agreement giving commitments for production, jobs, and activity in Canada by Japanese companies equivalent to what they are already doing in the U.S.? Will he ensure that his Minister acts decisively in the way he claims the Minister is doing, but which he has not shown any signs of doing as yet?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be widely recognized that the present Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is probably the most effective Minister to hold that portfolio in many, many years here in Ottawa.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In fact his accomplishments are such that, while he is working extremely well to protect the automobile industry, he is down in Cape Breton right now announcing new job creation projects for the Island.


PENSIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. 1 have been listening with a lot of care and interest to what he has had to say on the pension situation. Is he saying to the people of Canada, more specifically to the pensioners, that following his monitoring, whatever he is monitoring, if the situation gets worse the Government will go ahead with its proposals to partially deindex pensions?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there are two hypothetical questions in there. I have answered many times, sometimes in the absence of my hon. friend, I will acknowledge-


An Hon. Member:: Isn't he always here?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, you know, when that car hits the highway the chauffeur just does not know when to stop. The Hon. Member likes to keep close to the working man; that is why he sits up front.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: That is why you are in the back.


Lloyd Axworthy: He does not have a flag on his car, Brian.


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 think my friend is, of course, an excellent Member and excellent Leader of his Party, and I have given him full responses to assure him that the commitment of this Government to the elderly and the integrity of social programs is unrivalled and unsurpassed by any other Party in the House, and certainly is no less than anyone else's.


REQUEST FOR ABOLITION OF GOVERNMENT PLAN
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Prime Minister will answer this time. He has raised the possibility of a change which no one else in the country seems to want. I want to understand. If the situation worsens, persumably we should not go ahead with this regressive change because it will also negatively affect pensioners. But if the situation improves he has already implied that they are going to cancel the change because, in his judgment, the Government will be able to-


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


John Edward Broadbent: My question is this. Does that not inevitably lead to the point that, whatever happens, whether it gets better or worse, the Government should abolish this ridiculous plan to deindex pensioners' cheques?


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have indicated where we want to go with job creation programs designed to strengthen the social safety net and the programs for our elderly. That is where we want to get to, and why, as well. We have acknowledge that this presents a problem, but we have avoided making the categorical kinds of statements which, for example, limit your scope of action or make you look awfully foolish, for example, like the Leader of the NDP who, in the Ontario election campaign, was asked if he would ever join up with the Liberals, and he said: "I'd rather marry Dracula first".

[ Translation]


THE BUDGET
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, 1 also have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
First of all, I would like to say that as far as I am concerned, he is certainly to be commended for indicating in the Budget that the situation with respect to Old Age Security pensions will be reviewed.
He deserves to be congratulated on having said that he is going to monitor the situation between now and the end of the year, and that he is disposed to make changes if necessary.

June 14, 1985
Committee Reports
However, what I fail to understand, and that is the point of my question, is why this potential cut in the level of indexation was put in the Budget? Why was it included? The monitoring could have been done until the end of this year without causing any anxiety among the elderly, or as they say in Quebec: "sans jouer avec leurs nerfs". And the decision could have been made at the end of this year just the same. Why did the Government decide to have this sword of Damocles hanging over the elderly? Why did they not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's comments. I think he puts the problem in a practical perspective that shows he likes to take a more realistic view.
All the budgetary measures were designed with a view towards setting up stronger social programs at the national level that can be guaranteed to benefit the neediest in our society. That was the whole point of putting our public finances on a sounder basis, after they had been seriously undermined in the past.
When 30, 40 or 50 per cent of the Government of Canada's national assets is spent on paying the interest on the public debt, it is a serious threat to the social programs we want to protect, and that is why we have proceeded in this way.
However, 1 admit the Hon. Member has a point, and that is why we said in the Budget that we were going to monitor the situation very closely in order to try and help the elderly as soon as possible.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, June 13, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) by filing with the Clerk of the House also meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions from citizens of Toronto who are petitioning the Government to maintain full indexation of the old age pension.
I have another petition from citizens in Metropolitan Toronto who are asking the Government to maintain full indexation of the old age pension.
Mr. Speaker, 1 have another petition from citizens and residents of the Metropolitan Toronto area who ask the Government to maintain full indexation of the old age pension.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of my riding of Davenport who petition the Government to maintain full indexation of the old age pension.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege of tabling a petition as part of the campaign for justice for the elderly, in which the Prime Minister of Canada is asked to meet the commitment he made during the election campaign in the summer of 1984, to maintain full indexation of Old Age Security pensions. The petition is signed by several constituents from the riding of Ottawa-Vanier.
I have another petition-

1 have another petition, Mr. Speaker, signed by several members of the constituency of Ottawa-Vanier which I represent. They request the House and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to respect the commitment of the 1984 election campaign to maintain full indexation of the old age pension.
I have other petitions signed by an impressive number of constituents of mine asking the Government to keep its word and respect its commitment of the 1984 election campaign, that is, to maintain full indexation of old age pensions.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from my electoral district of Vancouver-Kingsway signed by a number of seniors and other people. It is with respect to the issue of deindexing seniors' pensions. This is the largest petition I have ever received from my riding. There are over 500 signatures on it. The petitioners pray that the Government not break its promise to the seniors of Canada and not deindex their old age pensions because they will lose $100 worth of purchasing power next year, $205 the year after, and so on up to $680 in the year 1991. They say that the losers will be the poor, the unemployed, and women.

June 14, 1985

[Translation)


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I also have a number of petitions and they also concern pensions. One petition is signed by 23 individuals from Lefaivre, Ontario. I also received 33 signatures from Vars; 33 from Hammond, 31 from Hawkesbury; 21 from Clarence Creek; 30 from Bourget; 22 from the Club Les bonnes Samari-taines in Hawkesbury; 40 from the Casselman Senior Citizen's Club and three from Clarence Creek, Ontario.


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, it is both my duty and honour to present to the House a petition signed by 1,750 concerned British Columbians calling for the return of capital punishment for convicted murderers. This would ensure the security of all Canadians in the future by deterring those in society who would deny us our most basic right, the right to live in a free and peaceful society. This petition is sponsored by Victims of Violence, British Columbia branch.


Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the privilege to rise and present a petition from a number of very concerned people in Edmonton who strongly wish to urge Parliament to make representations to the Polish Government for the release of all political prisoners who are being held in Poland unjustly and being denied their human rights.


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present a petition on behalf of 32,500 residents of the National Capital Region which was gathered over a period of only a few days in the City of Ottawa. The petition calls upon this House, and in particular the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), to intervene to ensure that the $1 banknote, which is produced by two banknote companies in the City of Ottawa, remain in circulation in Canada and that it not be replaced by a $1 coin.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of senior citizens and others who are protesting the Government's decision to deindex OAS and are asking the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), to recall his commitment to the people of Kamloops-Shuswap when he said that indexation would not be touched.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition, which has been co-ordinated by the Ottawa Senior Citizens' Council, which calls upon the
Petitions
House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of Old Age Security forthwith, stating that requiring large numbers of pensioners to suffer additional reductions in real income is heartless, especially as so many already exist on incomes below the poverty line.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour, in conjunction with my friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), to present a large number of petitions which have been gathered over the course of the last two weeks by people concerned about maintaining the dollar bill in Canada, whether or not the dollar coin is introduced as proposed by the standing committee which reported today. This petition is signed by 12,119 citizens of Ottawa, Hull, Vanier, Nepean, Kanata, Richmond, and Smiths Falls.
In addition, I have the honour to table a further 1,000 signatures from citizens of the Ottawa area who call upon Parliament, and particularly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), to intervene to ensure that the $1 banknote remains in circulation in Canada and that it is not replaced by a $1 coin.
Finally, I have a further 4,272 signatures from people in the Toronto area who, in the course of one day, indicated their desire to maintain the one dollar banknote, that it remain in circulation in Canada, and that it not be replaced by the one dollar coin.
1 call your attention to the fact that these petitions jointly represent approximately 47,000 signatures that were gathered in the course of just two weekends.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition with respect to seniors' pensions. There are a large number of women who are concerned about partial deindexation of pensions as it affects many elderly women who live in poverty in this country.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition from approximately 400 Canadians, whose names were gathered in one afternoon in the Kensington Market in the riding of Spadina. They are concerned that the senior citizens' pensions will be cut by $100 in 1986, as the Prime Minister has acknowledged, and by larger amounts in the following years. They ask that Parliament prevail upon the Government to ensure that these cuts will not in fact be carried out.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition signed by 450 constituents from Essex-Windsor, the first instalment on thousands, who are expressing their hopes of being able to persuade the Prime Minister that indeed there is a strong consensus across the country against

June 14, 1985
Order Paper Questions
the unfair measures which have centered on senior citizens for a double attack in the Budget.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation among the Parties. I think you will find that the following order of reference will be received now by unanimous consent and approved. It is as follows:
Thai the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to hear evidence and consider Canadian policy with respect to future defence cooperation with the United States in the North American region with particular reference to air defence and related arrangements embodied in and flowing from the North American Aerospace Defence Agreement;
That the Committee have the power to retain expert, professional, technical and clerical staff;
That the Committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada and the United States; and
That the Committee report and make recommendations to the Flouse of Commons no later than Friday, February 28, 1986.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 172 will be answered today.
Information provided for unescorted temporary absence only. The Offender Information System does not store, at the present time, actual data on day parole.
3. There were 743 inmates found to be in possession of illegal drugs.
1- (a), (b), (c), (d)
Calendar Year	Max. (S6-S7)	Escapes from Federal Insts. during Year by Security Level Med. Min. (S4-S5) (SI-S2-S3)	Total	Escapees Returned to Custody as of March 31. 19851980	13	56	125	194	1911981	4	35	173	212	2101982	6	40	164	210	2081983	5	20	201	226	2222. (a), (b), (c), (d)	Calendar Year	Failures to Return from Unescorted Temporary Absence during Year	Returned to Custody as of March 31. 19851980	119	1191981	116	1161982	120	1191983	102	101


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


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


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	In (a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) 1982 (d) 1983, how many inmates of federal prisons escaped and how many have been returned to custody?
2.	In (a) 1980(b) 1981 (c) 1982 (d) 1983, how many inmates on day parole or on temporary absence failed to return and how many have been returned to custody?
3.	In 1983, how many inmates in federal penitentiaries were found to be in the possession of illegal drugs?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: In
so far as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
1.	(a), (b), (c), (d) See table below.
2.	(a), (b), (c), (d) See table below.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-41, an Act to repeal the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and to amend the Crop Insurance Act in consequence thereof, be read
June 14, 1985

the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us today is simply a housekeeping matter. 1 think we sometimes use that terminology loosely, but in this particular case 1 believe it certainly fits the definition very accurately.
It will formally end the life of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund, established under this legislation. In fact, operations under the Act ceased in 1972 and the Bill to repeal the Act will simply confirm that reality.
The original legislation, enacted in 1939, had a long and very useful life. Under the Act, money was collected from western farmers through a one per cent levy on grain sales. This money was kept in a fund that was used to provide for financial relief to farmers hit by crop damage or by crop failures.
When the federal-provincial crop insurance program came into force, the PFAA operations became redundant. Western farmers had a better way of protecting themselves against emergency situations. As a result, the PFAA operations were wound down, with one notable footnote. There was exactly $9,066,972 left in the fund. It is money that had been collected from western farmers. It belonged to the farmers but there was no administrative way of returning it to them. The problem was finally resolved a decade later when the federal Cabinet authorized handing the money over to the Western Grains Research Foundation, an organization set up to sponsor additional agricultural research in western Canada.
The foundation was established under the supervision of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the umbrella national organization for many farm groups in Canada. Besides the federation, the foundation membership includes the three prairie wheat pools and other prominent western farm organizations. Agriculture Canada has a senior research branch official on the foundation's board of directors to ensure a close working relationship with the federal Government. The over-all aim was to use the money to fund western research in grains and oilseeds on behalf of the farm community which contributed the money in the first place.
I am happy to say that the goal is being achieved. As the money has been prudently invested, returns on investment are flowing out to financial research projects at more than a million dollars a year. By the end of this calendar year of 1985, some 33 separate research projects will have been arranged. All this has been achieved in a very short period of time. The foundation received the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund residue in May of 1982 and began funding research projects the following year. Research funding comes entirely from returns on investment. The original donation is intact and will indeed remain so.
Over-all, the decision to return the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund residue to the western farm community seems to be paying dividends. One spinoff was the creation of an entirely new source of research funds for prairie universities. So far,
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
the Universities of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have been the principal beneficiaries of the foundation's grants. Some research projects are being carried out with the help of Agriculture Canada's research stations in western Canada.
I believe the fate of the money from the old emergency fund is worth noting, as we move toward the official end of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I believe the money is being wisely used for the benefit of western agriculture and consequently will benefit the country as a whole.
As our House Leader has indicated, I believe that there has been some consultation with the House Leaders of the opposition Parties and it is my understanding that there is an agreement that the Bill move through all stages in the House.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate briefly in discussing this Bill. As the Minister indicated, this is merely a housekeeping measure whose preparation had been started by the previous Liberal Government. Essentially, it only involves an accounting adjustment, the repeal of the present Act and the transfer of approximately $9 million to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Now that the Consolidated Revenue Fund will have an extra $9 million, presumably the $15 million that was cut from the agricultural budget by his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), will be changed and now enhanced by this $9 million. I am sure the Minister, once he discusses this with his colleague, will seize the opportunity and tell him that he might as well write off the complete reduction of funds and ensure that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has the full budgetary allocation that he had last year with no cuts at all. I am sure Members on all sides of the House would lend him good support in order to achieve that. I see the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson) is temporarily seated behind the Minister. Perhaps his seat over here has grown a little too hot and he had to get over to the other side, but 1 am sure the Hon. Member for London East would gladly support the Minister of Agriculture in ensuring more funding in the agricultural budget and that this $9 million going to the Consolidated Revenue Fund will be put back for agricultural uses.
There is a Member at the back saying we voted against something or other. Yes, we voted against the Budget that had been cut by $50 million. The Hon. Member who is heckling seems to be in favour of cutting $50 million from the agricultural budget. I am not. Members of our Party do not want the agricultural industry to suffer unduly at the hands of the Tories. That is why we are standing up for the farmers. We know that deep down inside the Minister of Agriculture would want to do that too if his colleague, the Minister of Finance, would let him.
We hope that in time as the arm twisting proceeds he will succeed in getting the $9 million referred to in this Bill along with the other $41 million that was cut off put back in agriculture. Along with that, I am sure the Minister of

June 14, 1985
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
Agriculture will confer with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, and ask him to deliver on the other promises that were broken by the Minister of Finance that the Minister of Agriculture so desperately wanted for the farmers. I am thinking more particularly of the report from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in which there were three main recommendations for the agricultural industry, two of which the Minister of Finance refused to give to his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture, of course being on our side of the issue, wanted the assistance for the farmers.
I want to tell the Minister of Agriculture that we are supporting this minor housekeeping Bill. We are anxiously awaiting the Conservative Bills to enhance agriculture that were promised in the last election campaign. Since the election, not very many agricultural Bills have been introduced. Most of the ones that have been introduced were Bills left over from the previous administration. I find on my list of Conservative promises, from the book entitled Three Hundred and Thirty-Eight Tory Promises, that there were no less than 20 specific promises for agriculture. Most have not yet been delivered, probably because the Minister of Finance refuses to give the necessary funds to his good and able colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. If and when he does, we will all be here to support the Minister of Agriculture. Like him, we want what is best for the farmers.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us is a housekeeping Bill. It seeks to repeal the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and to amend the Crop Insurance Act in consequence thereof. The older farmers who might be listening in or watching the proceedings of the House will recall that in 1939 a Bill was passed which was an attempt to take care of the crop variability and the problems farmers were having staying in business at the same time. It was a form of stabilization in crop insurance. In order for the program to work, every producer in western Canada was charged 1 per cent on the grain deliveries. The section we are deleting today is the section that gave that power to the administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. It permitted the 1 per cent to be collected at the elevator when the initial price was paid to the farmer, and it permitted the Wheat Board to deduct the 1 per cent and to pay it to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration when final payments were made at the end of the calculations for the crop year.
How the program worked was fairly simple, but it was not always equitable. A lot of farmers on the Prairies saw it, probably rightly, as an income transfer from most farmers who lived in the well watered north to those who lived in the less watered south. Basically, that was the way most of the transfers went during the course of the program. Eventually, we got to something more regionally appropriate that more correctly reflected the circumstances of individual producers. We went to a crop insurance program where the individual was covered on the basis of the land he was farming, the soil type and the
projected and expected yield from that area of the province given the particular soil type the farmer was farming.
I raise this point only because we are now locked in mortal combat, actually very friendly combat, in the Agriculture Committee on a Bill that is proposing to do some of the same things that we were attempting to do with the old Prairie Farm Assistance Act. We have a red meat stabilization Bill before us, amendments to the Stabilization Act, which would permit tripartite stabilization programs for red meat which, because it is a new and an initial attempt, is trying to ignore the reality of variation in regions and different parts of the country. The initial program being proposed seems to block out the differences that exist in cost from region to region.
The Prairie Farm Assistance Act tried to do that too, Mr. Speaker. After 20 some years, it was finally realized that it had failed. We went into a more acceptable crop insurance program, and the vestiges of that old Act we still have on the books are being done away with today.
The Minister pointed out that the funds left over have already been dealt with in a previous Act in the last Parliament when this Parliament created the Western Grain Research Foundation and moved the $9,066,972, 1 believe, over to the foundation which is now being administered by a board of directors representing CFA, the prairie pools and other regional organizations in western Canada. The approximately three-quarters of a million dollars produced annually from that foundation is being used mostly at the prairie universities to conduct research into prairie-related activities.
I think it is laudable of the Minister to clean up the books. I do not think we should spend a great deal of time on this Bill. It really does nothing. The organization no longer exists. The money has been transferred out of it. It is simply a means of reducing the length of some of the Acts, notably, the Crop Insurance Act, and so we have no objection to shortening the Crop Insurance Act when it has irrelevant and unnecessary clauses. We are prepared to let these clauses be removed. That is the nub of the question before us. I am quite prepared that we continue the various steps to take this Act off the books of Canada.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is as follows. Mr. Wise, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-41, an Act to repeal the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and to amend the Crop Insurance Act in consequence thereof, be now read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to committee of the whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the Chair.
June 14, 1985
[Stage Direction]
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Wise: that Bill C-41, an Act to repeal the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and to amend the Crop Insurance Act in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
He said: I want to thank the Opposition's spokesmen for their co-operation in the expeditious passage of this piece of legislation. I want to compliment my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) for his intervention in the debate. I think his comments were very appropriate, as they always are, and directed to the subject before the House. I want to acknowledge his interest and his co-operation.
I am pleased that my colleague, the spokesman for the Official Opposition in the Liberal Party, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), has returned to the House because he had some rather interesting interventions with respect to Bill C-41. The fact of the matter is that very few of his comments were directed to the contents of the Bill. He took the liberty of taking the time of the House to place some very inaccurate information on the public record, and therefore I think it is necessary for me to spend at least one quarter of my time allotment in setting the record straight. He indicated 200 or 300 or so commitments. I do not know just what document he was quoting from but I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, it does not in any way reflect the campaign commitments that we made to the Canadian electorate during the campaign of last August and September. I can make an official copy available to him, and in fact I would be happy to have it delivered to his office this afternoon, and if he would take the time to examine it, he would find that there about 16 commitments were made. I believe that, upon a review of those commitments, he will find that we have fulfilled or made significant progress on most of them.
Second, he will note that there has been a piece of correspondence transferred between by Leader, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), then Leader of the Opposition, on or about July 23, 1984, in which he set out some 11 points to the President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture which were in addition to the campaign commitments. Of course, upon examination of what we have been able to achieve since assuming office on September 17, again he will be disappointed, but the fact of the matter is that he will find that there again some very significant achievements have been made in his own area. We made a commitment, not a campaign commitment but rather in the correspondence that transpired between the Prime Minister and the President of the Ontario
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
Federation of Agriculture, an indication that we would make funds available under the eastern Ontario subsidiary agreement for drainage. My colleague knows that funds have been transferred for those purposes, and he also knows that there are two or three drains which have been held up, I think quite legitimately, and are temporarily on hold pending release from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment or perhaps from a conservation authority or some provincial ministry. Therefore, to this point in time we have fulfilled that commitment.
He will find that we made a commitment to provide a rebate on farm fuels. The House gathered on Monday, the economic statement came down on November 8 on Thursday, and we delivered the commitment to provide assistance through the rebate on farm fuels, which will save Canadian farmers somewhere around $100 million.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) indicated that same night that the three tax matters which had been bothering the Canadian agricultural industry for years and years were to be referred to a standing committee. The Hon. Member will not realize that because he was not here, but 1 am sure that farm organizations were making representations to him in the provincial Legislature at Queen's Park. If not, they were down here asking, as they have been asking for the last 10 years, but receiving no action whatever on the three major tax issues.
The first one, of course, and the most important one, was capital gains. The second was Section 31, and the third was the agri-bond. The Minister of Finance referred these three matters, quite appropriately, to a standing committee, where the matter was studied.
The Hon. Member will know that some very significant action was taken on capital gains. People have been coming here, and I have been meeting them across the country for months and months and years and years, and really the bottom line was, if you do anything, please do something significant on capital gains. It did not really matter whether you were talking to farmers on the East Coast, in central Canada or in western Canada, that was their prime desire. Do something, they said, we know that you are in a tight situation but please try to do something on capital gains. Indeed, the Minister of Finance did recognize the importance of doing something and he did do something very significant in his Budget of May 23, something which was long overdue but on which nothing had been done.
Let us look at Section 31. The Hon. Member knows that there is no consensus on Section 31. Some farm groups indicated that indeed it should be changed; others said, no, do not touch it. We know that there would be a problem there if it were simply increased. We know that there is a potential problem perhaps if we take if off completely. So there was no real consensus there.
I invite him, because 1 think that we have to be accurate, to go back and read the document carefully, when he receives it this afternoon, to see exactly what we said with respect to Section 31. We did not say in our campaign commitment that we were going to repeal Section 31. 1 cannot really recall the actual verbiage, but we indicated that we would ensure that more fairness and more equity would exist in the assessment,

June 14, 1985
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
the verification, and the application of Section 31. The Hon. Member will have to admit that, to a large extent, we have achieved that. We have done so as a result of the recognition by my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty), who comes from a rural area, that for a long time a big problem existed in Section 31. It is the application of Section 31 more than anything else that is the problem. To a large extent we have addressed and we have fulfilled our campaign commitment on Section 31. We are not turning our back on it. I just want to make that comment in order to set the record straight.
Concerning agri-bonds, the Hon. Member will know that there is even less consensus on agri-bonds than on Section 31. The Minister of Finance also indicated that when one is assuming or inheriting a very difficult financial situation, with a $35 billion deficit and an accumulated debt of $220 billion, it just might not be possible to do everything to fulfil all of one's commitments. Those commitments, of course, result in lost revenue. The Minister was very clear, honest and open with the Canadian taxpayers on November 8. We will have to address ourselves to Section 31 of the Act. We will have to continue to adress ourselves to the agri-bond concept.
If the Hon. Member were to read on, he would find that we made a commitment to provide an amendment to the Western Grain Stabilization Act so that we would be in a position to make an interim payment to western farmers. The Hon. Member will realize that we have passed that amendment and we have been able to make that interim payment to western farmers. We indicated that we would enact the meat import law, and on December 21, we delivered on that campaign commitment by enacting the meat import law.
The Hon. Member will also know that we indicated that we would do something sensible and appropriate with respect to the metrication program in Canada. We all know that the program was not working too well, particularly in the agricultural sector where not only was it a nuisance factor but it was also a safety factor. We all know that significant crop damages occurred through miscalculations in the conversion of imperial to metric and vice versa. We indicated that we would change that by putting the metrication program on a voluntary basis. Back some months ago, we were able to deliver on that campaign commitment as well.
Another problem that was not a general problem across the country was one we attempted to solve by giving an early commitment to the continuation of the offshore labour program. My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), made that commitment as well-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Minister, but I wonder if his remarks are relevant to the Bill.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention and I am in your hands. I will let you be the judge. I am being as relevant to the Bill as the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell was when he spoke.
In the area of farm finance, we indicated that we were going to re-establish or fund the Special Farm Assistance Program which had expired on January 1 of 1984. The previous Government made no additional funds available to that program, but we did through our interest rate conversion program. In fact, we even went beyond that. The Special Farm Assistance Program provided benefits on a means test basis which served some 1,800 or 1,900 clients of the Farm Credit Corporation. Our interest rate conversion program went beyond that to bring interest rates down from 16.75 per cent to 12.75 per cent. That program will cost us $16 million per year for five years, making it a $80 million commitment. Another important change to the program was that one did not have to plead one's case before a board or before bureaucrats, and because of that, rather than serving some 1,900 or 2,000 people, which was the number of people who applied under the previous Government's program, our program will provide benefits to 5,600 clients.
I will not take much more of the time of the House because I think that I have got the message across. I thought that it would be appropriate to take a bit of time not to deal with all of the questions raised but indeed to respond to some of them. We can save the time of the House by asking the Hon. Member, when he receives a list of the campaign promises that we made-


Don Boudria: I've got them right here. Do you want me to give you a copy of them?


John Wise: Unless he has changed his document, 1 am not exactly sure to what he is referring. He seems to have all kinds of things over there. I do not have much confidence in what he has on his desk. I would rather provide him with the gospel.
I do not know whether or not the Hon. Member has on his list our commitment to provide funds to the Ontario Veterinary College for renovations to take place so that it could retain its credibility. That is something that was neglected by the previous Government for a long time. We delivered on that commitment as well. I do not know whether or not he has in his document, which consists of page after page after page-


Don Boudria: Lots of pages.


John Wise: If he has lots of pages, it is obvious to me that he is not quoting from the right document. 1 do not know whether or not he has in his notes our commitment to provide a long-term dairy policy. I am going to be in a position, probably within a couple of weeks, to announce the formation of a small team that will be working with the Government and the dairy farmers of Canada to develop that long-term dairy policy.
Our commitments go on and on. In fact, they go well beyond the list. I can send the Hon. Member a list of things we have accomplished in the very brief time since the election. There have been well over 80 achievements and accomplishments. If the Hon. Member would like to turn on his calculator to add up what he calls cuts to the Agriculture Department, he will find that since that time, we have been able to provide to the agriculture industry some $1.5 billion.
June 14, 1985


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the third reading debate on the Bill at hand. Of course, I will take the occasion to respond to the third reading statement made by the Minister, a statement which 1 believe was in order in view of the statement you made, Mr. Speaker.
The document from which I was quoting during the second reading debate and to which the Hon. Minister referred in his third reading statement was the book of Tory promises. It has on it a little logo, which you may recognize, Mr. Speaker. It bears the initials PC. Perhaps that means Progressive Conservative although-


Mr. Marchi:: Patronage Canada.


Don Boudria: Patronage Canada, my colleague has said. I thought it meant "Regressive Preservative" but if so, it would not bear those particular initials.
The document to which I referred earlier was the consolidation of this Progressive Conservative document. There are so many pages in the book of Tory promises that I had to consolidate it in order to make it practical for me to use it in the House. Therefore, I published this book which is known as Three Hundred and Thirty-Eight Tory Promises. This is the book from which 1 was quoting a little earlier.


Sergio Marchi: Where they stood.


Don Boudria: My good friend, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), says that we should entitle this book Where They Stood. That would be a proper title for this particular book.


Sergio Marchi: It would be a best seller.


Don Boudria: It would be a best seller indeed. Perhaps we could deal with some of those promises on which the Minister says he is so proud of delivering. The Minister has said that there were not 20 promises. I count 20 promises right here. In any event, notwithstanding the fact that a few of them have-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair realizes full well that the Hon. Minister made statements that went beyond the scope of the Bill. The Chair is willing to allow the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) the same leeway to make his comments. However, I would not want the debate on this particular Bill to degenerate into a totally unrelated debate. I am sure the Hon. Member realizes that.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to link my comments as closely as possible to the statement made by the Minister, a statement which of course you have already recognized as being pertinent to the Bill.
A while ago, the Minister said that he and his Party had delivered on most of the promises or on a substantial number of the promises made to Canadian farmers. I would like to know what happened to promise number three, which was to allow the Farm Credit Corporation to offer agri-bonds so that
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
farmers will have access to reasonably priced funds. Where is the delivery on that promise? What about the promises to extend and expand the Farm Credit Corporation special interest subsidy, to revise Section 31 of the Income Tax Act to reflect the principles of equity, to re-establish a long-term dairy policy, to support farmers in the efficient development of the marketing system of their choice, to allocate the necessary funding to assist producers in refinancing loans at current prevailing rates and to eliminate the automatic annual increases in the federal excise tax on wine as part of the rescue package for the beleaguered wine industry?
The Minister, in the statement which he made a few minutes ago, referred to the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. The Minister said that there was no consensus on what should be done with respect to Section 31 of the Income Tax Act. I would like to remind the House that a document was unanimously adopted by members of that committee. I would like to read the portions of the document which refer to the statements which he made. The document of the committee read:
3.	That the use of the existing questionnaire sent to prospective farm taxfilers in its application of Section 31 by Revenue Canada be discontinued.
It went on to explain the new procedure which would be used. It continued:
4.	That the Minister of National Revenue consider the advisability of establishing regional assessment review committees-
5.	That the Minister of Finance consider the advisability of doubling the present limit on the deduction of loss for part-time farmers-
Those were very specific recommendations. The Minister said that there was no consensus on those recommendations. However, there was more than consensus, there was unanimity. I am sure that the Minister must have inadvertently misinformed us when he said that. He knows that we not only had consensus, but that we also had unanimity.
The Government partially delivered on one promise in the document which related to capital gains tax. However, in isolation, that is not good enough for the farmers of Canada.
In any event, we on this side of the House still support the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). We know that he wants what is best for the farmers of Canada. Hopefully, in due time, he will succeed in cabinet in convincing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). I see that the President of the Treasury Board is in the House. I hope he is listening and that he is convinced that the Minister of Agriculture needs plenty of assistance for the farmers in my riding and all farming constituencies across the country. I plead with the President of the Treasury Board to confer with the Minister of Finance to ensure that the Minister of Agriculture will receive all the funds which he requires to have a prosperous agricultural industry in Canada.
The Minister referred to the Canada-Ontario development agreement. We are very pleased with the work which has been done thus far. 1 have spoken many times to the Minister about it. I hope that at some point in the near future I will be able to

June 14, 1985
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
tell the farmers of my riding, and especially the municipalities, that they will be getting their money. They are anxiously awaiting that money.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise. There are many problems in the agricultural field. The Minister has succeeded in taking up an hour of the time of the House today to present a Bill which, in my opinion, and I am sure in the opinion of virtually every farmer and many lawyers in the country, does not have to come before the House. It is useful verbiage. The legislation concerns words which could lay dead for another 100 years, and it would not matter. The administration no longer exists, so leaving the words would not hurt.
The amendment which was made to the Crop Insurance Act was the same situation. It is no longer applicable. It has not been used for years.
Farmers are wondering what they can do in order to plant a crop. Many farmers have had to find other people to plant their crops and have had to quit this year. Some farmers are trying to make the hard decision as to whether or not they should continue their family farms. Those farmers are looking for answers with regard to financing for this year and coming years. They were hoping for answers on meat imports.
The Government enacted the Meat Import Act. However, within a few weeks it changed its mind and once again opened the borders. We now have more than twice what was the initial proposal for imports from Europe and other sources.
It puzzles me why a measure such as this would be brought before the House when there are so many other higher priority items in the agricultural field which 1 am sure the Minister and his Department could have brought before the House. I am quite puzzled as to why the Minister even bothered to put this Bill before the House. It may be part of the strategy so that government Members can say over the summer months that the Government has passed so many Bills which deal with agriculture.
This is the second or the third Bill which has been of a housekeeping nature. These Bills only allow the administration, the next time when the Bills are printed, to shorten them. The Government has now, officially, taken away useless words which are no longer relevant from the legislation. It has not contributed anything to the well-being of Canada's agricultural community or to the taxpayers of Canada. It has only wasted the time of the House. However, it has given us an opportunity to say something about a couple of agricultural issues which do not relate to the Bills.
1 think, Mr. Speaker, that we should have the vote and get this piece of ancient history put properly where it belongs.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately what was to be a housekeeping measure-and it was agreed that there would be one speaker from each Party-has turned into a politicized debate. 1 feel that the agreement has been breached.
First, the last speaker did not commence the politicization of a non-controversial issue. However, I would say to him that the measure is good management and that it will clean out the dead wood. Why reprint, at extra cost, all those useless pieces of legislation which are no longer applicable?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) on a point of order.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member will know that we have a House agreement and that he will be breaking that agreement if he continues to speak. The agreement was quite clear that each Party would have one speaker. I recognize his remarks, but I think he is breaking an order of the House and he should comply with that order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As far as the Chair is concerned, there is no such order of the House. There might be an agreement between the Parties, but there is no order before the House.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that I believe it is better to save money than to waste money and time printing dead legislation. It only confuses the issue. I an glad that we will clean it up.
It is unfortunate that the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) crept out of the House. I will wait for another occasion, when he creeps back in, to deal with the type of thing with which he dealt in regard to the Bill. His comments were not on the topic. He is so wrong that I suppose that is why he crept away.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that he should not comment on the presence or absence of other Members in the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
June 14, 1985


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-2, An Act respecting the winding up of the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation and Loto Canada Inc., as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, if this Bill is to be adopted without comment on third reading, then we are quite prepared to pass it. But it was understood by the Government House Leader and the House Leaders of the two opposition Parties that there would be one speaker from each Party to address himself to the Bill.
I want to say at the outset that I feel rather honoured to have the privilege of addressing the Bill at this stage. As Official Opposition critic at the time the original legislation was introduced, I indicated to the House that it was doomed to failure from the very outset. Notwithstanding that, the then Government told us, told athletes all across the country, and told those responsible for the Calgary Olympic Games of 1988, that the legislation it was introducing would be the saviour of those Games. It would provide funding for athletes across this country so that we would not fall short in any aspect. When the original legislation came before committee the only people with any evidentiary value and experience pointed out that there was no way that the Sports Pool would be successful. Experience has shown that to be true. The Government lost $1 million a week while it was in operation. So we are now at third reading of a Bill to bring to an end a very sad part of our federal Government history. It was a page of that history which took the federal Government into competition with the provinces and charitable organizations all across the country who were fighting for the lottery dollar. People who spoke in favour of the legislation originally said that it would help those in need, yet there is all kinds of evidence to show that those most likely to purchase a lottery ticket are least able to afford it. So this brings to an end this dark page of federal Government involvement in lotteries.
It is a short Bill, Mr. Speaker, and I want to use the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) when he introduced this Bill in the first place. He indicated that it was a symbolic Bill. It was symbolic of federal government relations with the provinces then and now. In 1979, the Conservative Government entered into an agreement with the provinces with respect to phasing out federal involvement in
Sports Pool Corporation
lotteries. As a result of that agreement, the federal Government, the sports people, and those who shared in the benefits of the interprovincial lotteries, received a $33 million grant per year at no cost to the taxpayers or the Government. Following the February 1980 debacle, because of an election promise made by the then Leader of that Party, there was no holding back. No reason could be given to justify participation in the Bill except to say that the federal Government was going to get back into the lottery business through a game called Sports Pool.
This Government has indicated that there has been enough bitterness in federal-provincial relations. There has been enough competition for the lottery dollar and enough money spent on advertising by the federal and provincial Governments in competition for that lottery dollar. A system of harmony and co-operation existed between the Conservative Party and the provincial Governments in 1979 as it does today. The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) has been able to work out an agreement which will stabilize the financing of fitness and amateur sport. It will enable the Canada Games in Calgary to proceed in the knowledge that funding will be in place. The first symbol was that of a working relationship into which the Government of Canada can enter with the provinces to the benefit of all people of Canada.
The second symbol was one which tinged the former Government like no other. It is the ability to waste money through the mismanagement of Government Departments. It continuously threw good money after bad. Loto Canada, the predecessor of the Sports Pool, was marked by fraud, patronage, and law suits. The Liberals were such poor managers of Canadian tax dollars that during the election campaign of September 1984 it was said that they could not even make money out of a lottery. Such was the case as has been established today.
Through the introduction of this Bill we wanted to embark on a new era. That is why it was one of the first Bills introduced in the House after the formation of this Government. This is to be a new era of peace, good will, and harmony between the provinces and the federal Government. It spells an end to the bitter rivalry between Governments for the Sports Pool dollar. This Bill is symbolic in that it indicates a return to sanity in government spending. We have seen many instances of that since Bill C-2 was introduced in the House.
The Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport has emphasized that we could not continue wasting over $100 million of taxpayers' money every week. We are left with no option but to terminate the Sports Pool Corporation and Loto Canada as quickly as possible. This was one of the earliest Bills introduced in this Parliament and it should be brought to a conclusion now. Let the lottery and gambling business of the Government of Canada be terminated now.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am pleased to participate in report stage of Bill C-2, an Act

June 14, 1985
Sports Pool Corporation
respecting the winding-up of the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation. My remarks will be brief because I think there is consensus that this Bill should be passed. However, before commencing my remarks I would like to address some of the comments made by the eloquent Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid).
He mentioned how evil the concept of the Sports Pool was. He should pay attention to some of the things that the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) has said. In an article in The Citizen of September 18 ,1984, the Minister was quoted as saying that a different form of gaming operation could continue after this one because clearly we have to keep our commitment to the Calgary Olympics and we will. Implicit in that is the possibility that he may be looking at a mechanism to continue raising money for the Calgary Olympics in 1988.
The Member talks about squandering money. I am surprised that he would mention that in light of the controversy of the last two weeks about the Government taking money from pensioners and giving it to the multinational oil companies. The Member talks about patronage. I need not remind him that in the last months the House has been filled with stories of unending patronage by his Government. Before making those remarks he ought to have considered the actions of his own Government.
In consideration of this Bill there are a couple of important factors which should not be overlooked. It must be remembered that the main objective was to raise funds. This Government, like its predecessor, committed itself to $200 million of funding for the Olympic Games in Calgary in 1988. A few days ago the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport announced that the provinces would be contributing half of that commitment. I commend the Minister for picking up that $100 million. In addition, there is an Olympic coin which can raise an estimated $30 million to $50 million. However, the fact remains that there will be a shortfall of $50 million to $70 million in reaching that $200 million commitment.
Therefore, if this Sports Pool is to be wound up, it would be responsible on the part of the Minister to indicate his alternative to make up the commitment that he announced in September. Although the Minister stated he would inform the House about a private sector or government program to provide that other $70 million, he has yet to do so. Therefore, while it has been beneficial to look at past action, I suggest this debate would be meaningless without touching upon the ways and means of raising that $70 million.
I suggest that the Government should indicate as soon as possible how and when it will provide those funds. Quick answers to those questions will benefit the Canadian organizing committee for the Olympics, the athletes and all Canadians.
The Hon. Member for St. Catharines raised the broad question of lotteries in general. During the short-lived 1979 Conservative Government, an agreement was signed between
the federal and provincial Governments which essentially indicated that the federal Government would allow the provincial Governments exclusivity with respect to lotteries. In exchange for that, the federal Government wanted to receive $35 million annually. The Hon. Member is correct that we have been receiving $35 million on an annual basis and that it is an income. However, I remind the House that the lottery business in Canada is worth at least $200 million per year.
If we are going to have a mechanism to raise funds on a national basis to support our athletes in all sports, we must also have a national will. I submit that that national purpose can best be defined by the federal Government of Canada. I believe that Canadians expect that of the federal Government. One need not have an M.A. in economics to realize that exchanging $35 million for $200 million is bad economics.
However, the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport continues to defend that agreement. He is quoted in Hansard of June 11, 1985, at page 5647, as saying:
Those Members who are suggesting that we have given away the store are totally on the wrong side of the track because we are getting our fair share from the provinces.
With all due respect to the provincial Governments, I submit that we are not getting that fair share. It is somewhat unfortunate because we could be getting more in order to do more for sports.
Another major announcement made by the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport concerning sport financing related to cutting off federal funding for multilevel sports activities across the country until 1991. Quite frankly, that decision was not too well accepted in the sports community across this country. Let me refer to the Sports Manifesto put out by the Conservative Party of Canada. It is dated July 15, 1984. It states:
We believe the federal role can be improved, and we believe that in the years leading up to the Calgary Olympics in 1988 this role must be improved.
The first step which must be taken is to begin extensive consultations with all parties involved in amateur sport in Canada.
We are committed to maintaining the highest level of federal support for amateur sports in Canada.
The sports community was counting on at least maintaining a certain discretionary level of funding. Cities like Thunder Bay and London which were looking at Olympic Games in the future will be hurt. We must recognize that sports activities need the funding and support of the federal Government.
While the private sector should be asked to share in the support of our athletes, and the municipal and provincial levels of Government should be involved in this process, the federal Government must also play a role. It is not acceptable to leave that responsibility to the private sector because it began contributing to amateur sports long before the Minister came to office. The Minister seems to suggest that the private sector is suddenly responding to his challenge for funding. However, the private sector has been a primary motivator of many of our sports activities throughout the country in all seasons.
Ultimately, when we talk about Olympic participation and the pursuit of athletic excellence, we must rise beyond our

June 14, 1985

partisanship, as the Member for St. Catharines attempted to do. This issue transcends politics, and in that spirit we on this side agree with trying to raise federal money to contribute to the Calgary Olympics of 1988 in order to make them the best ever winter Olympics. Certainly that must be the spirit that should prevail and that is the spirit that the sports community across the country expects of us. That is the spirit in which I close my remarks.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, this is not one of the great partisan subjects of debate that have so rocked this Chamber in the last six or seven months. In fact, sport is something that I think pulls Canadians across the country together. It is part of the community base which our Party believes helps to give people a sense of commitment and strong participation within their communities.
As I stand here this afternoon speaking on behalf of my seatmate, the Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), who usually speaks for us on sports matters, I think of the many dozens of volunteers within my constituency who have spent much of their life working on a completely voluntary basis with the young boys and girls of the different communities across Essex County in order to give them a chance to participate in such sports as baseball. Some of the best amateur baseball teams in the country are found in Essex County. Some of the very best amateur hockey teams-


Sergio Marchi: Do you have a monopoly on sports?


Steven W. Langdon: I must tell Hon. Members that if they want a real quarrel with Windsor Members of Parliament, they should not expect it on automobile quotas or something concerning pensions. They should expect the real quarrel to be over what is the sports capital of Canada. Of course, Windsor and Essex County are number one in that regard.
I must confess as a Canadian nationalist that part of the sense of commitment to sport in Windsor is a strong and almost irrational commitment to the Detroit Tigers which, for someone who used to be a Toronto Blue Jays fan, is occasionally difficult for me to adjust to. I can tell my hon. friend from the Liberal Party that being a Member of Parliament for Essex-Windsor makes one automatically a Detroit Tigers baseball fan.


Ms. Jewett:: Aren't you going to talk about hockey?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Steven W. Langdon: I have to talk about hockey too. The Belle River Canadiens, the Junior C team in Belle River, have just taken the Ontario championship. There was a huge celebration in Belle River which, I am proud to report to people, generated the usual sense of enthusiasm and community feeling for which Essex-Windsor is characterized.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Are you not going to say anything about lacrosse?
Sports Pool Corporation


Pauline Jewett: What about B.C.?


Steven W. Langdon: Lacrosse and B.C.? I have to confess they are both beyond our experience, as indeed is cricket. Cricket is not a major sport in Essex County.


Pauline Jewett: What about tiddly-winks?


An Hon. Member:: And chess?


Steven W. Langdon: The question of chess has been replaced by politics as a game of deadly seriousness in Essex county.
I have to express some serious points with respect to this Bill. My hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) has indicated she will be quiet. I cannot seriously believe this is a long-term commitment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: The Bill is an important accomplishment, Mr. Speaker, which this Government should feel some pride in bringing to the House because it has managed to get an agreement with the provinces. As a result of coming to an arrangement with respect to jurisdiction over lotteries, it will be possible for provinces to contribute $100 million to the Calgary Olympics in 1988. I hope myself, and I speak for our Party, that there would be an equitable sharing of that commitment among the provinces to reflect the fact that the Calgary Olympics will generate, by the most recent calculations we have seen, increased economic activity of $1.2 billion and 28,000 new person-years of employment. Most of that is concentrated in western Canada. Therefore, I hope the formula that is drawn out for the contributions of the provinces to this financing will reflect those kinds of benefits being focused in the West. I do not say that that means the rest of the country should not share in some contribution. All of us will have tremendous pride as we watch those Winter Olympics open in Calgary. We will have a sense of participation and of sharing that event.
I think, however, there remains a question mark over this Bill. I had hoped that the Minister might be here today to clear up that question mark. The federal Government did commit itself to $200 million in contributions to the Calgary games. At this point it has been able to indicate that we are at a maximum $160 million of the $200 million-


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Thirty-five million a year from the provinces.


Steven W. Langdon: Yes, but I understand that is not earmarked for the Games. If it is earmarked for the Games, that helps to answer the question, but it is my understanding from the Minister's previous statement that that is not earmarked for these Games. That leaves us with $40 million to $50 million still to be generated. 1 had hoped that the Minister would have been here to reassure us, and I cannot resist a small partisan needle here, I hope, that the method of raising that contribution will be somewhat more equitable than the method of

June 14, 1985
Sports Pool Corporation
raising funds in this most recent federal Budget which has been anything but equitable.
We will be looking for a rapid announcement from the Minister, in return for our support for this Bill, of where he expects that further $40 million or $50 million to come from which will be contributed to the Calgary Games.
I have to make two further points. I cannot let this debate pass without making a reference again to the incredible success of this Sports Pool which is being wound up. As an economist I have had to look at the operations of a great many different kinds of agencies and companies. I have to confess that I have never before seen a lottery that managed to lose money. It has never been brought to my attention before. Most people in this country would have considered a lottery a licence to make money. Somehow this lottery, and perhaps it was the crowning achievement of the previous regime, managed to lose $46 million in the space of nine months. That amounts to $1.5 million a week. Occasionally this Party is attacked as having a penchant for extravagance, for being prepared to risk Government finances in wanton ways. It would never have occurred to us to have created a lottery to lose money. It took the dedication and achievement of the previous Government, the genius for organization of people who sometimes think they can set up government enterprises, without having the commitment which our Party has to make such government enterprises succeed, to establish an agency such as Loto Canada which, over nine months, managed to lose $46 million.
I cannot let that red letter achievement, and 1 use the word "red" advisedly, pass unnoticed. I have to point out that this Government has been successful in establishing an arrangement with the provinces that has got itself out of trouble, at least halfway out, with respect to its $200 million commitment to those Calgary Games. However, it has had to do so, I fear, at the expense of making a commitment that no further amateur sports funds events of an international character will be supported in Canada into the 1990s. It really is a great pity that that should have been done by this Government. Sports in this country is something of the fabric that ties our communities together. It is something which matters to all of us who have a sense of commitment and participation in our country. It matters to minor league baseball coaches in Essex County, right up to professional football teams which fight for the Grey Cup each November. For people such as those in London, Ontario, who hoped to have the Pan American Games and for those in Thunder Bay who hoped to have the Nordic Games, it comes as a loss, as a disappointment. They sense that the new Government does not really understand the significance of sports and spotsmanship. The Government abandoned its commitment to be open to provide support for those kinds of games during the upcoming five or six years.
We on this side of the House have a sense from our own communities of just how important sports activity can be. We would have wanted to leave open, not the possibility of huge contributions such as $200 million as in the case of the
Calgary Games, but the possibility of at least some support from the federal Government to groups of citizens in various cities across Canada, citizens who would want, on a community basis, to come together to try to attract into their communities international sports events, which act as inspirations to those young athletes in Belle River, La Salle and Amherst-burg who go out to the baseball diamonds and hockey rinks in the hope that some day they may represent their country at international events. We must remember that this somehow reflects their pride in being Canadian.
I hope this is a very temporary suspension of the help to international sports events which federal Governments have traditionally provided. I hope my colleagues from all Parties who are present today have sensed the enthusiasm in their communities for amateur sport, the enthusiasm which I see in my community. I hope they will push the Minister and their Government to reverse their penny-pinching attitude toward amateur sport at the international level and see to it, in the years ahead, that we become noted, as we have been in the past, as a country which believes in and takes pride in the sense of comradeship across the world which international sport can give to us.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.

[ Translation]


INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS ACT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill S-3, An Act to implement conventions between Canada and the Republic of Zambia, Canada and the Kingdom of Thailand, Canada and the Republic of Cyprus and Canada and the Federative Republic of Brazil for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


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


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to implement conventions between Canada and the Republic of Zambia, Canada and the Kingdom of Thailand, Canada and the Republic of Cyprus and Canada and the Federative
June 14, 1985

Republic of Brazil, for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.
The conventions were signed between February and June in 1984. They follow the same general pattern and are very similar to the conventions approved by previous Parliaments over the last nine years. The number of Canadian tax treaties in force is now 35. The conventions with Cameron, Ivory Coast, Kenya and Sri Lanka, approved by Parliament last June, should be ratified in the near future. After their ratification, the number of conventions in force will reach 39.1 hardly need to add that once the four conventions under study are ratified, the total number will reach 43.
Mr. Speaker, we would like to give a short outline of the main elements of these tax treaties. Generally speaking, dividends paid by Canadian enterprises to non-residents may be taxed in Canada at a maximum rate of 15 per cent, according to these treaties. In the case of dividends paid by a Thai enterprise, a 15 per cent rate will apply if the Canadian company receiving the dividends holds an equity percentage of at least 25 per cent in the company paying the dividends and if the latter company engages in an industrial or commercial undertaking. In the case of dividends paid by a Cyprus enterprise, an exemption will apply as long as Cyprus does not impose a tax on dividends in addition to the tax chargeable on the profits of companies. If Cyprus introduces a tax on dividends, the rate will be limited at 15 per cent under the convention.
For dividends paid by a Zambian enterprise, the rate is limited at 15 per cent. Finally, for dividends paid by a Brazilian enterprise, a maximum rate of 15 per cent will apply but only if they are derived by a Canadian enterprise which holds an equity percentage of at least 10 per cent in the enterprise paying the dividends.
In the case of interest paid by a resident of one country to a resident of the other country, a general rate of 15 per cent will apply. However, there are a number of exceptions. In the case of Brazil, the 15 per cent applies only if the interest is derived by a company that is a resident of Canada. In addition, with respect to interest paid to the Government, a political subdivision or an agency wholly-owned by the Government or the subdivision, that interest is exempt in the country in which it arises. In the case of Cyprus, there is a tax exemption for Government interests and interest paid in respect of a loan made, guaranteed or ensured, or a credit extended, guaranteed or ensured by the Export Development Corporation (EDC) or its counterpart in Cyprus. Concerning interests from Thailand, the rates are 10 per cent if the interest is received by a Canadian financial institution, and 25 per cent in other cases; however, interests paid to the Government, the central bank or the Export Development Corporation are exempted.
With respect to royalties, the Conventions provide for a general tax rate of 15 per cent in the State in which they arise, except that in the case of Cyprus, the general rate is 10 per
Double Taxation
cent. Moreover, in the case of Brazil, the 15 per cent rate only applies if the recipient is a corporation that is an actual resident of Canada. Copyright royalties are exempt in the case of Cyprus and subject to a 5 per cent tax rate in the case of Thailand.
Among other items covered in these Conventions, where capital gains are concerned we find the following: the provisions concerning capital gains in each of the Conventions follow the Canadian policy aimed at ensuring that the State in which those gains arise maintain its taxation right on the sale of immovable property, business assets or shares in real estate companies.
Concerning non-discrimination, each of the Conventions prohibits discrimination based on nationality. This ensures that nationals of one state will be treated the same way as those of the other state in similar situations. However, this does not prevent a state from allowing fiscal incentives, for instance deductions for small businesses on the sole bases of the taxpayer's place of residence.
With respect to pensions, Canada has maintained its right to tax pensions paid to residents of the countries covered by the Bill. In the case of conventions with Cyprus and Brazil, however, the right to tax pensions under $10,000 and $4,000 respectively in a calendar year is granted exclusively to the country of residence of the recipient. Veterans pensions are generally exempted.
Let us talk about the avoidance of double taxation. In Canada we avoid double taxation by granting a credit on Canadian taxes for taxes paid in foreign countries, subject to the limits provided under Canadian law. In addition, dividends received by the Canadian branch of a foreign company are also exempted from taxation in Canada if they come from the exempted surplus of the resident branch of a country covered by a convention.
The conventions include as well a special provisions commonly called "credit for fictitious taxes" or, in the case of Brazil, "corresponding credit". Pursuant to such provisions, tax incentives provided under the legislation of those countries will be eligible for Canadian tax purposes, in the sense that investors will be allowed to deduct foreign taxes from their Canadian taxes even if those taxes have not been levied in the other country.
Generally speaking the terms of each convention constitute a fair solution to the various double taxation problems between Canada and those countries. Canadian businesses are in favour of expanding the network of Canadian tax conventions and, in that context, the early and final agreement on the conventions under consideration will be welcome. Each of the countries involved hopes to implement the bilateral tax convention, and this is why we urge the House to pass this measure as soon as possible.
5794

June 14, 1985
Double Taxation
Mr. Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to say that I had double taxation problems related to contracts awarded by a company 1 once had operating in a foreign country. The conventions featured in this Bill fully meet the wishes of Canadians who are quite willing to pay their taxes, but who balk at paying them twice in two different countries.
I urge the House to give particular consideration to this Bill and to adopt it without undue delay because we are facing a heavy work load.
S0)


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, commenting on a tax treaty Bill is always somewhat anticlimactic in that the treaty has already been signed by the Governments concerned, usually after protracted negotiations, and parliamentary approval by both countries is the last step. It is rare for amendments to be made to this kind of Bill, although in 1980 a Bill concerning 11 tax treaties was amended by the House Finance Committee to remove approval for one treaty; that treaty in fact had been signed in 1976 and has never since been renegotiated.
Bill S-3, which is before us today, is designed to implement tax treaties with four countries; Zambia, Thailand, Cyprus and Brazil.
The main purpose of tax treaties, of course, is to avoid double taxation and to give some predictability and assurance to investors. In Europe, in particular, most countries do not include international rules in their domestic tax system as we do, so double taxation can be avoided only if there is a tax treaty.
Attached to the Bill before us are the texts of the four agreements or conventions. Following the 1971 tax reform, former treaties were renegotiated and new ones were put in place. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech gave the exact number of countries with which Canada now has tax treaties, something over 30.


An Hon. Member:: Forty-three.


Aideen Nicholson: Forty-three, thank you. The language and form of the conventions attached to this Bill are generally similar to those of the other treaties approved since 1975. The tax treaty with Brazil, as has been mentioned, has some special features. This is the end result of negotiations which began in 1975. It includes a different formula in respect to the taxation on capital gains. Another difference with the Brazilian treaty is the fact that all the reduced rates on withholding apply only to companies, not to individuals.
Canadian companies operating in Brazil have raised with our negotiators some ongoing concerned on which it was not possible to get agreement at this time, but we must hope that perhaps in future agreements will include features that are more encouraging to our Canadian businesses.
Under these agreements it has been said also that Canada reserves the right to tax pensions paid to residents of the other
country, but in the case of Cyprus, the right to tax pensions of less than $10,000 a year is given to the country of residence of the recipient, with war veterans' allowances being exempt.
The other technical matters in this Bill, I think, have been summarized very well by the Parliamentary Secretary. It appears to be a rather straightforward matter and we would have no particular interest in delaying the Bill or discussing it further at this stage.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I suppose this is not the most scintillating debate that we have heard in terms of parliamentarians feeling the urge to spend the entire time allotment on this Bill. I will follow that tradition and again want to say how much we appreciate the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) very clearly outlined the contents of Bill S-3 for the Members present and those who are presumably watching and listening today.
I do not have much to add in terms of the points that the Parliamentary Secretary has made other than to make two or three general observations. Again, this Bill coming from the Senate as it was passed on March 12, I suppose is perhaps one of the things that we see flowing out of the Senate that has some marginal value. I suppose that a committee of bureaucrats could put this together in a few hours in their own Department as well but, again, I guess something has to be done in the Senate and this is something that was done over there, so we must thank them for this profound contribution to the country.
As the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated, Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill that flows from agreements that had been signed during the February to June interval in 1984 between Canada and the four countries mentioned, namely, Zambia, Thailand, Cyprus and Brazil. What it indicates is an ongoing process that a country such as Canada, as it expands its economic and trade and investment activities, finds itself entering these types of agreements with more and more countries as the years go by. To date, this has resulted in a total of 43 countries that have similar agreements with Canada so that people operating in these countries will not be double taxed.
Over the last few years, as a parliamentarian, I have come into contact on a number of occasions with people who have been caught in this double taxation situation, people who have found themselves either participating in investments of one kind or another in these countries or now, with a lot of Canadian firms operating in countries overseas, including Petro-Canada, find themselves again serving six or eight months in a foreign country and having problems with double taxation because agreements have not been struck.
Again, I would like to encourage the Government to act with as much haste as possible as Canada reaches out and enters into more and more extensive trade and economic activities in other countries. We should take steps to ensure that agreements are entered into between the respective Gov-
June 14, 1985

ernments that result in these double-taxation agreements, thus avoiding the problems associated with having to pay taxes in two countries.
I would also like to encourage the Government to consider the list of priorities for arranging these agreements. This is one area where the Government can provide leadership by encouraging Canadian entrepreneurs, traders and investors to increase their participation in Third World countries, the developing nations and the lesser developed countries. Again, these are the countries that now have, by and large, the majority of the problems associated with double taxation because Canada's trade with many of the developing nations has not been substantial and consequently participants from Canada in these countries have not encountered the level of double-taxation difficulties that have been encountered in other, more developed nations. Again, the Government can provide leadership in this respect by entering into agreements with developing nations for the removal of double taxation. This would then encourage more and more Canadian entrepreneurs to turn their attention to activities in some of these countries.
One cannot get overly excited about this piece of legislation in terms of parliamentary debate. Nevertheless, it is a very important piece of legislation and one that the passage of which members of my Party will do whatever we can to expedite.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I note that the motion on the Order Paper is for reference of the Bill to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I think there is an understanding that we will, by unanimous consent, have this matter referred to the Committee of the Whole so that we can deal with the Bill in all stages, including third reading, today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there such unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.
Marcel Danis: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill S-3, an Act to implement conventions between Canada and the Republic of Zambia, Canada and the Kingdom of Thailand, Canada and the Republic of Cyprus and Canada and the Federative Republic of Brazil for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.
Clauses 2 to 24 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 1-Citation of Part


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, I have a question on Clause 1. 1 wonder if I could ask the Parliamentary Secretary about a list of some of the nations that are presently being considered in terms of anticipating the agreements with which we will be dealing in the months ahead.
Borrowing Authority Act


Claude Lanthier: 1 think that this information is in my speech, Mr. Chairman, I will look it up if I may. Now in my speech, I said that the conventions with Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Kenya and Sri Lanka had already been approved in June and should be ratified shortly. 1 do not know whether this answers the question.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 12, consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald (for the Minister of State (Finance)) that Bill C-51, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose there are just a few moments remaining in the time allotted me to make my remarks on the borrowing Bill, a Bill which asks for authority to borrow about $18 billion in the next little while. I was saying the other day that the questions to be asked are why is this money being borrowed and for whom is it being borrowed. I really wonder about giving support to this Bill because of what the Government has done through its most recent Budget that will hurt the senior citizens of the country.
I know that Conservative back-benchers are getting very restless about this issue because they are getting a lot of static from their home ridings. Senior citizens are beginning to attack them quite literally. I see one Member over there already has a black eye from what happened in his riding. For those kinds of reasons, I do not want to give support to the Government on this particular borrowing Bill.
I think that what the Government has done is very, very reactionary. A headline from The Toronto Star reads, "Seniors ready to make sacrifice, Wilson says," and another one reads, "Seniors ready for sacrifice, says Wilson". It is very unfair that seniors of this country should be penalized and that pensions should be cut back by 30 per cent over the next 10 years when, at the same time, the Government is giving all kinds of money to the oil companies and the wealthy. In fact-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.

June 14, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act


Claude Lanthier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) on a point of order.


Claude Lanthier: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but I had prepared my documents for today, that is Bill S-3 and Bill C-51. I did not expect another budget debate. I wonder how relevant his comments are. 1 would appreciate, Mr. Speaker, if you would call back those people to order and ask them to stick with the bill. I am ready to deal with Bill C-51 but I do not want to begin once again the same discussions on the Budget.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all respect to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, the Chair believes that the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) are indeed relevant to the debate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is very important that when we borrow money, we know for what the money is borrowed. I know my friend, the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), who used to sit on this side of the House, made those kinds of speeches as well. He know that it was important to know for what the money was borrowed. I see this money being borrowed to give more tax shelters to the wealthy and the big companies. I know that Conservative Members do not like that. I know that some of them are very good Christian souls. I am sure they would be interested in an article which appeared in The Toronto Sun this morning, which is a rather conservative newspaper.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I thought you just looked at the pictures.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: No, I do not look at the pictures Ray, you look at the pictures.
The headline of The Toronto Sun article read: "Church raps 'rob the poor' budget". The article read:
The Anglican Church has lambasted the federal Government for deindexing pensions, condemning the move as a government step to erode the social welfare system.
The 918,000-member church yesterday launched a stinging attack on the recent federal Budget, saying it "robs the poor and gives to the rich".
The Anglican Church of Canada, which is a very respected and learned institution, has said that the Budget robs the poor and gives to the rich. That is absolutely true.
In the riding of Assiniboia, and in the town of Weyburn, a large number of senior citizens receive Old Age Security. They will lose 3 per cent of their income from pensions each and every year. After 10 years, that represents a 30 per cent reduction in their income. At the same time, the Government is going to give all kinds of money to the oil companies and to the wealthy.


Mr. Gustafson:: What about capital gains?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) asks me about capital gains. I have said to him many times that I believe farmers needed a better exemption from capital gains. Why does the exemption go up to 500 per cent for whatever kind of investment a person wants to make, such as selling a condominium, or investing money in the stock market? Why is it wide open? The documents of the Department of Finance state that the wealthy people of Canada will benefit the most from the capital gains exemption.
The Government will lose about $2.2 billion in terms of corporate tax cuts because of the Budget. It will lose about $1.2 billion in terms of the capital gains windfall which will go to investors-people who play the stock market, real estate speculation and so on. On the other hand, the Government will save $1.6 billion on the pensions of Mrs. Jones, Mr. Smith and the rest of the old people in the country. I cannot understand why Members opposite are willing to support a Budget which increases the tax load on old people and which takes away the pensions of old people.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They are not taking it away? As of January 1, 1986, the Government is taking away something which pensioners had. They had full indexation of their pensions and the Government is taking that away.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking why I lie. I do not know whether or not that is parliamentary, but the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) indicates that senior citizens will lose 3 per cent every year on their pensions because of partial deindexation. That is a drop in real income of $100 in the first year. By 1990, it will represent a drop of about $1,500. After 10 years, it will represent a drop of 30 per cent. That is basic economics.
I cannot understand why the Government is doing this, particularly when it made promises during the election campaign that it had no intention of doing away with social programs. The Government said during the election campaign that social programs were a sacred trust. The Minister of Finance, during the election campaign last August, said that the Government had no intention of increasing the taxes of ordinary Canadians. Why did the Government break those commitments and promises? At the same time that the Government is taking away pension increases from ordinary Canadians, the spending for the Prime Minister's office has increased by 54 per cent. Spending in cabinet Ministers' offices has increased for salaries and new furnishings. Why does that type of thing happen? I noticed in the newspaper the other day that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) flies overseas, he will now take two aircraft. Does he think he is the new President of Canada? He is emulating Ronald Reagan south of the border. I understand that he has also redecorated his car. Once again, he is emulating the President of the United States.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We are not taking it away.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Why do you lie?
June 14, 1985

Why does the Government have money for all of those things when it does not have money for the senior citizens of the country? The old people of the country built Canada. They laid the foundations for this great nation. They were promised by the Prime Minister that their pensions and social programs would be a sacred trust. He said: "Elect me and 1 will not touch them". However, after a few months in office he has decreased the expected salary of senior citizens by 30 per cent over the course of the next 10 years.
I appeal to senior citizens across the country to go after Tory MPs like they have never done before. I appeal to them to send petitions and to write letters. The Government across the way is starting to buckle. Government Members' knees are shaking. They are running scared. There is not one Conservative Premier in the country who supports this Draconian and reactionary move. The Atlantic Premiers are condemning the measures. Frank Miller is condemning them. Even Bill Bennett is condemning them.

The new friend in Quebec, Premier Rene Levesque is against that budget proposal, Mr. Speaker.


Pauline Jewett: It is true!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Some other friends of the Progressive Conservative Party such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce are against it.


Pauline Jewett: Yes.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Bulloch's organization and other business organizations are against the measures. Student groups are against them. A lot of Tory MPs are against them. The Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), according to press reports today, has said that he cannot understand why the Government of Canada would do this to the senior citizens of the country. He wishes that the Minister of Finance would speak to the senior citizens of the country. I wish the Minister of Finance would do that as well. Instead, he likes to sip champagne and eat caviar with the wealthy in Montreal and Toronto. He does not want to go out into the real world, in the communities of Weyburn, Yorkton and Chicoutimi where ordinary people live. They live on old age pensions, in little houses, in places such as Kamsack. Yet, the very wealthy Prime Minister has broken the promise and has taken away the money which those people should have. Then, the Government asks to borrow another $18 billion to support the Government in subsidizing its friends.
Once again, that Party has become the Party of the wealthy and the privileged in Canada. It wants to borrow more money so it can prop up its wealthy friends in the Rideau Clubs of the world. I say: "No, thanks".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There being no questions or comments, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) on debate.
Borrowing Authority Act


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would be glad to support an understandable request on the part of a Government for borrowing authority, because we believe that there is an important role to be played in the interest of the public by the Government; even by a so-called Progressive Conservative Government which has attempted to interpret the mandate which was given to it by Canadians. After the raft of promises which were made, so far, the Government has given a dismal performance.
It takes a lot of nerve for the Government to ask for borrowing authority this week when the issue of pensions has erupted. It has left a sense of anxiety with a lot of Canadians who are beginning to wonder whether the solidity on which the pension system was built is still to be counted upon in the years to come. I must say it really takes a lot of nerve to do that.
This Government is also creating a sense of anxiety and uncertainty among other Canadians in addition to pensioners. It has created a sense of anxiety among those concerned about the environment. We have here a number of issues which have emerged over the past few months and which have left deep dissatisfaction among those who cherish and admire and want to retain the character and quality of our parks. This is because of the silly musings on the part of the present Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), musing on the quality of the water along the Niagara River, musing about whether or not PCBs are dangerous, and babbling just a couple of weeks ago about the toxic chemicals in the dumpsites which have been the object of profound dissatisfaction and unhappiness on the part of people who reside along the shores of Lake Ontario.
In addition, there are Canadians who are concerned about the uncertainty expressed or demonstrated so far by the Government in relation to the SDI proposal, better known as star wars. This Government has not had the guts to say no to the SDI proposal. In the beginning it wavered in favour, and has now somehow retreated and decided, as announced today, to set up a committee to investigate the matter. It does this instead of understanding what SDI really means to Canada and the global community, instead of rejecting the concept right away, thus dispelling a profound sense of fear which is mounting among our people from coast to coast concerning the long-term implications for Canada if we were ever to entertain the star wars concept.
There is a sense of anxiety because students by the thousands are still left in limbo. They have not heard about their applications for summer jobs. That is what I hear in Toronto, and this pattern can probably be found in other urban centres across the country since the cancellation of Summer Canada last November. There is a sense of anxiety among the unemployed in training because all of a sudden we have learned that the skill development allowances have been curtailed if not eliminated.
If you put together a number of the developments which have taken place as a result of the actions of this Government

June 14, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
since last October, you get the impression that this country is on the retreat, it is being closed down by this Government on a variety of fronts. Let us take for a moment Canada's role on the international front. Where do we stand right now, I ask the only representative of Cabinet here today?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No, no; monsieur Cote and I.


Mr. Caccia:: Our international role has somehow collapsed. Canada seems to be nowhere. It has disappeared behind the apron of President Reagan. There is no international action on Canada's part which one can detect in continuation of the past efforts over the decades by preceding Prime Ministers. Canada is nowhere to be found in international councils. The vision is gone. It is lost.
I was referring to SDI a moment ago, before the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) entered the House. It seems to me that a clear, firm initial statement saying no to the SDI proposal would have been greeted with a great sense of relief by many Canadians who see the long-term implications of entering this kind of agreement.
This country is being profoundly affected by the wavering of this Government on social policy. Last October, November and December we had the debate on universality. You will remember that universality had to be re-established and reconfirmed as a result of continuous questioning in the House when its future was put into doubt. Now we have a new potential danger which is to be removed, let us hope very soon, on the question of deindexation of pensions. Again, instead of building and elaborating and improving on what we have, we seem to be tempted to move in the direction of weakening and dismantling our social security structure which has been built by consecutive generations of Canadians by virtue of long-term designs on improving what is hopefully going to be one of the best social security systems in the world.
This Government is under retreat as well on the environment. I regret to say that again because one does not want to sound like a broken record unless it is absolutely necessary, but here again on this front we have disappeared, as we have disappeared on the international front, as we appear to be inclined to demolish or weaken gradually our social security system. We have had statements on this subject which have weakened the confidence of Canadians as to what this Government really intends to do on the environment. I am glad to say that on acid rain, having taken over in September, the Government has continued the work established by preceding Liberal Governments.
Having said that, if you look around, there is no constructive action which has emanated in the environment since. We have this weakness in relation to our parks policy. We have no activity internationally to exert pressures on the U.S. to sign the acid rain agreement next month in Helsinki. We have uncertainty among the ranks of non-government organizations about their role and acceptance by government. We have a subcommittee headed by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) which is causing anxiety over the future of the Department of the Environment. We have no long-term plans
as to parks acquisition and an increasing number of invitations to acquire new sites, as in the case for example of South Moresby. We have, therefore, a picture which leaves very much to be desired. It is not a healthy environmental scene that we see emerging after nine months of this Government.
Where we seem to be withdrawing and vanishing also in the area of research and development. Last November the cuts this Government initiated caused the liquidation or cancellation of a number of programs. It is particularly distressing that alternative sources of energy such as the sun and wind are no longer included in a number of programs of the National Research Council which are for the benefit of Canadians. In the long term this will cause us to be increasingly dependent on non-renewable sources of energy such as oil and gas. Why would the Government abandon efforts to further development of renewable sources of energy? This indicates to Canadians that the Government places no value on renewable energy. In the future, Canada will be dependent on oil and gas which have limited potential for supplying our requirements. That is very distressing, Mr. Speaker.
As well as renewable energy programs, other research and development programs were cancelled last November which required gradual abandonment of initiatives and, therefore, the loss of scientists and other people who could have been active in long-term research activities which would be of benefit to our economy. Not only are we reducing the number of scientists at the NRC, we are also not opening employment opportunities for young scientists graduating from universities and looking for an opportunity to work for their country in order to develop and improve our scientific and research potential.
It is most demoralizing that within two months of coming into power, the Progressive Conservative Government decided to eliminate a number of important research and development programs. In the long term, that will cause a considerable amount of distress because we will be losing the cutting edge which research and development affords us in competition with other countries.
The National Energy Program has been dismantled and thereby Canadian ownership in our oil and gas resources has been abandoned. That abandonment of Canadian identity and ownership is another distressing aspect that has emerged through the retreat from the public sector inspired by the Progressive Conservative philosohpy. We are telling the country that we do not believe in strengthening Canadian ownership and identity. That philosophy resulted in the dismantling of the Canadian Development Corporation, which was the result of a fine thought of Walter Gordon. The CDC became a reality in approximately 1971 and was the initiator of a considerable number of corporate enterprises that gave Canada the cutting edge and technological advance which permitted the formation of a number of free enterprise initiatives resulting in a considerable number of interesting jobs.
Another area of retreat and dismay is that of the Public Service. In the Budget we were promised a cut of 15,000
June 14, 1985

people in the Public Service by 1990. The message from the Progressive Conservative ranks is that there shall not be jobs in the Public Service for young Canadians who graduate and enter the work force. They will be told that they will not have the opportunity to serve their country in the Public Service at the federal level. Job opportunities will have to be found in the private sector. What kind of inspiration does this give to universities, teachers, and students when they are precluded from the opportunity to develop in the service of their country?
Another area of retreat and dismay is that of international competition. We heard the other day that Canada will not be the site for international events afer the 1988 event in Calgary. We seem to have lost heart in this area as well. Inevitably, one must conclude that the Government has no vision other than that of retreat. Its only challenge is to cut the deficit in the wrong way. What hope has this Government offered to Canada in terms of a role in the world as an independent and proud nation?
This Government is bereft of ideas. It has not yet provided a vision for Canadians of our national and international role. It seems to be saying that Canada is going to close down and asking the last one to leave to turn off the lights. I hope this will not happen, Mr. Speaker. We on this side of the House will ensure that the concept of a vision for Canadians does not die. We want the Government to tell Canadians what Canada should be doing on the world scene and what Canada should be telling the young people graduating from training institutions. The Government should tell Canadians what to hope for in their environment and what to expect from the Government in terms of research and development, housing, social policies, and social security.
Up until now we have seen only retreat on every front in a most depressing manner. This makes it extremely difficult to come into the House with a positive attitude in support of this request for financing.
We would be pleased to finance a Government that takes positive action and makes us proud of the Government of Canada. However, those Members should show us something of substance rather than a threat to pensioners and their futures. We do not want to see a reduction of employment in the Public Service. The Government should not waver, but say no to invitations concerning SDI, which is very destabilizing proposal. It should be making us proud about being part of a new decade that is emerging during difficult times.
I would like to see the Government introduce the policies that Canadians are expecting of it rather than having to react every day to measures that increase the level of anxiety and sense of uncertainty about our individual and collective future.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by the comments made by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). He talks about a vision for Canada. What type of vision did we see in 1968 when we were promised the just society? What vision did we have with the National Energy
Borrowing Authority Act
Program that destroyed the oil industry in western Canada? His Party has no seats west of Manitoba. It is not surprising that they are not in touch with the people of Canada. He talks about SDI and says that we are giving up, but we have a clear direction and want to explore that possibility. The Hon. Member says that we gave up on the National Energy Program. What were the benefits to Canada and western Canada from the National Energy Program?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I believe that western Canada benefits as being part of Canada in a variety of ways. In the case of the NEP, it was the fact that future generations of Canadians would, whether western or eastern Canadians, enjoy and share in the increased ownership of our natural resources. I am sure that there are many young western Canadians who would look forward to sharing the ownership of our gas and oil resources to a greater extent than we have in the past.
I submit to the Hon. Member that that in itself is something to be proud about. I could name a long list of visions that were put to Canadians in the 1970s. Some of them were implemented and, it is true, some were not. However, we certainly made the 1970s a very thriving decade for Canada. I would also mention to the Hon. Member the third option in our foreign affairs which was launched, pursued, but not successful. Nevertheless, it was put as a possibility for Canadians if they wanted it.
I would mention to the Hon. Member the fact that we went to the United Nations in pursuit of the gradual suffocation policy vis-a-vis nuclear arms. We provided a vision not only for Canada, but for the rest of the world.
Despite enormous criticism, we offered Canadians a variety of programs for community employment during the summer and winter by which the Hon. Member's own city benefited as much as mine. Young people created their own jobs in the summer and winter and determined their own destiny until they could find the long term permanent activities that they were seeking.
If he wants me to continue, I will mention multiculturalism which, in itself, is an exciting concept and vision. It is in our hands if we want to make it work. I would mention our concept of developing a new approach to transportation systems in the West which was highly criticized and thoroughly debated.
I might also add that in the early 1980s, despite opposition in the House, we gave Canadians a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that probably makes Canada one of the most modern nations, with a legal instrument that is becoming widely tested and which evidently has met a need on the part of a number of people from coast to coast. Would that be a lack of vision in the eyes of the Hon. Member? I ask those Hon. Members to come forward with their ideas because so far they appear to be a bunch of bankrupt politicians. All they have introduced since last October is cuts and reductions.
The ones whom they are asking to shoulder the burden are the same people who have made a contribution to Canada all

June 14, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
their working lives. Can you be proud of that and go home to your riding during the recess? This is why I am asking Hon. Members to come forward with a vision because Canada does not seem to have one at this time.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray).


Mr. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was rather funny this afternoon when a Member of the Official Opposition told us it was our fault. On September 4, Canadian men and women were newly confident about this country, and it was the Progressive Conservatives that gave them reason to be confident. Looking back, it was the Liberals who gave us a deficit of nearly $200 billion. Mr. Speaker, mathematically speaking, $200 billion divided by 40 Liberal Members means that they each owe our economy $5 billion. That is what our economy is up against, Mr. Speaker.
Something else. Children being born in Canada today are in debt, at birth, to the tune of $7,000 each, because of the Liberals. That is not funny. During the years the Liberals were in power ... now we have 1.5 million unemployed. If that is supposed to be the present or the legacy they left us, Mr. Speaker, it is some present.

Opposition Members say that we back-benchers in the Conservative Party have nothing to say. We were elected to work for our ridings and Canada in general. We have begun that process and Canadians are beginning to have confidence. Over 270,000 jobs have been created by our new Government as a result of cutting out progams that were not needed and cutting waste. We have lowered the interest rates.
I have just returned from a week in my riding where my constituents want development. I have already stated that picnic tables are a thing of the past because we have resources not only in oil and natural gas, but forestry, fish, agriculture and tourism. I guarantee the Hon. Member that as the Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, with a Conservative Government for years to come we will never leave a legacy like that which we inherited on September 4.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that there is another way of looking at the deficit. A deficit can be necessary as a form of investment to save the economy when the unemployment rate is 20, 30 or 40 per cent in the riding he represents.

When unemployment was over 25 per cent, over 30 per cent and 39 per cent in the case of Port Alberni in British Columbia, the deficit was a necessity on the part of any socially responsible Government in order to provide aid to those affected by a recession. In that sense it becomes an investment in the future. It is an investment in Canada. It is
not possible to run a Government like a corner variety store it is not a question of balancing the accounts. It is not a question of making a profit. A government has to do much more than just operate a business. A government has to look after the interests of the population and come through in times of need in the hope that when times improve it can reduce the deficit, gradually, when it is possible. You cannot look at the books and balance them year to year for the sake of balancing them as it is done in the private sector.


Leonard J. Gustafson: You had 20 years to do it.


Charles L. Caccia: Otherwise that is not being in the public sector. You might as well stay in the private sector and run your books there. There is a profound social role that is incumbent upon a government. I will not apologize about the deficit. I am proud we did incur that deficit.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles L. Caccia: I know that we did it for the sake of those who were unemployed and for their families. There was nothing wrong incurring a deficit driven by that kind of social concern.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is over. Resuming debate. We will commence with the Hon. Member who claims to come from the sports capital of Canada, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, another great sport is politics. I enjoy the chance to enter this debate this afternoon.
I have to take us back in history to an election campaign fought against a long lived and arrogant Liberal Government which had punished the country's economy, which saw a significant decline in the production of the country and, in turn, a dramatic increase in unemployment rates. An election campaign took place. In that election campaign, the Conservative Party launched an all-out attack on that arrogant, probably misguided, Liberal Government. During the course of that campaign, that Conservative Party through its leader made some throbbing, exciting, powerful statements of optimism and hope about the future. In Regina, for instance, people heard, "This is a new country, and there is no excuse for unemployment in Canada if a government does its duty."
A statement made in Moncton was "The Conservative Party is going to find work for all who are willing to work, or perish in the attempt, and take such steps as will end this tragic condition of unemployment and bring prosperity to the country as a whole." The leader of the existing Government, it was said, "promises consideration of the problem of unemployment; I promise to end unemployment. Which plan do you like best?"
That was the Conservative Leader before the election and the Conservative Leader who, on the basis of those promises

June 14, 1985

was elected. I must say, Mr. Speaker, with an overwhelming majority, that Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) went on to put his remedies for this country's problems into effect. When he brought his major budget down just a few short months later, the Minister of Industry, a man by the name of Mr. Stevens, stated that the Budget "was wise and courageous." "The Minister has discharged a difficult task with such marked ability that the country will share with us a feeling of confidence in his capacity to guide us wisely and safely through these troublous days".
What was there in that Budget that was brought down? First, there were considerable cut-backs, for instance, reductions in the services given to agriculture. Second, there was considerable additional taxation. In fact, two-thirds of the new taxation in the Budget was to be raised through sales tax, import duties and what was charitably referred to as nuisance taxes. When you look at the increases in direct taxation that were to be established, for those whose taxable income was $10,000 a year, the percentage increase of tax was 53 per cent. For those who earned $50,000 a year, the percentage increase was 33 per cent. For those whose taxable income was $1 million a year, the increase was 31 per cent.
In those days, as in these days, there was a leader of a social democratic group within the House of Commons who got up and made the point that our leader has been making with respect to this Budget. "The millionaires", he said, "have been very gently dealt with by the Minister of Finance".
I was not there in those days, nor were any of these Hon. Members. I am certain that if they had been there, they would have applauded just as vigorously with just as much sense, confidence and certainty, that their Minister bravely, courageously, as Mr. Stevens had said, was going to provide a solution to this country.
In the interests of history, I have to tell you who these various people were who made these various statements, Mr. Speaker. The election promises were made by Mr. Bennett in 1930. He too promised tens and tens of thousands of jobs. The Minister of Industry who so magnanimously welcomed that budget was the Hon. Henry Stevens who later went on to desert Mr. Bennett because his policies turned out to be so misguided. The Budget that was brought in in 1932 had exactly the same cut-backs to the agricultural sector that we have seen in this Budget, exactly the same emphasis on increases in indirect tax and exactly the same unfairness within the direct tax increases which were designed to put people back to work.
The policy failed dismally then. It will fail dismally now. That massive majority of 1930 disappeared completely by 1935. I fear as I watch this Government, that its majority is going to ebb out in the same way in 1987 or 1988, or whenever the next election comes.
We have now had the first serious careful reading of this Budget by the business economists of Canada, not those who sent me to this House of Commons, those academic economists who according to my friend, the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) have never managed to get it right, not the
Borrowing Authority Act
people who the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) himself referred to yesterday as economists who will tell you one thing with one hand and something else with another, but the business economists, the people who make the forecasts upon which businesses make their decisions about reinvestment.
Seventy-six per cent of those business economists surveyed have decided that as a result of this momentous Budget, there is no need to change their forecasts for this year. For 1986, no fewer than 50 per cent of them have said that there is no need to change their projections. Of the other 50 per cent-and I remind the House that these are business economists-a majority have reduced their growth expectations. In short, as a result of the "magnificent" Budget brought in by this "grand" Government, business economists-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: -have decided that growth will go down. I note, for the record, that Conservative back-benchers are applauding the fact that that will take place.


Mr. McKenzie:: We are applauding the Budget.


Steven W. Langdon: These business economists have been even harsher. They were almost as bad as the BCNI itself which criticized the Government the other day. These are the business economists from whose ilk the Minister of Finance in fact springs. I am sure many people have been charmed by the Minister of State for Finance, yet none of the forecasters agree that the promise of the Minister of Finance of greater job creation will succeed. None of them believe what the Minister of Finance says, and 20 per cent of Canadian business economists expect that the jobless rate will be higher than they predicted before the Budget was brought down. Not a single business economist believes that it will be lower, thanks to the Budget, and 20 per cent of them believe that it will be higher.
It pains me to do so, but I have to ask the Minister of State for Finance to demonstrate in the future, when they bring before the House discussion of the projections of economic models, a little honesty. Projections are designed to show what would happen if a certain event takes place. In short, the fact that several hundred thousands of jobs have been created in the last eight months says nothing with respect to the projections of the budget experts of the Minister of Finance.
He would not admit it back in November, but he has since admitted in the House that his own finance projections indicated that there would be 50,000 to 100,000 jobs less as a result of the Budget. That is not an absolute number; that is 50,000 to 100,000 jobs less than would have otherwise resulted. In fact if 200,000 jobs have been created, what his finance officials were telling him was that if he had not brought in that November statement, he would have been able to rise in the House and boast about 250,000 or 300,000 jobs. I must say that he is boastful enough about the number about which he talks that I am perhaps just as pleased that he does not have more to boast about. He should at least have the honesty, as

June 14, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
someone who knows something about economics, to recognize that those absolute numbers have nothing to do with contradicting what projections suggest.
We have a Borrowing Authority Bill in front of us this afternoon which asks us to endorse the economic strategy of the Government despite the fact, as my little history lesson demonstrated, that this is a strategy which was tried in the 1930s. At that time it not only devastated the country but, of more importance to people like my friend, the Minister of State for Finance, it devastated the Conservative Party. In the expectation that they would at least be concerned about survival, I hope they take seriously this history lesson this afternoon and look to their political skins to see what is likely to befall them and to see what might happen to the whole country if we were subjected to a Liberal majority Government after the next election, thanks to what has been created in this Budget. I mean, God help us all.
I point out not just the failures which exist with respect to the macro-economic strategy on the part of the Government, but the failures which exist with respect to the agricultural sector. In fact, there are many Members of the House who know quite well the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture is to the Conservative Party what the Ontario Federation of Labour is to our Party. It is an organization which has almost always endorsed, supported, worked for and believed in the Conservative Party of Canada.
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture indicated last week that the Budget was a betrayal of farmers. It urged each Ontario Member of Parliament to rise and express the anger and frustration of Ontario farmers with this Budget. I have not heard many of my fellow Conservative Ontario Members of Parliament stand up to express that anger and frustration. As a New Democrat and speaking for my farmers in Essex County with whom I have talked in detail about the Budget, I can express that anger and frustration with absolute and total certainty that it represents their view of and judgment on the Government.
I have heard the Minister say on occasion that this Budget helps women. Having talked with women's groups within my constituency, I have to say, as we said earlier to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), name one group, just one group of women that believes the Budget provides something real and significant in terms of economic advance for women. Women's groups in Essex County tell me that they feel damaged, hard done by and hit by increased taxes. They also feel they have been hit by cut-backs affecting them. It is not only the pensioners who are expressing their disgust with what has been taking place; it is women, farmers and even professional business economists. With enemies like that, the Government badly needs friends. I fear with its present Budget it is simply not going to find them. This Government has brought this on itself and it is going to continue doing so in the future if it does not change its course quickly.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is wriggling. He is attempting to change. I ask him to move quickly, to let pensioners in this country know that he is going to change; to let women in this country know that he is going to backtrack; to let farmers in this country know that he is not going to continue with a Budget that they feel is a betrayal.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that as we debate this borrowing authority it will have the effect also of changing this Government's strategy in this regressive Budget, a Budget out of the thirties instead of a Budget out of the eighties.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Chateauguay (Mr. Lopez).


Mr. Lopez:: Mr. Speaker, I already knew that the Opposition parties and especially the NDP were as unrealistic as they come, but they have just demonstrated that they are also prophets of doom, both the New Democrats and the Liberals. They astonish me and they are astonishing me more and more. They really do not have much up here. They said as much earlier when they were counting the seats on our side and saying that when they were over there, at least there was something coming out of those seats. Well, if anything was coming out, it was coming out the wrong end, because there is nothing up here.
They keep accusing us of failing to keep our campaign promises. Last week, we also voted on a Bill, Bill C-15 if I am not mistaken, which contained one of our campaign promises, and both Opposition parties objected very strenuously to this Bill. They said that it would be a catastrophe if the Bill were passed. It was one of the campaign promises we want to keep, and we intend to keep them all if we can.
Had economic conditions been more favourable, had they left the economy a lot stronger than they did, I think we would be able to honour all our commitments very easily. But before leaving they scrapped the bottom of the barrel and left nothing but dust. That is why we may need more time to fulfil some of our promises, but rest assured that we did not forget them and that they are our concern and our objective-and we intend- to live up to every one of them.
In spite of those prophets of doom who try every which way to trip us and prevent us from governing, the people of Canada gave us a clear and unmistakable mandate to do just that. Anyone standing in our way and trying to prevent us from carrying out the wishes expressed by Canadians is showing disrespect for them. We made some promises and we are trying to fulfil them as much as possible, but every time we try to pass legislation to honour those promises you thwart our efforts. Do not do this or that, it is not good! You have been saying that for years, but people are growing skeptical and do not believe you any more.
*

June 14, 1985

You talk about honesty and point your finger at us, but if there were a mirror in the middle of the House it would reflect your own image, you could continue to talk about honesty while looking at your own image in the mirror and then I think you would realize that you can indeed blame yourselves. If there is one thing I wish it is that the Opposition Members be more realistic and stop showing off in the House. Take a constructive approach, and when we do something to improve the situation, for God's sake let us work together in the best interest of the country and of all Canadians, stop being so argumentative all the time. You keep saying that the steps taken by the Progressive Conservative Party are not any good. How can you justify that? Because you did not take them! That is the only reason you can find. There is no other. It is always the same negative attitude. Whatever we do, whatever the Government does, Members opposite say: That is no good. They always find a reason to say that it is no good. When we make a promise it is no good. Then, in the same breath, they criticize us for having promised something else and for not keeping our promise. Get your act together once and for all. Should we keep our promises or not?
If we are to keep our promises, when we make suggestions for that purpose, cooperate with us! Why criticize us when we are trying to keep those promises? On one hand, we must keep those promises, but on the other, you prevent us from doing so. If there is any hypocrisy or dishonesty involved, it is certainly over there. In fact, there is a lot of it.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak too long, but I simply want to urge the Members opposite, both the socialists and their accomplices, to consider the fact that they should be much more honest and work in the best interests of Canada and all Canadians, because they are now doing just the opposite.


Steven W. Langdon: How does one respond to that?
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that political issues have many interesting aspects. For instance, during the election campaign, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion was reported as having said that amendments to the Foreign Investment Act were required. However, he also said that such amendments must give adequate protection to any important sector. The legislation should provide some protection to sectors of major economic importance. However, there is nothing of the kind in Bill C-15.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this means the Conservatives did not really keep their election promise. They had promised to introduce a Bill which would make certain changes but would also identify the sectors of major importance that should be protected. However, that is not included in the Bill itself.
The second thing that I want to say is that according to the Hon. Member, the Canadian people gave a mandate to this Government. Mr. Speaker, the constituents of Essex-Windsor
Borrowing Authority Act
gave me a mandate, that of speaking on behalf of ordinary Canadians. In order to do that, all bills introduced by the Government must be examined. It can be said that some bills are good, and we support them like the one 1 supported this afternoon. But now we have an economic strategy that has been announced by this Government, and this is a strategy that does plenty of things, but mainly it imposes higher taxes on every average Canadian and a tax reduction for a small group of rich people. Another thing this strategy does, it changes the safety net protecting senior citizens in our society. Those two things seem unacceptable to ordinary people. Well,
I feel I have to fight against those things. When I was in my constituancy discussing the budget with people, nine out of ten told me I was right, because I was doing things they were in agreement with.
Mr. Speaker, you know we now have petitions being circulated collecting loads of signatures on the matter of pensions. In all, 90 per cent of my constituents want to sign such a petition. To me, that response means I speak on behalf of my constituents, and I think I also speak on behalf of the constituents of that Hon. Member.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. We must discuss the borrowing authority of this Government at considerable length because of the priorities the Government has put in the Budget and other measures that it has enacted as of late.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said recently in a speech that this country had a shortage of rich people. I have looked at that statement in terms of my own riding and I beg to differ with the Minister. In my own riding, there is not a shortage of rich people, but a surplus of poor people. I represent a constituency which is not very affluent. The people of my riding will not benefit too much from the measures that were adopted by the Minister of Finance and by his proposal to cut off benefits to elderly people of Canada while at the same time giving the opportunity to do so to someone who wishes to sell a yacht or condominium in Florida without paying capital gains tax.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Or a farmer.


Don Boudria: I fail to see, as 1 am sure the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Asiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) fails to see in his usual objective way why the Government of Canada would want to punish the poor and reward so unjustly the more affluent in our society.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Go out to Saskatchewan farmers and tell them that.


Don Boudria: Let us see what the farming community had to say about the Budget and the fiscal policies of the Government. I hear the Hon. Member across the way speaking of farmers. I would like to read from a resolution of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and I would hope that the Hon.

June 14, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine would listen very carefully. The resolution reads:
That every MP in the province be talked to over the next few weeks and that this be done by a substantial group of farmers in the MP's own area and that we demand that our MP represent our frustration and anger and demand for action to their respective caucuses and Ministers-
I am glad that a member of the Conservative caucus has referred to the measures of this Budget that will positively affect the farmers of this country.


Mr. Minaker:: Who wrote that? Would the Member table it?


Don Boudria: Oh, yes, 1 would gladly table the minutes of the meeting of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. If the Hon. Member across the way challenges the fact that these might be authentic, I am sure he would himself want to phone that illustrious group to confirm the fact that those are the correct words.
The Hon. Member opposite also spoke of the benefits to the farmers of western Canada. Let us see what the Alberta Cattle Feeders Association had to say recently about the Government. In a news release, that group has said:
-the Conservatives traded off the Canadian cattle industry out of fear that retaliatory measures might affect Canada's exports of whisky, blueberries, maple sugar and other food products.
The news release went on to say:
Because of this foolish decision, one of the few options Canadian cattlemen have left is to press on with a costly countervail action against the EEC's export subsidized beef; and encourage the Mulroney Government to keep another of its commitments-
I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine for bringing up the agricultural component of today's discussion. I am grateful to him for suggesting that I raise this matter, and I am sure his constituents are as well.
The Government said that it has to repriorize its expenditures. It has published a little booklet entitled Managing Government More Effectively. I have a few suggestions of my own that I would like to give to the Government. In doing so, I would like to read a letter that was sent to me by a person from South Porcupine, Ontario. The letter reads:
Something I have wanted for a long time is a good government job. I wonder if you could help me out. Would you please be good enough to ask Joe, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Mulroney, Mr. Crosbie and others in the House of Commons very important if they have any unmarried sisters, step-sisters, aunts, great aunts, great-great aunts, nieces, cousins female, of course, grandmothers, great grandmothers, great-great grandmothers, second cousins, third cousins, etc. If any of them has 1 would be prepared to marry one of them regardless of age or appearance-
The letter goes on:
I talked this over with my wife and will get a divorce to get a job. I am 62 and am past the age of being fussy. 1 just want to be a member of All In The Family Club. I'll be watching all the activities in the Commons... to hear you make this astounding announcement.
It goes on:
1 am sending you a copy of the letter I sent to Wilson and ... Mulroney as I am sure my letter will never get to him, but if you want you can present him with this letter.
This letter came from an unemployed person living in northern Ontario. At the bottom, the letter reads:
P.S. Is there really such a person as Aurele Gervais?
I thought I would bring this letter to your attention, Mr. Speaker, so that you would know what some unemployed people of Canada think of the government policies designed to manage Government more effectively.


A. Daniel McKenzie: If you're so smart, tell us why there was one and a half million unemployed.


Don Boudria: I see the Hon. Member across is beginning to get restless. If a Liberal Finance Minister would have presented a Budget like this one, I would be restless too. I do not blame the Hon. Member for feeling that way, it is not his fault.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Tell us why we have such a huge debt, if you're so smart.


Don Boudria: Let me read what a senior citizen of my riding has said to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). That letter reads:
Both myself and my wife are Senior Citizens-


An Hon. Member:: Another one?


Don Boudria: Perhaps the Hon. Member across the way does not want to hear about these letters. Perhaps that is the whole problem. Perhaps the Government does not want to hear about the senior citizens of this country. Perhaps the Government is not interested in their plight. It is only interested in the shortage of rich people to which the Minister of Finance referred when he made a speech in Montreal. Perhaps that is the whole problem with this Government. If that Member does not want to hear about it, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you do. The letter reads:
Both myself and my wife are Senior Citizens. During our discussion following your appearance on The Journal last night (June 5) we recognized that, even though we do not receive the GIS, we were continually seeking ways to "get by".
The reason is that we are now fully supporting one son (30 years old, with a perceptual handicap)-


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


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


Moe Mantha: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the Hon. Member is in a little cloud. As the Finance Minister (Mr. Wilson) said, when a gentleman gets up to speak we should pay attention. However, given that the Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Gervais) is not here, the Hon. Member should not be talking about him.


Don Boudria: I cannot say that. It is out of order.
June 14, 1985


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think that the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) referred to the presence or the absence of that Member.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, of course I would not have referred to the absence of a Member. That would be unparliamentary. However, now that my colleague has brought it up, I must agree with him.
I will continue with the letter which I was reading from a senior citizen in my riding. It continues:
Why are these two young men not earning their own way? They were. Both had good jobs in the oil industry in Edmonton, Alberta until the bottom fell out of it, when, with thousands of others, they returned home to Ontario.
The question for you is "How many other Senior Citizens are bearing the burden of supporting family members who are unemployed?" We are lucky in that we are just able to get by, but we have to postpone (or probably give up) our hopes of a relaxed retirement, a little travel and enjoyment of some of the things we worked so hard for all our lives (I am a war vet.).
So Mr. Epp, the nibbling away at the meager living standards of the pensioners of Canada is NOT the answer. It is shameful to pretend that the Seniors willingly support the deindexing of pensions, even to the limited extent your Government has done. Mr. Epp, a piece of paper that says the deficit is $xx billions does not feel hungry.
What the pensioners support is a fair OVERALL sharing of the burden by those who do have jobs and CAN put up with a slightly reduced standard of living. The very young and the elderly have a strong elementary sense of fairness (it is always present, but often suppressed during working years when self survival is important). The Seniors of this country also have long memories- remember that when the next election comes up.
That is what a senior citizen in my riding had to say about the budgetary measure to deindex pensions. Members of the Conservative Party, who yesterday voted against full indexation of pensions, should remember that. They too have seniors in their ridings. They are part of a Government which has spent millions of dollars buying military uniforms for the Armed Forces. Does any Member of the House know of one military person who would not part with his new uniform in order to have a pension for his grandmother?


Mr. Fennell:: Yes.


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member opposite said yes. I challenge him to name that person. I refuse to believe that there is such a person. People in the military are proud, but they know what their priorities should be. They know that it is ridiculous to take money away from senior citizens and to give $36 million to an expenditure of that kind.
I would like to read into the record a letter from a constituent who lives in Vankleek Hill, Ontario, which is in my riding. The letter reads:
I am an old age pensioner who is not at the moment in desperate need of the funds, although I might well become so if the Government's apparent intentions come to full flower. I don't know by what right Finance Minister Wilson piously cites my alleged support for his attack on the elderly. First let him order all snouts out of the patronage trough before invoking my senile sense of self-denial. In the context of its favourite treatment for friends and relations, the Government's reneging on its election commitment to hold inviolate the hard-won and for the most part paid-for pension rights appears to be "cowardly, despicable and dastardly".
That is what the people of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell say about the budgetary measures of the Government. They are
Borrowing Authority Act
not pleased with measures which will deindex senior citizens' pensions.
I have received another letter from British Columbia. Again, that letter talks about how the senior citizens in that province feel about the deindexation of Old Age Security. Countless letters are received every day by members of our Party. I am sure that at least one Conservative member, before this debate is over, will have the intestinal fortitude which is required to stand, on behalf of his or her constituents, and read similar letters. There must be a Tory member somewhere who is willing to do that. I refuse to believe that there is not one Tory member who will stand up for his or her constituents. Perhaps I will be proven wrong. Only time will tell us.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Perhaps you are wrong.


Don Boudria: Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps he is right. Maybe there is not a Tory member who has that kind of intestinal fortitude. I see the Hon. Member nodding his head in agreement with that. Maybe he is right. Maybe there is not one. Even I am willing to give at least one Conservative member that kind of credit, whether or not that Member deserves it.
I want to speak briefly on patronage. I have spoken about patronage on a few occasions in the past. Patronage costs money. In this debate we are talking about the cost of running the Government. I am sure Members opposite would agree with some of the statements which have been made in the House in the past.
The Conservative Government of Canada has decided to sufficiently reward Tory losers-the Tories who have lost elections across the country. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) stated in The Evening Telegram of St. John's, Newfoundland, on Monday, June 10, 1985, that in his view it was unacceptable that the Liberals appointed 26 people, who were previously elected, to positions. That was unacceptable to the Minister of Justice, yet the same Tory Government feels that it was all right for the Government to appoint 1,200 of its friends and relatives to various government positions. That represents one person every three hours, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, since September 17, who has been appointed by the Conservative Party of Canada.
They are to be rewarded at the public trough. This is from a Party which said only a few days ago through its Minister of Justice in a newspaper in Newfoundland that appointing 26 elected people was unacceptable. I wonder how that person really feels about the appointment of thousands of others in his own Party. I have to ask myself the question in view of what we have heard over the last few weeks.
If this Government thinks it can make promises right, left and centre, if it thinks it can make 338 promises, as 1 have compiled in this book, to the people of Canada and then forget all about them, then this Government will get a very quick lesson after the next election.

June 14, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act

The Canadian people, Mr. Speaker, voted for a change at the last election.


An Hon. Member:: And they got it.


Don Boudria: And they got it. The Tory Member says so. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is right. But it is also true that the Conservative Party was elected on an election mandate, a mandate that is cast down in those 338 promises 1 was referring to earlier. To have a political party elected on a mandate and saying the day after as they do now that they do not owe anybody anything, that they have no obligation whatsoever to the people who elected them on the mandate I referred to earlier, is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. There is no excuse for a Government to behave like that. And it is my hope that before the end of today's debate, or in the coming days, at least one Conservative Member will rise and tell this House what his constituents really think about that. Maybe there is not one Conservative Member who will have the heart to do that. But I do hope there will be one, because if the Conservative Members do not have the courage to say what their constituents think, I am sure that their constituents will be telling them soon, when they return home to meet them over the week-end.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments. The Hon. Member for Chateauguay (Mr. Lopez).


Ricardo Lopez: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who has just spoken said that members of the Progressive Conservative Party should speak out. Now that it is my turn, I am going to tell him what is really on my mind. I feel first of all that like those hon. members who rose before him, he spoke through his hat. That is nothing new. We are used to that. It is true that he has no hat on, but just the same, he does not know what he is talking about.
When he claimed for instance that we are the source of all the ills which exist today under the sun, he overlooked or ignored the fact that the situation has improved considerably since we came to power. Most everybody is saying so. When he referred to the very clear mandate we have received from the Canadian people, something I am very proud of, 1 think that if Canadians were called upon again to elect a government, they would give us an even bigger majority.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ricardo Lopez: That is clear evidence that they are not disappointed with us. He said so himself in so many words a while ago. I almost blushed when I heard him, because although I have heard it said before outside of the House, the Hon. Member has just confirmed that there are Liberals who would marry a Conservative. That is something which I have known a long time: everybody is anxious to marry a good match. Because he cannot find someone eligible among the Liberals,
he will have to look elsewhere, and I know he will find what he is looking for among the Conservatives. He should be ashamed to recognize that he is getting letters from Liberals just like him who are seeking the hands of our ministers and members in marriage. I am proud of that. When I stroll through the hallways, I meet all these attractive women who are looking at me, but I do not think that they could propose marriage in such an eloquent way. In his riding, therefore, when people are writing to congratulate Conservatives and ask them to marry-


Don Boudria: It is not in my riding but in Aurele Gervais'.


Ricardo Lopez: I am proud of that. I am not lucky, believe me, for other people also will ask him. And the worst is that there will be fewer Liberals. They are not very strong at the present time but imagine how many will they have left if others begin to cross the floor. There are some forty members today but if it continues like that, there will be no one left. But we need a little opposition. I would not like to have everybody on the Tory side. There is not enough room. We have to let them sit on this side. Keep the Liberals with you. We do not need him. We are quite happy with our Conservative members. We want to keep them. The Liberals who would like to sat on this side should stay over there, we do not need them.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the Hon. Member.
In the first place, I can hardly imagine a Conservative who would blush. I find it extraordinary. The member told us he had blushed. He could have turned blue but not red. I can hardly think that a Conservative could blush.
Mr. Speaker, he said that the situation had greatly improved. I am sure that the situation of Peter and Marcia Clark has greatly improved. It is much better than before. 1 am sure that the situation of Doug and Wendy Lawson has improved. I am sure that the situation of Marie Marchand in North Bay has improved as well as the situation of several other sons, brothers, borthers-in-law, nephews, grandfathers, grandmothers of the Tories. It is possible, Mr. Speaker, that some of them enjoy improved conditions.
The Member is also describing that letter I received in which he claims that my constituent wants to marry a Conservative Member in order to get a job. That is a constituent of a Tory Member of this House, not one of my own constituents. Perhaps the Hon. Member could convey that message to the Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Gervais). He has a constituent who wrote to me because he claims that he did not know whether his Member existed. In his letter he described out of desperation the fact that it seemed to him that the only way to get a job in this country is to be a relative or be married to a relative of a member of this Government. That is what
June 14, 1985

that person was trying to indicate. Perhaps I read the letter too quickly and maybe I will read it again a little more slowly to make sure the Tories understand, but that is what all this is about. The people of this country are fed up with that kind of action by the Tories.
The Member said a little earlier that he wants the opposition to be more positive. How can one be positive in the face of the nepotism which we have seen in this House? Only you, Mr. Speaker, as the non-partisan person you are, could understand how outrageous this is.


Mr. Winegard:: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to participate in this.


Mr.   Prud@: They all say that.


William C. Winegard: But as usual, when I hear the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on his feet, our local stand-up comedian with a great sense of humour-


Don Boudria: You need one.


William C. Winegard: We recognize that. However, what he does not have is a memory. He cannot remember what the Liberals did when they were in power. He conveniently forgets that. He cannot even remember what Bill he is speaking to today. 1 thought it was a borrowing Bill but, lo and behold, we have all of these extraneous things thrown in. Finally, Sir, I have never heard a better illustration of the pot calling the kettle black than that of the marvellous Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. He enlivens this House daily. He is a joy to listen to. However, I hope he will recover his memory, retain his sense of humour and be a little more constructive regarding what is good for this country.


Mr.   Prud@: Unlike my colleague from Guelph (Mr. Winegard), 1 would like to congratulate the previous speaker. He is one of our excellent new members.

Mr. Speaker, I was almost going to call quorum a minute ago as I like to do on Friday afternoon. However, I will not do it because it will only be embarrassing for you, Mr. Speaker.
If the Borrowing Authority Bill was passed, does the Hon. Member think there would be enough money to ensure that our older citizens, who are getting more worried and full of anxiety-and I will refer to this tomorrow night on CBC in French at 11:20, on Sunday night my colleague, the Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) will refer to it in English on CBC-would at long last enjoy a good summer, knowing that indexation would not be touched? I trust that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) is a man who understands very well that he can back off from that position without losing face so that our older citizens will have a happy summer without anxiety. Is there enough money in the Borrowing Authority to do that?
Borrowing Authority Act


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to respond very briefly to both Members. In response to the Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard), my memory is just fine. I remember 338 Conservative promises. One hundred and thirteen involved spending more money, five involved spending less money, two involved increases in revenue, and 26 involved decreases in revenue. I remember those promises very well.
In response to my very eloquent colleague, the Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) cut the 57 per cent increase in the operation of the Prime Minister's office, or the salary increase of Roy McMurtry or Lawrence Hanigan, or the trip of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), which cost $57,000, there would be all kinds of funds to help the senior citizens of the country.


Sergio Marchi: It is a pleasure to participate in the dying minutes of another week in Parliamentary life. I hope some people are watching. It is very important to put a borrowing Bill into simple and basic terms. Perhaps we can break it down by asking where the money is coming from and where it is going.
Over the last several weeks, the country has involved itself in the issue of senior citizens. I would like to remind Hon. Members that two days ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) said that they had no choice, option, or alternative but to do what was done. They did not know that things were as bad as they later discovered. Even if one accepts the statistics which he gave at face value, they still knew those things in July, August, and September when they told senior citizens that pensions would not be touched, that their pensions would be left intact because they helped shape the country and deserved those pensions.
There has been a serious and immoral revocation of that promise. When talking about the borrowing Bill let us not talk only of graphs, figures, charts, and books. Let us also talk about the thousands and thousands of seniors who have been phoning and signing petitions. Their message is very simple and clear and, therefore, our answers must be very clear and simple.
Why are we touching those pensions? The Budget is like A Tale of Two Cities. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) tells us not to worry, that things are all right and the economy is improving. The Prime Minister ought to get off his pedestral and visit the senior citizen of Sault Ste. Marie who has $100 of discretionary income. He should talk to him or her and ask if things are going well. He ought to get off his pedestal and visit the student who cannot get into York University because tuition fees are being raised. He should talk to the unemployed youth who are trying to break into the economic market-place. They face a catch-22 situation because they cannot get a job without experience. He should talk to some of the disabled people who are being discriminated against in the working place, or to racial minorities who, because of the colour of their skin or the ending of their name, cannot get into the market-place either.

June 14, 1985
Borrowing Authority Act
I agree that we are fortunate to be living in this country. Millions have immigrated to this country and are proud and loyal as they should be. All Canadians should be fiercely loyal and thankful to this country. However, we also have our problems. We have our poor and our seniors who cannot make a go of it with deindexation. We must speak to those people.
We cannot only talk about capital gains bonanzas which help only a select few. Statistics of 1982 show that almost 70 per cent of all individuals showing capital gains came from 4 per cent of the Canadian population. It may help farmers who want to sell their farms and people who want to sell their businesses and reap a profit because they have worked hard
and deserve it. However, that is only 4 per cent of the Canadian population. What about the other 96 per cent? What happened to equity and fairness? How can it be fair that the taxes of a person earning $15,000 increase by 36 per cent when the person who earns $200,000 is only going to face a 2 per cent increase because he provides jobs? There is something cruel and inequitable there, Mr. Speaker. It is a tale of two cities which the Prime Minister should live.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday at eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned.

m

Monday, June 17, 1985