1986-02-10

Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and do pass.
She said: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is an important part of the Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in May 1985. It contains substantial amendments to the Excise Tax Act aimed at improving tax fairness, and it proposes changes in the application and rate of federal sales tax in order to increase revenue and thus reduce the deficit. The Bill is a clear reflection of the Government's resolve to achieve the Budget's goals of economic renewal while maintaining tax fairness.
During consideration of the Bill by the Legislative Committee, a number of concerns were voiced regarding the fairness of some of the proposals, especially with respect to the new dividing line between taxable and exempt products. This is an important matter and I would like to take this opportunity to elaborate.
The Committee received representations from a number of sectors affected by the proposals contained in this Bill. Manufacturers of candy and confectionery products expressed their doubts about the decision to repeal the sales tax exemption on their products. They argued that candy and confectionery products should continue to be exempt from sales tax on the same basis as other food products. They suggested that a broader range of snacks be made taxable at a reduced rate. Manufacturers of soft bars appeared before the Committee to express their opposition to the proposal by the candy and confectionery products manufacturers, and their support for the line drawn by the Government between taxable and exempt food products.
Committee members expressed concern about the proposals aimed at restricting the exemption on health products to prescription drugs, products for diabetics and drugs required for the treatment of illnesses that pose a health risk, appearing
on a list drawn up by the federal Government. Present exemption rules have given rise to numerous disputes between the Government and taxpayers regarding proper application of the tax. An increasing number of tax exemptions have been granted in this sector as well, which means that many products which are only indirectly connected with health protection are eligible for the exemption. The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada appeared before the Committee to propose a number of changes in the budgetary proposals so as to include several major drugs which for purely technical reasons are not eligible for an exemption. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has already promised to review the list from time to time and, if necessary, to add new drugs to the list of tax exempt products.
Representatives from the construction industry expressed their opposition to the repeal of the special exemption formerly allowed on prefabricated construction materials. The prefab concrete and structural steel sectors suggested that instead of paying tax on the sale price, they should be allowed to pay tax on only 60 per cent of the price. However, this proposal would perpetuate many of the problems in drawing the line between exempt and non-exempt products in this sector and would substantially reduce Government revenues. For these reasons, the Government did not accede to the industry's requests. The proposals contained in this Bill guarantee fair taxation of construction materials, since all construction materials are now taxable on the sale price just like other manufactured products.
The Canadian Bar Association proposed a number of changes in the Bill to clarify certain technical provisions and improve others which, in the opinion of the Association, do not achieve the degree of fairness intended. Many of these proposals were adopted by the Committee and are included in the Bill before the House today.
The Government is very pleased with the efforts of these and other groups who made representations and appeared before the Legislative Committee to express their views, and it is most grateful.
While all the representations did not lead to amendments to the Bill, the process has been most helpful. The Members and the people who made representations concerning the provisions in the Bill can be assured that their views will be considered extensively and taken into account whenever further changes to those acts are contemplated.
The tax measures included in last May's budget are aimed at controlling the deficit and more efficiently managing our

February 10, 1986
Excise Tax Act
public affairs so we may reap and maintain the benefits of the economic growth we are now enjoying. Our policies designed to control the deficit and better manage public affairs are part of a comprehensive package for meeting a wide range of economic and financial needs.
The deficit affects and threatens each and every one of us. The burden of deficit control measures must be shared in the broadest possible way, if we are to obtain the desired results. The purpose of the Bill now before us is to help us attain that goal through a broad and fair distribution of tax increases.
The principle of fairness also prevails throughout the extensive system of assessment, opposition and appeal procedures introduced in the legislation. Until now, the Excise Tax Act had no provisions for the assessment of sales and excise taxes, and taxpayers had only limited access to an independent appeal process in cases of litigations. The Bill implements an assessment and appeals system similar to that in the Income Tax system.
Where a taxpayer is not satisfied with his assessment or the handling of an application for refund, he will have access to a well-established process ranging from informal discussions with Revenue Canada officials to court hearings. The new system also protects taxpayers from the collection of disputed amounts until there has been a court decision.
The Bill should also be viewed in the light of other budget proposals announced by the Minister of Finance. Tax increases are combined with reductions in public expenditures that amounted to nearly 75 per cent of the deficit reduction effort in 1985-86, the other 20 per cent provided by tax increases. The impact of tax increases on the economy is mitigated by tax reductions, the freeze on unemployment insurance premiums, the injection into the economy of RHOSP funds, and the important proposals to stimulate private initiative and productive investments in the economy. This Government has openly asked a wide range of taxpayers to shoulder their fair share. Overall, expenditure reductions and tax changes are an important and a fair way to restore this country's financial position.
All Canadians will benefit from the achievement of our goals.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to make only brief comments on the Bill before us, but since the Minister has rightly pointed out that the Bill must be viewed in a broader context, and since the Minister made her remarks in a fairly broad context, I trust that I will be allowed to do so for just a few minutes.
The Government claims that it wants to reduce the deficit, but what is happening in the Budget as a whole? The Budget does away with tax on the oil multinationals so that by 1990 the Government will forgo $8.5 billion. The Budget does away with tax on capital gains. As a result of this measure, by 1990
the Government will forgo nearly $5 billion in favour of the 4 per cent of the population which can benefit from this measure. At the same time, low and middle-income families and individuals are told to tighten their belts because they must do their share in bringing down the deficit.
The Government considers that it can afford $875 million to bail out uninsured bank depositors. It considers that it can afford tax rulings which may result in billions in of forgone revenue. However, when it comes to families with incomes of $15,000 or $20,000 the Government cannot afford to keep indexing family allowances. The Government thinks it can activate the economy by taking money away from those who have less, the low and middle-income Canadians, and giving it to the wealthy.
I will now turn directly to the provisions of Bill C-80. The avalanche of taxes in this Bill will have a severe dampening effect on the economy. There is no disputing that the broadening of the sales tax base and the tax increases will extract billions of dollars from the domestic economy putting inflationary pressure on the economy and dampening consumer demand. The Government's line has been that it is fair because it hits everyone. The Minister's speech this morning made much of fairness and equity. However, it is plain to see that tax increases and new taxes on items such as health care products hit first and hardest at those on fixed incomes and those earning low and middle incomes. This is not fair. It has been amply demonstrated that this barrage of tax increases cannot be justified economically or on the basis of fairness. It is impossible to understand how a Government that took an unprecedented nine months to bring in its first Budget could have brought in measures so unsound and unfair.
This is not to say that Canadians are not prepared to help get the deficit under control. Of course, all Canadians are concerned about the deficit and about the amount of money that goes out to service the national debt which rose primarily during the time of recession. Of course, since the economy is becoming healthier, this is the logical time to move on the deficit, but not in this way.
What are Canadians to make of a Government that rushes to bail out a bank and the bank's uninsured depositors, and then tells blind people that they must pay sales tax on the food for their seeing-eye dogs in order to get the deficit under control? What deficit reduction will there be when the Government forgoes billions of dollars through tax rulings, bailouts, and so on? The $2 billion to be taxed out of consumers' hands through this measure this year may just about cover the cost of the bank fiasco. What possible justification does the Government have for unmercifully squeezing low and middle-income Canadians on the pretext that they must share in the task of getting our fiscal house in order?
We have addressed the specific measures in this Bill at report stage and there is no need to repeat the arguments which were made then. However, I should point out that all the amendments put forward were voted down solidly by the Government. This morning the Minister sounded a little sympathetic to the case put forward by the confectionary manu-
February 10, 1986

facturers, although she did not say that they should necessarily be excused from sales tax.
What they have pointed out is that it was difficult for them to have to absorb the tax on the goods they had prepackaged for their peak sales times, Hallowe'en and Christmas. A delay in the imposition of the sales tax would have been greatly appreciated by that industry, but the Government was intransigent.
The Minister seemed to imply this morning that the proposals which concern the construction industry might be looked at in the future. In the meantime, however, we will find many small construction firms in real difficulty. In the construction sector, fixed price contracts are common and those who found themselves suddenly hit with large additional sales taxes have had to absorb them and the amounts are considerable, perhaps enough to put some people out of business. Those industries have also asked for a grandfather clause which would delay the imposition of these sales taxes for those who have contracts without escalator clauses. The Government refused to give even this small relief. I know that some Hon. Members opposite have written to the Minister asking that this hardship on the construction industry be corrected in the next Budget, so we must hope that perhaps the Government may be listening a little harder in the next few months than it has.
With respect to the whole question of the transportation industry, the additional taxes will certainly make it very hard for it to be competitive with U.S. competitors. The taxes on energy conservation and alternative energy are hitting a very vital and relatively new industry which has come into existence in the last 10 years. It employs about 5,000 people, I believe, and has developed interesting new technologies and opportunities to export, but the Government has removed all incentives from that industry as well as created additional hardships, all in the interest of supporting the oil and gas sector. The Minister did mention this morning that the Government has relented somewhat on the sales tax on health products and we may see some further consideration there. But this is too little, too late. The Bill before us proposes additional sales tax on a wide number of commonly used items. It is a measure which hits particularly at families and those of low and middle incomes. It is harsh, unfair and regressive. It is something of which the Government cannot be proud. This is not the way to fight the deficit. We must only hope that in the upcoming Budget some of the worst excesses of this Bill will be corrected.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am also quite honoured to have an opportunity to say a few words on this last day of debate on Bill C-80, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act. I would like to preface my remarks by suggesting that the numbers of families which are defined by Statistics Canada as having a family income which places them below the poverty line are actually increasing month by month and have been for some time. The same
Excise Tax Act
statistics tell us that those people who, I suppose, we could call the "super rich" or "extremely wealthy" are also expanding while the group of middle income earners is shrinking by the week and by the month. Fundamentally, this particular Bill which flows out of the last Budget introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will make the system even more discriminatory against the middle income earner and the poor of Canada.
I think it is instructive to see Bill C-80 in the following light. What we are discussing here today is a Bill which will impose a whole new range of taxes on everyone, rich, middle and low income earners alike. In other words, when we buy a bottle of aspirin or some other similar non-prescription drug, if we purchase some pop for our children or some pet food, if we fill up our gas tank, or buy a new shirt, a refrigerator, or a teapot, we all pay the same level of tax. You and 1 both know, Mr. Speaker, that some people will not even notice the additional few percentage points added to their bill. Others, of course, will. A difference of $2, $3 or $15 makes a real difference to more and more families, especially those families which find themselves living below the poverty line as defined by our own Statistics Canada.
If we examine the provisions of the Bill before us and the other Bills already dealt with in the last few weeks, we find the average Canadian family will now have to pay about $1,000 more in federal taxes, in charges of one kind or another, as a result of this Bill and the two previous Bills. In 1986, the average Canadian family will have nearly $1,000 plucked from their purses, wallets and pocketbooks for the federal Government to use as it sees fit. Allegedly, this is for assistance in reducing the deficit, and I say "allegedly", and I will come back to that point in a few moments.
Some of my colleagues and I have been touring the country on what we call "Tax Probe '86". It is an effort to probe into the tax system and covers sales tax, excise tax of one kind or another, personal tax and corporate tax. We have talked to specialists, tax advisers, lawyers and accountants and those groups which are involved with taxation, whether it be the forest industry, mining industry, construction industry or the trucking industry.
Some very interesting points have emerged. For example, when we suggest to people that their taxes related to the federal Government's activities will result in about a $1,000 increase in their taxes in 1985 and 1986, most people do not know that. I suspect that very few people actually know what is going to happen to them as a result of the taxes. They tell me they find it hard to believe so I break it down for them.
First, we make the assumption of a family of four, with one wage earner bringing home about $35,000. This is an above average family, the middle income earner, the people who once again are being grabbed for more and more taxes. When we eliminate the federal tax reduction that family loses $100 off the top. That, by the way, will be another $100 next year, but for 1986 the elimination of the federal tax reduction will cost a family $100 in money they do not have. The modification to the cost-of-the-living indexing will cost $115. The cut in family

February 10, 1986
Excise Tax Act
allowance, which is another Bill, will cost $22.50. The broadening of the sales tax will cost about $150. That deserves some comment. Sales tax is the most regressive kind of tax to impose because it hits everyone equally. Those whose income is $1,000 a month and those whose income is $15,000 a month all pay the same sales tax on goods they purchase. That will cost this family an extra $150. Not only has the tax gone up, but it has been broadened to take in a whole number of commodities which hitherto had not been subject to the sales tax imposition.
You might ask what some of the those items are, Mr. Speaker. They include cough syrup, vitamins, aspirins and cold remedies of one kind or another. It is now the middle of winter. How many people here do not know at least somebody who has a cold? Probably half the Members in this House are hacking and sneezing with colds. It is part of the Canadian life, almost, unfortunately. Everybody has to buy cold remedies of one kind or another, but now for the first time these remedies are to be taxed at 11 per cent. Then we have medicated shampoos, surgical gloves, sutures and certain kinds of surgical equipment. This is a federal tax on sick folks, people with bronchial and other problems who need non-prescription drugs. In a country that prides itself in having one of the finest medicare systems in the world, to be taxing people now at 11 per cent for cold remedies and the like seems to be a very regressive step.
What about the increase in gasoline tax? This will amount to an additional $50 in tax in 1986 for a family. A lot has been said about the increase in gasoline tax, but I noticed with some interest that the Canadian Trucking Association said that it will create inflation increases in certian parts of Canada and that it was really a subtle tax on distance. People who live in the more remote areas of the west, the east and the north will feel the gasoline tax more than others. This tax is very discriminatory. The increase in oil and gas prices will amount to about $200.
An increase in the sales tax generally will result in $150 more per household, an increase in unemployment insurance premiums will amount to $102 per household and an increase in cigarette and alcohol tax, assuming people have a few glasses of wine or perhaps the odd sip of this or that during the year, will amount to about $75, making a total tax increase of $964.50, to say nothing of a whole host of other costs. For example, increased user fees in our federal parks and increased ferry charges. One can go on and on with all kinds of newly imposed costs.
On the one hand the Government says, we have real concerns about the deficit and so we are going to introduce a set of new taxes and increase a set of other taxes that are the most regressive. These taxes will have a significant impact on people who can least afford to pay, namely, the poor, those on fixed incomes like the elderly, people of limited means, all those unemployed and those who have part-time work. The people really struggling to make a go of it today are the ones who will be most adversely affected by these impositions. But not
everybody will receive the same imposition, Mr. Speaker. Let us be very clear about that.
At the same time the Minister of Finance was introducing these additional taxes on middle and low-income Canadians, he was also introducing a major income tax break. He is going to remove all the taxes completely for those people able to obtain some or all of their income from capital gains. A person receiving income from capitl gains will be able to receive income of up to half a million dollars and pay no tax whatsoever. Do you not find that to be rather peculiar? On the one hand for deficit reasons-that is the excuse-we have to impose taxes on dog food and on candy bars, taxes that will affect families. Yet on the other hand we are going to give a tax exemption to people who obtain their income from capital gains, up to the accumulated value of income of half a million dollars.


Mr. King:: With the exception of farmers.


Nelson Andrew Riis: With the exception of farmers. 1 am glad my friend, the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) reminded me, because there is confusion. We are quite prepared to entertain the notion of a capital gains excemption up to a particular limit, maybe that limit is $300,000, maybe it is $500,000 for farmers, who can use it as a retirement package.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: What about the small businessmen?


Nelson Andrew Riis: And for selected small family businesses as well. But I do not understand why Hon. Members have not stood in their places and condemned this capital gains exemption which can be used for manipulating the stock market in the U.S. For for selling off land and race horses in Arizona. I have not heard anything from these folks, Mr. Speaker. If criticism is thrown my way, I ask Members to permit me to say something in response.


John Barry Turner: Great article in the Herald.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am glad my friend reminded me of the retirement option for farmers. The Government feels there is another group that needs some assistance in retirement, people whose incomes are about $90,000 a year. The Government has said these folks need help; if you are making only $90,000 a year, we have to give you some incentive to save for your retirement.
The Government in this instance is lifting the limits on the registered retirement savings plans. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as a wise man, if a person is making $85,000 or $90,000 a year does that person need a tax incentive to encourage him or her to save for retirement? I suspect with an income of that level you could probably take care of yourself using the normal channels and opportunities available. This measure will cost the Government money, make no mistake about it. When you give tax breaks to people who have incomes up to $90,000 a year to encourage them to save for their retirement, it will cost tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue.
February 10, 1986

If the Government is concerned about the deficit and wants to impose special new taxes on aspirins and cough medicines and hit certain aspects of the construction industry for the first time in some years, I do not see why we should be making exemptions and special deals for some other people.
Let us look at the construction industry. Good grief, 1 remember time and time again one of the points made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he was on the campaign trail. Fie said that one of the critical industries of any country is its construction industry. It is an industry that builds, creates new structures, homes, apartments, shops and offices. By building and creating that new landscape, the industry hires a let of people. It is labour intensive and requires all sorts of outlets for manufacturing products for use in those new facilities such as chairs, windows, furnishings and construction material of one kind or another. To encourage the construction industry is a great way not only to create construction jobs, but to create all kinds of other jobs because of the spin-off effect in a variety of other areas.
I remember the Prime Minister saying that one of the ways is to reduce the sales tax on construction material, such a critical area in a country that is trying to expand its economic base. I remember him saying that reducing the sales tax on construction material would be one small thing the federal Government could do. I thought that was a good idea, and I think many people across the country thought that the idea of the Prime Minister to be was a good one. I suspect that most people in the construction industry went out and voted Conservative because they thought it was a good idea to reduce the sales tax on construction material. That industry and those people who listened to those comments were betrayed, because the minute the Minister of Finance had the opportunity to do so, did he reduce the sales tax on construction material? No, he did not. Of all things, he increased it. He said, let us now make it tougher to build in this country; let us impose a new charge on the construction industry so that everyone who builds houses, factories, plants and buildings will be charged more taxes by the federal Government". How on earth will that help anyone? What kind of a signal does that send to the construction industry?
We have committees so that Bills, such as Bill C-80, can be referred to them where we can bring in the advisors and experts to say what will happen as a result of the provisions of the Bill in the construction industry, the soft drink industry, and the dog food and cat food industry. We did that. We said we would co-operate as opposition Members and get the Bill into the committee system as quickly as possible, to hear from those folk who are most knowledgeable about the effects of those provisions. We heard some very interesting things.
We heard from the construction industry that it would cause irreparable damage and set the industry back. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction claimed that it would lose 300 jobs right off the top. The Canadian Prestressed Concrete Institute estimated that 160 jobs would be
Excise Tax Act
lost right off the top because there would be much less activity in building projects. The pet manufacturers indicated that there would be a loss of some 400 jobs, and confectionary manufacturers indicated that up to 1,000 jobs would be lost immediately. Group after group appeared before the committee and said, let us understand one thing; we will lose jobs.
Let me refer to the pet food industry in particular. Thousands of blind Canadians require seeing eye dogs. If the Government is to be totally heartless and impose a new tax on Spot's or Rover's dog food, it should at least exempt seeing eye dogs so that disabled people who require them will not be penalized for having to use and to feed such dogs. Did the people hear that? No, Sir. The Government is to impose a tax on seeing eye dogs. I hear Hon. Members chuckling. I do not believe-


John Barry Turner: The tax is on the food, not on the dog.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The tax is on the food, but if one does not feed the dog, one is in trouble. Essentially the Government is saying to those people who rely upon seeing eye dogs that that dog food will be taxed and their lives will be made even tougher. What kind of a Government would say that? Perhaps we will hear some explanations later. The Minister forgot to give them in her speech, so perhaps others will make some comments later.
I should like to refer to the alternate energy industry which involves a number of things from windmills to encouraging people to use solar energy and so on. I do not want to put words into the Government's mouth, but I guess it realized the progressive nature of the alternative energy industry. It indicated that there was a need to develop wind, solar, tidal and other alternative forms of energy, but that it would not happen now, and it imposed a new tax on those folk which made it even less competitive and tougher to develop an alternate energy industry. Essentially that is what the Government has done. It imposed an 11 per cent tax in May and an additional 1 per cent in January on the alternate energy business.
I should like to refer to the comments of one person who appeared before the committee. He had the following to say about the decision of the Department of Finance to tax the energy conservation industry:
I do not think they really knew what this industry was all about. When we queried them they were unfamiliar with what photovoltaics was and asked us if we could please describe what microhydro was.
In other words, the Department of Finance was levying taxes without even knowing what it was levying taxes on. That is not the kind of sophistication we would expect from a Government in 1986. That is why we sent it to committee for Fine tuning. Did any government Members pay one iota of attention to these points when they were made? Apparently not.
Perhaps this becomes a little repetitive after a while. We point out time and time again how every group which appeared before the special committee looking into this matter

February 10, 1986
Excise Tax Act
said: "No, no, no; it is inappropriate, improper, and you promised you would not do it".
In closing let me simply say that it seems very hypocritical to be passing Bill C-80 which imposes a set of very regressive taxes that will have a major impact on low and middle-income earners, when at the same time the Government is giving tax breaks to those whose incomes are derived from capital gains-and they are a very small percentage of the taxpayers of the country-and other breaks to large corporations and some very wealthy individuals. Therein lies the agenda of the present Government.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention first that the lapel button I am wearing is a reminder that all Canadians are invited to participate in Winterlude activities now taking place in the national capital. In addition, before commenting briefly on Bill C-80, I urge all my House colleagues to go skating on the canal, admire the outstanding work done by 400 volunteers, and enjoy the entertainment offered in the capital where they should feel right at home.
Mr. Speaker, the House is now on third reading of Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill is yet another indication to Canadians that there is no co-operation between the private sector and the Government, and that the necessary information is lacking. As well it demonstrates quite clearly that recommendations from the industry and Members of the Opposition cut no ice with this Government: the Bill has been before the House for some time now, yet it was reported practically unchanged since it was first introduced on October 18, 1985.
Mr. Speaker, the Government spent the last election campaign wooing Canadian electors and promising them everything under the sun. It kept repeating that the Government would listen to them and promised an open and responsible administration. Promises galore, Mr. Speaker.
Bill C-80 is a rather timely reminder that those promises have not been honoured. The Government did not listen to what the industry had to say. It did not listen to what Hon. Members have been repeating on second reading, in committee, and even today on third reading. No, the Government did not listen, and as a result we have an altogether regressive measure which will put an additional tax burden on the backs of certain Canadians.
It has been said before, Mr. Speaker, and the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) just raised the point that the Government has been anxious to look after the oil multinationals, for example, by lowering taxes to the tune of $8.5 billion. [English]
It is interesting to note that the Budget does away with capital gains of up to $500,000 per Canadian. At the same
time, lower-income families and individuals are told to tighten their belts because they must do their share to bring down the deficit. On top of that, we had the Olympia and York advance ruling which gave it substantial sums of money. Let us total all these give-aways to bank depositors who were uninsured, to multinationals, to Olympia and York and to many others. I think I said at second reading that there is a list that goes on and on and on. That sum of money-$16 billion was given away by this Government to these banks, the oil companies, Olympia and York-adds up to exactly what they are taxing Canadians with in Bill C-80 until 1990.
In other words, if you took the paper that was made public after the last Budget, and you totalled the amount of money given to the oil companies, to the multinationals, given to the banks' depositors, which were uninsured, plus several others 1 have named, you would come up with about the same amount of money.
That is very strange action from a Government which said it would listen, be responsive, and act to protect the interests of all Canadians.

Apparently, Mr. Speaker, we have not yet seen the last of the Conservative Government's regressive measures. There will be higher excise taxes on gas, more taxes on alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, wines, telecommunication programming services, an additional sales tax on a number of building and prefabricated materials, taxes on equipment and building materials used for energy conservation, taxes on candies and soft drinks. Yet such taxes will not apply to certain products widely described as snack foods, so I would predict that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) introduces his Budget in a few days he will be telling us he has found a new formula, a new solution and that, as Ontario has done, he will slap a tax on everything called fast food. There might even be a rationale for that, but he will tax some but no others such as chips and pretzels. I have the complete list here pretzels, potato chips- [English]
What about pretzels, granola bars, nuts and many other things? It is felt not by me, Mr. Speaker, but by the industry itself that they are being discriminated against. Now the Government, and we hear from its branches-I guess they have leaked it-is going to think about putting an over-all tax on all snack food. We will wait and see. I have the Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) say, "No way, no way". We will see. You will have your chance to get up after my speech and ask me a question. I am telling you now that 1 am predicting that this Government will tax pretzels, granola bars and nuts, and will tax all these other things because it creates an enlarged source of income and an enlarged source of taxes.
[ Translation]
Whe we go through the list of all the costs resulting from policies put forward by this Conservative Government, Mr. February 10, 1986

Speaker, we realize that the tax break granted multinationals will cost $8.5 billion by 1990. That is 8.5 thousand million dollars, which is a lot of money. Where will all this money go? It will go back into the pockets of multinationals.
Someone referred earlier to the capital grains tax exemption. I will refer to it myself because 1 feel that it should at the very least be applied only to Canadians who invest in Canada or make gains in Canada, but not elsewhere. I feel it is quite reasonable to tell the Minister: You should seriously consider this request whereby if you make in Canada a profit of some $500,000, there will be no capital gains tax. However, make sure that this profit is made in Canada, not in Florida, Mexico or in other countries where there might be sound reasons to invest. If people invest in those countries, however, they are taking a risk and are paying these countries taxes. In my opinion, they should not benefit from a tax break in Canada to invest in other countries. The money should be invested here.
There are still 1,300,000 unemployed in Canada, Mr. Speaker. Our first concern and duty is to these 1,300,000 Canadians who should, could and want absolutely to work.
It is a financial disaster, Mr. Speaker, and it will cost at least $1 billion, and 1 have even been told that it could even cost $2 billion. The Algoma deal will cost $200 million. The advance ruling for the Gulf-O&Y purchase, $16 billion. This adds up to $16 billion, Mr. Speaker. I say it again because this is exactly how much the Government will collect with Bill C-80 in four years. I find this a strange coincidence.
Not only are the figures similar, but it seems to me completely unfair that taxes be collected from Canadians to fill the pockets of our wealthy friends and those who need it the least.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government misled the Canadian public during the electoral campaign. The Government had promised to listen and to be sensitive to the needs of Canadians. This promise has not been kept.
Mr. Speaker, we shall not vote for a Bill which will increase the burden on Canadians. We shall not support a Bill which restricts purchasing power. We shall not vote for a Bill which, once more, taxes those who are not as well-off, these who are disadvantaged. We shall not vote for a Bill which overtaxes Canadians to pay for the mistakes of this Government, which is acting completely irresponsibly in its dealings with the multinationals and the large banks.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I believe that the House would benefit from listening to what the Canadian public is saying. I think that I am reflecting the views of the public, at least in my constituency, when I say that Canadians have had enough of regressive taxes such as these. That is why I rise today, because it is time to think about the disadvantaged, about those who cannot defend themselves, and it is time for us to be sensitive to their needs and to give them the opportunities they deserve.
Excise Tax Act


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, what 1 find offensive about this Bill-as we know from second reading and also from the report stage-is that, in addition to those things that have been raised by colleagues on this side of the House, it does do two things to the environment that are profoundly disappointing and objectionable. The first one is that the taxes recommended in this Bill will discourage energy conservation, a new and important economic component, and particularly as that affects renewable resources.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in the seventies, as a result of the oil prices rising in a very short period of time, as a nation we decided to turn to renewable sources of energy and to energy conservation as an important way of reducing our dependence on imported oil, as well as reducing our dependence on non-renewable resources, such as oil and gas. You will recall that in that decade the then Government of Canada launched a variety of initiatives to encourage the formation and the expansion of solar, wind and biomass oriented industries with substantial investments by way of programs aimed at the entrepreneurs who would want to take advantage of it, 1 believe between 1977 and onward. As a result, thre are now in Canada some 450 companies that did not exist 10 years ago actively engaged in the manufacturing, sale and export of equipment related to the use of solar and wind energy and related to the use of solar and wind energy and related renewable sources of energy. That activity, which was made possible because of the creative spirit of many Canadians, has also created some 5,000 jobs.
As if this had not happened, Bill C-80 contains a measure which imposes a new tax on parts and components of the renewable energy industry. It is an imposition that will slow down the expansion of that sector and will affect therefore the creation of jobs. It sends out the wrong signals, because the measure has been interpreted by the members of the association of the solar energy society as being a lack of interest on the part of the Government in renewable sources of energy.
I find it hard to believe that a Government would want to shift to non-renewable resources, as Bill C-80 is implying this Government wants to do. After what was done in the 1970s regarding conservation and renewable energy, it is wrong to give out this message in the mid-1980s when everyone who is engaged in the oil industry is telling us that perhaps four or five years from now prices will rise again. This measure is not only offensive, it does not make sense in terms of the long-term energy interests of our nation.
That is one of my reasons for rising to express my views on Bill C-80. Contained in this Bill is a tax measure that will discourage energy conservation. However, that is only one of the environmental implications of this Bill that must be put on the table for discussion today. The other one is one about which I spoke at the time of second reading of this Bill.
It became evident to me at second reading that we were being asked to endorse and support a tax measure that would

February 10, 1986
Excise Tax Act
impose lower taxes on leaded gasoline and higher taxes on unleaded gasoline. When one purchases unleaded gasoline, one is purchasing a gasoline that is cleaner and more desirable in an environmental sense, because it does not contain a high content of lead and it does not emit substances that find their way into the atmosphere and return to the surface in the form of acid rain. However, when purchasing gasoline we see that there is a difference in price between leaded and unleaded gasoline of some three cents. The unleaded is more expensive. The tax measure introduced by Bill C-80 will make this price gap between the two gasolines even larger.
This increased difference in price will encourage consumers to do two things. First, consumers will be encouraged to engage more frequently in misfuelling, something which the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) quite rightly has criticized, and about which he has expressed himself on more than one occasion by encouraging provinces to introduce legislation that would make it more difficult to misfuel. However, there has been a lack of communication in the Government. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is disregarding the publicly stated objective of the Minister of the Environment by introducing a tax that disregards entirely what the Minister of the Environment has said. The Minister of the Environment has said that we should have gasoline prices at the pump that will not encourage misfuelling and the Minister of Finance has come forward with a proposal that will have the opposite effect.
The second consequence of the gasoline tax measure introduced by Bill C-80 is that people who purchase cars will be looking for cars that consume leaded gasoline rather than unleaded gasoline. Therefore, the sale of leaded gasoline consuming cars will increase and that will result in increased emissions into the environment of lead, something which we all know is a substance that damages the health of humans, and particularly of children. It has been found by a number of scientific studies that lead has a negative and long-term effect on the learning and thinking capabilities of children. As a result of that aspect of it, this measure will also have health implications in the long term, and the Government does not seem to be concerned about that at all.
There are two voices emerging from this so-called Progressive Conservative Government which, regarding environmental matters, is neither progressive nor conservative. The voice of the Minister of the Environment indicates that there should not be any misfuelling and that we should shift our consumption to gasoline that does not contain lead. The other voice which is evidenced by Bill C-80 is proposing the opposite of what any environmentalist or person concerned with health would propose in this day and age.
You may ask, Mr. Speaker, how we may change this and whether or not it has been changed elsewhere. Yes, it can be done and there are nations that have already introduced, by way of changes in their gasoline taxation systems, unleaded gasoline prices which are the same as leaded gasoline prices, and there are nations that are in the process of devising this new system. Once again and for the third time, I must bring
this fact to the attention of the Government and call on the Government to get going in this respect by readjusting the tax structure so as to enable Canadians to find leaded and unleaded gasoline at the same price. The revenue of the state will not be affected or reduced in this way. What will happen is that there will be a shift in the weight of existing taxes, a relief in the taxes imposed on unleaded gasoline and an increase in the taxes imposed on leaded gasoline. Of course, it is possible for someone to detect a flaw and say you can't do that because evidently and inevitably the farmers and the fishermen will be affected. This is a case which we have to recognize in practical terms. In that case we will have to devise a program whereby farmers and fishermen will be refunded the amount they pay additionally on leaded gasoline as a result of these changes in the tax structure presently being imposed on the two types of gasoline. This is the way in which a modern nation has to work.
We have all made speeches on the subject of health and the environment. We have all acknowledged and accepted the reality that lead in gasoline is an element which has long-term negative effects on the health of human beings. We have made commitments to the environment in 1,000 different ways; but when the opportunity arises the political will is missing. Bill C-80 is an example of this. When will the Government show the political will which is needed to practice what it preaches?
We all know that Bill C-80 will move to the Senate after we have dealt with it here. If the Government really wishes to practice what it preaches, then it can make the necessary changes as the Bill progresses through the Senate. We raised the matter in the House in November at second reading stage. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, because you patiently listened to me on the subject, we also raised the issue last week. Your Honour now has to undergo that torture once again. I apologize to you for the frequency and the repetition of the same theme, but I cannot help it. That is the nature of the Bill before us.
If Hon. Members sense me getting a bit hot under the collar and a bit impatient, then they are right. I cannot understand why this point is not taken into account by the Government when it comes to the taxation system. It could correct a situation which is undesirable, namely, the fact that the spread between the price of leaded and unleaded gasoline at the pump is increasing. The spread was 2.5 cents some seven or eight months ago; it is now three cents. Once Bill C-80 is enacted the spread will increase. Therefore, consumers will be given an additional incentive to either misfuel their cars or purchase cars which use leaded gasoline. If this should happen then we will lose the ground which we gained so gradually during the 1970s and the early 1980s. Thus, Hon. Members will not be surprised if one gets up to express these concerns with respect to Bill C-80 from an environmental point of view. I think 1 have done it succinctly enough, both with respect to the tax which is being proposed on renewable energy equipment and with respect to the proposed tax on gasoline. I hope that someone is listening and that remedial action will be taken.
February 10, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). He may have dealt with this point in his speech already. However, he has made an eloquent plea for continuing the present exemptions for solar energy equipment. I would now like him to answer a question which some people may wish to ask. If the Government is right and after a few months the lower international price of oil will be reflected in lower domestic prices for gasoline, and presumably fuel oil for home heating, then why is solar energy and renewable energy as important in that scenario as it was a few years ago? As the Hon. Member will recall because of the Iranian oil crisis and so on, world oil prices were sky-rocketing a few years ago. Perhaps the Hon. Member can clarify that point, one which may be raised by some members of the public.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) for his question which is relevant and topical. He asks why solar energy is so important in light of declining world oil prices. This is a question which could be asked on the doorsteps or in the kitchens of any home in the nation at this point in time. The conclusion in the view of most economists and oil analysts in the world today is that oil prices, while declining at the present time, will rise again at the end of the decade. The turning point being suggested by analysts is around 1989-1990. As prices rise we will benefit in the meantime if we have strengthened and expanded our capacity to draw from renewable sources of energy, in particular the sun. The radiation levels in the prairie region are phenomenal and among the highest in the world. We have a great potential to develop hot water solar heating systems, for instance. However, this potential will be slowed down and handicapped by the introduction of the taxes contained in Bill C-80. This is what we do not want to see. We want to think in the long term, just as the Government should think in the long term. We want to think of the energy requirements of the next generation. We do not live from day to day. Governments have to undertake long-term planning. The measures in Bill C-80 do not take into account any long-term planning. They just look at the present. They impose a tax which says that what has been done has been done, but we are not interested in ways of stimulating and strengthening the industries in Canada which have emerged in the last few years which have given our energy requirements a boost because we are beginning to utilize and tap renewable sources of energy.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member another brief question. Does the Hon. Member really believe that the Conservative Government will allow the Canadian consumer to obtain the full benefit of lower world oil prices? It is not implicit in some of his comments that, quite apart from the likelihood that a decade hence or in a lesser period of time, world oil prices will rise again, and even in the intervening period Canadians will not be
Excise Tax Act
allowed by the Government to obtain the full benefit of declining world oil prices?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the so-called Progressive Conservative Government will do that; but thus far we have not seen any evidence of it. We have urged the Government in questions asked during Question Period to ensure that domestic prices move downward as international prices move downward. So far we have not seen any evidence of the Government doing that. However, we have kept the pressure on. We even raised the question of the role of Petro-Canada in this whole matter. We feel it has a role and a responsibility to the public to ensure that prices go down at the pump as new oil comes into the system at lower prices, that this advantage is passed on to the consumer. Unfortunately this has not happened yet.


John Barry Turner: It takes time, Charles. It takes 60 days.


Mr. Mantha:: Mr. Speaker, can the Hon. Member comment on how, when his Government was in power, the price of gasoline jumped 80 per cent between 1980 and 1984?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quoting a percentage which applies to a time when the world price was going up. We are now talking about world prices going down. I hope he understands the difference between up and down. If he does not, then we are really in trouble.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, could the former Minister explain what there was in the NEP which guaranteed prices going down? I thought the prices were locked in and they would stay high.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I recall the NEP as one of the finest programs-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles L. Caccia: -that we ever had in this country.


John Barry Turner: Order. You are smiling.


Charles L. Caccia: I fully supported the NEP and I still regret the fact that this so-called Progressive Conservative Government has cancelled it. I think historians, when they write about the NEP-


Mr. Fennell:: The biggest disaster to hit Canada.


Charles L. Caccia: -in a non-partisan manner will describe it as one of the finest pages in Canada's history.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The biggest catastrophe.
Mr. Cacciatlt permitted the regions in eastern Canada to use Canadian natural gas. Many, many Canadians benefited from the NEP in a variety of ways. It also told foreign investors that

February 10, 1986
Excise Tax Act
we as Canadians want to be the co-owners of our natural resources. I do not think that is a bad thing at all.


Moe Mantha: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member say that the energy policy of the former Government caused the failure of those two banks in western Canada?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, 1 heard that fanciful notion being raised by Ministers of this present Government. If the Hon. Member really wants to deal with the facts, he will know that the bank crisis was mainly caused by their investments in the most fanciful outlandish and exotic projects, particularly outside Canada. This generated the crisis in the banks. I do not think the Hon. Member is adding to the quality of this debate by attributing the failure of those banks to energy policy. I think he is out to lunch.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-80 is premised on the belief by this Government that the deficit is the biggest evil. That reminds me of an American comedian who, as part of his act, dresses up as a woman and calls himself Geraldine. Although she is a believer, she always blames the devil: "The devil made me do it". This Government has coined a new phrase: The deficit made me do it. The deficit made me increase taxes. The deficit made me attack senior citizens and families. However, that does not wash. Clearly the Canadian public knows it does not wash. Two separate polls, one done in the fall of 1984 and another one published this January, show that around 22 per cent of the Canadian public feel that the deficit is the most important economic problem facing the country. Yet 54 per cent said unemployment was the major problem. Canadians felt that the deficit was a problem, but the majority did not consider increasing taxes or cutting back on social services was a viable means of reducing the deficit. However, those are the two steps which this Government has taken based on the philosophy of: The deficit made me do it.
The impact this Bill has is very broad. In one way or another it hits out at almost every sector of our economy. In committee we heard that this Bill would create more unemployment. Jobs in the steel and construction industries, the prestressed concrete industry, pet food and confectionery manufacturers would be lost right across the country. As well, it is unfair because a sales tax is regressive. It does not discriminate between those who can afford and those who cannot. Because of that, and because of the dollar value of the measures proposed through this Bill, it will hit lower income people to a much greater extent than those of us who have money left over.
Let me give you some examples. In 1986 a family with an average income of less than SI0,000 will pay about $128 more in taxes. For a family with an income between $30,000 and $35,000 the increase will be $352. For those making $50,000 or more the increase will be $547. However, when you look at the increase as a percentage of income, you find the numbers change and there is a greater impact on those with lesser
incomes. This Bill will take 1.39 per cent of the income of the family making less than $10,000; .92 per cent of those earning between $30,000 and $35,000; and only .69 per cent for those making over $50,000. Clearly this Bill takes money from people who can least afford it.
The National Council on Welfare, in its analysis of the Budget, found that poverty has been increasing dramatically. In 1981 there were approximately 3.5 million Canadians living in poverty. However, by 1984 that number had increased to 4.4 million, or 25 per cent. If we look at the average family income of the poorest fifth of Canadian families we see there has been a reduction of approximately 11 per cent. By comparison, the richest fifth of Canadian families realized a marginal increase of .6 per cent.
As I said at the beginning, this Bill is fairly wide reaching. It is part of the over-all package which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) introduced and it will take as much as $1,000 out of the pockets of a family of four earning $35,000 a year. Let me give you these figures because they show how this Government is approaching people in this country. The list includes the elimination of federal tax reduction, $100; modification to cost of living indexing, $115; cut in the family allowance, $22.50; broadening of the sales tax, $150; gas tax increase, $50; increase in oil and gas prices, $200; increase in sales tax, $150; increase in unemployment insurance premiums, $102; and cigarette and alcohol tax increase, $75; for a total family tax increase of $964.50. I have not included the cost of having to pay for a new social insurance card if you lose yours, airport parking, rail fares, or ferry service. The list goes on and on, Mr. Speaker.
Let us look at how Bill C-80 will impact on some of the sectors. Our municipalities are, by and large, supported by the property tax payers. This is another regressive tax because it does not take into consideration the ability of people to pay, nor does it take into consideration someone who has owned their own home for 40 or 50 years and has paid for it. It is not due to anything they did that the price went up and, therefore, the market value assessment went up. They do not see why their property taxes are at a certain level. They will be given an extra burden.
The Federation of Municipalities in Canada feels that this Bill will cost municipalities collectively $200 million every year. This comes at a time when the municipalities have done some very exhaustive research into their situation and find that we need a national program worth $12 billion just to protect the existing infrastructure of roads, bridges and sewers. Instead of working to help out the municipalities, the Government is giving them an extra $200 million bill each year. That bill will trickle down to the property tax payer. When Budgets are struck this spring in municipalities across the country, that will have to be considered. It may not show up as a line item or in zero-based budgeting, but it will certainly show up in the tax bill.
February 10, 1986

Farmers in Canada who are in a position to begin to expand their operations, perhaps by building a new silo, are going to find that the cost of a silo will be up by about $4,000. Our national trucking fleets move most of our food products in the country. As a result of the change in the gas tax, which is really a distance-related tax, truckers will have to pass more and more costs through to the consumer.
Let us take a look at the 1 cent per litre tax on gasoline which will come into effect on January 1, 1987, plus the 2 cent tax per litre which came into effect September 3, 1985. What will that do? We have heard in the Flouse over the last two weeks that world oil prices are falling extremely fast. Are Canadian gas prices falling as fast? Of course not. An industry that can respond immediately when world oil prices go up seems extremely sluggish when they go down.
My colleagues, the Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) and the Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) and I did a study in northwestern Ontario. We compared gasoline prices in northwestern Ontario with those of our neighbours to the south in Minnesota. On our side of the border a litre of gas costs anywhere from 53 cents in one of our more urban communities, to $1.80 per litre in some of the remote northern reserves. I remember the days when a gallon of gas cost much less than $1.80 in Thunder Bay. Now a litre costs $1.80 in some of those communities. A litre of gas in Minnesota, converted to Canadian funds, costs 38.4 cents to 44 cents. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the American Government is more responsive to the change in world oil prices to ensure that its consumers get a break. In comparison, our Government is putting more taxes on.
It could be said that in some of our metropolitan communities, such as Toronto and Montreal, where there is an appropriate mix of urban transit, it perhaps makes sense to financially convince people to avail themselves of public transit. However, we do not have those options in northwestern Ontario. People who live in Atikokan do not have the option of using public transit. They no longer have rail service. If they need to get to Thunder Bay for medical assistance, for shopping, or for business, they have no choice but to drive the 120 miles each way. Northern residents all across the country are being penalized by this taxation.
I want to discuss for a moment the impact on the construction industry of the Budget and this particular Bill. The first issue I would like to discuss is the imposition of a new tax on the asphalt industry. While I disagree with the implementation of the tax per se, there is a more far-reaching concern which is an indication that the Government really did not think this through. It clearly did not know anything about the construction industry, particularly road construction.
Mostiof the projects which relate to asphalt are Government-induced. Whether through the federal Government in terms of airport construction, through the provincial Governments in terms of highways, or through municipal Governments in terms of roads, governments are the main purchasers of those services. Bids are not put in one month with construction starting the next. In some cases it takes as long as three years from the
Excise Tax Act
time a provincial government calls a tender until the asphalt is actually laid. Due to the provision of only a few months notice of the imposition of this tax, road construction firms across the country were forced to reduce, by the amount of the tax, the small profits they were making. Escalator clauses are not built into contracts for road construction projects done by provincial Governments. We have heard time and again in this House and in other houses in the country that we must have a Fixed price in order to protect the taxpayers. Taxpayers will not be very well protected if a lot of these firms go out of business because their margins are very, very slim. When the decision was made to impose the tax a company which has a bona fide contract, with the time of payment for the laying of the asphalt being some time after the date of imposition, should have been allowed an exemption. It would have been only fair to take that approach rather than the heavy-handed method which the Government has applied.
The other impact on the construction industry which I would like to discuss is the changes which affect the cast-inplace versus the precast industry. There is now a different situation in existence which will bring about some real problems in that industry.
I would like to turn now to the very clear shift in policy by the Government of Canada away from one which, in a minor way, was beginning to promote the use of alternate forms of energy, to conserve oil and gas-


Mr. Holtmann:: We started promoting jobs.


Iain Francis Angus: The Hon. Member says they started promoting jobs. Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker. My riding is involved in the marketing of solar panels to provide energy for remote areas.


Felix Holtmann: It's commercial.


Iain Francis Angus: It is commercial, yes, but in northwestern Ontario we have great difficulty getting hydro into a lot of our communities because the cost is very horrendous. One resort is 10 miles away from a brand new hydro-electric generating facility and it would cost in excess of $100,000 to get that hydro.


John Barry Turner: Talk to Queen's Park, your buddies at Queen's Park.


Iain Francis Angus: Actually, I have, but that is part of the realities. Obviously I woke up those Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker.


John Barry Turner: We are getting hungry over here.


Iain Francis Angus: Well, they have to stay until one o'clock whether they like it or not.
To get back to my point, Mr. Speaker, an individual in my riding wants to promote Canadian manufactured solar panels. It would be Canadian workers who would build them and

February 10, 1986
Excise Tax Act
install and maintain them. But without the incentive of a break in the sales tax, the individual is unable to convince potential customers of the value of solar. We all know there has to be those kinds of incentives.


John Barry Turner: Poor marketing.


Iain Francis Angus: The Hon. Member says it is poor marketing-


Mr. Althouse:: It's straight economics.


Iain Francis Angus: Yes, it is straight economics if we compare a diesel generating system with a solar system, with the batteries. There has to be some kind of incentive to induce people to take something which is new and innovative when all of their friends have diesels and they know how diesels work. But solar energy needs some incentive and the Government is backtracking on that. It is adding costs to insulation which conserves energy. I do not understand why the Government is taking this kind of approach when what we should be doing is opening things up in a greater way, giving greater incentives to conserve and to develop new technologies.


Felix Holtmann: Did he get a grant to start his project?


Iain Francis Angus: No, he did not get a grant to start his project, Mr. Speaker, he is an entrepreneur. He is not even a school teacher. He is a forester.


John Barry Turner: Change the packaging.


Iain Francis Angus: The other aspect of the Bill is the increase in taxation for alcohol. That will have a very profound effect on our tourist industry. I was at a conference a week or so ago in my riding of Atikokan. A group of us from the community got together to try to develop some strategies to encourage greater use of the Quetico Park, the Atikokan wilderness area, for tourist ventures and determine how we could better accommodate visitors from other parts of Canada and our neighbours to the south. One of the impediments is that once the tourist, particularly the American tourist, comes to the sunset country travel area, stays at one of our local hotels or motels and orders a drink, they are told that a beer will cost $3. Why is the price so high?


Felix Holtmann: Do we want to entice them over here with alcohol?


Iain Francis Angus: The Hon. Member asks whether I would want to entice Americans with alcohol to come here. Of course, not. But it is part of our image. If people come to Canada and perceive themselves as being gouged, whether by the Government or by the establishment, they will not come back.


John Barry Turner: They love our beer.


Iain Francis Angus: Even if they might only have had one beer or one drink, quite frankly, it will leave a bad taste in their mouth.


John Barry Turner: They want good service.


Iain Francis Angus: I want to thank you for listening, Mr. Speaker, and I might suggest that you might want to do something about the rabble across the way who kept interrupting me.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who has just spoken comes from an area where tourism is important. Would he not agree that the higher prices charged for so many things involved with tourism in Canada is one of the factors which discourages tourism? Would he not also agree that the sales taxes which will be imposed by Bill C-80 are going to add to this problem? I am sure he would have some insight into this because of the area he represents.


Iain Francis Angus: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments. In fact, what I would like to do is compliment the previous Conservative Government of Ontario for making the decision to exempt hotels, motels and camp grounds from the sales tax in order to encourage Canadians from other provinces and Americans to use our facilities. Very clearly, prices do have an impact, but regardless of where our dollar is in relation to the American dollar we do have some constant travellers. There are some people who will come back every five or ten years.


John Barry Turner: Expo 86 is sold out.


Iain Francis Angus: I grew up in the tourist industry. I know of it first hand. The gentleman opposite talks about Expo 86. If we do not change the price of gas those people will not come because they will not want to have that transportation experience.


Mr. Ravis:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments with regard to the remarks of the Hon. Member with respect to the deficit. He mentioned that a recent poll indicated that only 22 per cent of Canadians see the deficit as one of the severe problems facing the country, and that approximately 50 per cent of the people see unemployment as a more serious issue. I certainly agree that unemployment is the serious issue and I think that we have been addressing that issue very well.
However, perhaps he and some of the people who answered that poll do not realize that one cannot understand the deficit when no one in this country lives that way. Whether it is with respect to a small business or a household budget, no one spends way beyond what they bring home. When something in the neighbourhood of 80 cents on every tax dollar goes to pay just the interest on the deficit, surely to goodness the Hon. Member and the New Deomcratic Party must understand that we have to begin looking at something which is a little more durable and long term. I would suggest that we do have a choice. We can print more money, as the Liberal Party did over the last dozen years, or we can take the course of trying to turn it around, bringing about some economic recovery and getting more people back to work.


Felix Holtmann: And that's what we are doing.
February 10, 1986


Donald Paul Ravis: What I would like to ask the Hon. Member is why is he and his Party fighting these initiatives which, just last month, brought about 129,000 jobs? That is a record in Canadian history in a month which is probably the toughest of all months in any given year to produce jobs. Why does the New Democratic Party continue to fight these positive initiatives when, really, the Canadian public is looking to all parliamentarians to work together to bring about economic recovery?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, let me try to respond to the questions put by the Hon. Member in the order he raised them. 1 have a mortgage on my house.


Donald Paul Ravis: So do I.


Iain Francis Angus: That mortgage means that I have contracted for a certain amount of dollars for my dwelling which I am paying off over time.


John Barry Turner: The Grits mortgaged this country.


Donald Paul Ravis: So I am in debt. We jokingly refer to the fact that we do not own a house, the bank does, and in my case it is the credit union. So I think the suggestion of the Hon. Member that this is unique is not quite accurate.
In speaking about job creation, the Hon. Member used a figure of $129,000. I read the article that showed almost as many jobs had been lost in that same period of time-


Felix Holtmann: That is ridiculous.


Iain Francis Angus: While there was a net growth, it was in the range of 5,000 or 6,000 as opposed to 129,000. The Member should be careful how he uses those figures.
During hearings on Bill C-75 last week the President of the Dominion Marine Association appeared before us. We were talking about a cost recovery measure on the Seaway. He said that he would rather see the Government of Canada letting people continue to work on the lakes instead of raising fees, because when more people are working more people will be paying taxes, and that is when the deficit will come down, not before.


Mr. MacDougall:: Mr. Speaker, it is marvellous to listen to Members of the New Democratic Party with their pie in the sky type of attitude. They would take the printing press and let it continue for years if they could. In their antics they try to give an impression that they have all the answers for all the people but they forget that young people will have to carry the debts for years to come.
Would the Hon. Member tell us how he plans to address the debt for his children, his grandchildren and his great grandchildren with all his pie in the sky attitude, for which the NDP is so famous?
Excise Tax Act


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Member was not listening to my last few comments. We believe that it is important for as many Canadians who want to have a job to have the opportunity of a job that pays a decent wage. To achieve that you do not cut programs and throw people out of work. You do not bail out banks at a billion dollars a crack. You use that money wisely as an investment. In the short term, yes, you have to have some kind of bridging with the make work programs, but at the same time you have to put in place long-term strategies that will not only train people, as the Government is trying to do, but will make sure there are jobs for them. The more people we get working, the more people will be contributing and this will create other jobs. More and more people will be paying taxes, and less people will be collecting unemployment insurance, welfare and what have you. That is our goal. That is the direction we would take as the Government of this country. We would ensure that as many people who wanted to would have an opportunity for full employment.


Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, let me follow up on the comment made by the Member about job creation. It is no wonder there is a lot of cynicism across the country. At a time when 129,000 permanent jobs were created in January we had the leader of the Liberal Party last week, and now a Member of the New Democratic Party saying to Canadians that these are not real jobs, that a lot of other jobs are being lost and there is a lot of part-time work. There is no feeling of support, of getting your shoulder behind the wheel. I do not understand why the Opposition cannot get behind some of our initiatives. There is no question that Canadians are crying for these jobs. The opposition Parties should be hailing the great job-creation initiatives and saying let us get on and see if we can create more.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, we would like to be behind it. We have yet to see the numbers, which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), Cabinet Members and others are presenting to us, in any documented form. We have not seen what the relationship is between full and part-time work is-


Felix Holtmann: Open your eyes.


Iain Francis Angus: -and between wage levels. Nor have we seen anything in terms of a breakdown between male and female jobs. What kind of jobs are being created? The impression that we have is that they are part-time, short-term and poor paying.


Felix Holtmann: I beg your pardon.


Iain Francis Angus: All the Government is doing is trying to hype up Canadians to make them believe the Government is doing something when it damn well isn't.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we are now dealing with third reading of Bill C-80, A Bill to increase the federal sales tax in a number of different but unfair ways. This debate on third reading gives us a last chance to appeal to the

February 10, 1986
Excise Tax Act
Government to reconsider what it will do to the economy and to millions of individual Canadians through this measure. Through our appeal to the Government, we hope it will take another look, recognize the error of its ways and not proceed with third reading of Bill C-80.
After this Bill was presented to the House, a number of submissions were made by many groups and associations that outlined how the sales tax increases in the Bill would reduce the purchasing power of Canadians, increase costs and generally impact adversely on the competitive ability of Canadian industries as well as dampen the economy.
The Conservative Government is boasting about what has been happening in the economy over the past several months. What has been happening is simply the cumulative effect of efforts of recovery that began several years ago under the previous Liberal Government.


Mr. Kilgour:: Horse feathers!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Conservatives are simply coasting on the beneficial effects and thrust of Liberal policies.


Some Hon. Members:: Rubbish.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: People may challenge this view on my part, but I do not see how the Conservatives can logically challenge the point that there will be an adverse impact on the economy with the increases in sales tax in Bill C-80. These increases will slow down or blunt the forward movement, to the extent that there is any recovery of the economy.
Let us take a look at the increase in taxes which the Government is trying to impose on Canadians. There are tax increases on gasoline. There is the imposition of 2 cents a litre last September and 1 cent per litre in January 1987. Tax increases are imposed on many categories of construction materials, including modular homes, concrete and asphalt. We have also been discussing the tax increases imposed on equipment and construction materials used in energy conservation. This Conservative Government is even imposing sales taxes for the first time on candy, soft drinks and pet food. In spite of some partial and very limited backtracking by the Conservative Government, it is imposing in this Bill a new sales tax on a wide range of health care products.


John Barry Turner: To pay for your bills.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: What is the effect of all of this, Mr. Speaker? Consumers will be paying $2.6 billion more in sales taxes by 1990-1991. At the same time, corporations will enjoy a $2.2 billion decrease in taxes. The capital gains tax break alone will reduce the taxes of wealthy Canadians by $1.25 million. Where is the equity?


John Barry Turner: Where is the deficit going to be?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Where is the fairness in all of this? If the Conservatives are serious about wanting to reduce
the deficit, they have yet to explain why they are putting an unfair share of the burden of doing this on the backs of lower and middle-income Canadians.


Felix Holtmann: You built the deficit on the backs of young people.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: To what the Conservatives have already been doing to increase the very deficit they say they want to decrease, there is the cost of their efforts to sustain the value of the Canadian dollar.
We in the Official Opposition have demonstrated that the measures they took last week will cost Canadian taxpayers in present value dollars close to $1 billion in interest payments, $200 million this year alone.
The Conservatives are crying crocodile tears about the deficit. On the one hand they say they have to reduce the deficit but they do not explain why they are taking all sorts of misguided measures and steps to increase that deficit. What about the $1 billion cost to the taxpayers of their botched and bungled bail-out of the two banks, the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank? What about the way they tried to rescue the dollar that went down in value because of the lack of confidence of the world economic community in the way they are managing the economy?
Last week in the House the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said that Canadians were telling him, "Thank you, Mr. Wilson, for what you have been doing to help the Canadian economy".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I challenge this Conservative Government to find one middle or lower-income Canadian who will say "Thank you, Mr. Wilson, for the burden being put on lower and middle-income Canadians by this misguided Bill C-80."


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Conservatives should have the courage to withdraw this Bill if they are seriously interested in helping lower and middle-income Canadians. By continuing with this Bill, the Conservatives are showing they are not interested and stand condemned in the eyes of millions of middle and lower-income Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I 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.
February 10, 1986

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that there is an agreement on procedure. The Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the Parties, and I think there is an agreement to have the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) make a statement at this time and to have a response from each of the Parties represented in the House. The time used for this process will be Government time. We will move back Statements and Question Period to a point after these statements have been made, and they will just be extended accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it there is agreement for this particular procedure.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


DISASTERS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness and sympathy that I rise today to report to the House on the collision between a freight train and a passenger railway train last Saturday, which tragically resulted in the loss of many lives. On behalf of the Government, and I am sure on behalf of all Members of the House and the people of Canada, I wish to extend my deepest sympathies and sincere condolences to the families of the victims of the collision. We share with them a tremendous sense of shock and grief at their loss. To those who suffered injuries, we extend our hopes and wishes for their early and complete recovery.
Over the weekend I spoke with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who has expressed his deepest personal sympathies and sorrow at this tragic event. Like all Canadians, he was horrified at learning of this tragedy. I have also been in contact with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), the Deputy Premier of Alberta, Mr. David Russell, and the Alberta Solicitor General, Ian Reid, who also extend their condolences and heartfelt thoughts to those involved.
At 8.45 a.m. on Saturday, February 8, VIA Rail train No. 4 travelling eastbound from Jasper and CNR freight train No. 413 travelling west from Edmonton collided at mile 173 of CN's Edson subdivision near Hinton, Alberta.
There were three crew members on the freight train, two at the front end and a conductor at the rear. On the basis of information currently available, the VIA passenger train carried a crew of 15, and 104 passengers had booked seats on the train. While search of the crash site and identification of bodies are still ongoing, it would appear that at least 29 people died as a result of the crash. The bodies have been taken to
Railway Disaster
Hinton where a temporary morgue has been established. The injured were rushed to hospitals in Hinton and Edmonton. Uninjured survivors were also taken to Edmonton and were assisted to complete their journey.
The track in the vicinity of the crash site is among the finest in North America. At this point it does not appear to have been a contributing factor. Likewise, the weather on Saturday morning was clear and cold and does not appear to be a likely contributing factor. While the CN train was carrying a limited amount of dangerous commodities, these were not involved in the collision or the resulting fire.
The first notification of the crash was received by CN within minutes. This information was immediately relayed to Hinton emergency services and the CTC, and the emergency response begun. Fire, police and paramedical units from Hinton arrived at the crash site and began the immediate task of rescuing survivors. Their efforts were hampered by fire at the site caused by the locomotive diesel fuel, and lack of ground access. Emergency response units from Hinton and CN assisted with the removal of the injured to surrounding hospitals.
On Sunday afternoon I visited the collision site and was horrified by the destruction that had occurred. I was moved and impressed by the dedication and the expertise with which rescue operations were conducted. I wish to commend the emergency response forces, and particularly those volunteers for their tireless efforts to rescue and comfort those involved in the collision. In particular I extend my appreciation to the residents of Hinton and the people of Alberta for the humanity and generosity that they have shared with the victims and their families.
I would also like to extend our appreciation to the office of the Hon. Member for Yellowhead, in particular Mr. David Jones at Edson whose efforts were invaluable in assisting the families and friends of the victims and those injured or surviving. As well, the co-operation and assistance of the Government of Alberta and provincial officials was greatly appreciated.
The safety of our transportation system is of paramount importance to this Government. We are deeply concerned by this tragedy, and believe that every effort must be made to determine the cause at the earliest possible date. Therefore, given the tragic and extraordinary circumstances surrounding this collision, the Government has ordered a judicial inquiry to ensure that a complete and independent examination takes place. I can inform the House that Justice Rene Paul Foisy of the Court of the Queen's Bench in Alberta has been appointed under Part I of the Inquiries Act to conduct the investigation. Mr. Justice Foisy has been given broad terms of reference to enable a comprehensive examination of the causes of this collision. We have also requested that the inquiry provide specific recommendations to reduce the risk of a reoccurrence of this tragic event. Mr. Justice Foisy has been asked to report

February 10, 1986
Railway Disaster
before May 30 so that the Government can have the benefit of his findings at the earliest possible opportunity.
In conducting the inquiry Mr. Justice Foisy will be able to draw on the work of the CTC accident investigators and staff who are presently conducting an extensive examination at the collision site. The CTC have five staff on site at present and another one is enroute. I have spoken to the CTC and they have assured me of their full co-operation with the inquiry. The latest information provided to me by the CTC suggests that there is evidence that the CN freight train ran through the switch joining the double-track to the single-track where the collision occurred. The switch was set for the passenger train, and the freight should have stopped on the double-track.
In conclusion, I wish to repeat again on behalf of the Prime Minister, our Government, and I trust all Members of the House, our heartfelt expressions of sympathy and compassion to the victims and families of those involved in this terrible railroad tragedy. We offer them our condolences, our sympathy and our prayers. Our Government is committed to an urgent and comprehensive inquiry into the causes and contributing factors relating to this collision. We have asked that interim measures be examined by the CTC to provide the necessary safeguards while the investigation is underway. The safety of the transportation system is a top priority and we are prepared to act on an urgent basis to respond to any safety deficiencies that can be identified.
The Canadian transportation system has a safety record amongst the best in the world. We must do all that we can to maintain and improve that record. As the Minister of Transport I commend to this House the Government's commitment to ensure that the safety of our transportation system is never diminished. We will use the full extent of our abilities and powers to safeguard the lives of Canadians.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party and my colleagues, I would like to add to the comments made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski) by expressing our regret and sorrow to the families and relatives of the victims of the tragic train crash which occurred near Hinton, Alberta. I would like also to commend the emergency response forces which are on the site for, as the Minister has said, their tireless efforts to rescue and comfort those who were involved in this collision and, indeed, the residents of Hinton must be thanked for their efforts on behalf of the victims at the moment of the accident.
1 think we should recall at this time the words of Mr. Justice Samuel Grange in his report on the Mississauga train derailment. He said the following:
A long, fast train is a profitable one; it is not necessarily a safe one. I accept, of course, that in the course of natural justice one does not normally make an order affecting another's rights or pocket book without giving that other a chance to be heard. But there may come a time, where the safety of the citizen is concerned, when the onus shifts. In such case the burden of proof may (perhaps should) fall upon him who creates the risk.
I am sure all Members of the House would support the Minister of Transport if he were to put before us an immediate
program of measures designed to ensure that this type of accident is not repeated. Indeed, we have been very fortunate that in the past there have been very few fatalities, collisions and derailments. All rail companies have had, up to now, a solid safety record. However, this incident does raise a number of questions regarding the Government's record in and commitment to safety.
In transportation policy, the Government's sole crusade has been in the Fields of deregulation and cost recovery. We have as yet seen no positive commitment to safety. While we on this side of the House accept this new commission of inquiry and we will indeed assure the Government that we will co-operate with it on any measures that will enhance security for passengers using all modes of transportation, we must remind the Minister that this House has yet to see the implementation of the key safety recommendations contained in Judge Lockwood's Gimli inquiry, and in particular those contained in Barnard Deschenes' marine casualty investigation in which Recommendation No. 86 deals specifically with a multimodal safety board which would have powers similar to those of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board.
The Minister of Transport spent almost half a million dollars of taxpayers' money on Mr. Hugh Horner's Rail Passenger Action Force which did not even publish a final report. The result of that task force was the reintroduction of the Superliner in June 1986 on a very heavily travelled line. Since the public has yet to see this report, the Minister must now tell us what recommendations concerning safety were raised in this report that can no longer remain secret.
Finally, we know that the Treasury Board has instructed the Minister of Transport, under Structure 90, to cut back 600 person-years this fiscal year and 1,000 person-years next year. The Minister has failed to reassure us that this will in no way jeopardize his Department's responsibility in the field of safety. Indeed, we are waiting for more concrete, positive action on the part of the Government than merely another investigation.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, I wish to join with the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) in expressing our sadness and sympathy to the families, relatives and friends of those who perished in the accident on Saturday. We also wish to express our thanks through you, Sir, to many people who are the unnamed and unknown heroes as a result of this tragedy. 1 speak of the volunteers in and around Hinton, the surviving members of the crew of the VIA Rail train, all of whom performed heroic duties, and fellow passengers who did the same. This tells us something about human beings rising to the occasion in order to assist one another in times of severe trial.
While there is much speculation about the cause of the accident, we welcome the announcement of the Minister of Transport with respect to establishing a judicial inquiry which will have at its disposal the expertise of CTC officials who are
February 10, 1986

now carrying on an investigation. That is fine, insofar as what is shown, thought or known to be the cause of the tragedy. It is fine in this instance and we welcome such an inquiry. We also welcome the Minister's statement that he is asking the judge to make specific recommendations so that this type of occurrence will not take place again.
However, while I know that the Minister is sincere when he says that safety is paramount and of top priority, I wish to suggest that more than words are required. I know that when the Minister says it he is sincere. Becauseof this incident, but because there are incidents of one type or another every day in one or other modes of transportation-and we all know it-I would like to suggest that there have been requests for many years from many organizations and experts calling for a full, broad, independent and comprehensive inquiry, not just into the issue of safety and all that pertains to it, but with respect to the issues of security, maintenance practices, inspection, enforcement, operational procedures and the capacity to inspect. Surely, such an inquiry is long overdue. An inquiry into all aspects of the operation of an essential public utility, which also concerns all modes of transportation in our country in all the broadest areas of what is called safety, is required. I appreciate that such an inquiry will take some time.
I know that the Minister will endeavour to institute interim safeguards so that this or similar types of occurrences are much less likely to happen again. However, much more has to be done, and on a much broader scale. It will require the support of Parliament, the Minister's cabinet colleagues, and the public to carry this out in the most systematic, proper and public manner possible.
I wish to close by repeating our regrets at this terrible accident. We appreciate the efforts which have been made and the fact that the Minister himself went to the site. We know of and appreciate his concern. We know he will make every effort he can. However, and I repeat, he will require the support of every Member in this place to carry that out.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the House will want to express its respect and sympathy in memory of what has happened.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the House stood in silence.]


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRIME MINISTER OF PERU
Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding to the period for Statements, may I indicate the presence in our gallery today of His Excellency Luis Alva Castro, Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Peru.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 22


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to let this House know about the cavalier attitude, and that is putting it mildly, of some members of the Conservative Government towards immigration pressure groups.
In a document that was circulated in Cabinet, pressure groups in Montreal were referred to as a bunch of crazies. Mr. Speaker, this says a lot about the Conservative Government's claim that it is governing by consensus.
The groups were invited to express their views on reform of the refugee status recognition process. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Ms. MacDonald) went to Montreal last September to show her good faith. But, instead of examining and taking into consideration what these groups have to say, the Government seems to show nothing but scorn. I their it is pretty obvious their opinion does not seem to count for much.
And now it seems that access to the new refugee status recognition process will be very limited. Refugees who stop over in a country where they could ask for refugee status will not be able to request such status in Canada. This considerably limits the number of people who can claim refugee status, and it is certainly not in accordance with Canada's international obligations regarding the protection of refugees.
Mr. Speaker, if the Conservative Government is going to set up a refugee status recognition system that ignores the recommendations of pressure groups and the Committee that examined the question, I wonder-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that her time has expired.



FOOD AND DRUGS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, today in our visitors' gallery there is a delegation from the National Council of Women, a federation of 1,500 locally federated organizations with a national membership of 750,000. Among the special concerns of this group is the Government's policy on generic drugs. They will be interested in the fact that the Government is planning to increase prescription drug prices by extending protection for a reported eight years to the multinational drug companies. This is being advocated by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote), who is supposed to advocate competition.

February 10, 1986
The Minister does not want competition despite the present generic drug law having saved Canadian consumers $211 million in 1983, as documented by the Eastman Commission in Pharmaceuticals. This Minister does not want competition despite the fact that these savings have created 3,500 jobs directly and 2,000 jobs indirectly, according to the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association. The Minister does not want competition despite the fact that the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) moved to increase drug prices through wider imposition of the federal sales tax.
The Ontario Council of Women and other Canadians will want to know why the Minister opposes competition when it means lower drug prices and jobs. The answer is, of course, apparent. The multinational drug companies and their many lobby groups, and the U.S. Government, do not like our generic drug laws. The NDP says it is a perfectly good law which has worked well and should not be sacrificed to appease the privileged few at the expense of the vast majority of Canadians.



HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

[Stage Direction]
DECISION NOT TO STORE PCBs AT RENOUS, N.B.
Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, late last week the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LaSalle) confirmed to me that PCBs and asbestos would not be stored in bunkers at the Atlantic Institute at Renous, N.B., as had previously been announced. That may seem insignificant when compared to other events and announcements made in the House, Mr. Speaker, but in that small community hundreds of people heaved a sigh of relief.
It is not that the storage of that material would have presented a danger to their health or to the environment, because every possible precaution had been taken to ensure it would not have done so, but undue fear had been raised in the hearts and minds of these good people. The Minister, appreciating what had happened, and demonstrating the great sensitivity and concern for people which have been the hallmark of the Government, cancelled that earlier decision. Mr. Speaker, this is a Government which cares.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, supposing, in my opinion correctly, that Canadians had the right to know how much they were paying their public employees, prior to 1919 the Government of Canada published the Civil Service List annually. For example, the 1916 Civil Service List reveals that Mr. Edmund Newcombe, Deputy Minister of Justice, was paid an annual salary of $10,000, and that Mr. David Gillespie, bridgekeeper on the Cornwall Canal, was paid a wage of $2 a day. It is not to be supposed, Sir, that either Mr. Newcombe or Mr. Gillespie suffered from having their emoluments made public, any more than MPs and Senators do today.
For some unknown reason the Government of the present time refuses to make known specific salaries and benefits paid to its employees. This has especially been the case with senior employees of Crown corporations. At best, a rather meaningless salary range will be given.
Taxpayers are naturally suspicious of the motives of a Government which hides, for no apparent good reason, the use of their money behind a screen of secrecy. Therefore, let us follow the eminent good sense of our forebears and let this information be known.



FISHERIES


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, once again we see the spectre of Frank Moores in the recent deal by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) to give $1 million in cod quotas to a company owned by Frank Moores' son-in-law, Frank Moores' former special assistant, and Ulff Snarby, of the Nordic Fishing Company, a company which last year bought access to the Government by hiring Government Consultants International, a Frank Moores company.
The Minister claims that this is all pure coincidence, but we must examine the facts. The company placed into receivership was owned by Frank Moores' cousin, another relative, and his son-in-law's father. The new company is now owned by his son-in-law, his former aide, and a company for which he is a consultant.
Does the Minister really expect us to believe there was absolutely no connection between his $1 million cod giveaway and Frank Moores, a close personal friend of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)? This fishy deal should be subjected to a parliamentary review. But then again, maybe it is just all in the Tory family.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House the recent Gallup poll which shows what Canadians really think about the Conservative Government's sale of de Havilland Aircraft to the Boeing company of Seattle. Only 16 per cent of the people polled support the Government's decision to sell de Havilland. Twice that number opposed the deal, and in Ontario, where the awareness of the sale is strongest, almost half of the population opposed the deal and only 17 per cent backed it.
February 10, 1986

I cite these figures, Mr. Speaker, because they support what New Democrats have been saying about the sale of de Havil-land since it was announced in December. It makes no sense to dispose of de Havilland to a foreign buyer without guaranteeing the research, the jobs, or the Canadian content, and without the Government having seriously considered alternatives to a bargain basement deal.
Most of all, this poll stands as a strong condemnation of the way in which de Havilland was sold without consultation and without Parliament being able to say "no" to a bad deal. Had the Conservatives bothered to seek parliamentary approval on de Havilland, they might have found out what the New Democratic Party said all along, and what the Gallup poll now shows, that Canadians do not like this deal.

[ Translation]



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight in connection with a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) last month at his conference, when he wanted to challenge the percentage of full-time and part-time jobs created.
Mr. Speaker, 81 per cent of the jobs created since September 1984 have been full-time jobs, while 82 per cent of the jobs under the Liberal Government, between February 1980 and September 1984 were part-time jobs.
Under the conservatives, more than 58,000 full-time jobs were created in sixteen months, compared with 75,000 in fifty-five months by the Liberals.
In January alone, 129,000 new jobs were created, the highest monthly increase on record. And the Conference Board is predicting 395,000 new jobs will be created in 1986.
Mr. Speaker, youth employment has increased by 73,000 since the election, compared to a net loss of 285,000 jobs under the Liberals.
Now the unemployment figures. The unemployment rate is 9.8 per cent, compared to 11.7 per cent on election day. Youth unemployment has gone down 2.5 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Finance, total unemployment figures increased by 164,000, and during the last four and one-half years the Liberals were in power, total unemployment rose by 591,000.
Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that in the last sixteen months under the Conservative Government, unemployment has gone down by 203,000.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the PC's record on employment in Canada and it is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the accumulated past debt symbolizes a kind of mismanagement which still shakes confidence in Canada. The debt is growing faster than our economy. Our debt, as a percentage of GNP, is one of the highest in the industrialized world. Recent downward pressure on the dollar and rising interest rates, while due in part to speculation, also reflect concern about the deficit and our resolve to do something about it.
Clearly, we must renew and strengthen our determination to deal with the deficit. The course charted in the November, 1984, economic statement and the May, 1985, Budget is correct. Most individual Canadians feel that they are now taxed to the limit. I think they are right.
I, therefore, suggest that the attack on the deficit should concentrate on three broad fronts; first, by reducing Government involvement and expenditure through the elimination of waste and the discarding of programs which are non-essential; second, by re-examining some social programs to direct payments only to those who are genuinely in need; and, third, by eliminating a number of corporate and individual preferences such as grants, exemptions, subsidies, investment tax credits, excessive capital cost allowances and tax deferrals. Deficit reduction will lead to renewed confidence, more growth, even more jobs, and greater prosperity for all Canadians.



THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, according to reports, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), having received his advance copy of the latest report on labour information, chose subsequently to leak it to certain people in the media prior to the official release time, an action which has been qualified by the Chief Statistician of Canada as a very serious breach of protocol.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister in quoting from the figures omitted to mention that over 1.2 million Canadians are still out of work, that some areas of our country have had an alarming increase in unemployment, and that most of his job-creation programs are based on temporary employment only, there is a more fundamental issue at stake here. It is the potential breach of trust by the Prime Minister of Canada when he releases information which is given to him

February 10, 1986
Oral Questions
in confidence prior to the official time, and does so for his own political gain.

The Minister responsible for Statistics Canada should take a firm stand and ensure that his department does not disclose information to the Prime Minister if he is not capable of keeping it to himself, as he should have done. The Prime Minister ought to make a public apology for his partisan and irresponsible actions that have tarnished the reputation of Statistics Canada.
* *
*



CALL FOR RESTORATION OF KATIMAVIK PROGRAM

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Today and every day an ever-increasing number of Canadians ask the Prime Minister to restore Katimavik. Young and old, rural and urban, north and south, east and west, from every age and walk of life, from every part of Canada, a message is converging on Ottawa. It is directed at the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). It is: "Please restore Katimavik". The message is growing stronger. It is in English or in French and it is short and simple: "Please, Prime Minister, restore Katimavik".
Katimavik has been copied internationally and has received an award of excellence from the United Nations. The country and the people are rallying in defence of Katimavik. They say Katimavik is like a school, a school of life. We do not close a school, we do not close a university and we do not close a community college or a CEGEP, so please do not close Katimavik.
The rallying call is criss-crossing the country. Today, for example, at Toronto City Council, a motion will be put forward urging the Prime Minister to reinstate Katimavik. From other regions the same message will be making its way to Ottawa, reaching the corridors of the Prime Minister's office by way of letters, resolutions, petitions, cables, telexes and phone calls. The message is: "Please, Prime Minister, reinstate Katimavik".



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is the Minister aware that an official of his Department has indicated that the accident at Hinton, Alberta, could have been avoided? An automatic cut-out feature which brakes a train if a signal is
missed would have stopped the freight train before it reached the single track. Could the Minister indicate to the House why no such feature was part of this train?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first, I am not aware of the comment to which the Hon. Member referred and, second, my understanding is that such automatic features are virtually non-existent in North American type railway systems. I repeat that this particular section of track is one of the most modern and up-to-date on the North American continent. I think I would be appropriate for me at this time to point out that the safety record of Canada's railways is among the highest in North America. CP was rated number one in 1984 and CN was rated number four.


TRACK PRIORITY FOR PASSENGER TRAINS
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Minister was very pleased some months ago to announce the resumption of the passenger service between Jasper and Vancouver. Can the Minister tell us now what specific steps he took at the time to ensure the priority of passenger trains over freight trains, particularly on that very heavy traffic line?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that has always been the understanding and it will be enshrined, hopefully, in legislation when the new Via Rail Bill will be brought before the House, which should be within the next day or so.


JUDICIAL INQUIRY-REQUEST FOR EXPANSION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister prepared not only to launch a major inquiry into this latest tragedy but also a meaningful inquiry into safety and security standards of all transport-related activities? Can the Minister assure us that he is ready to expand this inquiry into a general inquiry into all transport activities, instead of merely having the one inquiry with respect to this incident?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question put by the Hon. Member. I think what is most important at this particular time, and I hope the Hon. Member will agree, is to try to ascertain the reasons and all of the incidents surrounding this particular disaster. I think it would be important to find out the causes of this accident at the earliest possible date. That is why we have put a fairly strict time frame on the investigation.
I think it would be most appropriate for us to carry on in that manner. In addition, the CTC and the CN are investigating, and there will be other investigations which will be taking place. On the broader question, I think it should be noted that back in 1979 there was a comprehensive inquiry into railway safety under the auspices of Justice Grange. There was also a comprehensive investigation into aviation safety, and a lot of those recommendations have, in fact, been acted upon.
Legislation is currently before the House with respect to the Canada Shipping Act which will enhance safety at sea. We are
February 10, 1986

working on a national trucking safety code. We are investigating the Railway Safety Act to make changes, to update it to today's realities. So there are a lot of things which are taking place.


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who, by the way, has quickly acquired a reputation for doing things in a sneaky and cagey fashion. On Friday afternoon the Minister announced the end of the Fishing Vessel Assistance Program for fishermen, and he was proud to note that the termination of the program eliminated a program identified by the United States Government as a countervail-able subsidy. The Fishing Vessel Insurance Plan, ice-making assistance programs, the fisheries Improvement Loan Program and a host of other programs have also been identified on the U.S. free trade hit list. Will the Minister, in his misguided loyalty, be making more bad news late Friday afternoon announcements for fishermen?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, as we review the various programs and initiatives within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and in accordance with advice we receive from many sources, including the various advisory groups from whom I hear, as well as the work of the Deputy Prime Minister in his review of the programs, we will be making changes designed to benefit the fishermen. This will enable us to continue contributing to growth in economic opportunity and employment, so aptly demonstrated by the release of employment figures last Friday afternoon which showed that the Government is doing an outstanding job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is auditioning for the role of Yankee Doodle Dandy, he has won it hands down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EFFECT ON INSHORE FISHERY IN ATLANTIC CANADA
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister realize that this decision, coupled with the bank's dismal record of dealing with fishermen, will destroy the inshore fishery in Atlantic Canada and that by accident, or even worse, by design, processors will be clamouring for more factory freezer-trawler licences in order to secure raw product?
Oral Questions


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member can tell winners from losers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: In connection with this program, the Member well knows that we have at present a difficulty with some degree of over capacity in the Atlantic fishery. As well, as the announcement indicated, we have a problem with the countervail duty, which is bad news for the industry and for the constituents who send him here.
More jobs have been created in Atlantic Canada in the 16 months since this Government came into office than in the four years from 1980 to 1984. Six thousand new jobs have been created in the Member's own province in those 16 months, compared with only 2,000 jobs in the preceding four years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RAILWAYS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I called for a full general inquiry into matters having to do with safety, security, maintenance practices, inspection enforcement, and operational procedures, in all modes of transportation.
Just recently the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, the Metropolitan Toronto Residents Action Committee and many others have been calling for inquiries into operational procedures, safety, and inspection practices of the various modes of transportation.
In light of the bottom-line syndrome, the loosening of the regulatory regime, can the Minister assure this House that he will examine and require the railroads and other modes of transportation, airlines or whatever, to cease their cut-backs in employees in the shops, in maintenance and in inspection, as they have been doing over the past several years and are continuing to do today?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's concern. I think he should be reminded that there were two very comprehensive inquiries into transportation in Canada, namely, the Dubin Commission into aviation safety and the Grange Commission into railway safety. Many of the recommendations from those inquiries have, indeed, been acted upon.
I have today announced a judicial inquiry under the Inquiries Act to look into the specific causes of the accident that occurred last Saturday. Within the terms of reference it is clearly outlined that all persons and mechanical components
10636

February 10, 1986
Oral Questions
involved in the operation of the two trains and the traffic control systems governing their movements will be examined.
1 would suspect in a general way that that would involve the total systems to a large extent. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that our most important concern at this time is to try to ascertain the cause of the tragic accident that occurred last weekend.


SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICES
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Les Benjamin (Regina West): Mr. Speaker, can the Minister assure the House, in spite of the hysteria over deficits, that there will be no cut-backs, but increases, in funding and personnel to carry out an increased capacity in his Department and in the CTC regarding safety, security, inspection and enforcement?
Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member should know that since 1980 there has been an increase in CTC inspectors by over 30 per cent from 79 to, I believe, 109. The same thing has applied with regard to aviation inspectors. Over 600 aviation inspectors are now carrying out that work.
I should also remind the Hon. Member that just recently we approved additional air traffic controllers, which modified the A-base requirement, which was the product of the former administration. We are taking steps to correct the deficiencies that occurred under the former administration, and in that regard 1 hope I will have the Hon. Member's support.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Last September 12 I raised a question with the Minister for International Trade concerning the U.S. definition of 58 fishing programs in our domestic jurisdiction as being programs carrying unfair trade subsidies. The Minister replied categorically that his Government has no intention whatsoever of giving up any of these programs.
In his press release issued Friday the Minister said one of the reasons for terminating the Fishing Vessel Assistance Program is that it is part of the U.S. countervailable subsidy. Does the Minister have any other of those 58 programs on the chopping block under this fishing announcement, because of U.S. pressure?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would read carefully from the statement I made, it reads as follows:
The Minister also noted that the termination of the Fishing Vessel Assistance Plan eliminates a program identified by the United States Government as a countervailable subsidy.
There was nothing in that statement which indicated any admission that it was a countervailable subsidy. Each of those programs to which the Hon. Member refers is being reviewed according to its merits and the extent to which it can or cannot contribute to the genuine well-being of fishermen in Atlantic Canada.


CANCELLATION OF FISHING VESSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Lloyd Axworthy: If the Minister considered this Fishing Vessel Assistance Plan so insignificant, Mr. Speaker, why did he take time to put this in his press release, clearly broadcasting to the Americans that we are prepared to cave in to their pressure in these trade talks?


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Such paranoia.


Lloyd Axworthy: Why is the Minister making these statements before the decision is even made? The decision will not come down until March 18. Why is the Minister already conceding the case to the Americans?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, we are not conceding anything to the Americans.


Mr. Dingwall:: Come on.


Thomas Edward Siddon: That program, along with many others, has been reviewed by the Government for many months. The decision was consciously taken to eliminate the program for a number of reasons, the one stated by the Member not being one of them.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: My question is for the Minister of Finance. What action does the Minister of Finance propose to take now to protect the 30,000 people who will be required to renew their mortgages at much higher interest rates this month than last resulting from the Bank of Canada's actions in trying to shore up the dollar?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I responded to that question a couple of times last week.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You said: "Tough cookie".


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: I indicated that since the Government has taken office mortgage rates are down by 2 to 2.25 percentage points. That will save the average mortgagor between $70 and $125 a month, or an over-all savings in excess of $800 a year. I think this is good progress. We are not happy that interest rates have gone up recently.
February 10, 1986

As I also indicated, this is part of a packaged approach, a combined approach, to deal with the problem of speculation in the market-place designed to stabilize the interest rates and the exchange rate, and hopefully in the future to get them down to a more reasonable level.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, there must be something wrong with the way 1 am asking the question. I do not seem to be able to get a response.
Let me try again. Does the Minister understand what I am saying?


Lloyd Axworthy: No.


Ian Deans: Is he prepared to take some action to protect those people who, as a result of the Bank of Canada's interest rate policy, this month are going to be faced with higher interest rates that will last at least for the next year! Is the Minister prepared to take any aciton to protect them?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that we have taken a considerable amount of action over the last 16 months to get mortgage rates down from 14.25 per cent on September 4, 1984, to the current rate of about 12 per cent. That will save the average mortgagor $122. For a three-year mortgage, it is down from 14 per cent to 11.5 per cent. That is 2.5 percentage points, and it will save the mortgagor $88 per month. Those are significant drops. We want to get them down further. That is the policy of the Government. That is the direction in which we have been going, and we will continue in that direction.


INTEREST RATES CHARGED BY CHARTERED BANKS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I remember when Marc Lalonde said the same thing, as interest rates went from 15 to 16 to 17 to 18 per cent. I should like to ask the Minister a related question. What action does he propose to take to ensure that the banks and financial institutions of the country will not continue to increase their consumer lending rates, in order to protect consumers against the kind of usury which we saw in the early part of the 1980s?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, a person can lose his patience listening to this type of question. The performance of this Government has been to bring interest rates down. It is not always a one-way street. We have had some adjustments up and down. However, the net result, the over-all result which we have had since September 4, 1984, has been very, very clear. That is one of the reasons for the strength in the economy. It is one of the reasons the economy will continue to have strength. It is another reason we will have a continuation of the type of job-creation figures which were announced on Friday, where 580,000 jobs have been created since September, 1984. That is the direction in which we will continue to go.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT-WITHDRAWAL OF LOAN GUARANTEES
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries said in his release on Friday that banks provide funds for this purpose, when the Minister knew that the federal Government notified all chartered banks that it would no longer honour guarantees under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, and some of those loans date back to the late seventies. What does the Minister intend to do to assist 1,500 fishing enterprises which have had the rug pulled out from under them by the inaction of the Government?


Hon.   Thomas@: Mr. Speaker, the ludicrous aspect of all these questions is that Hon. Members opposite cannot stand to ask questions, to look success in the face, and to admit that there have been more jobs created in Atlantic Canada in the past 16 months than in the four years from 1980 to 1984 when they occupied these benches. The programs which are being changed by the Government are being changed to bring benefit to the people who elected this Government. Those people are realizing tremendous gains, as witnessed by the jobs created last month alone-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: -129,000 new jobs, an unprecedented level of job creation in Canadian history.


REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF GUARANTEES
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, there are 1,500 fishing enterprises affected in seven provinces-in the Minister's own riding, in the Prime Minister's riding, and in Newfoundland-and the Minister shrugs his shoulders. The Minister has agreement from the Official Opposition to introduce a Bill in this Chamber-and I am sure he would get it from the NDP-with no debate, to reinstate the guarantees for those loans-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question, please?


George Baker: Will he do it, or does he have to check with the Pentagon?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, why on earth would the Government want to reinstate any initiative of has former Government which has proven to be such an abysmal failure?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: The Hon. Member foments only because he knows that in the last month 3,000 new jobs were created in his province alone and that the unemployment level dropped by a full percentage point. That is the success which he is afraid to admit.

February 10, 1986
Oral Questions INCOME TAX


MINIMUM TAX-ADVICE ON AVOIDANCE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who just heard the Minister of Fisheries say that the programs being presented will protect the people who elected the Government. He will know that tax advisers are advising their clients on ways and means of beating the minimum tax. Newsletters are going out all over the country. Is the Minister of Finance aware of this and, if so, what is he doing about it?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, any time there is tax change, the lawyers and accountants will try to find ways of advising their clients to minimize their liability. That is normal.


David Orlikow: And they are very successful.


Ian Deans: How about giving mortgage holders some help?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: 1 would expect that even the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain has tried to minimize his taxes once in a while.


Ian Deans: Always pay a little more, just in case.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Hon. Member has any guidance which he can give me on how the minimum tax can be improved, I would certainly welcome his views on that.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have here a tax letter which outlines six ways to avoid the minimum tax, depending upon one's investment portfolio. My question is a simple one. Is the Minister aware that this is going on? If he is serious about having a decent minimum tax, there should be no way around it. Is he prepared to look into this matter so that the legislation which he brings forward ensures that in fact we have a real minimum tax?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that we have a minimum tax. It is a minimum tax which has some real bite to it.


Ian Deans: There are six ways around it so far.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I also ask the Hon. Member to consider the record of the Government in closing off loopholes which have led to some of the problems of people paying too few taxes-the SRTCs, the scientific research tax credits which we closed; the limited partnerships which we closed; the carve-outs which we closed; the income splitting which we closed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is becoming a speech.


FISHERIES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. Maybe he is sending a message out to the fishermen in Atlantic Canada that if they want answers they should hire Frank Moores, because he seems to be batting 100 per cent with this Government.


Charles Joseph Clark: What is your average, Sheila?


Sheila Maureen Copps: How can the Minister justify $1 million in cod quotas to a company owned by Frank Moores' son-in-law, Frank Mores' former special assistant, and Nordic Fishing Company, a company which last year bought access to the Government by hiring Frank Moores' company?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I think we on this side would all appreciate it if Members opposite would get their facts straight before they make allegations. I was visited by a delegation of residents and elected officials from Harbour Grace in December to seek a way to have their town opened, to have their cannery restarted this spring. We found 2,000 tonnes of quota which had previously been given to the Spanish fleets, and made that available on the condition that it only be allocated to that plant and on the condition that it be reopened by whomever came forward, to satisfy the receivers who were acting on behalf of the Bank of Nova Scotia. At no time have I met any of the individuals to whom the hon. lady refers.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTER
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister who is so knowledgeable about the issue should realize that it is not a cannery. It is a fish plant in question. Since he signed the permit, I should like to ask him whether he thinks it is entirely coincidental that the previous company was owned by Frank Moores' cousin, another relative Carl, his son-inlaw's father, and that the current company is now owned by the son-in-law, his former aide, and a company for which he is a consultant, yet he claims that this is absolutely coincidental-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it that was a question. I am sorry, but I did not hear the beginning of it. Is there a question?


An Hon. Member:: It is a question.


Mr. Speaker:: There was a question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, if you look at the "blues", I think you will find-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it the Hon. Member asked a question.
February 10, 1986


Mr. Crosbie:: It was built by Frank's father as well, you dough-head.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Did you just wake up, John?


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is why it went into receivership.


John Carnell Crosbie: A big mouth never gets anything, baby-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Don't call me "baby".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, he did it again.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister of Justice called me a baby again.


Charles Joseph Clark: Poor, thin-skinned Sheila.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This competition is clearly unfair, but I am not sure which way, with respect.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He called me baby.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Foster:: Get up on your feet and apologize.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I remind all Ministers and all Members that language which provokes either side is not helpful.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I will comply with your ruling. I frankly do not care if Mickey Mouse owns the fish plant. The fact of the matter is 1,200 people who would otherwise be unemployed in 1986 in Harbour Grace are going back to work.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-CANADIAN WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hills):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister has stated in this House that water exports are not on the table with respect to free trade negotiations. I want to ask the Minister whether or not he is aware of the grant given by the National Research Council for
Oral Questions
a feasibility, study to the proponents of the Grand Canal water diversion? If he is, will he say whether or not he would consider the request made today by Great Lakes United and the Nishnawbe-Aski nation to have that grant rescinded?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there has been a grant discussed by the NRC. It is not a matter within my jurisdiction. The question, I gather, was directed to me because of the continuing allegation, against all the evidence, that water is somehow involved in trade negotiations with the United States. Water is not involved in trade negotiations with the United States.


GRAND CANAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 have taken the Minister at his word; he does not have to keep saying that. I want to ask him whether the Government will consider rescinding this grant in view of the fact that it constitutes an ad hoc water policy, and may undermine the position the Minister constantly reiterates about water exports not being on the table. If this hare-brained, ecologically disastrous system is not on the table, then why fund a feasibility study of it?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, a number of feasibility studies have been made of this particular notion, not the least of which is a study which was done in the early 1960s called a "Canada-Ontario Water Study". There has been a small contract let by a regional office of the NRC in connection with the Industrial Research Assistance Program. There is no intention of Government to engage in any additional studies that are already on the table.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. A coroner's inquest into a recent drug raid and shooting in Metropolitan Toronto involving the Toronto Police Department and one Allan Boyarski has revealed that Mr. Boyarski had purchased two hand guns less than five months after he was convicted of illegally carrying another hand gun. Would the Minister advise the House if the Government is prepared to introduce amendments to the Criminal Code, as called for by the coroner's jury in that case, which would prevent anyone who has recently been convicted of a criminal offence involving a-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the question is clear and it is quite long.

February 10, 1986
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to discuss the specific case the hon. gentleman mentions, but amendments to the firearm control provisions of the Criminal Code, including amendments to permit the revocation of a firearms acquisition certificate, have been under consideration by the Department of Justice. We are all just slightly ahead of inquiries of this type, and they are to be discussed this week in Vancouver at a meeting of the Justice Ministers and Solicitors General. The hon. gentleman's concern will be looked into then.


THE ECONOMY
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In statements last week the Minister and the Prime Minister both blamed the fall of the Canadian dollar on speculators. How does the Minister reconcile that position with statements made by financial analysts that the Government wants to blame three guys in Chicago but there has been gross mismanagement of the economy?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I guess if we had better management of the economy we would not have just created 580,000 jobs; we would have created maybe a million jobs during the first 16 months. The number of jobs created in this country is easily the best record of western industrialized countries. I think the Hon. Member should be congratulating the Government on the policy formula we brought forward. The OECD, which is recognized as an objective observer of Government policy, has said quite clearly that it has no recommendations to make to this Government because it agrees fully with the policy directions we are following.


INTEREST RATE LEVELS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Aideen Nicholson: Job creation will not be sustained if interest rates are pushed up to prop the dollar. That is what the Minister said he is going to do. Will the Minister say how high interest rates will go? How much hardship will Canadians face buying a house, or getting a job in construction, before the Government accepts the blame for the decline of the dollar and starts looking for real solutions?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party, after the November 8 statement, said the policies that were being introduced by the Government were going to result in 200,000 lost jobs. Surely she understands that this wild rhetoric, which has absolutely no basis in fact, no basis in policy analysis, is totally off base. What is far, far more important to Canadians is to judge results, and over 1,100 jobs a day, 80 per cent of them full-time jobs, is the record on which I am proud to stand. Canadians are saying this is the right way to go.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Last Thursday when my leader and I met with the President of Canadair, Mr. Des Marais gave us the assurance that Canadair was in good shape in terms of jobs, orders and viability.
Considering that last Wednesday, the Minister was equally optimistic in his assessment of Canadair, I ask him: Why sell Canadair?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre perhaps I could point out that there is, in fact, a difference in attitude between the socialist Party in this House and the Government of the day.


David Orlikow: I would hope so.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, we believe that commercial activities are generally better run by the private sector than by Government. Canadair is a commercial activity that we feel should be put into the private sector, if there is a suitable buyer, and it is that end we are pursuing.


GALLUP POLL STATISTICS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, since in Ontario, where people were closest to the sale of de Havilland, they opposed the Government's decision to sell de Havilland to Boeing by a margin of 46 per cent to 17 per cent, may i then ask again why sell Canadair when it is effective, efficient, productive and competitive? Why not keep it for Canadians in public hands?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Member from Ottawa Centre I am sure unintentionally misled the House with reference to the Gallup Poll concerning de Havilland. He forgot to point out that 52 per cent of those polled said that they did not know about the deal or they had not thought about it. of those having an opinion, the Member also failed to point out that it was 53 per cent having a New Democratic preference who said the deal should not have gone through.
Mr. Speaker, finally, their allies-the near socialists-the Liberals, of those polled 43 per cent said the deal should not go through. There is clearly a difference in our attitude.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
February 10, 1986


THE BUDGET
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I am wondering if the Minister of Finance could announce today the date of his Budget.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to take this occasion to say that I propose to bring down my next Budget on Wednesday, February 26. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that I shall be bringing down my next Budget on February 26-

At this point may I also make one other comment, Mr. Speaker? There have been some questions about the effective time when decisions that will be announced in the Budget would be effective. I want to make it quite clear that those who are planning their affairs should make sure that they plan their affairs to allow for the effective date of the timing, being midnight the day before budget date, as it was in the May Budget. I want to make that quite clear so that people can plan their affairs and have their plans in place prior to the Budget.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. As I hope he knows, last Friday General Motors of Canada confirmed that it would be transferring 1,000 jobs from its GM trim plant in Windsor to plants in the United States. Will the Minister agree to intervene immediately in order to try to prevent this transfer of jobs since this is important not only to the workers in the GM trim plant in Windsor but could also be the tip of the iceberg for the start of similar shifts of production and jobs in other GM plants from Canada to the United States?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the Hon. Member is quite aware, the dispute between the management at General Motors and the union centres on what might happen if the Canadian company is struck, with regard to the supplying of certain products to plants in the United States. I feel at this stage that it is in everyone's interest that the company and the union be allowed to work out their differences, and hopefully the diversion to which the Hon. Member has referred will not follow.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL INTERVENTION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada, and particularly the workers in question, cannot understand why the Minister will not assume his responsibilities by intervening and telling General Motors that what it is planning to do is contrary to the approach, the spririt, and perhaps even the letter of the Auto Pact, and also by telling General Motors that it cannot ask the Government to impose Canadian-content rules on Toyota and Hyundai and other Third World manufacturers while removing Canadian content from its own plants to the tune of 1,000 jobs. Why will he not assume his responsibilities and take some action on this matter?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as I have already pointed out to the Hon. Member, this is a dispute between the management of General Motors and the union and I would think at this stage that it is in everyone's interest to let them try to work out the understanding that the company feels it needs before it continues with production in Windsor.


REQUEST FOR COMBINES INVESTIGATION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. Because this is much more than a dispute between the union and the company, I have written to the Director of Combines Investigations to protest the restraint of trade practised by GM in this decision. Will the Minister join me in this request to help save these 1,000 jobs, many of which are held by women, and to try to save the exports from the plant to the United States?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: There is no need for me to join the Hon. Member. In my discussions with the union representatives, including Mr. White, and also with the company representatives, I of course encouraged that not only this plant but other plants be kept in production to ensure that General Motors can maintain its level of employment and perhaps increase that level of over 40,000 employees in Canada. We have a mutual interest. It is not a question of joining; we are well ahead.


Steven W. Langdon: Speaker, it is a question of joining with respect to Combines Investigation research.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONTACT GENERAL MOTORS ON LIMITATION OF EXPORTS
Steven W. Langdon: My question is: Will the Minister admit that restricting exports from this plant is against the principle of the Auto Pact, and does he intend to contact GM in this regard?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member undoubtedly

February 10, 1986
Oral Questions
knows that there has been a change of the Chief Executive Officer at General Motors Canada. I have had conversations in a general way with respect to this matter with the former president of General Motors and I look forward to meeting with the new president at an early opportunity.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for either the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of State for External Relations. Over the weekend the United States and France were involved in taking the former dictator of Haiti away from Haiti to a new country. Why would those countries become involved with such an unsavoury character? Second, what is our relationship going to be with the new regime? Finally, are we going to provide a-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Raymond Ellis: I am never going to get a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the United States can do as it sees fit in the circumstances, and it is no business of ours.
1 would like to take this opportunity to give the Canadian people the assurance that the safety of Canadian citizens is not at stake. The situation seems to be getting back to normal, and at this very moment, 400 Canadians should be landing at Mirabel. I may add that this was the only aircraft able to land at and take off from Haiti.
* *
*


USE OF ALUMINUM DUST AT NORTHERN ONTARIO MINES
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the very disturbing reports which came out last week indicating that the aluminum dust procedure which was used for some 36 years to prevent lung cancer in uranium and gold miners in northern Ontario actually probably caused cancer, can the Minister confirm that this procedure, which was used by the Ontario Government for that period of time, actually took place without the approval of the Department of National Health and Welfare?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this topic was raised last Friday. We take it very
seriously. I cannot answer the specific question that the Hon. Member put to me but I will get the answer for him.
The Department of Labour of the Province of Ontario has principal responsibility in this field but I have indicated that I, along with my colleague, the Minister of Labour, will give any help we are capable of giving. As to the specific question, I will check it, but there seems to be some question in terms of the dust that was used and that miners were not aware of some of the health factors.


REQUEST THAT OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTRE BE ESTABLISHED AT ELLIOT LAKE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, in view of the increasing concern about lung cancer in uranium miners in Elliot Lake, can the Minister confirm the support of his Department for the establishment of an occupational health centre there, in co-operation with the Ontario Government, as was offered by his predecessor who had offered to negotiate such an arrangement?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, we have not received request from the Government of Ontario. As I indicated, we have been willing to co-operate with the Government of Ontario in whatever way possible. If that specific request comes forward, then obviously we would have to look at it at that time.


INVESTMENT CANADA
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion who is also responsible for Investment Canada. Was the Minister aware that Conrad Black intended to skim $62 million from Dominion employees' pension funds when Investment Canada approved the takeover of Dominion Stores by A & P?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that fact and I would ask the Hon. Member to make sure it is in truth a fact.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO USE OF PENSION FUND
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister advise the House whether or not his Department intends to invetigate the coincidence between the taking of $62 million from employees of Dominion Stores and the investment of $60 million in the Daily Telegraph in the U.K. and whether or not that pension fund was used to purchase the Daily Telegraphl


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the figures to which the Hon. Member refers are figures with which I, of course, am not acquainted. I will ask personnel in Investment Canada to
February 10, 1986

check on the Hon. Member's representations and I will report directly back to him.
* *


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions with the exception of one presented by the Hon. Members on Friday, February 7, 1986, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
I am in receipt of a notice of a question of privilege to be raised by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on Friday I gave the Chair notice that I would raise a question of privilege today with respect to the leak of the Statistics Canada employment figures on Thursday afternoon, more than 12 hours before the official authorization time, which is set for Friday at 7 a.m.
Your Honour may know that it has been the practice of Statistics Canada for many years to release these figures with respect to employment and unemployment on the First Friday of each month at 7 a.m. There are some exceptions to that practice but that is the general rule.
Also, it has been the practice of Statistics Canada to forward these figures to the offices of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the President of the Treasury Board with the understanding that the figures will be kept in embargo and not released in any way until the official release time of 7 a.m. Friday morning. On this occasion, as I have said, the figures were released more than 12 hours in advance. We are not sure by whom they were released; but they were then used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in a very partisan way at a public meeting in Montreal.
I submit that my privileges and the privileges of other Members of the House have been breached by this leak and the use of the figures in that some Members of the House have had access to and were able to use these figures in a political way before the great majority of Hon. Members in the House. I submit this is a violation of my privileges as a Member of Parliament. If Your Honour finds that I have a prima facie case of privilege, then I will move the usual motion.
Privilege-Mr. Allmand
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker,I wish to address this matter, inasmuch as I think the statement made by the Hon. Member is possibly a little general and sweeping with respect to the participation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The Prime Minister did not at any point in time make any reference to statistics which were forthcoming from Statistics Canada. Indeed, that information, as I understand it, was in the hands of the media, specifically the CBC, which reported in advance of the actual day of announcement some details with respect to it.
With respect to the question of whether or not privileges have been affected one way or other, I do not think there is any basis or substance with respect to the Prime Minister having released any information at all.
Also, with respect to this matter, I understand that the Chief Statistician at Statistics Canada regards this as a serious matter which is important in terms of the operation of that agency. I also understand that he will be undertaking a serious examination of procedures in order to tighten them up.
As Your Honour will know, the current practice has been in effect for many years. That is to say, that there is a pre-release of this information to certain Departments, such as the Department of Finance, the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Office of the Privy Council, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Department of International Trade. The figures are released publicly within 24 hours of release to these officials, which has been the practice for many years.
As I indicated earlier, the fact that specific details were broadcast in advance by the media has caused the Chief Statistician to examine the circumstances to tighten up, hopefully, the procedures in order to ensure that this does not occur again.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate both arguments. I am sure that the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) takes this matter as seriously as does the agency. If the Hon. Member were bringing to me a case with respect to information which, perhaps, was included in an embargoed draft report of one of our parliamentary committees, or some such form, then there might be a question of privilege. However, given that the case he is raising is with regard to information which is properly the property of an agency of the Government and not of Parliament, it would be difficult for me to find that there is a case of parliamentary privilege, notwithstanding the quality of the Hon. Member's grievance and concern. Therefore, I find there is no prima facie case of privilege.
I am also in receipt of a notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).

February 10, 1986
Point of Order-Ms. Copps POINT OF ORDER


UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I regret having to raise this issue again in less than one year. However, I believe that at the time the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cros-bie), who is responsible for the equality of women, called me "baby" in the House some months ago, I brought the issue to the attention of the Chair so that you might consider expanding the list of words which are deemed to be unparliamentary.
In Beauchesne's Fifth Edition Your Honour will see that words such as "scurrilous" and "scoundrel" are defined as unparliamentary. However, the obvious sexist connotation of "baby" is not listed as a word for consideration. I would ask the Chair to consider expanding the list of unparliamentary language to include this particular word. For the women of Canada, as I have said before, to have the Minister of Justice who is responsible for the equality of women consistently make remarks which essentially demonstrate his chauvinist mentality is unacceptable. I would like to see-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is, in fact, raising a point of order and not a question of privilege. I think she knows that she is raising a question of language. In fact, she did raise the matter with me before. I did, in fact, come back to the House on it.
I would now like to take 30 seconds to explain that there is not a list of unparliamentary words. There are simply decisions recorded in Beauchesne's as to what words have been found in past circumstances, in the context of those circumstances, to have caused a disorder in the House and therefore to have been unparliamentary.
The application of that to Question Period is itself a difficult problem because clearly at the moment there was a disorder being caused, in terms of there being a reaction. Clearly, there was a reaction as a result of the response of the Hon. Minister, which is why I rose at the time to say to both participants that words or language which cause reaction and, therefore, cause disorder through that reaction are not helpful to Question Period.
While I agree with the Hon. Member that there is language which should not be used in the House, I cannot accept her request that we publish a list of words which would be regarded as always being unparliamentary. If the Hon. Member were to read Beauchesne's carefully, I think she would find that that would be almost impossible to do. The only word I can think of in that instance off the top of my head is the word "liar".
Therefore, I think the Hon. Member's representations with regard to language are proper. I hope all Hon. Members will take them to heart.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) is not in the House. 1 take it that he will be answering for himself with respect to this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: May I remind the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) that I am not finding that there was an occurence of unparliamentary language which needs further conversation or a retraction. I hope I have made that clear.
In order to be clear to all Members, there is language which should not be used in the House of Commons. I think we all know that. However, in Question Period there is a special need to be careful, although at the same time we are sometimes in a state of difficulty anyway. I do not know how I could find in that situation that a disorder which was extraordinary had occurred.


THE BUDGET
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members will have heard the announcement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) with respect to the date on which he proposes to bring down his Budget. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 65(2) 1 request the designation of an Order of the Day to allow the presentation of a Budget Speech on Wednesday, February 26, next.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present from the Province of Saskatchewan having to do with the Canada Post Corporation. It calls upon Parliament to require Canada Post to assure door-to-door delivery service of an equitable nature and to generally raise its level of service.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition to present, signed by a number of constituents in my riding. They support the recent Canadian Automobile Association and Ontario Motor League findings in a survey they conducted regarding the exorbitance and over-charging on our gasoline prices. They support my efforts in the House in opposing the same.
February 10, 1986


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Notices of Motions;
February 6, 1986-The President of the Privy Council:
That the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders, laid upon the Table on Thursday, February 6, 1986 (Sessional Paper No. 331-7/37A) be adopted and made provisional Standing Orders of the House.
Provided that, unless otherwise ordered:
1.	the said provisional Standing Orders shall be in force from 11.00 o'clock a.m. Monday, February 24, 1986 until the House adjourns on the last sitting day in December, 1986;
2.	and further to the Order made on June 27, 1985, the provisional Standing Orders thereby adopted shall continue in force during the same period; and
3.	the Clerk of the House shall be authorized and instructed to print a revised and renumbered edition of the Standing Orders integrating the provisional Standing Orders and making any necesssary amendments in consequence thereof, or relating thereto in respect of the Standing Orders concerning Private Bills, and to make such changes to the Order Paper and Notices as may be required.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (2) of Standing Order 26, this Government Notice of Motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if question no. 406 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 406 be deemd to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cassidy: 1.	For each year since 1970, what was the average age at retirement of contributors retiring on account of age and who became entitled to immediate annuities under the Public Service Superannuation Act (PSSA), and what was the corresponding average age at retirement assumed in the actuarial valuations of the PSS Account?
2.	By what amount were the actuarial liabilities of the PSS Account for past service increased as a result of changes made in the valuation assumptions on the average age at retirement of contributors retiring on account of age and becoming entitled to immediate annuities?
3.	By what percentage of contributory payroll were employer costs for future service increased as a result of changes made in valuation assumptions on the average age at retirement of contributors retiring on account of age and becoming entitled to immediate annuities?
4.	Were representatives of PSSA contributors and pensioners consulted on changes made in the valuation assumptions on the average age at retirement of contributors retiring on account of age and becoming entitled to immediate annuities and, if not, for what reason?
Excise Tax Act
5.	What are the corresponding answers to parts 1 to 4 with respect to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act?
Return tabled.


Philip Derek Lewis: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words regarding this legislation. It is legislation which will have enormous impact on ordinary Canadians. It implements key aspects of the May Budget. Specifically, it increases sales and excise taxes. A sales tax is simply a percentage tax on the price of goods we buy. It will have a direct and very important effect upon consumers. An excise tax is assessed at a fixed rate on units of things we purchase such as a litre of gasoline. This also will have a very dramatic effect upon the pocket-books of consumers across this country. Both taxes will hurt consumers. There is one positive but minor change in this legislation, and the Government deserves credit for it. The administration of the excise tax as it affects retailers is being changed so that when there is a dispute about the liability for tax, the collection of the tax can be delayed until the dispute is resolved. However, that does not take away from the over-all negative nature of the legislation.
This legislation will have enormous impact. Sales taxes are going to be increased on construction materials, cable and pay television services, alcoholic beverages, tobacco products and other goods. The total cost of the sales tax increases to Canadian consumers will be $990 million during the year 1986-87. Candy and confectioneries, soft drinks, pet foods, certain health foods and energy conservation equipment, all formerly exempt, are now subject to tax. it is a pretty mean Government that removes the tax exemption for candy bought by children with their allowance. The Government has chosen to take pennies out of the pockets of children in order to pursue this deficit fixation.

February 10, 1986
Excise Tax Act
Increasing taxes on health goods will also have a very real impact on elderly Canadians. It is not enough that the Government attempted to deindex old age pensions partially; it is now introducing sales taxes on the goods they need for health purposes. As well, energy conservation equipment is losing its exemption. With the world price of crude oil dropping, perhaps the Government has forgotten that energy conservation is crucial to the long-term economic health of this country. By doing this the Government is saying that it is not concerned at all with energy conservation. That is a very short-sighted and foolish policy for any Government. The fact that oil prices are dropping today does not mean they will continue to drop. In fact, we know the opposite will be the case.
The excise tax on gasoline and diesel and aviation fuel is going to be increased as well. When Members of the Government were in opposition they talked about world oil prices and a better deal for the consumer. Yet today we have falling world oil prices and prices at the pumps are being kept high by the companies who dominate the market. This Government has refused to take any effective action to bring those prices down. It has refused to use Petro-Canada as a lever in ensuring fair prices at the pump. Instead, the Government continues to maintain artificially high prices for gasoline. On top of that, it raises the taxes on gasoline.
Taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are also going up. There are obviously morale and health questions concerning the use of alcohol and cigarettes, many of which I am in sympathy with. Howerver, when the Government increases taxes on cigarettes and alcohol it simply takes another swipe at the consumer.
The total price tag for these increases to the consumer is something like $3.5 billion. That number is pretty hard to conceptualize, but it is an enormous amount. It is a tremendous burden on consumers at a time when they are feeling the pinch with regard to the cost of living. This measure shows the foolhardiness of the Government and its lack of concern for Canadians.
I could say many more things about these measures, but I will conclude my remarks. These measures are unfair in that they hit poor people more than they do wealthy Canadians. The Government could have found other sources of revenue. The negative economic impact of these measures has been documented as they affect most areas of the economy, particularly the tourism industry. Most of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that these tax measures affect low income Canadians more than they do upper income Canadians at a time when poverty is on the increase in the country. The Government should take note of the fact that the number of poor people in the country is increasing. Its tax policy should reflect that and it should show some concern for the people at the bottom end of the ladder.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is the following one. Mrs. McDougall, seconded by Mr. Hees, moves that Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be now read the third time and passed. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you have been able to ascertain whether or not the bells did in fact ring in the Confederation Building. I was informed that they did not, but I am not at all clear whether they rang at any time to notify Hon. Members that there was a vote contemplated. If they did not ring, I would like to suggest that the vote be delayed until such time as the bells are functioning properly, perhaps even until later today, at the end of the day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With regard to the first point of the Hon. Member's intervention concerning the fact that the bells may not have rung in the Confederation Building, the Chair has been notified of that. We have asked for a report from the Sergeant-at-Arms, which we have not received as yet. As far as delaying the vote is concerned, this is a matter for the Whips to decide.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that this should not set a precedent for any furture votes. I want the Government to understand that if the bells did not ring calling Hon. Members to the House, it is a difficult situation for them to be in.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, could I ask the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) whether he is expecting any Members? If he is not- [English]
Is he waiting for someone from the Confederation Building, because if the bells did not ring there we will wait. However, if there is nobody to wait for, we should vote.
February 10, 1986


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of whether or not I am waiting for anyone. It is a question of whether Hon. Members have been properly notified that a division is about to take place. I am prepared to allow that the vote should proceed, but I want to make it clear that in fact there is a requirement that the bells at least ring at some point in order that Hon. Members be notified. I want it to be noted that that did not happen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On this matter, the Chair will be solely guided by the Whips.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, to be perfectly clear, since this is an unusual situation, and there is a possibility that some Hon. Members will not be able to get here because the bells did not ring in their offices or their buildings-
I will sit down, but on the understanding that this does not create a precedent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the taking of the vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson)-Environmental Affairs-Prairie Wildlife Interpretation Centre; the Hon. Member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Clifford)-Senior Citizens-Housing needs in own neighbourhoods; the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi)- Visible Minorities-Redress for Japanese Canadians interned during World War II. (b) Request that action be postponed pending receipt of report.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, as reported (with amendments) from the legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are four stated motions on Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 2 and 3 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately. Motion No. 4 will be debated and voted on separately.

February 10, 1986
Immigration Act, 1976


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-55, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 8 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"fewer than seven and not more than thirty-six".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to see that some Members on the government side are prepared to agree to this particular amendment. Members will know-


Philip Derek Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we agreed to the motion being put in the absence of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). We did not agree to the motion.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I did not know whether the vote would be taken, whether in fact Members would be prepared to listen to the reasons for which my colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina, who is our immigration critic, had hoped that the House would accept this particular amendment.
Members will know that the purpose of Bill C-55 is to allow the expansion of the Immigration Appeal Board from its present maximum of 18 members to a maximum of 50. They will also know that the Bill was put forward at the same time that the Plaut Report was being prepared looking at the question of refugee determination, and winding up proposals for alternative means of refugee determination
Members will know that the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration considered the Plaut Report and came back and endorsed most of its recommendations quite conclusively. The major one was that the Immigration Appeal Board should not be used as a chosen vehicle for making refugee determination decisions, but that there should be a separate board to do that difficult and very important job. The feeling that the committee had, the Plaut Commission had and certainly our Party has, is that the question of refugee determination is something that Canadians feel is important. We do not feel that people who are refugees should be forced out of Canada and sent back to homelands where they may risk death, imprisonment or persecution.
Now, how does this affect the amendment which is to limit the proposed increase in the size of the board to a maximum of 36 rather than the proposed 50? It affects it in this way: we have two processes going on side by side. On the one hand the Immigration Appeal Board is to be expanded, according to this Bill, to 50 members at a maximum. Yet on the other hand an all-Party committee has unanimously endorsed recommendations that refugee determination questions should be taken out of the hands of the Immigration Appeal Board. We know that originally the Government's proposal was that the board should be expanded to 36 members in order to deal with sponsorship and a number of other procedural questions where delays were beginning to take hold. I would assume that was done with the concurrence and agreement of the Government.
In future, if someone who claims refugee status on appeal and wishes to have an oral hearing before one member of the board, he or she may do so, but if he or she does not consent,
then the original procedure of a three-person appeal board and hearing will have to be followed. As I understand it, that means that the amendments to the appeal board portion of Bill C-55 will help to solve problems of work overload which the appeal board has been experiencing in a number of the other sections for which it is responsible. The board will not in the main resolve the question of refugee determination and, according to the recommendations of the Commons Standing Committee and of the Plaut Report, it should not do so. The Government will remain charged with the responsibility of acting on the Plaut Report, and l hope that means creating a convention refugee determination commission or board which will work on a non-adversarial basis, will not have to work only on the basis of the judicial rules of evidence, and will be able to make compassionate recommendations to the Ministry even in cases where it does not find that a prima facie case for refugee status actually exists. Those are matters on which the Government will have to make a decision.
The reason the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) and I are proposing that the size of the Immigration Appeal Board be restricted to a maximum of 36 members is, as we have argued before, that we do not want to see an appeal board, the existence of which has been questioned as recently as today in a long article in The Globe and Mail because of its failure or perceived failure to act in a quasi-judicial way due to problems in administration, perpetuated because of its vast size and become an institution. If this happens, the Government, because of its size, may be hesitant to cut back on, reorganize, or quite possibly, even eliminate or restructure it entirely. That is a fairly lengthy argument but that is why we are proposing that the maximum size be limited to 36 members rather than 50 as was originally proposed.
The compromise that refugee cases cannot be considered by a single-person panel except where the refugee claimant consents means that this is not now a Bill which is designed to eliminate the backlog of refugee applicants before the appeal board. Another procedure will have to be found. Under those circumstances, it does not make sense to go forward with an increase of the appeal board to 50 members when the reason for the increase to 50 members was that the Government thought at one time that it could use this particular device to eliminate the backlog.
I would like to conclude by saying that it is the opinion of my Party, and we think of most Canadians, that questions of refugee determinations which are life-and-death determinations in many cases must be dealt with in a very serious, thoughtful and sensitive way. A new procedure has been proposed by the Commons committee and by the Plaut Report. We hope that that procedure is followed and that the Government does not try to find some back-door way of doing indirectly what the committee determined in its hearings on Bill C-55 it should not be able to do directly. I do hope that the Hon. Minister of State will be able to consent to this particular amendment, which I think makes sense at this time, bearing in mind that the question of refugee determination is bound to come before the House again in the near future.
February 10, 1986


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) who has been speaking on behalf of his Party's critic, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). First, I would assure the Hon. Member that the Government is seized of the matter of the new refugee determination policy, and I can assure him that as soon as possible we will be bringing before the House a new system based on the extensive recommendations and representations that have been made to us.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre made reference to the report of Rabbi Plaut. For the sake of the record I might remind the House and the Hon. Member that Rabbi Plaut recommended that the existing system be expanded by an increase of members to the Immigration Appeal Board.
The amendment of the Hon. Member for Spadina is one which was introduced in committee and we have had an opportunity to fully discuss it. The effect of that amendment would limit the number of members of the board at a level which we already suspect we might need during this interim period, until new legislation is in place. If indeed that is the case, surely it is wiser to have the potential for a greater number of appointments should they be required, rather than having to propose new legislation and go through the same process.
The Bill as it now stands, allows a far greater flexibility in terms of the role to be played by the IAB during this transition period. It allows for the IAB to be expanded to better serve those outlying communities in the Maritimes and the West. I reiterate, the Bill is allows a greater degree of flexibility for the board, and for this reason I feel that this amendment should be defeated.
On this occasion, I would like in general to speak more generally about Bill C-55 and the process that it has gone through since its introduction into Parliament last June. For a Bill of such modesty yet important on substance, it has had a remarkable passage, which shows that the democratic process is alive and well and working across the country.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I really do not like doing this, but if we want to proceed in an orderly way with report stage of the Bill, we must stick to amendments as they are taken up and discussed. We are dealing with the First amendment, but I take it the Minister now wants to speak to the principle of the Bill in general. I would ask him, in a spirit of generosity, to try to stick to the amendments so that we do not get too confused.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair, of course, believes that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is right in his representations.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the justification of the Government for the rejection, is surely part of the substance of the motion. Let me, merely say to the Hon. Member, who seems to be in a mood to facilitate the passage of this Bill, that I want to inform the House and the public that there has been wide
Immigration Act, 1976
consultation. There were consultations before the legislation was drawn up and consultations in committee with many groups from across the country. I would like to pay tribute to them for coming at their own expense to Ottawa to make their concerns known. As well, I want to express our appreciation for the work that was done by the legislative committee.
We want to underline the Government's opinion and belief that what we have before us is a strong Bill. Acceptance of this will also demonstrate that we have made a number of accommodations in the process. We are now putting some flexibility into the instrument of the board, to carry us through the months that lie ahead. Let me conclude by indicating that we will be dealing not only with the machinery, but with the important issue of the appeal rights for citizens and permanent residents. At this time we will be moving forward on this basic human rights issue at this time.
On behalf of the Government, I must oppose the motion as proposed by the Hon. Member for Spadina, and I ask for the co-operation of Hon. Members to see that we are able to move ahead with these motions without delay.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Motion No. 1 moved by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Regardless of whether the number of commissioners is set at 29, 36 or 40, our Party agrees with the general thrust of the motion. That is to say that I think the Government is more preoccupied with the roots or the by-products of the problem than with the cause. There has been considerable concern expressed that we are institutionalizing the Immigration Appeal Board so that we can resolve the tremendous backlog of some 20,000 refugee claimant cases, as well as other immigration appeals which have come forward from Canadian sponsors and abroad.
In this morning's issue of The Globe and Mail there was a considerable and lengthy article with respect to the whole question of the Immigration Appeal Board and its membership. Rather than quibbling over whether the number should be 50 or 36, I think we should be taking a hard look at the very substance of the board, how it functions and where the problems lie. There was a suggestion in the article, which was voiced by various experts who appeared before the committee, that there should be a separate body put in place to deal with the refugee problem. That seems to say that we are more preoccupied with the symptoms than with the causes of the backlog. What this Party has attempted to do, in conjunction with various community elements, is to speak to those causes. Whether we have 40, 50 or 60 commissioners, there is still a backlog of some 20,000 refugee cases. With all due respect, what we need is a policy which will free that log-jam.
I submit that if we go from 16 or 20 to 50, a considerable amount of time will still be needed to deal with those applications. Countless individuals came before the committee-and there was a huge demonstration in front of Parliament Hill a

February 10, 1986
Immigration Act, 1976
few weeks ago in this vein-who spoke to the frustrations felt by individuals living in Toronto or Montreal 10 or 12 to a room, waiting for their applications to be dealt with. As a Parliament we cannot now say that the appointment of 50 commissioners as opposed to 18 or 20 will solve the problem. Of course, a number of applications will be resolved somewhat sooner. However, when one looks at the parameters of the situation with this backlog, one finds that we need solutions which speak to the totality of the problem as opposed to the quick figures.
If we do come through with a solution which speaks to the backlog, then what will we do with a board of 50 commissioners which is too large to deal with individual claims after we have wiped the slate clean? I wish to draw to the attention-


Mr. Weiner:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I admire the ruling you just made with respect to sticking to the motion. We are now listening to a discussion with respect to a principle and a process. Could the Hon. Member not stick to the motion?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I respect what the Hon. Member says. I do not think I was going above and beyond the motion.
In closing, I would like to say that we agree with the general thrust of the motion put forwad by the Hon. Member for Spadina. It does not deal with the symptoms. It concentrates on coming up with a solution which will address in a bold and courageous way the cause of the problem. The problem will not be solved by increasing the number of commissioners. I think that is the message the Hon. Member wishes to convey to the House. We in this Party support the motion. It is also supported by various communities.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the legislative committee and the standing committee, I urge Hon. Members to defeat Motion No. 1 on the basis of the following logic and information. As a result of the information which came to the committee from witnesses, it is not difficult to envisage that an expanded board of 50 members would take between two and three years to deal with the backlog of cases, not including refugee cases. It would deal simply with the backlog in terms of family reunification cases and the addition of rights of landed immigrants, which is contained in the Bill, to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board on behalf of family sponsorship. With respect to the backlog and the increased workload with respect to family reunification cases, an expanded board of 50 members would take between two and three years to get caught up.
In its wisdom the committee amended the Bill before reporting it back to the House to ensure that these additional people will be employed by the Government of Canada to undertake that job on behalf of the people of Canada for a maximum term of two years. We are not instituting something by which people would be in place for five, 10 or 15 years. If Hon. Members would read carefully the amended Bill as reported from committee, they would see that appointees would be appointed for two-year terms only. One assurance we had from
the chairman of the board was that refugee claimants would not have their appeals heard by the board unless they requested it. In other words, any refugee claimant in the system has the power, through the system, to delay his hearing until a new system is put in place. The standing committee certainly dealt with the Plaut Report and with the refugee backlog. It has provided the Government with advice on how to deal with the matter.
However, I think the debate will advance more quickly and in better form if we do not cloud matters with the refugee issue. These commissioners are needed on the appeal board to deal with family reunification appeals. The increased number is not needed and will not be used in any major way to deal with the refugee cases. It is necessary to move as quickly as we can with respect to this issue. The suffering which is felt by a Canadian or a landed immigrant who wants to bring his or her mother, father, brother or sister to the country and is blocked at the appeal stage simply because of a lack of resources to hear the appeal is certainly a real tragedy.
I urge Hon. Members to limit the debate and to move as quickly as we can. If it is felt necessary, then a vote can be taken, if that is what members of the Opposition want. However, the faster we can recruit these new commissioners, train them and get them hearing cases, the more humanely will the Parliament of Canada be acting for some people who really need this type of help. The matter has been on our plate since June, and the faster we can deal with it the sooner more people in the country will be satisfied by the process.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a problem with which I and, I am sure, many other Members of Parliament have frequently faced recently. I refer to the problem of constituents who have come to Canada in recent years from countries such as Poland, Portugual, India or the West Indies and who have a sister or brother still living in the country from which they came. They believe in family reunification, as do members of the Government and Members of Parliament. However, in fact, when they try to arrange for their family member to join them in Canada, they usually face problems and are turned down even before they can get to the Immigration Appeal Board. They are turned down for two reasons. The first reason is that the income of the family which is sponsoring the application is too low. I believe the income requirements which the Government has set down are much too tough. Second, they are turned down because they do not have a job offer which supposedly meets the required needs of this country. When the Minister announced a few months ago that there would be a substantial increase in the number of people permitted to come to Canada, I was quite hopeful. However, it seems to me, from inquiries made by my constituents that the only new people coming to Canada under these new guidelines are people who have a substantial amount of money and-


Walter Franklin McLean: Read your mail.
February 10, 1986


David Orlikow: The Minister tells me to read my mail. He arranged for a briefing last week. Because I could not be there I sent my assistant and I asked him to ask these two specific questions which I have mentioned. Aside from the income required, with which I have already dealt, when it came to job requirements we looked at the list of 100 occupations and found that they are so highly skilled and specialized that most applications will be turned down because the jobs those people can perform do not fall within that 100. I am disappointed. I thought the Minister was really sympathetic to the concept of familly reunification. I have to say that I am disappointed in what I have seen up until now and I hope he will look at this question again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) is rising on a point of order, I presume.


Sergio Marchi: Are we not allowed to participate more than once at report stage?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is right.


Sergio Marchi: I thought we were.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No.


Sergio Marchi: Perhaps I can have the consent of the House to ask a question of the Minister whom I see in his place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there consent to allow the Hon. Member to ask a question of the Minister?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sergio Marchi: I thank Hon. Members.


John Barry Turner: Remember that.


Sergio Marchi: We have been contemplating increasing the number of commissioners from 18 to possibly 50. Debate has been waged in recent days on the question of who should be a member of the Immigration Appeal Board. Some say it should only be lawyers who can deal with the legal questions. Some are saying that the majority of commissioners should come from those communities with which the board is going to be dealing. Does the Minister favour the legal profession over that of members of the community concerned? Is it a question of balance? This is a subject on which I think a lot of people would like to hear the position of the Minister.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member. He will know that any criticism being made is a result of the current system which the Hon. Member's Party put in place. Obviously we will welcome his observations on the matter.
It is quite apparent that there needs to be a balance between the legal and the ethnic sensitivities. The Hon. Member will know that we had some discussion about the, duration of new appointments. What we are now dealing with is people who may be available for two years rather than the long-term appointments which the Act presently calls for.
Immigration Act, 1976


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I think I understand that because this is report stage one does not have the same flexibility one has in committee stage. I have a question arising out of the Minister's comments which I can put now or during the debate. I prefer to put it now, but I am in your hands.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to ask one question of the Minister?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Could the Minister be more specific in his comments about when we will hear an announcement concerning the policy regarding the refugee determination process? When does he expect the legislation to come forward? If it is going to be delayed, there is room for everyone to be concerned. If it is going to happen very soon, then there is no reason why, despite the comments of my friend from Calgary, we could not increase the board to 36 now and, if it needs further expansion, then we can do so when the refugee determination legislation is before us.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, it is the Government's intention to bring legislation before the House this spring. As the Hon. Member will know, it will take some time before one can actually bring the new processes into play. I can only assure him that we are moving as fast as humanly possible. We need the new legislation in place and we hope to have it in the next few months. I cannot be more precise than that.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister concerning this matter as well, particularly in light of the discussion concerning expanding the numbers on the board to 50 as opposed to the amendment before us which talks about a maximum of 36.
As I understand it-and I would like the Minister to confirm this-it will require 50 members of the board in order to clear away the current backlog of cases, apart from the refugee cases, within two years. Is that correct?
I would also like him to comment on the term of appointment of these people based on some of the comments we have heard here this afternoon. As I understand it, the original term was Five years, but now we are talking about two years with one further extension, which I assume means one further term of two years. The Minister has indicated that he intends to recommend the appointment to this board some members of the legal profession. Does the Minister sincerely believe we can recruit capable people to serve on this board for as short a period a time as that, particularly members of the legal profession? Does he seriously think members of the legal profession and other competent peole will pause in their career for two years in order to be appointed to this board to clear away the backlog of cases, following which they will have to go back and pick up their lives again?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Minister to answer the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 10, 1986
Public Pensions Reporting Act Mr. Clinch: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On this question?


Mr. Clinch:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Control your own Members.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.


George Albert Proud: On division.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Heap) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it five o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   PUBLIC PENSIONS REPORTING ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-255, an Act to impose reporting requirements with respect to public pension plans and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As Hon. Members are aware, on today's Notice Paper there are three report stage motions in amendment to C-255. These motions will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-255, be amended in Clause 11 by striking out line 4 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"Superannuation Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"27. In accordance with the Public Pensions Reporting Act, a cost certificate, an actuarial valuation report and an assets report on the state of the Superannuation Account shall be prepared, filed with the Minister designated under that Act and laid before Parliament." "
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-255, be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 6 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
Superannuation Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"35. In accordance with the Public Pensions Reporting Act, a cost certificate, an actuarial valuation report and an assets report on the state of the Superannuation Account shall be prepared, filed with the Minister designated under that Act and laid before Parliament."
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-255, be amended in Clause 13 by sriking out line 9 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"repealed and the following substituted therefor:
25. In accordance with the Public Pensions Reporting Act, a cost certificate, an actuarial valuation report and an assets report on the state of the Superannuation Account shall be prepared, filed with the Minister designated under that Act and laid before Parliament."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on Motion No. 1?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 1 ?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. McCrossan) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 2?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. McCrossan) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 3?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. McCrossan) agreed to.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Paul Joseph McCrossan: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak briefly today on the third reading of Bill C-255, the Public Pensions Reporting Act. Several months ago I spoke during the special debate on parliamentary reform. At that time I dealt particularly with two items in the parliamentary reform process. The first was the desirability of having the first Private Members' Bill
February 10, 1986

passed through the Elouse. The second was the desirability of having a Member, for the first time, vote against his own Party to establish the independence of Members of Parliament. Members who were present at that debate will remember that I did not volunteer for the second role.
Today I hope to see the first substantive Private Members' Bill passed in 11 years because I believe it is important for the parliamentary reform process, which I understand will be debated in the House tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, it is not very often, as Members know, that Private Members' Bills come to third reading.
There are many individuals whom I would like to thank for getting this Bill to the third reading stage the day before we are going to discuss the parliamentary reform of the House. Particularly, in the official Opposition, the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), and the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) were very helpful to me in getting this Bill as far as it has gone. With regard to members of the NDP, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) also helped me in getting the Bill this far.
I also want to thank the many Ministers who were involved in this Bill, including the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes), and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), as well as the Chief Actuary, the Auditor General, and the Comptroller General, for their support. 1 also want to thank the many members of my own Party, including the Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner), who attended hearings and offered their help. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention Michael Beaupre, the Assistant Law Clerk of the House of Commons, who worked so hard on this Bill in an attempt to draft it in a way which would be acceptable to all Members of the House.
I believe this Bill will make a difference to the quality of information available to Members of Parliament and to members of the public about the Old Age Security Act and all federal government employee pension plans. This Bill should make it much more likely that we will keep our pension commitments in the future since Members of the House and members of the public will better understand the nature and the cost of the pensions commitments we have made.
Once again, I would like to thank all Members of the House. I hope this goes down as a historic day in the process of parliamentary reform. I would be honoured to be the first private Member to have his Bill passed in the new spirit of parliamentary reform with active support from all Parties, for it is only with all-Party support for each Private Members' Bill that comes to a vote that parliamentary reform will endure.
Since this Bill passed unanimously in committee, and I believe it will pass third reading unanimously today, I hope we will have speedy Senate approval and proclamation.
Public Pensions Reporting Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in a debate that is unique, in that a Private Member, in one session, has managed to present a Bill as important as this one and get it through the report stage to third reading with the unanimous consent of the House. I have been a Member of this House for thirteen years, and it is the first time I have seen this happen. I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member, not only for having tabled the Bill but also for his political acumen, because he has managed to convince us all that it was a good Bill and that its passage was absolutely necessary if it was to have any impact in the near future.
I will therefore be brief. I think that basically, the Hon. Member is to be congratulated, I say it once again, on tabling this Bill. 1 know he is an expert on actuarial matters. I know that he has worked very hard to convince his Government that this was a sensible piece of legislation.
As far as I am concerned, I am proud to say that I agree with him on the concept of a Bill that is more or less asking the Government to provide actuarial tables and projections on a three-yearly basis, so that we will all know where we are going with these pension plans, which, as we all know, concern hundreds of thousands of Canadians, whether they are in the Canadian Forces, whether they are Members of Parliament or in the Public Service or in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police .. . and the Judges Act and the Old Age Security Act.
Mr. Speaker, that being said, I may inform you that we are very pleased to take part in the debate on third reading and that we are giving our consent for third reading of this Bill today, without further delay. Once again, I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member on tabling this Bill.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to offer my congratulations to the Hon. Member for York-Scar-borough (Mr. McCrossan) for the tremendous amount of work that he did in preparing this Bill for presentation to the House for first reading. From my own personal experience 1 know the amount of hard work that he did in getting this Bill through committee with all-Party agreement.
As I said on second reading of this Bill, this Bill will ensure that Members of Parliament and the public will receive full information as quickly as possible about the details of pensions plans. In that respect alone, I have no hesitation in saying, as 1 have said before in both committee and in the House, that this Party fully supports the Bill in its final form.
Again, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough on behalf of individual Members in my own Party and, I am sure, other Members in the House, on this, the first Private Members' Bill that has passed through the House containing and dispensing very, very important information to the House of Commons and the Canadian people.

February 10, 1986
Adjournment Debate


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the legislative committee on Bill C-255, and as someone who believes very, very strongly in the process of reform which is taking place in this House, I want to add my congratulations to the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) and to members of all Parties who participated objectively, fairly, and effectively in the discussions we had in committee. I think that demonstrates that this House is not always in an adversarial position and that today is a victory not only for the Member for York-Scarborough, but for all of us and for all Canadians.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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:: Shall I call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 46 deemed to have been moved.

Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, on January 27, I asked a question of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) concerning the future of the Prairie Wildlife Interpretation Centre near Webb, Saskatchewan. 1 would like now to expand on that subject because I perceive that no firm arrangements have been made for the 1986 summer season, and time is of the essence. The Centre is located some 17 miles west of Swift Current on the Trans-Canada Highway. It was opened in 1979. The visitors' centre and the adjoining lands cost in excess of $1 million. Paving of an access road in 1984 cost another $134,000.
The purpose of the centre was to display and interpret to visitors the unique wildlife to be found on the prairies. The centre was part of a network of five centres operated by the Canadian Wildlife Service which were marked in November, 1984 for transfer to the provinces or to the private sector. The other centres are in British Columbia, Ontario and two in the Province of Quebec. The operating budget of the Prairie Wildlife Centre for the 1983 season was $246,000. For 1984 it
was $217,000. In each of those years, approximately 20,000 visitors attended for a per person visit cost of between $11 and $12. Clearly, the centre was not being operated in an effective and efficient manner. It was, therefore, not unreasonable that some spending restraints be imposed.
I understand that some arrangements have been made for the continuing operation of the other four centres on a permanent basis. The problem with the Prairie Wildlife Centre relates directly to its location. It is representative of a vast semi-arid area of western Canada which, by its very nature, is sparsely populated. Southwestern Saskatchewan does not now, and likely never will have, a population base sufficient to support the centre to a break-even point.
The prairies ecology and wildlife is not well understood in Canada. This Centre is, therefore, important in its role of interpreting and translating the vibrancy and uniqueness of this region to visitors and locals alike. Closing the centre after the capital investment has been made and visitor patterns have been established is clearly unacceptable. Most people agree with the objective of cost reduction, but not to the extent of outright closure.
For the 1985 season, the operation was let to a private contractor and funded by the federal and Saskatchewan Governments to the sum of $68,000. This was to be an interim measure while negotiations continued toward the conclusion of a long-term contract. The 1985 summer season was somewhat less than satisfactory in that the opening was not announced until June 13, too late for adequate staffing, planning or preparation. Due to the late start last spring, a lack of marketing and the public perception that the centre was closed, attendance dropped to under 8,000. At the same time the net cost to the taxpayer, after deducting admission fees and land rentals, was under $50,000.
On October 16 last, I asked in this House as to the future of the centre. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Gurbin) stated in part that the Government intended to ensure that the centre remains open and serves the public. Again on January 27, in response to the same question,
I was most encouraged when the Minister replied in part: "The main thing is that we are going to keep that centre open and we are going to make an arrangement at an early date". It is now February 10 and I fear there will be a repeat of 1985. An immediate announcement is necessary. It will not be good enough to make an announcement in April, May or June. In order to give the centre a chance to prove itself sufficient, lead time is required.
Expo 86 opens on May 2 and there will be greatly increased traffic on the Trans-Canada Highway. This represents a tremendous opportunity to draw tourists to the centre, providing arrangements are in place. To gear up for May, the centre must have an operator and funding. There is much work to do and the hour is late. Staff must be hired, displays prepared and advertising done.
An area rancher has offered buffalo to the centre as an additional attraction. He deserves an answer. Each additional day of delay compounds the problem and leads to a less
February 10, 1986

satisfactory operation. We need an immediate announcement concerning 1986, the establishment of a telephone number, thus providing an opportunity for schools and other groups to book tours for May and June.
I urge the Minister to let a contract now for 1986 to the same operator as in 1985. That individual is familiar with the centre and is anxious to proceed. I further urge the Minister to redouble his efforts in seeking out a long-term solution to the future of the centre. The centre, in the short term at least, cannot survive on entrance fees and lease rentals. It is located in an area of sparse population but, nonetheless, an area with its own unique ecology and special wildlife heritage which is worthy of promotion and maintenance. That is the basis for its being and that remains the justification for its continuation.
The centre requires some Government support. I am not talking about vast sums of money. It is not a Cadillac type of operation. My constituents understand the enormity of the national debt and the paralysing effect that the interest charges which must be paid on that debt have. They appreciate that the operating budgets of the pre-1985 years are simply unacceptable relevant to that deficit. Clearly, the purpose of the centre, which is to display and interpret the unique wildlife of the prairie, is a worthy one. People in my constituency of Swift Current-Maple Creek want to see the centre continue. They also want to see it run effectively, efficiently, and at the least possible cost to the taxpayer.
I conclude by repeating that the successful operation of the Prairie Wildlife Interpretation Centre requires lead time for staffing, display preparation, program planning and advertising. Time is short. I respectfully urge an early and meaningful response in order that the centre can be opened in time to serve school groups, tourists and other members of the public.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to commend my colleague, the Hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson), for his interest in the environment and, specifically, in the future of the Prairie Wildlife Interpretation Centre near Webb, Saskatchewan, in his riding. I appreciate that he has made representations to the Minister on this particular park as recently as January 9, I believe, when he proposed a cost-shared arrangement.
As the House will know, this is part of our Government's response to the problems with which we are faced with respect to the deficit. At the same time, we continue to have concern for the environment and also an appreciation for the importance of interpretation centres such as this one. I understand that the Minister had the Hon. Member's letter for consideration and discussions are taking place. I will, on behalf of the Government, endeavour to have the Minister reply to the Hon. Member as soon as possible.


SENIOR CITIZENS-HOUSING NEEDS IN OWN NEIGHBOURHOODS
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, on November 1, 1985, I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) if the Government would consider a
Adjournment Debate
new policy directives with regard to the care of seniors in Canada. We have a tremendous need to preparing Canada and Canadians for the 21st century. Presently there are 2.6 million Canadian seniors, which is 10 per cent of the population. By the year 2021 there will be an estimated 5.9 million Canadian seniors, which will be 20 per cent of the population. That becomes a pressing problem. When the National Council on Aging filed its report in January of this year, it said that the number one concern of seniors, was shelter. Their concern is where they are going to live, in what neighbourhoods will they well spend their twilight years. When that concern is coupled with the fact that over 1 million Canadians today, mainly the young and young marrieds, are having problems finding housing, we can see a tremendous difficulty ahead in deciding how we are going to direct our resources and what our policies will be. Basically we have the question, how Canadians take care of their kin?
A couple of things have to happen in the area of housing. We have to look at what we have already done in our veteran's program through the initiative called the Aging Veterans Program with its home adaptation service and the home care service. The program has just recently been expanded from 8,000 to 18,000 veterans. It provides adaptations such as grab bars, locking systems on doors and, security systems, et cetera in veterans' homes. The cost of keeping them in their own homes is one-tenth that of putting veterans in a housing care facility for seniors. What a tremendous advantage this is. If we could expand this service to other seniors, not only would we save money, but seniors would be able to stay where they want to be, namely in their own homes.
We have portable flexible modular housing, which is added to an existing residence, this enables seniors could live with their families. These additions, also referred to as granny flats, are designed specifically for. I understand that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation through its Design Committee is accepting proposals for new designs for the exterior and interior of housing for seniors. This report is due, I understand, in April.
These kinds of initiatives through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be of great help. At the same time, we have to find a way to bring home care to seniors in a wider context. We should investigate through our two ministries, of National Health and Welfare and Housing and Labour to see whether seniors can get vouchers for home care to pay for daily assistance to meet the needs and the responsibilities of running a house and living a normal life. Again are tremendous possibilities in this Field.
I realize the limitations because of federal and provincial responsibilities. A lot of health care is handed over to the provinces. Through some initiatives in these two ministries, the federal Government could show the lead and people would benefit.

February 10, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Canada is facing a major problem with an aging society which is starting to dominate in percentages. We are creeping up toward 20 per cent of the population in the over 65 age group. They are very healthy people because of diet and strides in medicine in the 20th century. They want to live in their own neighborhoods where they are comfortable with their friends to enjoy these years. We must find ways of keeping seniors in their homes with dignity. An extension of such programs as the Aging Veterans Program and extensions of CMHC's housing is important. We need to design housing that will not become a dinosaur. We have to get the dynamics of architecture involved so that we do not build something that is not needed in the 21st century.
We have over-built certain kinds of housing which no one else can use. In the latter part of the 20th century we overbuilt schools. The children who went to these schools are now forming the nucleus of what will be the graying society in the early part of the 21st century in Canada.
With some of these initiatives, Mr. Speaker, we could go on to bigger things.


Mr. Joe Price (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for his representations on behalf of senior citizens. He is to be commended for his thoughtfulness and ingenuity in suggesting some solutions to a very serious problem.
When the Member first posed the question, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) replied that the Government is in complete agreement with the importance of helping seniors to live independently for as long as possible. It is without any hesitation that I repeat that position today.
That being said, I would like to inform the Member of the many initiatives through several Departments and agencies at the federal level that are already under way and that have the objective of helping our seniors to remain in their own homes for as long as possible.
Within the Department of National Health and Welfare, we are developing a strategy to promote health among older Canadians and to improve their quality of life. In the area of health services, we have produced guidelines for the establishment of services, such as day care centres since such centres have proved to be effective in postponing entry of the elderly into institutions. Other guidelines on rehabilitation services and on the prevention of progressive incapacity with aging are currently being prepared. In addition, the Department supports many projects to promote community living through its funding programs.
The Department is also actively exploring ways to promote independent living from a social service perspective. We are working very closely with homemakers associations across the country to improve training standards and to produce guidelines for the provision of adequate home care services. We also recognize that the income of seniors can influence their capacity to live independently. This is why we enhanced the financial situation of many of our seniors by expanding the Spouse's Allowance Program to all low income widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64. This goal has also led
us to discussions with the provinces aimed at improving the Canada Pension Plan.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation also has this objective of independent living in mind in providing as many options as possible with respect to meeting the housing needs of seniors. These include funding research, as the Member has indicated, on innovative concepts such as granny flats and home sharing. It also means administering programs to help finance renovations and retrofitting of housing to make it more accessible and suitable. These programs are used heavily by seniors. Furthermore, CMHC has various social housing programs that add to the stock of housing for the elderly appropriate to independent living.
As indicated by the Hon. Member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Clifford), there are many Government departments involved in assisting seniors to live independently. Some I have mentioned, others the Member has mentioned. Veterans Affairs is another example. Although there is no single policy aimed at ensuring that seniors can remain in their own residences and thus improve their quality of life, there are many responses by the Government to that end.


VISIBLE MINORITIES-REDRESS FOR JAPANESE CANADIANS INTERNED DURING WORLD WAR II. (B) REQUEST THAT ACTION BE POSTPONED PENDING RECEIPT OF REPORT
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate to review a question I asked in Question Period on January 28 of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek). I referred to the ongoing dilemma of the Japanese Canadian redress.
The gist of my question on January 28 was two-fold. First, would the Minister show decency and patience to wait for a study and report commissioned by the Japanese Canadian community to look into the historical perspective of the losses and sufferings caused some 40 years ago. Second, was the Minister prepared to keep the commitment of his own Government to initiate a compensation package with the representatives of the National Association of Japanese Canadians.
The question was prompted by the Minister's Rambo-like actions the day before the Japanese association was in Ottawa. The Minister had met with the association, as did my Leader and myself, but in the press conference he referred to the national association as "dragging their feet" and as "trying to get their act together". He imposed, through those quotes, the deadline that unless the national association moved quickly and came to the Government table, he would perhaps proceed unilaterally as his predecessor attempted.
The editorials in the newspapers across the country the day after certainly took the Minister to task. I should like to refer to a few of them. The article in The Toronto Star captioned "Time for PM to intervene" read as follows:
It's time the Prime Minister, a man with proven skills as a negotiator, put an end to Jelinek's bullying tactics. Mulroney should take over the issue himself, and deliver an honourable settlement. That would be an act of leadership.
February 10, 1986

The article which appeared in the Vancouver Sun was captioned "Where's the fire?" and read:
Multiculturalism Minister Otto Jelinek's impatience to settle the issue of compensation for Japanese Canadians for the mistreatment they suffered during the Second World War is insensitive if not insulting.
The article in The Citizen entitled "Jelinek acting like Rambo in compensation wrangle" read:
One wonders just what exactly, then, the situation is. When Brian Mulroney was running for office, he spoke often of both apology and redress, something the Japanese Canadians warmly welcomed.
An editorial entitled "Mr. Jelinek's haste" in The Globe and Mail read:
This is the man Prime Minister Mulroney has entrusted with redressing what Mr. Mulroney has rightly called "an historic injustice." Can he not find someone with sympathy for the job?
An article written by Walter Stewart in The Toronto Sun and entitled "Jelinek shows his chutzpa" read:
It is that wrong that Jelinek now says Canada is willing to right. But only at his price, and only in his time. If he gets away with it, the crime will be compounded.
The whole thrust of those articles was simply to try to bring home to the Government, and particularly to the Minister, that the issue deserved the respect and sensitivity which other issues we debate in Parliament and throughout the country obtain. The Minister must keep the commitment offered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and by his predecessor, that they would mainly do two things: first, that they would negotiate compensation for the Japanese Canadian community. They said that very clearly, not only in speeches across the country but in a press release dated December, 1984. They also said that they would negotiate with the national association, the representative body of that constituency.
The Minister has spent considerable time on the differences which may exist within the Japanese Canadian community

differences of opinion, differences in approach and differences in process. That happens every day on virtually every issue we discuss in the Chamber. There is no unanimity on anything. There is no complete agreement on a process or a solution. In the end we try to build a consensus. We try to speak with and through the national organizations speaking for their constituencies. Whether it is The Canadian Bankers Association of the National Farmers Association, in the end we have a responsibility to deal with the structures that are in place and were elected by the constituencies they represent. I cannot see why the Minister chooses to spend most of his energy downgrading this national association. What he should be doing is negotiating, discussing and working closely with the national association so that together we can strike an agreement which will do us proud. He is not doing that.
Another factor is that the Minister is forgetting that the injustices to these individuals were against Canadian citizens, by and large. Ninety per cent of those individuals who lost their land, who lost their fishing boats, who lost their property, who lost their life savings, were Canadian citizens of Japanese ancestry. That does not change the fact that the rights of Canadians were abused. Therefore we should not only threat it
Adjournment Debate
as a minority issue or as a multicultural issue. It is not only that. It is wider. It speaks to the fundamental rights which you, Mr. Speaker, and I as Canadians enjoy today. Those Canadian rights, some 40 years ago, were trampled upon.
Perhaps the Minister of State for Multiculturalism-and I am saying this objectively-is not the appropriate Minister to be dealing with this issue. It is an issue of basic Canadian human rights. Rather than treating it from a multicultural perspective, perhaps we should have the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) dealing with what is essentially an injustice against Canadian citizens.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) and 1 dealt with the Japanese Canadian redress issue not too long ago during an adjournment debate. I think the Hon. Member would agree that the issue is of such importance that it bears repeating and putting on the record, once again, the superb efforts of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek) up to this point.
The Government continues to place high importance upon finding a just and equitable form of redress for Japanese Canadians, and upon finding a meaningful way to restore honour and dignity to Canadian citizens who were deprived of their rights and freedoms during World War II.
The Government believes that the matter of redress must be shared by all Canadians and therefore intends that any action on its part be done through Parliament on behalf of all Canadians. That is why, in our efforts to arrive at a reasonable solution, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism has undertaken to consult with a wide cross-section of Canadians represented by a variety of organizations, including provincial Governments.
Among those organizations, the National Association of Japanese Canadians is recognized as one of the most important representing the interests of Japanese Canadians. In a meeting with the NAJC on Monday, January 27, 1986, we were in general agreement on a number of principles. The Government has indicated its willingness to move forward on such items as: first, a formal acknowledgement and an apology for the events of 1942-43; second, a granting of pardon for those convicted of war-time infractions; third, the reinstatement of citizenship to those whose status was revoked; and, fourth, amendments to the War Measures Act to safeguard against future occurrences of that nature against any ethnic group.
The National Association of Japanese Canadians has commissioned a study by Price Waterhouse to try to determine the value of property and personal belongings lost as a result of the relocation. They have expressed a desire to await the results of that study and to have a complete redress package concluded which would include both monetary and non-monetary considerations.
While the Government sympathizes with that position, we are also aware that there are those in the Japanese Canadian

February 10, 1986
Adjournment Debate
community, including the more elderly survivors, who would like to have the issue resolved and out of the public domain as quickly as possible. Whatever the timing, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, who I believe is doing an excellent job, and the Government of Canada will honour our commitment
to finding a just and equitable resolution as soon as practicable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.39 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, February 11, 1986