1986-02-25

Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present another petition signed by over 900 persons who live within the National Capital Region, and in particular residents who live near Mile Circle Park in my riding, who are strongly opposed to the potential destruction of the parkland within the Mile Circle by the National Capital Commission for commercial use by foreign embassies.


Mr. Speaker:: For the record, the Hon. Member will assure me that that petition has been certified.


John Barry Turner: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it has been certified.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 362 will be answered today.


Mr. de Jong: 1.	Since 1984, how many Scientific Research Tax Credits (SRTC) have been utilized to date by companies or individuals whose asset size are (a) under SI,000,000 (b) $1,000,000 to $9,999,999 (c) $10,000,000 to $19,999,999 (d) $20,000,000 to $29,999,999 (e) $30,000,000 and over, and in each case, how often were such credits resold or flipped by the above listed through companies or individuals?
2.	Since the implementation of the SRTC, what (a) has been the total revenue loss by the Government (6) will be the total revenue loss expected by the Government?
3.	What was the total revenue loss calculated at, prior to the Minister of Finance's announced moratorium on the SRTC?
4.	What is the revenue loss expected to be since the Minister of Finance's announced moratorium or freeze on the SRTC?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
The Department does not capture statistics that reflect the assets of companies or individuals who have utilized the SRTC program.
Since the passage of the SRTC legislation on January 19, 1984 until December 31, 1985, there have been 8,572 designations filed by 1,862 corporations representing $3.4 billion in Part VIII tax. However the total of $3.4 billion includes some $800 million in "rollovers" (purchases of credits by one research company from another research company resulting in double accounting) leaving actual Part VIII tax of $2.6 billion. Of the 1,862 corporations, about 60 per cent were involved in quick-flips.
2.	An estimate of the revenue loss to the Government cannot be provided until after the tax returns of the corporations involved have been audited by the Department's auditors.
To December 31, 1985, as a result of monitoring and review of the designations filed, collections enforcement was actioned on $410 million Part VIII tax, on which payment or security of $ 118 million has been made. In addition, Part VIII tax of $ 111 million has been voluntarily paid or secured.
3 and 4. The Department of National Revenue did not calculate revenue loss prior to the Minister of Finance's announced moratorium of the SRTC on October 10, 1984. Data which was collected as part of the Department's monitoring process was communicated to the Department of Finance and that data related to the number and value of designations which were being recorded.
As mentioned earlier, revenue losses for this program cannot be calculated until after the corporate returns in question have been examined and all avenues of recovery fully implemented.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 25, 1986
Immigration Act, 1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that a Ways and Means motion respecting the Consolidation of Duty Relief, Reduction and Deferral Programs, laid upon the table on Thursday, May 23 1985, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-98, an Act to consolidate various enactments that provide for drawbacks, reductions, refunds and remission of duties, other than export drawbacks for which provision is made in sections 82 to 87 of the Customs Act, to amend the Customs Tariff and to repeal or revoke the enactments so consolidated, be now read the first time and be printed.


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

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Gerry Weiner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this Bill for third reading I would like to make some observations that were not permitted during the report stage, and to clear up some of the confusion that has been generated in previous debate.
I would like to remind the House of the purpose of Bill C-55. The combined effect of these amendments is to allow the 1AB to do more work, to be more efficient, and to retain effectiveness in the face of a mounting queue of appeals. The Bill will also equalize appeal rights between citizens and permanent residents of Canada.
Through the debate it was evident that some Members opposite feel that Bill C-55 is designed to eliminate the refugee claims backlog or pre-empt Parliament's options for a new determination system. Mr. Speaker, the Bill will do neither.
The IAB has a backlog in immigration appeals and in refugee determinations of greater proportion than can be managed by 32 new Members. This capacity, however, will allow the Board to reduce the immigration appeal backlog and prevent further growth until a new and simpler system is legislated and put into effect. Not to do this would deprive many people of an opportunity for a hearing within a reasonable time, and would be an invitation to even greater abuse of the claims process than is now taking place.
In regard to pre-empting the form of a new system, 1 can only reaffirm that the options remain open. The fact that these appointments are being made to the IAB signifies only that for the time being we must work within the existing system. The new appointments are short term so that in future we will have choices regarding the housing of a new system without being constrained by the existance of a large ongoing organization. The fact that we are adding more capacity to the IAB will not satisfy those Members opposite who think an amnesty is the only thing to do. However, it will satisfy the broader community who wish to see our compassion dispensed with due regard to merit. I hope all Members will therefore join with the Government in giving speedy passage to this Bill.
The Bill proposes several amendments to the Immigration Act. They are minor in nature and designed to increase the flexibility and capacity of the IAB to deal with a greater number of cases. Under the current Act the maximum number of Board members is 18. We realize that with one as chairman and the guideline of three members per hearing, we have the option of five teams to do the work. This Bill would increase the maximum number of members to 50. The Board reviews appeals of family class applications which have been refused abroad. It hears appeals against deportation orders by certain people who have come to Canada and have not been admitted or who, having been admitted, have run afoul of the Immigration Act. The Board also makes a redetermination of refugee claims which have been evaluated by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee but subsequently rejected by the Minister.
All of these categories of cases are important, but the Board has far more work than it can do. This Bill will permit the Board to appoint new members as needed, for two-year terms, with the possibility of one extension depending on the workload. In addition, the number of vice-chairman will be increased from five to 13, giving the Board even greater flexibility. The Bill would also require that not fewer than half the vice-chairman be members of a provincial bar for at least five years. To ensure that Board members are used effectively, the Bill would permit the chairman to delegate responsibility on technical matters to one-member panels and, on more serious matters, when the parties consent, to a single-member hearing.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Singh case that all refugees before the IAB were entitled to an oral hearing. The effect of this decision is to lengthen the already long line of people awaiting hearing before the Immigration Appeal Board. The increase in membership will permit more redeterminations and thereby respond to the Supreme Court's ruling.
In addition to the refugee claims' backlog there are also more than 1,000 family sponsorship appeals pending. Families which cannot be reunited because of a legal prohibition must wait more than a year to determine whether relief may be
February 25, 1986

possible. Some of these cases involve the parents of Canadians for whom delay cannot be sustained. Bill C-55 goes farther than simply reducing the delay for these people. It extends the right of appeal to permanent residents as well as Canadian citizens. The right of appeal has always been available only to sponsors who are Canadian citizens. In our view that is not consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, this Bill will grant the right of appeal to permanent residents as well as Canadian citizens. I represent a community which is 50 per cent ethnic in nature. The City of Saint Laurent, one of our important cities, has some 68,000 people, and 50 per cent of those are members of cultural minorities, all of them immigrants to Canada. We know the great challenge people face when they give up everything in their homeland to come to a new country, quite often with only the shirts on their backs, and then be faced with lengthy delays in the immigration process. So, it is really a proud moment for me to be able to participate in a process which will speed up this whole operation and once and for all help clean up the backlog.
As I tried to state very clearly, this Bill does not pre-empt what will be done in future legislation dealing with the refugee determination process. We are trying to correct an existing situation and allow new legislation to cover the refugee experience in days to come. I hope all Members of this House will give speedy passage to this Bill on third reading so that the IAB can continue its effective work in days to come.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, is a Bill which the Minister responsible has said, in this House and in Vancouver recently, would go far to correct some of the problems faced by the Immigration Appeal Board. There is nothing wrong with the Bill in that it certainly will do something. However, it will not do what the Government claims it will do. Perhaps I can give an example to show exactly what I mean and impress upon the Government the necessity of some urgent action in this regard.
I have heard Members in this Chamber, especially Conservatives, whenever I have said anything about immigration, say to me: "Well, how many immigration appeal cases have you had?" or: "What do you know about immigration?" I must admit that I do not deal with as many cases as some Members from central Canada or other provinces. However, I can tell you that in my home community of Gander, Newfoundland, over 100 people a year depart from aircraft arriving from the Soviet Union, East Germany, Cuba or other East bloc countries, to claim political asylum. When I look at this Bill I see that it will only take care of that number of people who get off those aircraft in Gander, Newfoundland, that is all.
The Government says it is going to address a problem. What is the problem? The problem is a clogging of the system of appeals before the IAB. This Bill increases the size of that Board. It does what a judge in a Canadian court said should be done with respect to oral hearings. However, all it does is to take care of an extra 100 or 200 appeals a year. In other
Immigration Act, 1976
words, it will take care of Gander, Newfoundland, but it is not addressing the problem.
No one knows the exact number for sure, but there are over 15,000 people claiming refugee status who have to be dealt with by the IAB. Under the family sponsorship appeal program there is an additional 1,500 or so waiting to be heard. Those numbers are increasing daily, yet the Government of Canada has the audacity to come into this Chamber and say that by dealing with this Act to amend the Immigration Act we will over the next two or three months increase the size of the IAB, and effect other changes. To do what? To correct the problem that we have in Canada today with appeals under the Immigration Act.
As I say, there is not much wrong with the Bill, but there is not very much right with it either when you look at the size of the problem that we have in Canada today. It does not address the major problem of the backlog. It does not do other things that have to be addressed by this Government. It does not do anything to address the unfairness of the immigration system that we have in the country.
You could have a case of somebody who wants to bring over a family member from some other country. That sponsor may have had that appeal before the Board for a couple of years, and perhaps there is a stalling tactic at the other end for those family members. I can cite for you a case where a gentleman wanted to bring over his father and his sister. For five years that case was stalled until finally the father died. The sister, by this time, had reached the age of 21. Then, of course, sponsorship went right out the window. For five years that was held up. Now, granted, it wasn't solely the responsibility of the Appeal Board because they had a problem on the other end.
Let us consider the case of somebody who gets on a plane in one country and is perhaps briefed on what to say, or the answers to give to the questionnaire that he is given when he arrives in Canada claiming refugee status. On the basis solely of that questionnaire his or her answers to the questions determine whether or not that person will be successful in being able to remain in Canada. Then I compare that to the other case where somebody waits for five years and does not make it in the end anyway. You can see a tremendous unfairness within the system. The Bill does not address that either.
What does the Bill address? It does not address the backlog, it does not address the unfairness in the system. It does not address the fact that Canada is now seen as the place people who know the system and are able to work it can be successful in getting into this country. There are many who should be allowed into this country but are not successful. I do not know what else to say about the Bill except that it does not do very much; it does nothing.


Mr. Boudria:: A band-aid.


George Baker: The Hon. Member said a band-aid. You could call it a band-aid, but there are different sizes of band-aids.


Don Boudria: A small.

February 25, 1986
Immigration Act, 1976


George Baker: There are very large ones, small ones, medium ones, so I suppose this is a strip off the small one. But 1 cannot see any other good that it does. Yet the Government of Canada has this incredible problem which was created over the past year and is not doing a thing about it. Some 25,000 people are held in limbo. I suppose this is because we are a signatory to the United Nations agreement, but to do nothing about the problem is absolutely ridiculous.
I do not know what the Government intends to do. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary said: "Well, this is not the ultimate solution because the Government of Canada is going to do something." It is going to take some action". What we want to know is when the Government of Canada is going to take some action. What is it going to do? How is it going to relieve the unfairness in the present system which has come to light over the past year, since this Government took office? I suppose that is all one can say about it, it doesn't do anything at all. Perhaps it helps 100 or 150 extra cases a year, enough to take care of Gander, Newfoundland, but it does not address the problem at all.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, in the absence of the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), to join in this debate on Bill C-55. I have been listening with interest to the Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) addressing this matter and describing the Bill in various ways. I may characterize the Bill somewhat differently from his characterization, but certainly it is a fine question in terms of timing and the value of this Bill to decide exactly how to characterize it.
I note that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, was given first reading in the House on June 19, 1985. It comes to us now for third reading late in February of 1986. In the interim a number of important things have happened. One of those has been the report of Rabbi Plaut on the question of refugee determination.
This is certainly a very serious problem that faces the Government of Canada, a matter of very great concern to many Canadians and a matter that is of interest to every Canadian in terms of our undertanding of Canada's place in the world in providing a place where refugees can find a refuge which preserves their lives and allows them to re-establish family and property. If they have to lose everything except their lives somewhere else, they should be able to make something of themselves in the large spaces, and I trust the friendly climes of this country.
The matter of refugee determination is an enormously important one which this Bill is surely designed, in the Government's mind, to address. That is precisely the difficulty that faces us, because Rabbi Plaut's report has not been the only one which dealt in a humane and compassionate way with the difficulties that face persons who regard themselves as refugees from one country or another.
This Bill comes before us now for third reading after the Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration has considered it and provided in its fifth report, tabled in the House last November on November 7, a range of recommendations designed to furnish the Government of Canada with means to deal in a compassionate way with the matter of refugee determination.
The Government has 120 sitting days in the House to respond to that report. So we continue to wait. The Government has almost until the end of April to provide its response to that report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. I am concerned about what the Government's response will be. If the Government tells us in the next couple of months that the action taken as a result of Bill C-55 is adequate to deal with the enormous administrative and human problem of refugee determination, we will know that it has failed to fulfil its obligation to provide compassion in the administration of Government. That is why we are awaiting the response of the Government about a new structure of refugee determination. I fear that the changes to the Immigration Appeal Board we are considering may be the Government's view of an adequate response. If so, it has failed the people of Canada and will have lost a place in the honourable traditions of this country.
We recognize that the present Immigration Appeal Board is hard pressed and that an increase in its number is in order. In fact, the Hon. Member for Spadina has proposed an increase to 36 to allow the board to expand its activities and meet other immigration appeal needs that exist. However, we are concerned that increasing the personnel to 50 in order to take care of all cases may be a temptation not to establish the kind of refugee board that is called for.
It is of great human importance that a review board be established to provide a different approach to the problem and allow for procedures that are not adversarial, as they are with the Immigration Appeal Board. We must not have an appeal structure that continues the full adversarial traditions that govern our law courts with their ancient Anglo-Saxon roots of trial by ordeal. We are dealing with refugees who often come from societies where they have been attacked and suppressed by authorities in their countries after being involved in struggles for human rights and social justice against repressive regimes. The Government must establish a refugee board whose procedures make it possible for those claiming refugee status to present their case in a non-adversarial setting. It could be in the nature of an interview by a couple of people who listen carefully and exemplify the kind of compassionate approach to refugees for which Canada takes pride. The Government will have failed completely if it does not establish such a refugee board and only proceeds with an increased Immigration Appeal Board with its adversarial setting.
I suggest that the Bill is useful only if it provides additional resources for an immigration appeal process which has been overloaded with cases that should have been dealt with long ago, given the enormous backlog. Obviously, we have no objection to expanding the Immigration Appeal Board to 36 in order to ensure that those cases not involving refugee status are dealt with more expeditiously. However, the concern
February 25, 1986

remains that this will be a small response to very large problems. Since we are still awaiting a response from the Government, we are not assured that it will establish a refugee board with different procedures that will ensure a relaxed atmosphere and humane consideration for the situation facing people who have come to Canada from many parts of the world.
There is another disturbing aspect to the establishment of a larger Immigration Appeal Board. In order for the new appointees to deal immmediately with the backlog they will have to immerse themselves in the subject and learn a great deal to provide proper adjudication of these matters. There are questions about the advisability of appeal board members becoming specialists. However, this is likely to happen with the striking of sub-boards or splitting up the board to hear cases. The expanded Immigration Appeal Board will not be able to fulfil its responsibility of dealing with refugee claimants in the fair and humane way that Canadians expect of those appointees.
There are numerous reasons why I hesitate to call this a good Bill. I might call it a good Bill if I was assured that the Government plans to take the action recommended in the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. Then one could regard this Bill as simply an improvement to the ability of the Immigration Appeal Board to hear cases. However, we will only know how to regard this Bill with the passage of time, when we know whether the Government plans to develop the institutions that are required to live up to our tradition of compassion and openness to refugees.
I make those reservations because of our experience with another bill coming from the Department of Employment and Immigration dealing with employment equity. One could not regard the provisions of that Bill as objectionable if they are part of a genuine Employment equity bill. The provisions of that Bill provide for reporting, suggest that standards be established and arouse hope that there will be progress made by employers. However, practically everyone in the country who is genuinely concerned about the achievement of employment equity in Government and business across the country is convinced that there should be a timetable and well formulated plans as well as an adequately established and financed enforcement mechanism to ensure that employment equity will in fact be achieved.
After weeks of consideration of that Bill in the committee and in the House, it does not appear that the Government plans to move any further than that quite truncated Employment Equity Bill. As my Party's critic for multiculturalism, having seen the Government fail in the development of employment equity in this area, I am concerned that this Bill to expend the Immigration Appeal Board to deal with the backlog of cases will continue to be the mechanism for those seeking refugee status to present their cases and that the adversarial procedure will continue to be the norm. The officers who seem by their practice to think it is more important to exclude people from Canada than it is to provide refuge in this
Immigration Act, 1976
country will continue their work. Those manifestations of a mean spirit which one sees in a Conservative Government at various times will continue to be exemplified in this area unless we are fortunate to have a Government which acts responsibly. I should not call that "fortunate", should I? We expect responsible Government and we expect a compassionate Government in this area. Later this year we hope to see the Government present a Bill to establish the refugee determination board, or whatever it may be called, which provides for those non-adversarial procedures which will ensure that those frightened people, those people who were tortured in their country and still bear the wounds of this oppression in their minds and spirits and in their very bodies, will have a fair, generous, open and compassionate opportunity to have their refugee status established. If that happens, then I will be prepared that day to look back for a moment and say that Bill C-55, which deals with other matters as well as with the backlog which does require additional resources, and with 50 members rather than 36 members, was probably a good Bill. In the meantime, I suspend judgement on this Bill. However, out of a concern that a penny-pinching Government is not going to do that, I will in fact be voting, even if only on division, against this Bill. I fear that the Government is not going to act.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member who just spoke if he agrees with his colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), who spoke on this subject yesterday? He said quite forthrightly that Immigration officers were making decisions in overseas posts by way of their friendship with dictators in those lands. Would the Hon. Member agree with his colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, with that spurious allegation?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not have the knowledge which would allow me to agree or disagree, so I probably cannot provide any satisfying response to the Hon. Member. Perhaps I could say that I hope to God that is not true. I hope to God that for the sake of this country, which values its land as a place where refugees can find escape from the oppressive regimes which tarnish the face of the globe, no Canadian officers anywhere in the world would be involved in anything of that sort. Perhaps that indicates where my heart lies. The information is not in my hands.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly on Bill C-55 this morning and perhaps take the opportunity at the same time to say a few words on the whole immigration issue. I am a new Member of the House of Commons and I am not located in a riding where a large number of immigrants live. Nevertheless, as we all do, I get a number of immigration cases and I cannot help but get the feeling of how unfair the present system is with its built in unexcusable delays. There are cases of constituents who come to see us and tell us that their spouses have been deported. Sometimes the people have been married for years, and the

February 25, 1986
Immigration Act, 1976
spouse has to leave the country and reapply to come back in order to join their loved ones.
One of my constituents has been waiting two years for her husband, who is now in India, to be able to apply to come back to Canada. Her husband had been here on a student visa. They got married and he lived here for some years with his wife. He then had to leave the country in order to reapply to come back. Of course if one was in the country illegally at that time, one would expect that that person would have to rectify whatever was inadequate on one's dossier, to start with. However, that being said, to cause a family to be separated for years in order to accommodate a shuffling of papers hardly seems fair to me.
An individual who had been sponsoring his sister to come into this country phoned me last year. The difficulty in this particular situation was that, although the individual had filled out the proper documentation, the young woman at the other end who was applying to leave had to obtain an exit visa from that particular regime. By the time she received the exit visa the application filled out by her brother had already elapsed. The Canadian applicant applied again to have his sister allowed to come here, but by the time his new application had been processed the exit visa for the sister had expired. Any system which creates that sort of difficulty for no logical reason cannot be considered as fair.
Bill C-55, in a very small way, as the Parliamentary Secretary indicated, hopes to address some of the issues involving backlogs but, obviously, it is not going to correct the situation 1 have just described. In our offices abroad there are such backlogs in processing applications that the resultant delays are causing a complete denial of justice.


Mr. McDermid:: That's unfair.


Don Boudria: Does the Hon. Member opposite want the floor?


John Horton McDermid: It's very unfair.


Don Boudria: If the Hon. Member wants the floor, I am perfectly willing to let him ask questions later. Perhaps he can start writing one out now and he will have finished the first line in the next half hour. Meanwhile, I will continue to speak on behalf of my constituents, whether he likes it or not.
There are other immigration issues with which I have had to deal in my constituency which are equally unfair. As you know, Mr. Speaker, because you do travel extensively through the riding I have the honour to represent, my constituency is largely rural. Of course, many farmers do apply to have people come into this country to work on their farms. Some of them, of course, are only temporary workers and that would not involve the discussion at hand here. What is of concern to me the people who come into this country to work on a permanent basis on Canadian farms. There are many decisions made which are equally unfair, and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to take note of some of these problems. Hopefully at some point in the future they will be corrected for the benefit of those people I represent.
There is the case of a farmer in his sixties who had a person from Holland come to work on his farm. This was part of the student exchange program. The young person who came from Holland was a graduate in various sectors of agriculture, principally dairy production and other related fields involving the raising and production of dairy products. He had a proficiency and knowledge of such issues as artificial insemination, the records of production of dairy cattle and so on. This particular person was highly qualified in this field.
Unfortunately, in this particular case the farmer became very ill and had to be hospitalized for some time. He applied for permission to have this individual stay in the country for a longer period of time because without him to run his farm it would cease to operate. He obtained a short extension. However, the farmer, not being in any better state of health after some period of time, was in a situation in which he wanted this individual who came from the same country from which he had come to remain on his farm on a permanent basis. He was told by people in the Department that that could not be done on a permanent basis because in their view there were ample Canadians qualified to perform this type of work. So the farmer placed an ad in the newspapers, as he was required to do, in order to find a Canadian who had the knowledge for which he was looking. No one applied. I should not say no one applied because apparently at one point in time one individual did apply. The applicant had been working in the bush or something like that and had absolutely no knowledge of farming. He had no knowledge of modern technology or farm machinery.
There are those in the Department who evaluate these types of situations who are still of the opinion, unfortunately, that people working on farms are not too qualified and that anybody could do the work. They felt my constituent had been unreasonable in not accepting the person who was not qualified. All this to say that at one point immigration officials wanted to deport this individual. By so doing they would have effectively shut down a very large dairy farm in my constituency since there was absolutely no one left to run it. It was even quite difficult to find someone just to assist the farmer in taking care of his farm operations. It was definitely not possible to find someone of the proper calibre and with the proper experience to actually manage the farm operation. I see an Hon. Member sitting across the way who has some knowledge of agriculture. I am sure he would agree that we want people in agriculture who are not only well meaning but who have some knowledge of what they are doing, such as the farmers we have in my constituency.
In this particular case I had to make representation all the way up to the Minister to obtain a temporary extension to have this individual stay for another short period of time. It was eventually granted. It would have been completely outrageous had it not been granted. However, one cannot help but wonder in cases such as this why it is necessary to have dozens of interventions, interviews, refusals, appeals and more appeals to the Minister in order to obtain what was only just and
February 25, 1986

equitable to start with and which most reasonable people should have been able to recognize the very first day. It was very difficult to convince the authorities that, indeed, this was the proper decision.
The unusual thing about this situation is that the whole process involving my constituent was taking place at the same time as I was hearing cabinet Ministers in the House making long-winded speeches about how we should be increasing our immigration targets. They were telling us that they wanted to increase immigration targets, at the same time as they wanted to deport some people who were working in my constituency, people who we could not do without in terms of the needs felt by the farming community.
So I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that although a large number of the issues I have raised have nothing to do with the number of judges sitting on the Appeal Board, they nevertheless have to do with the whole malaise which exists within the immigration system in Canada. I hope that he will take note of these few points.
Some of the situations have been with us for many years and some have even gotten worse over the last year or two, as has been pointed out by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). However, whether these inequitable situations have existed for six months or six years, the fact remains that they need to be rectified and addressed as soon as possible by all Members of Parliament. They are not issues on which we want to be separated along Party lines. I think we will want the system to be fair.
I believe all Parties have indicated their willingness to agree with the new quotas which the Minister has recently indicated. We all want the process to work. There is no disagreement among Members on all sides of the House that it be approved. What is needed now is the willingness and desire to put the machinery in place in order to sort out the areas in which we have huge backlogs. Bill C-55 identifies one small area. However, there are others, such as the people in our offices abroad who require far greater attention in terms of taking care of the backlogs.
To summarize, 1 believe there is a willingness on the part of all Members, and it is my hope that there is a willingness on the part of the Government, the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and the officials in the Department, to take note of some the things about which we are talking today in the hope of correcting inequitites which exist in the system, both in terms of the representation in the appeal process and elsewhere where the system is deficient.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there questions or comments?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. I know he is new in the House and does not have too many immigration cases in his constituency. There are a couple of things I would like to point out to him, especially since immigration is probably one of the largest constituency problems I deal with in my riding of Brampton-Georgetown.
Immigration Act. 1976
The Hon. Member alleged that the hold-ups in our embassies throughout the world, the bureaucratic delays, are causing some concerns. I point out to him that there are only three countries in the world which have open immigration policies today. They are Australia, the United States and Canada. Canada probably has one of the most liberal immigration programs in the world today-small "1" liberal.
The literally hundreds of thousands of applicants who wish to come into the country every year is mind-boggling. 1 have just returned from a business trip to Yugoslavia where 1 saw the line-up of people who wish to emigrate to Canada. No matter where I go in the world and no matter what embassy I visit there are line-ups of people who wish to come to Canada. Were the Hon. Member to reflect on what he said about the bureaucracy and those who work extremely hard in our embassies to try to accept applications and wade through hundreds of thousands of them, he would want to retract the accusation he made that in fact they are holding up immigration to the country. I think he will find in fact that they are not, that they are doing an excellent job under difficult circumstances in most instances and he would want to back off from that type of statement.
I will be very brief with my final point. Members of Parliament always end up dealing with the problem cases. We never hear about the cases that go through without any hitches and they are by far the majority. We hear about the problem cases and we can stand here day after day talking about them. 1 think kudos should go to the Department and to those who are involved in the immigration end of things for the great job they are doing for this country.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the Hon. Member across the way. Perhaps if he had listened a little more attentively to what I said he would have been able to understand it. Let me repeat it a little slower so that perhaps he will be able to understand.
1 indicated very clearly to the Hon. Member that the delays that were being caused outside this country were the same as the delays we had internally with the appeals process, and that we have to deal with the number of people who can process the applicants. Very clearly, we cannot merely rubber stamp applications. We do not want undesirable people to enter this country. What we must do is increase the number of people who can deal with the process and make decisions. Leaving at the same level the number of people working in offices elsewhere in the world will not solve the problem of my constituent who waited for years and is still waiting today as we are talking to have her husband re-enter the country-


John Horton McDermid: He did something illegal.


Don Boudria: -even though they have been married for a long time. The individual in question did not enter this country illegally. He came to this country, stayed here as a student and later on got married and stayed here for some time.


John Horton McDermid: Why was he deported?

February 25, 1986
Immigration Act, 1976


Don Boudria: Under the laws that exist now, the individual would be allowed to stay in the country because he had been married for a certain length of time. That law was changed only a few weeks after the individual had been deported. The law was changed by the present Minister. Before accusing my constituent, the Hon. Member should be a little more aware of the facts.
The Hon. Member said that we only hear about problem cases. I would hope so. It is our job as Member of Parliament to fix the problems of our constituents and to make this place a better place for them. It is not our job to take things that are right and make them wrong. It is our job to take things that are wrong and make them right. That is why I was elected as a Member of this House.
Finally, 1 would like to thank the Hon. Member for complimenting the previous Liberal administration on the immigration policy that was established in this country.


John Horton McDermid: The inexperience of the Hon. Member is showing through again. The present Immigration Act was the result of the work of three Parties over a number of years. The Bill was put together by all three Parties and agreed to unanimously by all three Parties in the 1970s and was brought into effect in 1978. For him to take credit for his Party is not being entirely honest with the electorate.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, again I suppose I did not say it slowly enough. I want to thank the Hon. Member for complimenting the previous Liberal administration which was in power in 1978 at the time the law was passed. I thank him very much for that compliment to the Liberals, and a great administration it was.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in listening to the introductory remarks by the Parliamentary Secretary during his speech at third reading stage of this Bill. He referred to his constituency as being a highly ethnic one. My constituency of Winnipeg North is and has always been, since people began to move to western Canada, the gateway for immigrants to Canada, particularly for those who are usually called ethnic immigrants.
My father came to this country 80 years ago from the Ukraine. Today a very substantial number of my constituents are of Ukrainian, Polish, Jewish and German origin. We have always been proud of that. In recent years, these people have been joined by other immigrants who have come from many other countries. I know that in listing them I will miss some groups, but they have come from Portugal, China, India, the Phillippines, the West Indies, Laos, Vietnam, Chile and Yugoslavia. They have come to this country to live in my constituency, as well as in many other urban constituencies, and they are making important, useful contributions to this country.
As I am sure is the case with the Parliamentary Secretary, constituents from many of these countries regularly come to my office because they need help. What is the help they need? They need help because they have relatives they want to have join them in Canada. Very frequently these requests are
turned down. Why is this? The Government of Canada requires them to have a certain level of income so that when their relatives come to the country the applicant can guarantee that the relatives will not become a charge on the state, and the incomes of many of these people are too low. I will deal with that in a few moments. As well, they are turned down because of the kinds of jobs these prospective immigrants fulfil in Canada.
I have taken up many such cases, and I am sure in some cities like Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal in which there are many more immigrants than there are in Winnipeg, Hon. Members have taken up even more cases. I have taken such cases up with the present Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. McLean) and the present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). Under the Liberal administration, I took up many such cases with Liberal Ministers. Time and time again I was turned down. I have frequently pleaded for the Government, Liberal or Conservative, to take a more humane attitude toward this situation. In theory, members of all Parties support family reunification. 1 thought things were going to be better with this Government.
The present Minister of State for Immigration made a statement on October 31, 1985, on this matter. This statement is reported at page 8218 of Hansard under the title "Immigration", "Future Levels of Immigration-Statement of Minister of State (Immigration)." Let me put on the record some of the things he said:
Immigration levels are being increased to 105,000 to 115,000 in 1986 and 115,000 to 125,000 in 1987 . .. During this period, the level will be rebuilt in a moderate, controlled manner which will, in a balanced way, support the reunion of families, the admission of humanitarian immigrants and the selection of economic immigrants.
He went on to say:
First, family class. The family class will remain the cornerstone of immigration policy, and we will continue to process applications on demand.
He went on:
The Government is going to emphasize increasing the number of assisted relatives and other independent applicants who have, since May 1982, been unable to emigrate without a validated job.
These individuals will be admitted on the basis of a revised selection system. Qualifications and skills will be stressed. Preference will be given, however, to assisted relatives through the allocation of bonus points.
That sounded very good, Mr. Speaker. On the same day, in commenting on that statement, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) indicated that he had certain reservations. Let me put on the record a couple of the reservations about which he spoke. In his speech he said:
The category of families and the category of assisted relatives are being unnecessarily held back by the practices of the Employment and Immigration Commission. They are being held back in three ways. One is that excessively high incomes are demanded of Canadians who wish to bring over, to sponsor an assisted relative.
Then he went on to say:
There is also the matter of the visa offices which are very poorly distributed in the countries from which many of our immigrants come, and it takes sometimes years to process an application because there is one office for India, two offices
February 25, 1986

for all of Africa, two offices for all of Central America, and those have to go through Trinidad.
Then, in referring to the Minister, he went on to say:
He has implied that there might be an increase-he has not stated it-in the family class. In fact, there is no increase.
That was last October. I have to say to the Parliamentary Secretary, as I would say to the Minister if he were here, that I find 1 am still having the same difficulties. 1 had a case from India where the application was turned down. When I pressed the Department, I received a letter giving the detailed reasons for the application being turned down. I gave it to the persons who approached me. They accepted the objections. They went back and took care of every objection; they met all the objections which were listed in the letter. Months have gone by and the applicant has still not been permitted to come to Canada.
I should like to deal with the question of income requirements. The Government says that it believes in family reunification, but if one of my constituents-and this is not only happening in the City of Winnipeg-wants to bring in his or her sister who is married and has a couple of children, the applicant is turned down because he or she does not have an income of over $20,000 per year. Not many new immigrants are so well established that they have an income of over $20,000 per year.
I could show the Minister the correspondence in one particular case. The applicant in question said: "Well, my income is a couple of thousand dollars below what you say is required. My brother is also prepared to join in the application, and our joint income is substantially higher than what is required". However, they were told that the Department does not accept joint applications and joint incomes. What the Minister implied in his statement about family reunification is not working, because the income requirements are far too high for most new immigrants.
Let me deal with another requirement. The Minister said there was a list of occupations and that if the person for whom an application was being made had those qualifications, he or she would be given points. I have the list in front of me. I say to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that it would be ludicrous if it were not so sad.
Let me put on the record some of the occupations which supposedly help applicants-managers in natural sciences, engineering and mathematics; managers in social sciences; administrators in medicine and health; chemists, physicists and meteorologists; civil engineers, electrical engineers and industrial engineers; economists, sociologists, social scientists and psychologists. That is just a small portion of the whole list. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, when we talk about the kinds of people who approach me or his office, how many of them are from those groups? Very few, very few. I have looked through the list and 1 have only found two or three categories under which the kinds of people who come to me would have relatives who could qualify. If I look at the service occupations, I see specialied chefs and cooks, watch and clock repairmen, perhaps printing press occupations, and that is about it.
Immigration Act, 1976
The Minister tried to create the impression-and I assume he believed what he was saying-that because of the new approach of the Government there would be a substantial increase in the number of application for family reunification which would be approved. I say to the Minister that it will just not happen. I appeal to him and to the Government to adopt a much more humane approach to the whole question of family reunification in the immigration policy.
I will not deal with the problems of refugees. My colleague from Thunder Bay dealt with them very well. As he pointed out, the Bill is one small step, to implement one small recommendation of the many excellent recommendations made by the parliamentary committee which held a large number of meetings, and by Rabbi Plaut in his report. I hope the Government will deal with those recommendations in a humane and generous way. In my view, this Bill will do very little.


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member did not want to mislead the House when he read off the list of occupations. I am familiar with the communications which he has. I point out to him, and I think he would agree, that that list opened up the Immigration Act and the approach of immigration because it allowed more independent applications to come forward. It was not through family reunification. He tied it to family reunification, which is still in existence and is working very well. It really concerns independent applications, and I wonder if the Hon. Member wants to comment on that.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to comment on that. In so far as family reunification is concerned, if the Hon. Member is correct that the list from which I quoted has nothing to do with family reunification, we are back to the situation where the person for whom the application is being made has to have a job offer in Canada which cannot be filled by a Canadian. That was the policy until very recently. Given the fact that a million and a quarter are unemployed, that virtually excludes everyone.
The Hon. Member is correct that it is for independent applicants. My fear is that the Government wants mainly to encourage-and I do not say exclusively-people to come to this country who have the money or the means to establish themselves as independent business people. While 1 am not opposed to those kinds of people coming, if it is the only thing we want to do, it is wrong and certainly mitigates against family reunification in which I am a great believer.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, 1 just want to clarify something. The Member is misleading, albeit inadvertently I am sure, the House. The point system that was allocated in the list to which he referred only enhances the opportunity for individuals to emigrate to Canada. It does not require a certified job offer. It only enhances the position of the immigrant by giving him five or ten points to add to his independent application. This tended to open up the door in some of those occupations. It is not tied to the amount of money individuals have to allow them to come here as the Member indicated. Surely he wants to set the

February 25, 1986
Immigration Act, 1976
record straight rather than leave the impression which he has left.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the Member listened to the remarks I made. I made two points. The first was that until very recently in order for an application to be approved the applicant had to have an offer of employment for a job which the employer and the Department of Employment and Immigration could not find a Canadian to fill. I made the point that there are very few jobs like that given the large number of unemployed. If that was changed recently, I have not heard about it and would like to know about it.
The second thing I said was that most of the people who come to my office who have applied for permission for relatives to come to join them in Canada indicate that those relatives do not have the specialized skills for 90 per cent or more of the occupations listed in this document. That is all I said. If the Member thinks I am wrong, I would be very happy to have him show me how I am wrong.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the Hon. Member's comments with respect to the certified job offer requirement and the new regulations which have been issued by the Department of Employment and Immigration with respect to the employment situation. I thought the Hon. Member would be aware, as I believe all other Members of the House are, that in 1982 the Government imposed the requirement of a certified job offer on independent applications for immigration to the country. That requirement meant that virtually no one could come to Canada because it was impossible to find a job which the Canada Employment Centres would certify there was no one in the country to fill.
However, as of January 1 of this year changes were made. Those changes included the list of occupations which the Hon. Member has in front of him, for which there is no longer the requirement of a certified job offer. A person who fits into those categories can now apply without having a certified job offer in the country and can come to the country under the point system as indicated by the Hon. Member.
Whether or not the people who come into his office fit into the job categories which do not require a certified job offer is another question. Since the beginning of January literally dozens of families have come to my office who wanted to bring relatives here but could not under the strict requirements of the family reunification provisions and who now see some light at the end of the tunnel. They see that there are these job categories for which there is not the requirement of a certified job offer into which their relatives and friends can fit. I am certainly finding that this is very beneficial and helpful to the people in my constituency. I am sure that if the Hon. Member takes a closer look at those categories and discusses them with the people coming into his office, he will find them most helpful to them, too.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, as I tried to make clear in my speech, it is obvious that most of the occupations on the list
really help only a very small percentage of the potential applicants. Many organizations interested in third world countries have indicated that when we make these kinds of arrangements we encourage the movement of the skilled and best educated people from those countries to Canada. Those countries need those people much more than we do in Canada. However, that is a problem which we can discuss on another occasion.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-55. A number of speakers before me touched on a number of broad and important areas relating to immigration. There is no disagreement that the entire process of immigration is integral to what this country is about, given that to a significant extent this country is the result of individuals and families coming to the shores of Canada and building a home here. They have given to the country and, reciprocally, the country has given them a chance. Therefore, immigration is not a one-way street. The country does not only give, but receives. Immigrants who have come to the country have perhaps come with very little from an economic point of view, but with wealth and riches in social and cultural attributes.
Part of the success of our past immigration policies, and part of the respect that which Canada enjoys from nations abroad, has been based on a policy that has drawn its strength and spirit from a thrust of compassion. I hope the Government will see fit to continue a policy of immigration which is compassionate and sensitive and which speaks, not only to the domestic and narrow views and challenges which the country faces, but also to the often very difficult forces at play throughout the world. Canada must continue in future years to play the part which it has played in the past.
A number of speakers have indicated that there is a comme ci comme (a feeling with regard to Bill C-55. There are certain parts of the Bill which are good. For instance, the amendment to allow permanent residents to make appeals to the Immigration Appeal Board is a positive move. The central thrust of this legislation permits the increase of commissioners on the Immigration Appeal Board from 18 to 50. That is the main amendment to the Immigration Act which the Government is making through the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). Quite frankly, one has to say that this Bill addresses the symptom rather than the illness. It takes the easy way when immigrants and refugees are looking for concrete action.

Another part of the backlog has to do with the family reunification process. We know that generally the process is working quite well and that the vast majority of applications under the program are approved quite rapidly. The problem lies with those families who are not permitted to sponsor brothers, nephews, aunts or uncles. This is a problem to which we ought to pay closer attention. We underestimate the importance that family sponsorship can have in making a potential immigrant a successful Canadian citizen. We are undere-
February 25, 1986

stimating the resources available to an individual who has family in this country. We should be giving greater weight to applications under that program because, if we do, we would eliminate the bottle-neck that this legislation seeks to address. As 1 said, rather than addressing the cause, it prefers to address the symptoms.
The refugees affected by this bottle-neck in the system have been patient for a long time and now they are coming to Ottawa to make their case. I have met these people in my riding, as well as in cities like Montreal and Vancouver. They have been waiting for some real action. Of course, it can be argued that if we have 50 commissioners instead of 18, we will hear more applications and solve more problems. However, if we approach the problem that way, how long will it take to deal with the current backlog, not to mention the growing number of new applications each day? It will take a long, long time. Yet people are asking for something to speed up the process, as well as make it more compassionate and more fair and understanding. We do not want an adversarial situation involving the applicant and the Immigration Appeal Board.
I have had instances in my own riding where people have to come before the IAB with solicitors to prove their case to the ultimate degree. There is a family in my riding which has been in this country for three years. Before the establishment of the new civilian Government in Argentina they had to escape the military regime because they were both professors at universities in Buenos Aires. One of the first groups to be persecuted by the Argentine military regime was the Academe. They left their country with their children and tried to establish a new life in this country. Now, after more than three years in Canada, after establishing themselves here, after acquiring English as a second language at night school, after holding down menial jobs because their degrees were not recognized here, which is another significant problem we have overlooked, and after their children have been Canadianized and now speak English rather than Spanish, they are being asked to return to Argentina because it is deemed to be safe under a civilian government.
That might be true to a certain degree. For the moment things are a little more tranquil and secure under a civilian government. However, how can we know what will happen tomorrow?
This family is afraid to go back to their home country because they fear persecution in the future. They fear for the future of their children in that country. They would rather stay in Canada. They are contributing members of this society. They both work, pay their taxes and contribute to the social and economic wealth of this country. Therefore, should we not stop and think about whether we ought to send them back, having made them go through the IAB process to state their case time after time after time?
What do we mean when we talk about compassion in Canada? What do we mean when we say we should address the cause of a problem rather than the symptoms? We mean that we should not take the narrow-minded approach which says let us increase the number of immigration officers and, if
Immigration Act, 1976
that does not work, introduce another Bill and increase the number again. No, there comes a time when you must look at the problem and say enough is enough. We cannot allow ourselves to introduce bank-aid solutions because they will not work. It might be a good public relations gimmick, but deep in our hearts we know it is not the proper way to address the depth of a serious and growing problem.
The Minister also talked about fighting to eradicate phoney refugee applicants. He is right to a certain degree because there are individuals who take advantage of the system to the detriment of those who have a legitimate case. Therefore, the Minister is in part correct to ask his officials to try and weed out those applicants who make life difficult for the majority of people with legitimate cases. However, the Minister failed to go after the growing industry involving phoney immigration consultants and lawyers. I am getting sick and tired of talking to constituents and sponsors of immigrants, as well as to refugee applicants, who have paid hundreds if not thousands of dollars to these low-lifes who do nothing to aid their case. Individual lawyers and consultants simply use that as a scam to make a dollar. Individuals are using these people to pay for the shingle they have outside their office. It is growing and becoming more serious.
I had a case in Toronto last week of a Portuguese individual who was just there visiting for three months. No one knew that he was coming for a visit, in terms of the bureaucracy. He got a call from a so-called immigration consultant asking him if he required his services to stay in the country. When the visitor suggested that he was only here on a visit the so-called consultant said, "Yeah, that's for sure. I have heard that before". Therefore, that also speaks to a wheel in the system that is connecting these phoney consultants to potential cases for them.
If we are prepared to rid the system of phoney refugees in this country then we also have to apply equal force to those people in this society who live off the proceeds of immigrants who do not know any better and place their trust in these individuals. The immigrant may not speak the language very well and, therefore, they are very much impressed by the pinstriped blue suit and tie individual who comes and says, "A thousand dollars and I will get your cousin into this country". These are not isolated cases because I have heard about them from other colleagues in the House as well. Therefore 1 urge the Minister and this Government to have the compassion and the courage to stamp out what I would suggest is a very serious white-collar crime.
When we also talk about being compassionate and being progressive, which our immigration policies have been, we must also recognize those individuals who come to this country with degrees and professions. Quite often what happens when they come into this country is that the degrees are not recognized. After years of training in their own reputable universities and educational institutions in their home countries they come to this country and take jobs as janitors, construction

February 25, 1986
Immigration Act, 1976
aides and the like. I am not suggesting that those occupations are demeaning, by any means I am suggesting that when an individual who has taught in his home country and cannot get a teaching profession here and is forced to clean and scrub floors when, in fact, that individual could be contributing in a different sense, then that too is incorrect and needs addressing.
There was a disagreement in terms of individuals that were allowed into this country perhaps because they had more money. I believe the Member from Winnipeg was alluding to that. 1 think perhaps what he was alluding to was the whole question of entrepreneurial immigrants. Last year the Standing Committee on Employment, Labour and Immigration, which obviously has a majority of Conservative Members, was dangerously toying with concepts of entrepreneurial immigration.
Let me point out very quickly at the beginning of this debate that I support a stream of entrepreneurial immigration. In fact, it was the Liberal Party which was in Government that sponsored and introduced such a stream, but we never intended to make it a cornerstone, or to elevate the whole entrepreneurial stream to the detriment of others. The Immigration Committee was toying very dangerously with boosting up the entrepreneurial element to a degree that was overriding the others. It is a mistake, because while we require entrepreneurs, foreign investment, individuals who are willing to invest and start to build companies and enterprises in this country, we also have to realize the history of this country. We must take into consideration the plight of other individuals who, while they are not wealthy and do not bring extraordinary amounts of money into this country, bring something else that this country depended on years ago. I would submit to you that this country will require that reinforcement in the years to come.
Many poor immigrants have joined Canada's entrepreneurs, and some have joined Canada's wealthy circle. Many immigrants have brought trades to this country and have taken jobs that you and I perhaps do not want to do. They work from seven in the morning until seven at night, often six days a week. I am not suggesting that those jobs are demeaning. All I am suggesting is that there are those individuals across the globe who are prepared to come to this country to enjoy the opportunities here and undertake those types of positions, and we have to be sensitive their situations.
When we talk about occupations I think there tends to be conflicting information. I have contractors in Toronto in my constituency who say that, "We cannot find enough certified and qualified bricklayers", for instance, or "carpenters, plumbers, electricians, tool and dye makers". Yet when I have individuals who are sponsoring relatives from abroad who happen to be carpenters or plumbers what they are told is that we have an abundance of those individuals in Canada, many of whom are unemployed. So there tends to be a conflicting nature which really needs to be updated. We really need to be with the times. Do we need to fill those types of positions or do we not? I am running into a lot of conflicting evidence that says the contrary.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. McDermid) said, "We only get the problematic cases". We sometimes get the more problematic cases, but I would also submit to him that we also get the average run-of-the-mill cases, individuals who come to the Member of Parliament first rather than going down to Bloor Street and visiting their immigration officer. So we get a lot of standard, average, every day applications. We need to pay attention to those problems and difficulties; not only the problematic ones, but those that are reflective of the pool of applications that the bureaucratics are facing. I am not suggesting, and neither is this Party, that the bureaucrats go out of their way to take their sweet time in processing applications.
There are places in this world such as Hong Kong and New Delhi where it takes three years to process an application. I would submit to him that that is not good enough, and that rather than placing blame we should be trying to address the cause and not the symptom.
I realize you are motioning that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. 1 would once again like to appeal to this House to be somewhat more compassionate, somewhat more courageous, and use a little conviction when we are speaking of immigration, rather than trying to touch the superficial element in dealing with the symptoms rather than the cure. Let's address, attack and whip the cause of the difficulties. Let's make Canada a country that is a lot more just.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, when this Bill was introduced in the House last June the Minister said that his principal purpose was to deal with the refugee backlog, which at that time was around 15 or 16,000 persons. It was rather strange that the Minister should put forward this Bill to deal with the refugee backlog, because the Minister had received in April of 1985, just a few months previous, the Plaut Report which dealt with the refugee determination process on a broad basis and made many recommendations to deal with that entire problem. We now know that in Canada over the last few years there has been a great increase in refugees from many troubled spots in the world. I guess that is a symptom of the political disruptions which are taking place on many continents. There are refugees from Central America, Africa, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indochina and Central and Eastern Europe. There has been a great increase in the number of refugees coming to Canada claiming refugee status. Therefore, there has been an increasing backlog which led to the Minister, under the previous Government, appointing both the Ratushny and Plaut commissions to study this matter.
The Plaut Commission reported several recommendations to the present Minister in April, 1985. However, in June we saw Bill C-55 which attempts to deal with the problem simply by increasing the number of people on the Immigration Appeal Board to 50 members. That has been criticized as a solution because it is simply a band-aid solution to deal with symptoms and does not really deal with the causes of the problem.
February 25, 1986

Furthermore, it is a complete disregard of the recommendations made by the Plaut commission.
What did the Government do? In its usual way it introduced the Bill in June, 1985, but also made a reference to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration to study the Plaut report and the whole process of refugee determination. Eventually the same committee was referred Bill C-55. Therefore, the committee had before it at the same time, Bill C-55 dealing with this increase in membership on the Immigration Appeal Board as well as the reference to study the Plaut commission recommendations and the refugee determination process.
The Bill has been returned to the House with one minor amendment from committee. We also have two reports presented by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration dealing with the process of refugee determination and the refugee claimant backlog. I believe that they are good reports and have the unanimous support in principle of all the Parties in the House.
The committee, made up of Conservative, Liberal and New Democratic members, put forward several recommendations to deal with the entire problem of refugee determination in this country and the backlog which now amounts to some 19,000 applicants. One must remember that the process was complicated still further following the Supreme Court decision in the Singh case on April 4, 1985. The decision was that by virtue of our new Charter of Rights, all applicants for refugee status had a right to an oral hearing before the Immigration Appeal Board. That meant the process was made more complex and more time consuming.
The Standing Committee dealt with that and made recommendations. Although their report was tabled in the late fall, we still do not have a Bill from the Government to implement the recommendations put forward by that committee.
We set out certain principles in that report to which we all agreed. We said that four basic principles are fundamental to the approach of the Standing Committee and the recommendations it has made. Consequently we recommend first, that it is the committee's strongly held conviction that Canadians do not want people sent back to countries where they have been persecuted or where they still may be persecuted because it conflicts with our basic principles of justice and fair play. People should be treated in a humane fashion and should not be sent back to countries where they will be executed for political reasons.
Second, we said that every person in Canada who wishes to claim that he or she is a Convention refugee should have an unqualified right of access to a formal process that will adjudicate the claim.
Third, all Convention refugee claimants should have their case decided at a non-adversarial oral hearing. In this respect we were following the decision in the Singh case before the Supreme Court.
Fourth, we said that the decision maker in the formal process, whatever that process should be, shall have the power
Immigration Act, 1976
in addition to declaring an individual to be a Convention refugee, to recommend to the Minister that specific individuals who are not within the strict definition of Convention refugee nevertheless be considered for landing on compassionate and humanitarian grounds.
The committee studied this in some depth and heard from many witnesses, both with respect to Bill C-55 and the Plaut report and refugee determination. The committee's recommendations are substantial, well founded and the result of much consultation. On the other hand, this Bill is not the result of much consultation and is simply a confused half measure to deal with a serious problem. It contains a few clauses that are good policy and an improvement to the Immigration Act, but they are a minor part of the Bill.
The over-all solution in this Bill is not what is needed, nor what the witnesses recommended. It is not what Plaut recommended.
We agree that by appointing more people to the Immigration Appeal Board the process will be expedited. However, if that is all that is done, it is an unfair and outdated process that is being expedited without getting to the bottom of the problems confronting refugees who have been waiting a long time-several years for some-to have their case heard by the Immigration Appeal Board. The Bill does not deal with the problems studied by Plaut and the committee.
While we are unhappy with the Bill, there are certain merits to it. However, we want the Government to introduce a Bill which will implement the recommendations put forward in the fifth and sixth reports of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration that were presented by its chairman, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). I believe they are excellent reports and, if implemented by legislation, will meet the needs of refugees in this country. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister would intervene in this debate to tell us when that legislation implementing those two reports will be introduced. Such legislation, combined with the provisions of this Bill, would make sense, but this Bill alone is a half-way measure and cannot be supported with very great enthusiasm by Members of the House.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon. [English]
The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) can resume at that time.
At 12.58 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
10924
[Stage Direction]
February 25, 1986


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the newspaper La Presse reported that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) has released what is referred to as the O'Farrell Report.
Mr. Speaker, to anyone who reads this document it is clear that the Conservative Government, especially the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), was wrong to approve the transaction between Gulf and Ultramar because Quebec consumers will be penalized as a result of shutting down the refinery in Montreal East.
Mr. Speaker, the Government preferred to protect a foreign, British multinational instead of protecting the interests of Quebec consumers, and I can only hope that the Government will reverse its decision in order to save the 450 jobs that are at stake and protect Quebec consumers against the impact the Government's decision will otherwise have on the price of gas.



MUNICIPALITIES


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, it has been well over a year since the Federation of Canadian Municipalities proposed that the federal and provincial Government join in a co-operative program to fund the much needed upgrading of municipal infrastructures, but to this date the federal and provincial Ministers have not met to discuss such a program.
Sooner or later we shall have to renew the water lines, sewer lines, bridges, and roads in Canada. We can pay for it now, or our children can pay ten times more for it later. The Government had an opportunity to deal with this most important problem in the last Budget, but it failed. In fact it made the situation even worse by imposing new taxes midway through the fiscal year on materials needed for such projects.
With tomorrow's Budget, the Government has another opportunity. It can provide up to 285,000 person-years of employment, worth-while employment, by funding such a program. It is my hope that the Government will Finally realize that concrete proposals in this regard will go a long way to accomplishing the very things it claims it wants to accomplish.



EMPLOYMENT


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, one of the finest features of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, along with providing thousands of Canadians with marketable job skills, is the establishment of local advisory councils. These councils, composed of volunteers, have given Canadians from all walks of life an opportunity to participate directly in employment development initiatives in their own communities.
The City of Scarborough is served by two excellent advisory councils, both of which are looking at the city's long-term employment needs and how the federal Government can play an effective part in helping new job-creation projects. The boards are also assessing the kind of skill training from which unemployed people in their community would benefit most.
The local advisory councils are working. They are bringing government officials and local community representatives together to find productive, local uses for federal job creation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to urge the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) to incorporate into the 1986 Gulf Herring Management Plan the same principles which formed the basis of the 1985 Management Plan. The 1985 Plan provided a quota for the George's Bay area fishermen. A geographic sub-allocation of the fall quota provided equitable access to the inshore quota for fishermen from various locations.
I wish to emphasize the importance of the herring catch to my constituent fishermen. This fishery is a critically important part of the source of their annual income. 1 urge the Minister to consider the foregoing aspects of this important matter.



ENVIRONMENT CANADA


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, officials in Environment Canada are going to pay for their Minister's past mistakes. Speaking about the selection of official spokespersons in Environment Canada, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) said yesterday: "It is appropriate for the Minister himself to give such approval". In a subtle way the Minister will impose censorship on his scientists. He is saying, in essence, that as a politician and a Minister, he inevitably has the right, and intends to exercise it, to decide what
February 25, 1986

scientific information should be given to the public. So much for the open Government promised by his Party.
From now on, according to the Minister, there will be cases when he will decide whether to give information and who should give information on matters respecting public health. His policy destroys the open relationship built up over the years between the public, the media, and Environment Canada scientists. What a sad state of affairs.



INCOME TAX


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in advance of the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on Wednesday, many Canadians have been telling the New Democratic Party's Tax Probe 86 Task Force of the reforms they want in the Budget.
Because our income tax system has become so complex and riddled with loopholes, the Task Force has found a good number of proposals for improvement, including the following: better reporting to the public of the tax remissions to companies such as Dome and Syncrude, and the loss to taxpayers of millions of dollars because of favourable tax rulings to companies such as Olympia & York, Petrofina, and Genstar; "value for the dollar" tests for tax concessions to demonstrate whether the tax money forgone from corporations has produced the jobs and economic development claimed; and greater progress-ivity in the personal income tax system, which could raise another SI.7 billion in revenue annually if the pre-1982 tax rates were restored.
These are only three of many proposals made by the NDP Task Force. The Minister of Finance would be well advised to implement them if he wants to make the Canadian tax system more efficient, more fair, and more acceptable-


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



TOURISM


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the House that the Canadian tourism industry is in the very best of hands. The new $20-million advertising campaign announced by the Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. Murta) is sweet music for tourism business people across Canada. Automobiles bearing United States licence plates have been in decline in the past decade, and our economy has clearly felt the shock wave.
Tourism in Canada is second only to lumbering in the total revenue it generates. We can build on this $18.6 billion industry. Tourism provides direct employment for 600,000 Canadians, and indirect employment for another 500,000.
Our best customers live immediately south of the border, and Canada must be sold to them. We live in a sophisticated, wealthy and modern country, with distinct cultures and lifestyles. Our doors are open for all to enjoy.
[DOT] * *



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, a poll published recently by the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses revealed that the rate at which small and medium-sized businesses in Canada are closing has dropped to its lowest level in sixteen years.
According to the Federation's President, Mr. John Bulloch, in 1985, 5.9 per cent of small and medium-sized businesses in Quebec closed their doors, compared with 6.9 per cent in 1984, the last year the Liberal Government was in power.
This reversal is due to increased economic stability, increased consumer demand and the fact that the Progressive Conservative Government shares the concern of small and medium-sized businesses across Canada.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, while business closings are down, openings of new businesses are up. Last year, openings of new small and medium-sized businesses exceeded closings by 5 per cent. This new development will certainly help create jobs for all Canadians ...


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the health of buffalo in Wood Buffalo National Park has been of major concern to wildlife and Parks officials for several years. Tuberculosis and brucellosis are endemic within the herds. These animals are used as food by people in the area. Hence, there is a danger to the health of persons. The diseases could spread to domestic livestock outside the park.
It is time that this serious problem be addressed. No longer should it be neglected. If necessary, the diseased herds should be slaughtered and replaced by disease-free stock.

February 25, 1986
[ Translation]



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I received a letter from one of my constituents which accurately reflects the sentiments of Canadians. This is part of a letter 1 received from a woman in Ville d'Anjou: "I worked for forty-three years without drawing any benefits. Now, supported by the federal Government, employers are making it quite clear when we reach a certain age, that it is time to retire. Without warning, we received a letter in the mail saying that as of January 5, 1986, they had to count our pension benefits as well. This means that if we have about $250 a week in pension payments, we lose our entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits. This is unfair, because at the age of 57 and over, we cannot find a job for decent pay, and with a pension that is not indexed to the cost of living which is steadily increasing, we are going to have trouble making ends meet until we get old age security benefits.
Why is the Government always picking on the average worker who has worked hard to make a living, while that same Government encourages the richest people in this country . .


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



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for the people of the Philippines. It is a great day because they have deposed Ferdinand Marcos and have done so without widespread bloodshed or violent revolution. It is a great day because popular will and a yearning for democratic expression have won in the Philippines.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Today is a day for recognizing one woman above all others. Today we rejoice in the triumph of Cory Aquino. In the face of great odds, threats, and intimidation, she has triumphed. It is a victory for decency, compassion, democracy, and the possibility of reform.
In our rejoicing today let us also remember that the deposing of a tyrant does not always lead to quick and easy democracy. I hope that Canada will be an active, useful, and supportive ally of President Aquino and the Filipino people in their quest for political, economic, and social reform.



REAL ESTATE


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, in a recent announcement made by the Canadian Real Estate Association it was reported that home sales across Canada increased by 21.7 per cent over January, 1985. This positive and continued upward trend in home sales activity resulted in 12,348 residential properties trading hands in Canada last month, an increase of more than 2,200 transactions over January of last year.
The President of the Canadian Real Estate Association, Mr. David Hawkins, stated that increased home sales reflect the level of consumer confidence in Canada, a consequence, I would strongly suggest, of the assertive and decisive economic policies of the Conservative Government. In Mr. Hawkins own words: "When families choose home ownership, they reflect their faith in the economic strength of the nation".



VIA RAIL


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, Via Rail tells us to use it or lose it. Our problem is to find it. Via Rail has so reduced the number of cars on the Toronto-Ottawa run that would-be passenger often have to book seats a week ahead. One Ottawa ticket agent says he turns away $1,500 worth of business every weekend.
Many Sunday evenings every seat is taken; some people are standing and others are turned away. Is this because so much Via Rail equipment purchased under the previous Government is now in the repair shop? If Via Rail wants to be profitable, let it put more cars on the tracks. Discouraging prospective passengers is no way to run a railway.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Government brags that unemployment has been reduced to 9.8 per cent, which means 1.3 million Canadians without work. That is not acceptable. If the recession is over as the Government claims it is, then we should have at most the 7.5 pre-recession unemployment rate of 1981. The average unemployment rate from 1965 to 1980 was 5.6 per cent.
On February 8, 1986, an article in the St. John's Evening Telegram stated in part:
The jobless Figures released Friday gave rise to some pride by federal Tories-
But figures can be misleading ... the number of unemployed,... actually rose by 109,000 last month-
To say the situation in Newfoundland is bleak would be putting it mildly-
February 25, 1986
[Stage Direction]
While the Tories express pride in their job creation, they cannot ignore the fact that there are still more than one and one quarter million people without work in this country.
Mr. Speaker:: 1 regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



INCOME TAX ACT


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) prepares to bring down the Budget tomorrow, 1 again want to appeal to him to put an end to the abuse of limited partnership provisions in the Income Tax Act, provisions which have become the biggest, costliest, and most wasteful tax loophole since the scientific research tax credit.
As the chairperson of the Tax Probe 86 Committee, I recently became aware of the following example. A company in Manitoba called Organic Research Limited advertised to potential investors that for $50,000 they could reap the following benefits: a $10,000 reduction in taxes from the investment tax credit, a $20,000 tax saving through the flow-through share provisions, and the company would buy back the shares for $29,000 almost immediately. This adds up to nearly $60,000 in benefits for an investment of $50,000, courtesy of the taxpayers of Canada.
This is even more ludicrous when one considers that Organic Research Limited is doing research into turning trees into sugar, at a time when the sugar-beet industry in southern Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba is on its knees. It is time that this nonsense was stopped.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF KOREA STEERING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in our Gallery today of Mr. Si Chae Jeong, Chairman of the Steering Committee of the National Assembly of Korea.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday he said that the Canadian Government would not recognize Mrs. Aquino as the new President of the Philippines, even though he said quite clearly in the House-


Some Hon. Members:: He didn't say that.


John Napier Turner: That is exactly what he said.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Napier Turner: -even though he said that it was time, in the opinion of the Canadian Government, for President Marcos to go. Why is it that he has given the impression to Canadians that what he was waiting for was not the expression of the will of the Philippino people but the reaction of the United States on whether or not to recognize that new Government?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there have been changes in the Philippines which were in evolution yesterday and continued in their evolution. There is now a new Government in the Philippines which is in effective control of the country. I celebrate that development. Canada has welcomed the election of that Government which is in control of the Philippines. I would hope that Members of the House would forgo the temptation to seek to score irrelevant political points and would, instead, make clear that the whole House works now to achieve stability and good relations between Canada and the new Government of the Philippines.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT WAITED FOR UNITED STATES REACTION BEFORE RECOGNIZING NEW GOVERNMENT OF PRESIDENT AQUINO
John Napier Turner: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Instead of analyzing the will of the people of the Philippines, why did the Canadian Government wait for the U.S. to react before asking for the

February 25, 1986
Oral Questions
resignation of President Marcos and recognizing the new Government under President Aquino? Why?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition is misinformed, perhaps owing to his concern about his own problems.


TIMING OF RECOGNITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will put it as carefully and as quickly as 1 can. Why does the Government have to wait for the United States before doing the right thing? Why did the Government not offer recognition to the President of the Philippines when it became clear that the people of the Philippines had given her that recognition?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what we were waiting for was the decision of the people of the Philippines.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is the decision which has now been made clear, and the Government of Canada has acted as a consequence.
[ Translation]


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: What a difference a day makes. Order, please.

[ Translation]


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence who has answered this kind of question before.
Canadians were horrified to hear that another cruise missile has crashed on Canadian soil. Does the Government intend to stop the cruise testing program, since these tests have clearly shown that the safety guarantees provided by the American authorities are worthless with failures like these?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, aside from the fact that I did not make that statement, the technical answer is that in fact there
has not been a Cruise missile crash on Canadian soil in this instance, it crashed in the Beaufort Sea.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Big deal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ms. Copps:: They're selling that off to the Americans too.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


Harvie Andre: I am advised that, when released from the aircraft, the engine on the Cruise missile did not ignite, did not start, and the missile crashed into the sea, which I guess is one of the reasons why tests are being authorized.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Broadbent:: Really funny.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: It's a red joke, Harvie.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, what we need is a test of a Minister who gives that kind of answer. The Beaufort Sea is Canadian territory, not American territory, as it was last summer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR HALT TO TESTING
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Is it the intention of the Government to confirm that Canadians are absolutely against the use of Canadian territory for repeated dangerous testing failures like this? Will the Government affirm to the Americans that we do not want this type of testing to escalate into the introduction of star wars testing on Canadian soil, after which we may suffer the same consequences?


Pauline Jewett: You started it all.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Ask him who started it, Harvie.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, of course it is Canadian territory, but it is not Canadian soil.


John Napier Turner: The bottom is Canadian soil.


Harvie Andre: As a matter of fact it is on the ice at this time of year.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You should go on ice, Andre.


Harvie Andre: The Government has every intention-
February 25, 1986


Mr. Nystrom:: Harvie for leader.


Harvie Andre: -of continuing the agreement negotiated by the Government of which the Hon. Member was a part.


INVESTIGATION OF TEST FAILURES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same Minister. 1 point out that the soil in question was Canadian when the Liberals authorized these tests in the first place, as it is today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: If the Cruise missile had followed its proper route in the territory where the tests are taking place, it would have come within 15 miles of communities in an area in which 30,000 people live. If there should be an accident in the guiding system, for example, people could actually be injured.
Are Canadians participating in an investigation of the failure of the two tests? Will all this information be made available to the people of Canada?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, Canadians will certainly be participating in the investigation. 1 am not sure that we can find a way to make all of the information available to the people of Canada without thereby making it available to adversaries of Canada.


Mr. Benjamin:: It's our country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REQUEST THAT TESTS BE CONDUCTED OVER UNITED STATES TERRITORY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, information on the failure of a test system, which has been described by the Government as not being a weapon itself, ought to be made available to the people of Canada who can be affected by the failure of the system. Surely the Government should provide that information.
There have been two tests in a row which have failed. Considering that the same-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is becoming a very long preamble. Is there a question, please?


John Edward Broadbent: I will come right to the question. Since we have had these failures and since there is a possibility for future danger, will the Minister act now and request the Government of the United States to test its missiles on its territory?


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


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in response to the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice, we have every intention of honouring the agreement into which the previous Government entered. I do not think the Leader of the New Democratic Party is being totally responsible in raising these undue and unjust fears about the safety of Canadians. The corridor in question was designed to avoid population concentrations. It is carefully monitored every step of the way. There are all kinds of safety mechanisms in place. I think it would be unthinkable for Canada to suggest that what amounts to a test-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is becoming a speech.
A short supplementary question.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering no one has been hurt yet, but also considering we have seen what reliance on technology alone in the shuttle program led to in the U.S.-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -is the Minister telling us there are no circumstances under which the Government of Canada would cancel this program? Is that what he is saying?


Harvie Andre: I find this incredible. Now this is tied to the space shuttle. The Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice tried to tie it into SDL There is no relationship whatsoever. An agreement has been worked out which provides all kinds of safety mechanisms which in turn provide for the safety of Canadian territory and personnel. I have every confidence that the Canadian Armed Forces will ensure that nothing untoward or dangerous happens to Canada or Canadians.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment I am pleased to put this question to the Acting Prime Minister. It relates to the cut-backs in unemployment insurance for those who take early retirement.
Is the Minister aware that officials in the Department of Employment across the country have contributed to the hardships in this matter by giving out false and misleading information to employers and employees prior to January 1 ? Considering this complicity by officials of the Department in the problems which now exist, does he believe that now is the time to withdraw this cruel and unfair policy?
[Stage Direction]
February 25, 1986
Oral Questions
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: That question, Sir, has been asked several times over the last few weeks. If the hon. gentleman has any information with respect to false or misleading information supplied by members of the Public Service he should make it available, and whatever action is necessary will be taken.


REQUEST THAT POLICY BE WITHDRAWN
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, does that mean if we provide the Government with this information it will withdraw the policy? I would like that commitment from the Minister, because I am ready to give him the information if he makes a commitment to withdraw the policy once I do so.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, again the question has been answered several times, as was his main question. If the hon. gentleman has any charges to make with respect to false and misleading information being supplied by members of the Public Service of Canada, he should make that information clear and available so that appropriate action might be taken.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. As he is no doubt aware, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board has been unable to handle major accidents and literally hundreds of accident reports properly because of the Government's restraint program. Will the Minister assure Canadians that, regardless of what cuts are forthcoming tomorrow, the safety of Canadians will not be compromised further, and that the budget necessary for safety-related boards such as the CASB will be increased to meet their mandates?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have given that assurance in the House and publicly on many occasions.


COMPLETION OF ACCIDENT REPORTS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister ensure that the budget necessary to complete promptly all aviation accident reports is forthcoming? I would point out that the Husky aircraft which crashed in Prince Rupert one year ago is already in a museum and there has been no accident report.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member could check with the chairman of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board and I think he will find there has been close co-operation regarding the allocation of the necessary funds to do the job properly.
[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. According to a report by the Office de la construction du Quebec, 5,432 pensioners will not be entitled to unemployment insurance, despite the fact they have paid their premiums. What is the Deputy Prime Minister going to do for these 5,432 Quebecers who will not be able to support their families on their pre-retirement benefits alone?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that question has been answered as recently as five minutes ago. The matter is before the Forget Commission and they will be reporting in due course.


SCOPE OF REGULATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I did not get an answer to my question.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to announce today that the regulation does not apply to people who took preretirement before January 5, 1986? They were not aware of the regulation at that time.


Erik Nielsen: The decision was announced over a year ago as a collective decision of Cabinet, Sir, and the answer remains the same.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER OPPOSE GASOLINE TAX INCREASE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
This morning, we met with the national committee for bringing down the cost of gas, which is asking the Government for a fair price on gasoline.
Since the Hon. Member for Duvernay suggested to the Minister of Finance that he refrain from increasing the tax on gas in his Budget, could the Minister inform the House whether she has already taken up the cause of consumers by putting the same request to the Minister of Finance?
February 25, 1986


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have already come to the defence of consumers by putting in place an energy policy which allows the consumers to benefit from the decline in oil prices.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER DIRECT PETRO-CANADA TO REDUCE PRICES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question directed to the same Minister. Considering that the consumers are paying 10 cents a litre too much at the pumps right now, and the price is too slow in coming down, is the Minister prepared to direct Petro-Canada to take the lead in reducing gas prices to the consumers, as demanded by the Hon. Member from Duvernay?


Pat Carney: No, Mr. Speaker.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: 1 would like to direct my question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Mr. Speaker, this month marks the fourth anniversary of the tragic loss of the Ocean Ranger with 82 lives. I want to ask the Minister if the Government is now in a position to respond to the search and rescue recommendations made by the Ocean Ranger Royal Commission?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, consideration of that matter before the Cabinet is imminent, and being a Privy Councillor the Hon. Member knows I cannot discuss the agenda or the specific time, but it is imminent.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER DEMAND CERTAIN UNDERTAKINGS FROM PETRO-CANADA
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
This morning, we met with the national committee for bringing down the price of gas, and these people wanted to know whether the Minister was prepared to ask Petro-Canada to publish in advance a list of the prices paid for its crude oil, with the dates on which it will have to pass on the price reduction to consumers.
Is the Minister prepared to ask Petro-Canada to do this?
Oral Questions


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think that Petro-Canada would certainly be in conflict with combines legislation if it announced in advance what price decreases it contemplated. I have already told the House that consumers are enjoying the start of a decline in gasoline prices, and they can look forward to further declines in the coming months.


INQUIRY IF MINISTER AGREES WITH MEMBER FOR DUVERNAY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, i have a supplementary for the same Minister.
Does the Minister agree with the Hon. Member for Duvernay who said that Petro-Canada's new policy is similar to that of the other multinationals and ignores the interests of consumers?
Does the Minister agree with her colleague's statement? Yes or no?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can only point out that last week Petro-Canada followed the lead set by Imperial Oil in cutting gasoline prices. I certainly feel that that is to the benefit of consumers.


FINANCE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. She will be aware that Organic Research Limited of Manitoba is a company that is using a limited partnership aspect of the tax system as a scam for wealthy investors. Does the Minister think that it is fair that the ordinary Canadian taxpayer is subsidizing investors in a company that is doing research into turning trees into sugar?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member well knows, this Government has done more to close tax loopholes than any Government in the history of Canada. We have taken any number of steps in this House and committed ourselves to the taxpayers time after time. I think the Hon. Member knows that.


EFFECT ON SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, is she prepared to close the sugar hole in this respect? Does she think it is fair when the sugar-beet industry in Canada is on its knees that the tax system should be used to encourage invest-

February 25, 1986
Oral Questions
ment into turning trees into sugar? Is this a fair thing to be using the tax system to accomplish?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, not only have we done a lot to close loopholes, we have done a lot for farmers, and we have shown great concern for the farmers and the agricultural industry throughout Canada. I think that the question is misplaced.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Yesterday, before the Canadian Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, two federal ministers were making contradictory statements on the refining capacity for crude oil in Quebec. I want to ask the Minister whether the Government could stop shilly-shallying and give us its official version, whether there is a shortage of capacity for refining oil products in Quebec as a result of the closing of the Gulf refinery.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, as I have already told the House, my Department's report shows that the refinery capacity in Quebec is in balance. As I understand it there are a number of reports, including the report of my Department, which have been referred to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission for further study.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister has just given us what seems to be her version, may I ask why she gives the impression of being the sole possessor of the facts in all North America, when the O'Farrell Report, the Oil Buyers Guide, Statistics Canada and the Quebec Minister of Energy all agree there is a lack of refining capacity in Quebec? Yet she says she is right. Why?


Pat Carney: Possibly the discrepancy arises because these other sources of information did not have the benefit of the superb report done by my Department.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. A coalition of major religious organizations proposes a major attack on poverty that would provide community jobs, training, child care and guaranteed incomes, to be paid for by tax reforms. Does the Minister support this proposal of the Citizens for Public Justice and will he include this in tomorrow's Budget?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the proposal that the Hon. Member has made mention of is one that is seriously put forward by a number of church groups. It is responsible to look at the proposal very seriously. I have yet to receive a written copy of their proposal, but I would hope that I would be able to sit down with them at an early date to look at the proposal and hear their comments on it.


CHILDCARE FUNDING
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Does the Minister agree with these churches that there should be extra funds in this Budget to expand comprehensive child care as part of a major attack on poverty?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think it is prudent to have them present the proposal to the Government. Once that has been done and examined, then I think a comment can be made.

[ Translation]


TOURISM
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Rent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Tourism), who launched a $20 million advertising campaign last week which, considering inflation, the falling dollar and production costs, is entirely inadequate, and furthermore, the campaign was judged to be sexist.
My question is as follows: When is the Minister going to drop the sexist scenes from this campaign and release additional funds in order to enhance Canada's image abroad?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the $20 million ad campaign is the largest amount of money that this country has ever spent in a very target specific and product specific way in the United States market. Number two, the ad campaign is in no way sexist.
February 25, 1986


INQUIRY IF DECREASE IN GASOLINE PRICE WILL BENEFIT INDUSTRY
Fernand Robichaud: I have a supplementary for the same Minister, Mr. Speaker. Of course the best advertising would be a reduction in the price of gas. Could the Minister give the House the assurance that falling gas prices would benefit the tourist industry and not the Minister of Finance through an increase in the tax on gas?


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, our best tourism thrust into the United States market, which is our largest market, is to make sure that the Americans are aware that Canada is a good destination. That is exactly what we are doing.


FEDERAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the last week the National Union of Provincial Government Employees, the Canadian Medical Association, and today the Canadian Hospital Association condemned the Government's intentions to cut transfer payments. Will the Minister release any figures he has that indicate what the expenditures for health will be in the next five years?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member raised that point because I met with the Canadian Hospital Association today. I pointed out that the increases in the legislation before us are above inflation. Regrettably, the provincial Government in Manitoba did not even meet that.
.	HEALTH COSTS PROJECTION INQUIRY


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister must answer one question. He is the Minister of Health for the whole country. Will he finally stop playing cheap politics and answer the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Where are his figures indicating what will happen to the health system of the country? Stop playing politics and answer that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I pleased that the Member has changed his modus operandi. I imagine that he will be staying in Ottawa until March 18.
Oral Questions
If he looks at the projections for health care he will see that the Government is projecting increases in the block funding for health care and post secondary education. That was discussed very fully with the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister at the First Ministers' Conference in Halifax.
I say to the Hon. Member that if Manitoba had met its obligations for post secondary education and health care, and had even matched the federal Government, it would not have the problems it faces today.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Curent-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. It concerns the Prairie Wildlife Interpretation Centre near Webb, Saskatchewan. Has he been able to make suitable arrangements for the continued operation of the Centre for the 1986 summer season and thereafter?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will know, the Prairie Wildlife Interpretation Centre is an important tourism and environmental facility. Because of the persistence of the Hon. Member, I am pleased to confirm in the House today that the funding is in place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: I will be signing an agreement with Mr. Russell Wall in a few days. The Centre will be open and it will be able to operate not only on time but, indeed, early.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AGRICULTURE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the plight of the sugar-beet producers. In view of the fact that the sugar-beet producers are planning a demonstration for March 3, will the Government announce any policies it has for assisting this industry and stop the nonsense of causing that expenditure to organize a demonstration in order for those producers to get what is already rightfully theirs?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the last time that 1 answered that question 1 indicated to the Hon. Member that the Government was extremely concerned about the future of the sugar-beet industry, thus the reason for our taking action a year ago.

February 25, 1986
Oral Questions
I also indicated that we are taking our time to ensure that when we reach our final decision we will indeed have an appropriate and proper policy to announce.
[ Translation]


REQUEST THAT MINISTER DISCLOSE INTENDED ANNOUNCEMENT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is as follows: I would like to ask the Minister whether in a statement that is expected shorthly and has been expected for some time, he intends to announce both a long term policy and the stabilization mechanism he has refused to give these producers up to now?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, when the Government makes its final decision it will be announced at the appropriate time.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Associate Minister of Defence and is supplementary to others. Considering that both tests of the Cruise that have taken place this year have failed and that there is population in the area, will the Minister at least assure us that no more tests will take place in Canada until there has been a full investigation of the causes of these crashes and we in the House see that report?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that goes without saying. There will be no further tests until we determine the cause of this crash. That is part of the agreement and it is common sense. We are following a common sense procedure.
I will certainly make every effort to inform the Hon. Member and the House, to the degree that is possible, without violating any security arrangements that might be of benefit to our adversaries.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. He will be aware that in reaching its decision to order TerraTrans-port in Newfoundland to increase its freight rates, the Canadian Transport Commission considered and dismissed the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada as the basis for
continuing low freight rates in the Province of Newfoundland. Has the Minister examined whether Section 276 of the Railway Act, as indicated by the CTC, in fact supersedes the Constitution of Canada and the Terms of Union contained within that Constitution?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, nothing supersedes the Constitution of Canada so I do not believe that would be the question at issue here. I will have the judgment of the Canadian Transport Commission checked to see what they said in connection with the interpretation of the Terms of Union. Of course, nothing in the Constitution is more sacred than that.


REQUEST THAT IMPOSITION OF INCREASES BE POSTPONED
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Given that answer by the Minister of Justice, will the Minister of Transport assure the House that he will cause no action to take place on these rate increases that have been ordered by the CTC-and are due to take place in 10 or 12 days-until his colleague, the Minister of Justice, has determined whether the Terms of Union between Canada and Newfoundland supersede any regulation of his Department or any decision by the CTC?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there is a 30-day appeal period. It is my understanding that the implementation of the rates would not take place for 60 days.


ALBERTA OIL INDUSTRY
Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. She met with her counterpart from Alberta yesterday to discuss, among other things, the impact of falling oil prices on that province. Will she advise the House what measures, if any, were discussed to ensure the continuing strength of that vital Alberta industry?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I met with the Alberta Energy Minister as part of ongoing consultations with Ministers under the Western Accord. We discussed many subjects, including the outlook for oil pricing in the next while. It was our view that the situation is very volatile and we should not have any knee-jerk reactions to the situation at this time. However, we did agree to keep in very close contact and to share information in this field.
February 25, 1986


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO CANADIAN NEGOTIATOR
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week Ambassador Reisman accused the Premier of Ontario of using a misleading study about free trade job disruption. Does the Government recognize that this form of insult undermines good federal-provincial relations, and will it tell Mr. Reisman to try to reach agreement with the provinces rather than criticize them publicly?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member were genuinely interested in how this process works he would know that there has been a remarkable degree of agreement reached in the meetings among officials, pursuant to the agreement among 11 Governments at the Halifax First Ministers' Conference.


Steven W. Langdon: Unfortunately, that does not answer the question.


MEDIA REPORT
Steven W. Langdon: Does the Minister also endorse Mr. Reisman's comment in the same article that: "Everything is on the table" and "We must talk about whatever the Americans want to talk about in these negotiations"?


Abram Ernest Epp: A colonial mentality.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government is well known. The Americans can raise what they want to raise at discussions which might occur. The position of the Government of Canada as to what is negotiable is well known.


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Do he and the Government accept the recent use by Bell Canada of the new Section 443.2 of the Criminal Code to muzzle the media from reporting a police search where the actual suspects-who are clients of Bell Canada-want, in that particular case, to make their problem public and to expose what they consider to be an improper police investigation? Does that not take the Section too far?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we support Section 443.2 of the Criminal Code which was inserted into the Criminal Code
Oral Questions
with the unanimous support of all Parties in the House. In fact the Hon. Member's Party proposed that with certain amendments in 1984. We do not intend to change our minds simply because there has been criticism of it by some sections of the press. The Section is there to protect people who may be innocent when a search is made on their premises. If they wish to consent to the information being made public, it can be. If charges are laid against them, it then becomes public. I am satisfied there is proper protection of the privacy of people who may very well be innocent and 1 see no reason to change the Section.
1 am somewhat surprised that the hon. gentleman is opposed to it, as well as the honourable critic for the NDP-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: -who in committee suggested-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


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


REFERENCE TO BELL CANADA
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to ask the Minister about his reasoning. If the suspects themselves want to go public, why should Bell Canada have the right to prevent them from doing so? What is the fairness of that? And what is achieved by taking the Section that far?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I believe in this particular instance Bell Canada is one of those whose premises were searched. Therefore, under the Section, those people whose premises are searched have to give their consent unless charges are laid. There is an adequate protection. The press, or whoever, can obtain all of the information they like. They are simply forbidden to publicize certain aspects of it.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in the committee-


John Napier Turner: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: -the Hon. Member-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, the truth hurts. The hon. gentlemen are weaseling now-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: -and they took an opposite position in committee.


Mr. Rodriguez:: You can't make a speech. Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

February 25, 1986
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


PRODUCTION OF GENERIC FARM CHEMICALS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the wise Minister of Agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It would be wise just to put a question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Just wait till you hear the answer.
As the Minister knows, the Senate Agricultural Committee recently recommended legislative changes which will save farmers millions of dollars, as did Generic Pharmaceutical recently for consumers. Will the Minister agree to a change in the Patent Act which would reduce the exclusive right a farm chemical company has from 17 years to four years?


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


John R. Rodriguez: Wise question.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest of the Hon. Member in the subject but I believe, if he will think for a moment, he will have to recognize that if there are any changes with respect to that specific subject, it will not be forthcoming from the Minister of Agriculture-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1 know that.


John Wise: -but will be coming forth on behalf of the Government-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What are you doing about it?


John Wise: -from the appropriate Minister, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Pauline Jewett: Can't you give him advice?


REQUEST THAT MINISTER SEEK AMENDMENT TO PATENT ACT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Will the Minister of Agriculture recommend to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs an amendment to the Patent Act which will reduce the exclusive right of farm chemical companies from a 17-year patent to four years so we can save the farmers millions of dollars?


John R. Rodriguez: Give us a wise answer.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should recognize, because it is a fact, that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs do consult frequently and often.


John R. Rodriguez: Waffle.


John Wise: He will also recognize this is not the appropriate forum in which the two Ministers should consult.


John R. Rodriguez: Waffle.


Pauline Jewett: Why not?


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
We are anxious to have the Government's response to the equality report which deals with a number of very important matters such as sexual orientation and equality for women in the military.
I would like to ask the Minister: How can we be expected to trust the good faith of the Minister of Justice and another Minister-I am thinking of the Minister of State (Tourism) who just announced an advertising campaign this week which treats women as sex objects-how can we trust in the good faith of the Minister of Justice?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that is the most convoluted and confused question I have ever heard. In the first place the Canadian Armed Services have a very positive approach to the employment and utilization of women in the Armed Services. In fact the Canadian Defence Forces have the third highest number-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Second.


John Carnell Crosbie: -of women employees in its ranks of any forces in the world. Only the United States and one other country are ahead of us. Are we second?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Second.


John Carnell Crosbie: Oh, we are the second. That's far better.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: And we admire the contribution of women to the Canadian Armed Services and we will continue to do all we can to see that they-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: -advance and their numbers are increased.


EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN BY CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I can anticipate that the Minister's response next week is not going
February 25, 1986

to be positive. Will he tell us whether he thinks the Canadian Armed Forces are fair when out of their approximately 84,000 jobs, some 70,000-


Charles Joseph Clark: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -jobs are denied to women?


Mr. Speaker:: I find it very difficult to see how that question can be to the Minister of Justice. If the Flon. Member would like an answer by the Minister of Defence? However, the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre.


Mr. Keeper:: What is this?


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. I understand that many Canadians who do not receive mail delivery to their homes are hiring enterprising young people to pick up their mail from community boxes to deliver it door-to-door on a daily basis. Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House if this kind of service signals a first step toward a greater contracting out of postal services?


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate at this time on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to recognize the appointment of the President of Canada Post here in this House of Commons, Mr. Don Lander.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. A few days ago the Japanese Minister of Industry announced that his country was extending for the sixth year its quotas on exports of Japanese cars to the United States at the same levels as the present year. Could the Minister inform the House whether he has made a request for similar treatment by Japan with respect to exports of cars to this country? If not, does he intend to do so?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to receive that representation from the Official Opposition. With respect to
Privilege-Ms. Copps
the question to which the Hon. Member referred, I am sure he is inclined to congratulate the Government for so effectively handling the quota question last year so that we received over $1 billion of fresh non-Canadian investment in the auto industry in Canada.


INQUIRY CONCERNING QUOTAS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister if he does not realize that, if the United States has quotas and Canada does not, there will be a diversion of Japanese cars from the United States to the Canadian market, threatening Canadian jobs and production? Why will the Minister not say right now that he is going to seek quotas for the coming year from Japan on exports of its cars to this country?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is always playing catch-up. The fact is the quota to which he refers is not an American quota but a voluntary restraint on the part of the Japanese. In the case of the United States, last year it was 21 per cent. In the case of Canada, it was 18 per cent. Once again we are one step ahead of the Member for Windsor West.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: You're the Minister!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
I am in receipt of a notice of a question of privilege to be raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PRIVILEGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Shush!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am not sure whether or not this is a question of privilege. Flowever, I should like to seek your guidance in the matter. In light of the attempt by all sides to develop some new guidelines and new civility, I would like to ask the Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is entitled to make her point.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would like to ask the Speaker if we could have some direction from the Chair with respect to the directing of questions during Oral Question Period. I felt that with respect to my particular question, given that the Minister of Justice

February 25, 1986
Immigration Act, 1976
(Mr. Crosbie) is responsible for co-ordinating the response from some 14 ministries with respect to the Equality for All Report, it was completely in order. I was somewhat surprised that it was ruled out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I misunderstood the Hon. Member's preamble. I will check the "blues". I understood she was asking a question of the Minister of Justice about whether something in his view was fair within the Department of National Defence.


Some Hon. Members:: That's right.


Mr. Speaker:: I would be happy to look at the "blues" in order to see what the Hon. Member did say. I will get back to her in this regard. If it is a matter of a communications confusion and I am at fault, then I will be glad to apologize to the Hon. Member.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House took recess at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) had the floor.

Resuming debate.
The Hon. Member not being here, is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the
Islands)-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is rising on a point of order? We have started the question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, because of the noise I could not hear whether we are still debating the immigration Bill or not. If we are, then I would like to speak to it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway has a point. I suppose it is best made by
the fact that I could barely hear the Hon. Member claiming a point of order because of the noise. Therefore, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway on debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of matters I would like to raise with respect to Bill C-55. I would like to outline two particular cases, if I might, in order to illustrate my point. What we are talking about in this legislation is speeding up the decision-making process in order that would-be immigrants, or people trying to become Canadian citizens, are not left hung out to dry, as it were.
I wish to illustrate my point by outlining a case involving a man who came to see me. I will not give his name. However, I will say that he is a sawmill worker in British Columbia. He came to Canada from India in 1970. He has worked in a sawmill since 1971 as a sawyer. He is a good worker and makes about $14.86 per hour. He has been steadily employed since he came to Canada. It is a tough job in the mills and he performs it well.
He became a Canadian citizen in 1974. He married in 1982. As is the Indian custom, he married a woman in India. On June 15, 1983, he applied to have his wife come to join him in Canada. There was a delay with respect to his application. He contacted the Department of Immigration and there was a further delay. His application was ultimately refused. He filed an appeal on September 25, 1985. There will now be another delay. He was told that the delay will be at least 18 months before his appeal can be heard.
In cases such as this I have often found that the appeals are won. The appeal tribunal will often rule that, for instance in this case, it is a valid marriage and the appeal will be allowed. What will happen then is that he will have to apply again and there will be another delay of about one year.
Here we have a case of a man who was married in 1983. His appeal may be heard in 1987 and by 1988 he should be able to have his wife come to Canada. That is five years during which he has had to live apart from his wife. I say that is cruel. I do not think that is a good system of justice at all.
As well, there is an additional problem in this case. As is often the case, this man will not be able to have his wife come to visit in this five-year time span because when she goes to apply for a visitor's visa immigration officials will say that they had better not let her come to Canada because what she may do is stay here. She would then have to be deported and that would be a messy procedure. Immigration officials do not trust people in these situations to visit Canada because, after all, they have already applied to get into the country and are not really regular visitors. The man in my case is caught in a Catch-22 situation. He has to wait for the appeal process and cannot bring his wife to Canada as a visitor. What kind of way is that to treat a Canadian citizen? In this case, I think I will mention the name of the person involved. The man's name is Mr. Major Dwaliwal. I am sure he would want me to do this, in the sense that his case is typical of many cases which come before the Department of Immigration.

February 25, 1986

While I have a chance I would like to make the point that this is a problem of delay for this man. I think it is a matter of a cruel delay. There is a secondary problem resulting from it in that he cannot even have his wife come to visit him in Canada.
1 do not think that is a correct procedure.
While I am on my feet with respect to the immigration matter, I wish to draw to the Minister's attention another series of cases which were brought to my attention through my constituency office in Vancouver. A few Saturdays ago I was visited by a group of doctors. These were medical doctors from different countries. All of them are citizens of Canada or landed immigrants. Several of the doctors had been asked to come to Canada with the possibility of practising medicine in Canada being held out to them. It was pointed out to them that they could contribute something to the country and that they could gain as well. There were 12 doctors in this group. All of them had degrees and credentials recognized by the World Health Organization and by the Medical Council of Canada based here in Ottawa.
In order to intern in Canada two requirements must be met. First, one has to pass an exam in Canada and be evaluated by the Medical Council of Canada. Second, after the exam, one must find an intern position, after which time one becomes a doctor. The problem we have is that this is a group of foreign doctors who have become Canadian citizens. They have emigrated to Canada and cannot obtain intern positions here.
I promised this group that I would bring this situation to the attention of the Minister. It is an important problem and a very serious one for these people. I know because I met with them personally. They are good people, well-educated and willing to contribute here in Canada. As a matter of fact, they told me that there was not an over-supply of doctors in certain areas of Canada and that they would be prepared to go to these outlying areas if only they could intern in Canada. They told me that certain areas of Canada are not being served by local graduates and that they were willing to serve in these areas for three years, for example, after interning in Canada. However, the obstacle before them is that they cannot get internship positions.
When I spoke to these people I found that there was a pattern of discrimination here. Graduates of Canadian medical schools are getting internships. However, these people are not, and I have to make the point again that they are Canadian citizens. They are different in the sense that they were educated abroad, but their credentials are recognized after passing an appropriate test in Canada. They are qualified and they are Canadian citizens but they cannot get internships.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, that these are Canadian citizens who were educated in foreign medical schools, so I will call them foreign medical graduates. Apparently, 500 foreign medical graduates applied for internships and about 23 received them. That is a pretty low ratio. They told me that medical examinations are conducted in 23 different countries and those who take the examinations are given false hopes
Immigration Act, 1976
about what will happen when they get to Canada. They give up their jobs and come to Canada to become doctors in Canada.
Why are these examinations given if they mean nothing? Why is there a gap between what the Government of Canada says and what the medical profession in Canada does? It seems that the medical profession is more powerful than the Government.
It appears that there is a pattern of discrimination on the part of the Canadian medical profession which prefers to take local graduates as interns rather than foreign graduates. I would go so far as to say that this pattern of discrimination is in fact illegal.
On talking to these foreign medical graduates I found that they were in desperate situations. I talked to one man who could not even get a technician's job. When he applied for such a job, he was told that he could not have it because he is a doctor. He said that he was not a doctor because he could not get an internship, but they said they could not hire him because he was a doctor. He is in a never-never land. He is a doctor but he is not a doctor.
One man to whom I spoke applied as a nursing orderly. Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker? He is a foreign medical graduate who came to Canada, passed a Canadian exam, could not get accepted as an intern, applied as a nursing orderly and could not even get that job.
Two provinces in Canada seem to have avoided this situation, Manitoba and Quebec. These provinces have made an effort to offer equality of positions to foreign medical graduates.
I take the opportunity of this debate to draw this particular problem to the attention of the House of Commons, the Canadian people, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), who I see in the House, and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). I would like to conclude by reading into the record a letter sent to me by Dr. Kanwarjit Singh on behalf of the Committee of Graduates of Foreign Medical Schools. As well, I was pleased to meet with Dr. G. Seteadrma from the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway. The letter to which I refer is dated January 28, 1986, and reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Waddell:
Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to express our problems and concerns.
We represent the Committee of Graduates of Foreign Medical Schools working under the auspices of the Immigrant Services Society of B.C.
Our membership is constituted by Canadian citizens and permanent residents who received their medical degrees in non Canadian institutions. Our credentials are recognized by both the World Health Organization and the Medical Council of Canada.
In order to practise medicine in Canada a foreign medical graduate needs to fulfill two additional requirements, which are:
1.	Pass an examination called "the Medical Council of Canada Evaluating
Examination".
2.	Train for a period of time in a teaching hospital, such training being
known as Internship and/or Residency.

February 25, 1986
Immigration Act, 1976
After passing the Medical Council of Canada Evaluating Examination, we are theoretically eligible for postgraduate training on the same basis as any Canadian medical graduate. From this point on there should be no distinction between medical graduates from Canadian and non-Canadian medical schools. However, in practice it doesn't work this way.
We face serious difficulties, peculiar to our group, in obtaining internships and residencies. This implies that our rights are largely ignored by those empowered to allocate internships and residencies. Under the prevailing circumstances, after many frustrating years of waiting, most of us have still not been given a training opportunity.
It is statistically recognized that there is a shortage of general practitioners in remote and rural areas, and of specialists all over Canada. The federal and provincial governments have been unsuccessful in attracting local medical graduates to serve in these underprivileged areas in spite of continuous promotional efforts and monetary incentives.
We graduates of foreign medical schools are willing to serve in these underserviced areas after mandatory postgraduate clinical training in a Canadian hospital, which is necessary before we get a licence to practise medicine.
Since there is a need for these services, we appeal to the federal and provincial authorities to create postgraduate training positions which will be available for those who are willing to serve in underprivileged areas.
We want to bring these serious difficulties that we are facing to the attention of the concerned authorities, the media and public at large because very few individuals know the hardships and frustrations we are suffering. We are grateful to the Canadian people and their government for allowing us to be in this country. We have spent many years of studies to become physicians and would like to be able to contribute our expertise as participating members of this country.
We thank you for your attention and are counting on your support in finding an equitable and just solution to our problems.
Thank you.
The letter is signed by Kanwarjit Singh for the Committee of Graduates of Foreign Medical Schools. 1 am pleased to put their case to the Parliament of Canada. As well, 1 am pleased to put before Parliament the situation of my constituent, Mr. Major Dwaliwal. I draw the attention of the Government to these humanitarian considerations that exist in the area of immigration policy, considerations that need to be addressed and addressed quickly.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the Hon. Member could tell us of some of his own personal experiences in the City of Vancouver with respect to the delays that are currently being experienced by those who are waiting to appear before the Immigration Appeal Board, and tell us whether or not he feels that the increase in the numbers of representatives, paltry though it be, will have any impact on that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, there are delays and it is one of the biggest problems with immigration. We have to balance two things. We have to speed up the rate at which the cases are heard, but in doing this we also have to make sure that there is a just system. In this case, that system is probably an adversarial system where justice can be rendered. We do want to speed up the hearing of the appeals but we do not want to lose the justice and due process. This is a balancing act the Government has to consider.
I personally am in favour of creating more positions as long as they will be staffed by good people and not simply be excuses for patronage like the Liberals used in previous incarnations.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's what I get for handing him a lob.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, there are some very good people on the Immigration Appeal Boards as well. 1 think we have to speed up the process a bit but we have to balance it with the need for having a just hearing. Yes, the answer is that there are many cases out there, and that is one of the big problems in immigration.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder whether the Hon. Member could address a concern of mine dealing with the perception of discrimination in respect of people coming to the country either through refugee immigration status or through family reunification. A valid impression has been left in the minds of many people that if one happens to come from a country where the skin colour of the majority is other than white, road-blocks are put in one's place in the acceptance of a marriage certificate or a birth certificate. We have even reached the point where people have to bring in blood tests to prove that they are parent and child, et cetera. There seems to be built into the system more road-blocks for people coming from non-white countries, and I wonder whether the Hon. member would comment on that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, of course the Hon. Member is right. I suspect there is something behind that regarding the foreign doctors I used as an example. Certainly that is the case in the first example 1 used. As I mentioned, the bureaucracy will, in a sense, outlaw those weddings. The person then appeals, and gets a reasonably fair hearing where there is a little more discretion. The appeal is allowed, but of course there is a delay for another 18 months. I think there is very much in what the Hon. Member said.
I was a lawyer. I practised some immigration law but not a lot of it. I practised a lot of criminal law and other forms of law in court.


Philip Derek Lewis: Were you good at anything, Ian?


John Horton McDermid: Did you do anything?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will not respond to those comments; I will just see them in court. I am trying to say to the Hon. Member that in the justice process, if we had delays and discrimination such as these that violated due process, we put money into it to speed up the cases and have it done properly. Somehow for immigration, which is very important, we do not make resources available and we permit bad process.


An Hon. Member:: What about the cost?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: There is the cost, but we should be prepared to make that money available. On a broader matter, we have not quite recognized that Canada is the multicultural country we have created through immigration over the last 20 years or 30 years. We have not quite come around to the fact that this is the reality. We are still acting in terms of lowering priorities in immigration matters, in terms of discriminition, bureaucra-
February 25, 1986

cy and other things. We are still applying a standard as if we were the old type of country of the past. I do not think that answers the Hon. Member's question directly. I do not know whether she has had a chance to speak in the debate, but I would welcome that because she represents an inner-city riding as well. These problems surface every day in our constituency offices.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, could the Hon. Member tell us whether he feels the Charter of Rights will have any effect on the difficult situation faced by foreign medical graduates seeking employment in Canada?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I made an allusion to that in my speech. If I were a young lawyer out there again taking cases,
I would take that particular case. I think the pattern of conduct in which medical associations are engaging in most provinces except Quebec and Manitoba could be illegal. There is systematic discrimination against foreign medical graduates in not letting them get internships. I would hope that would be ruled unconstitutional if the case was heard. I wish they would take the case to court. Better still, to avoid the case, I wish medical associations would change their procedures. Also I wish the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of National Health and Welfare would get themselves involved in trying to stop this terrible pattern of discrimination against foreign medical graduates.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Hon. Member two questions. Is he aware that the problem he raised in connection with foreign medical graduates is not the only illustration, that there is the same discrimination in other professions? Does this not raise a question about which we have to think, that we may have given professional organizations too much power to control their own fields? Also, when the Department of Immigration receives applications from doctors, engineers and other professionals-


Mr. Bradley:: And lawyers.


David Orlikow: And lawyers, yes-is the prospective immigrant warned that he or she will probably have great difficulty and that it will probably take years to practise his or her profession in most parts of Canada?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the first question, I would personally prefer it if bar associations and medical associations were self-regulated. In the long run that is a better system. This is why we have the Charter of Rights, the common law principles and so on; they still have to regulate themselves within the law. They are open to challenge if they do not. 1 think this is a good case, the one of foreign medical students, on which someone should challenge them.
To answer the Hon. Member's second question, people are not warned. That is what the doctors were telling me. They said they came to Canada with great expectations, and now they are stuck. They cannot even get jobs. That is a terrible tragedy and a terrible waste of resources. It is about time we did something about that.
Immigration Act, 1976


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I realize that Bill C-55 deals with a very specific element of our immigration policy, the appointment of the number of people who will be in positions to oversee the tremendous backlog of applications for refugee status. However, it seems that the opportunity given us by third reading of the Bill is to examine some of the questions which were not put before the House in Bill form, and to examine some of the questions which have been ignored to date on a systemic basis.
There has certainly been a crying need over the last number of years for a total review of immigration policy, not only with the view of encouraging more people to come to this great country, but of determining that support systems are available for those people whom we welcome into our country either as refugees of a political nature or under the family reunification program.
I should like to deal, first and foremost, with the issue of family reunification. Most of us in our capacity as Members of Parliament-and it is certainly the case in the riding of Hamilton East-represent people of many different cultures and from many different countries. 1 face a demand as a Member of Parliament from families who have tried every means of facilitating reunification with their loved ones in other countries. There are times in my office on a Saturday morning when I will have a family in tears. In fact, about a week ago I was most pleased to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) say that he was working very hard to facilitate the reunification of the Estonian family, a situation which was raised by a Member from the City of Toronto. That two-year old child, about whom the Minister spoke, is not alone in being isolated from her family.
There was a couple in my office last week who were forced to leave their eight-year old daughter in Romania. They applied for a visa and had to wait a very long time for it. When the visa was accorded, the Government would not allow the child to leave with the parents and she stayed in the care of the grandparents. The parents have been in Canada since September of 1984, and have applied for political refugee status. They have been waiting for their case to be heard. Their case is clear, they are legitimate political refugees. In the meantime, their daughter languishes in Romania. She has been punished by the Romanian Government to the extent that she is not allowed to go to school. This eight-year old child has been separated from her parents for almost 19 months and has been punished to the point of being denied an education.
While it is admirable of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to raise issues of individual concern, he must recognize that this is not an isolated case. The situation faced by the Estonian family is faced by hundreds and thousands of families across Canada. People are going to bed every night with their hearts breaking. There was a woman crying in my office just last week because she longed for her daughter. She did not know whether she would see her daughter again or when the Canadian Government was going to deal with her application.

February 25, 1986
Immigration Act, 1976
They have not been denied by the Canadian Government, but are on the list of the 20,000 people who are waiting for a fair hearing, which is the right of immigrants to Canada.
We have heard the other side of the story, Mr. Speaker. One of the things that politicians must face in Canadian society is a certain level of bigotry, of fear, and of racism directed toward the people who would, allegedly, steal our jobs. 1 have heard it in my own riding. People call me up and ask why I am fighting on behalf of immigrants who came to this country and stole our jobs. However, we know full well that immigration creates jobs. People who are working, in many cases for a minimum wage, and are pooling their resources, are forced to spend almost every last penny of their earnings to keep themselves afloat. These people are contributing to the economy in a far more direct way than those of us who can afford to sock away our dollars or benefit from a capital gains exemption. Every dollar paid in a salary to immigrants is spent because those immigrants want to establish themselves. They want to buy a home.
I had a very personal experience in the days of the exodus of refugees from Vietnam. 1 was involved with a group that sponsored a family from Vietnam. At that time I took over publicity for Operation Lifeline. I received hate letters and calls from people asking why I was getting involved with these people. The members of the family that I helped to sponsor are now working, although not at great jobs. One of them eventually got a job at a major steel mill and then was laid off, like many other people. However, most of them are working at jobs in clothing factories where they are earning only a little more than minimum wage. A couple of them are working in restaurants.
It is wonderful to see what they have done and to see the joy on their son's face because he is taking piano lessons. He is a great musician. Mr. Speaker, I realize that that family has taken nothing from the country; in fact, it has given. That family has shown what a family can do when it puts its hearts and minds together and is prepared to live in crowded circumstances and to pool its resources.
Public policy of immigration should be used to facilitate that kind of reunification and to facilitate the immigration of people to this country who stand a good chance of making it and of making an economic contribution. I was disappointed last year when the Committee on Immigration took the position that we should be considering increases in the area of entrepreneurship. It is not that I am against entrepreneurs. More power to you if you can make a buck through the sweat of your brow and your own imagination. However, I also think that the so-called entrepreneur program, which basically defines someone who has money, should not necessarily be the criterion upon which we encourage people to come to this country. My great uncle may have died and bequeathed me $.5 million, but does that mean I would necessarily make a contribution to our economy? If one looks at Canadian success stories, in many cases those people came to this country as immigrants with $10, $20, or $100 in their pockets. My ancestors were driven out of their country during the potato
famine because they did not have enough to eat, and they came to Canada.
I would like to refer to what we have been doing with Bill C-55 and other legislation which considers the question of family reunification as it relates to those with disabilities. I think a lot of people are praying that the changes which were recommended in the equality report, as it deals with immigration, will be implemented.

Specifically, Mr. Speaker, there is one question that was never addressed by the Committee or by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. MacDonald), and that is the question of the immigration of young children or relatives who are less developed mentally. I am not sure about the French term, but in English the term used to be:

-mentally retarded child or developmentally retarded child, not a developmentally advanced child. 1 can give the Minister chapter and verse of cases which have been brought to my attention of people who have been denied reunification with their children because the children have been defined by a medical expert, or whatever, as not having an IQ high enough to come to this country. In some cases they are working on farms and able to support themselves in their home country, but they are denied the right to come to Canada. I am pleased that the equality report which followed the Charter is recommending to the Government that we change the discriminatory clauses in our Immigration Act which prevent people from coming to Canada if they have been classified as being in that so-called sub-group of developmentally handicapped, because that is not fair.
In the same way we should be considering the establishment of a process which will permit people from countries other than the white Anglo-Saxon countries to get a fair shake with regard to immigration. I have many friends from India as well as Pakistan who have been extremely disconcerted by the attitude which they sometimes face when, with the assistance of relatives here in Canada, they make application in their home country. In many cases they have to travel hundreds, if not thousands, of miles to arrive at the consulate only to be told that their birth certificate or their marriage certificate is invalid. Perhaps their way of doing things is not exactly the way in which we operate here in Canada. We must build in, not only flexibility, but also sensitivity.
I was pleased when, some months ago, by way of intervention from the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and myself we were successful in convincing the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to issue a special visa to a family that came from Iran. I hope this message reaches thoses people who are working on the front lines. Like the people who work in your constituency office, Mr. Speaker, they may have all the best intentions in the world. They are on the front lines for Canada and, even if the answer is not a positive one, at the very least they should be decent, polite, and accommodating.
February 25, 1986

This particular family had a daughter-in-law and a son living in Canada with a four-year-old child. They had five other children living in Iran and had no intention of immigrating to Canada. They wanted to come to see their son, whom they had not seen for seven years, and his new wife and their new granchild. Because of the difficult political situation in Iran, when the visa was issued they had to leave the country immediately. The visa was not issued for Canada because there is not a Canadian embassy there. They were advised to go to Switzerland and make an application at the Canadian consulate in Switzerland and they did so. When they arrived in Switzerland the immediate reaction of the official involved was that these people were from Iran. "There is no way we touch Iranians because they are coming to this country to live, they are not here on valid visitor's permits", he said. All the long-distance phone calls from my office or that of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain were not going to convince this particular official that this family was coming to Canada to see a son they had not seen in seven years and a grandchild who was then, I think, four years old.
We intervened with the Minister and she took the bull by the horns and said she would issue the permit, which she did. For that we were very grateful. Unfortunately, many people do not realize that they have that recourse, that you can get all of the Parties together even when the House is not sitting, or that the Minister's disposition is going to be as positive in other cases as it was in this.
Obviously the Minister cannot deal with every single immigration issue which crosses the desk of every official. The point is that we have an obligation to develop systems which take into consideration the needs, not only of those people who are working in the hinterlands, as it were, in our consulates and immigration offices, but we also have to build systems which will offset the kind of endemic and systemic discrimination we have seen in the backlog of refugee applications. Most of those people are not necessarily coming from what we would call the traditional white anglo-saxon countries. They come from countries where political unrest is something we only see on television and hope will never happen here. We have to develop a system which will not only take that into consideration, but one which will keep paramount the notion that family reunification should be the number one objective of our immigration policy. You can lose your money, you can lose your home and a lot of other things, but if you have your family you have something to build on. There is a built-in bonus to a policy which says that when the number of immigrants is to be increased-and I believe it should be, and substantially so. Because it creates jobs and increases economic activity, let us not do it just for those people who have $250,000 or $500,000 to invest. Frankly, most people are not in that range.
There is a lot of work to be done in this area. I have files here, and there are dozens and dozens more where they came from, concerning people who have had a problem with the system. I am afraid that a two-page Bill dealing with the single issue of more appointments to the IAB will not solve these
Immigration Act, 1976
problems. What we need is a long-term look at where we are going, how we can open our doors, how we can encourage more immigration to help build Canada. This country was built by the work of immigrants and their families and that is the kind of policy we should be implementing as we enter the 21st century.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments?


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member spent considerable time on the lengthy process involved in getting applications started and completed. 1 wonder if she has had experience with the long and sometimes tedious process that refugees have to go through only to find themselves suspended, as it were, by the Department, sometimes for several years. Can she comment on that particular problem?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in some cases these individuals are faced with a double whammy. They may have fled their country because of political or economic persecution, or a general lack of individual freedom. They come to Canada, make application as bona fide political refugees, yet in many cases are denied the opportunity to seek gainful employment, for example, while their application is under review. Obviously if the application takes years-and we have seen a number of refugees who have waited two or three years-they have to be either a self-supporting millionaire or have an awful lot of friends in order to survive. If they are able to work, in many cases they establish themselves as part of the community. I had a gentleman in my office a couple of weeks ago who has been working as a baker. He has been in this country for a number of years. He has a second job as a fur-cutter. This is a very specific profession. Yet, because of some of the regulations and/or delays, he is facing great financial hardship.
Obviously these questions can be addressed only through an over-all look at the problem. It cannot be done simply by attempting to deal with one particular problem involving the Immigration Appeal Board. Tripling the number of members will not solve the problem when you have a backlog of thousands. It would be unfair to suggest to the public that this Bill is the answer. Obviously it will speed up the process to the tune of a few dozen a week, but when you have thousands of people waiting, they are going to be waiting for a very long time.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague when she spoke about her experience as a Member of Parliament and as a member of the Ontario Legislature concerning immigration problems. I am sure there is some similarity between the problems she faces in Hamilton and the ones I face in Toronto. I have found that while the family reunification plan is working well, the system is breaking down in the flood of applications, continuously refused, of people who are trying to sponsor extended family members for immigration, that is to say, uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces. I cannot understand why we are not approaching this problem in a more systematic and serious way. I just wondered if that

February 25, 1986
Immigration Act, 1976
was her experience in Hamilton, and if so would she enlighten the Government on the advantages of placing a little more emphasis on allowing greater flexibility concerning these applications? These people would come to Canada not as independents or entrepreneurs, but as people who have the support of a family living in this country.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, 1 happen to have been lucky enough in my constituency office to have had an excellent assistant on these matters in the person of Don Drury. Unfortunately, because we cannot afford to pay our people as well as do other Government sectors, he has had to go on to greener pastures, and I am really sorry to see him go. That being said, let me point out that we seem to stick to a kind of Canadian cultural practice in this area. Too many of my Italian-Canadi-an friends, for example, if you are compare, you can be a brother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, or uncle, and you are all family. They do not make the distinction we do regarding the son, daughter or father type of relationship. They reach out. If you are from the same village, you are compare.
We have to look at expanding the definition so that those relatives who are now being refused are given greater consideration because they already have a support system here. In my own community, the Agro family from Racalmuto came to Canada in the late 1940s because the doors were open to them. Now there are more people from that village living in Hamilton than there are in Racalmuto. I think most of them have the last name of Agro. They would argue that they are all related, and I am sure that that is so in heart if not in bloodline, but I think the Hon. Member made a very good point.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: There was one other point that I wanted to ask the Member to comment on, and that was a statement she made, which is often contradicted by general acceptance across the country, that is, that the increase of immigrants increases the economic activity of Canada, rather than the myth which is propagated most generally that immigrants take Canadians' jobs and, therefore, put Canadians out of work. I would like her to comment or to enlarge on that a little bit.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am sure there are people here in this room today who have come from another country with very little but have been prepared to invest in this country. I have friends today who are working in sewing factories making $4.50 an hour. They might come home with a pay cheque of $160, $170, $180 a week. That money goes to buy clothing, because they have come to the country as political refugees, for example, with nothing but the clothes on their backs. That money goes to buy food. It goes to buy, in many cases, shelter and a roof over their heads. I think you see many, many immigrants who believe in the dream of home ownership and they pool their resources at an early stage to buy a home. That money may go to buy a washing machine. When you are at a lower income level, which would primarily represent the income level of most immigrants coming to this country, as soon as you get a pay cheque you take it out and spend it in the community.
If you are in the $50,000 plus income bracket many of your dollars are spent moving around T bills or investing in something which does not create direct jobs either for your community or for the country. You are playing on the stock market or you are moving your money around in that way, but that money has less of a direct feeding effect into the economy, less of an injection, less of a boost than the money of the family that comes here and makes collectively between a husband and a wife working maybe only $20,000 or $25,000. If that money is put together to get a house, to get food, to buy a car, to buy necessities in Canadian life, then that money is going right back into the economy. That is why I think that immigrants in fact create employment rather than take it away from Canadians.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I will just make a very brief intervention. I want to reiterate a number of the points that have been made this afternoon, for instance, the point made by the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) just a moment ago when she indicated that we impose upon immigrants who come to Canada a family structure which they sometimes do not recognize. They wonder why we do not recognize that somebody coming from their country wants to bring over his or her family.
For instance, I can give you a very personal experience which I had. I lived for a number of years in Nigeria at the time that the census was taken. When the census taker came around to my house we had a Canadian girl staying with us. The census taker was in quite a quandary because, although we were in the Moslem part of the country, she was not another wife, nor was she a daughter or a sister. When he asked me if she was my sister, I said no. Finally, the census taker asked me, "Does she come from your country?". When I explained to him, "Yes, she came from a part of my country", he said, "Oh, that's fine", and he put her down as a sister, and that was very acceptable to him and to everybody. In fact, it was the only category into which she could fit.
I also want to reiterate the concern that many people have about immigration and the concern which not only the immigrants but the people in Canada feel in dealing with immigrants who have come to Canada. I am referring to the ability of the Department of suspend people somewhere between the time of their decision to apply, the final possibility that they might land or even be in Canada, and, even beyond that, when they might become citizens of Canada. I remender a couple of years ago, as members of the Public Accounts Committee, we were looking into the real delays that veterans were experiencing in getting their pensions. We were told by veterans who appeared before our committee that sometimes it took five years from the time they applied for a veteran's allowance or a veteran's pension until they went through all the processes and finally got a veteran's pension. This is within our bureaucracy. I think that in the case of immigrants we have managed to stretch far beyond that because we now have situations where immigrants wait for years and years.
I have a neighbour in my home constituency who has been a refugee for a number of years and for some reason, even after
February 25, 1986

he was designated as a refugee, he was unable to get himself designated as a landed immigrant. He has already been here five years.
When we deal with Bill C-55, which is the Act to amend the Immigration Act, we think that we are changing the process for the better, but it becomes obvious, once you start going through this structure and you delve into the problems we have regarding the people immigrating to the country, that what we are doing is applying a few band-aids which are not really going to make very much difference into the total and final effectiveness of the Act. What the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has announced to the world is that until now we have been accepting 85,000 immigrants, and a little more with the reunification of families and so on, we are telling the world now that we are going to start accepting 120,000 per year. We are increasing the number by approximately 25 per cent. However, in doing so we have not put in place the kind of processing ability which would make it possible for us to have a smooth operating machine so when these people apply they can be processed. Just imagine sitting in a community in South America, Vietnam or Hong Kong and knowing that you have put in an application, and then waiting for five years to get a reply from the local immigration officer, or even in fact never getting a reply from the local immigration officer, being ignored entirely, not necessarily by what they consider to be the local bureaucrat, but being ignored by Canada. It seems they are being ignored by Canada because we do not have the necessary facilities to allow for quick processing of these applicants.
Our treatment of applicants is not good. Rather than accepting their application they should be told that nothing can be done for them. There are cases where we advertise for immigrants yet we hinder them from immigrating to this country so that they eventually give up and decide not to come. I am surprised that we have as many immigrants as we do when one considers the persistence that is necessary to become a landed immigrant.
Those whose applications are eventually processed are thankful for their acceptance by Canadians. However, if they find they are unable to establish themselves within our structure they face numerous delays, which we would not accept as Canadians. Landed immigrants face so many road-blocks in their pursuit of landed immigrant status that many believe we do not want them to become citizens.
Furthermore, those who have obtained landed immigrants status and wish to bring their families for a visit should ensure that the latter do not apply for immigration before visiting. The bureaucrats in the Department will suggest that they cannot allow a family member to come to Canada for a visit because they have applied for landed immigrant status. No matter what assurances are made that the family member will return home, the bureaucrat assumes that that person cannot be trusted to return. The Department of Employment and
Canadian Arsenals Limited
Immigration will not allow them to enter Canada on a visitor's permit if they have applied for landed immigrant status.
When considering a Bill such as this we must take the opportunity to consider the problems that are not solved by this Bill and ensure that we have a smooth mechanism for quickly processing these other 30,000 immigrants to Canada so they do not feel rejected in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Abram Ernest Epp: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett)-Environmental Affairs-Location of United States nuclear waste dumps; the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly)-Forestry-Vancouver Island forest lands, (b) Request for additional funding; the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell)-Canada Post-Threat of pre-Christmas strike.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mclnnes that Bill C-87, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals Limited and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
[Stage Direction]
February 25, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: When the House last debated the Bill, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) had the floor. Since he is not here, we will resume debate.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in debate on Bill C-87, an Act to allow the federal Government to dispose of Canadian Arsenals Limited. However, it is not because I agree with the Government's objective-just the opposite. It gives us the opportunity to explore how the Government's ideology can lead it to make such financial mistakes. It also gives us the opportunity to point out the weaknesses in the proposal before us, particularly in the way it has been carried through. Finally, we are given the opportunity to state our regret at the Government's desire to dispose of Canadian Arsenals Limited.
This corporation, which manufactures large calibre munitions, including tank ammunition, has been in existence as a Crown corporation for just over 40 years. The proposal is to sell this corporation to a Montreal engineering firm named SNC. That corporation, through its ownership of Canadian Arsenals Limited as well as IVI Incorporated, which has been operating for some time, will be allowed to become a monopolist in Canada of the manufacture of munitions for the Department of National Defence.
I believe this decision by the Government is regrettable. Canadian Arsenals Limited does 90 per cent of its business with the federal Government. We trust that it operates as efficiently as all other Crown corporations. We assume that sales are made to the Government at the lowest possible price. If excessive profits are being made, they would come back to the Government soon enough and would be available to offset costs. We have a situation, then, in which there cannot be any profiteering in the production of ammunition, yet we can be sure that the Canadian Department of National Defence will have the ammunition it needs and there will not be any of several kinds of risks being run.
The fact is that Canadian Arsenals has been quite successful as a commercial enterprise. It is on the list of Canada's 500 largest companies. It was third in a list of companies which have had the best profit record over the past five years. Admittedly, one might say it was a very difficult five years with the interest rate depression of the early 1980s as part of that time period. I suppose the assured business of armaments carried on by Canadian Arsenals would help to explain why it ranked number three among the profit makers of the country. The Government expects the profits of the corporation of Canadian Arsenals Limited to grow and sales are expected to double over the next five years. There is a backlog of orders at the moment of some $200 million. What we have, then, is a Crown corporation which makes money. It is a Crown corporation which is profitable. But we have long since realized that when Conservatives look at Crown corporations, they assume that the profitable ones should be turned over to the private sector wherever that can be done so that the profits can be
privatized. The unfortunate money losers, or those Crown corporations which cannot realize a profit for reasons of public policy, we subsidize deliberately. The Conservatives always see these money losers as inevitably in the public's hands. There is this contrast between the privatization of profit and the socializing of poverty, of money losing. The capitalist Government, in the guise of this supposed Progressive Conservative Government, is very nicely practised in that. There can be no doubt that the Government is working on that kind of ideological principle even though there is a case for munitions manufacture, given the necessity of certain defence forces in our country, to be operating as a Crown corporation with limited profits going to the Government and where the Government is in fact in control.
This matter of control is not a feature to be glossed over lightly. Canada prides itself on controlling the sale of munitions as far as a number of trouble spots in the world are concerned. And, even more broadly, Canada prides itself on not selling munitions and weapons of war to countries which have human rights records of which we do not approve. We have, more or less, long lists of countries to which we would not sell weaponry, munitions and so on, even though my friend, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), pointed out last year that the Department of External Affairs appeared to be allowing the sale of certain material of this sort to Chile, one of the countries which has a thoroughly deplorable human rights record. Of course, these sales are made by enterprises whose only concern is to make a profit with no regard for how their products are used. Such sales exemplify very nicely the concern i feel in taking a useful enterprise-as long as we have defence forces in existence-and putting it into private hands beyond Government control so that they could do what they would with their product.
It distresses me that the press release of the Department of Supply and Services suggests at page 2 that:
SNC, in addition to offering the highest price, would substantially contribute towards making CAL an agent of growth and increased efficiency for the Canadian ammunition industry.
To have significant growth it is surely going to have to require sales outside of Canada. I think that is made quite clear on page 3 of the release where it states that:
As a Crown Corporation, CAL has been impeded in exploring opportunities to diversify. The Government is confident that once the company is privatized, CAL will pursue additional markets and product diversification.
It further states that:
-the Canadian ammunition industry should become internationally competitive.
It concludes with a reference to NATO sales. The reality is that NATO countries mostly have their own producers and are not very much in the market. There is far more danger that once CAL is owned by the SNC group in Montreal, it will be involved in producing and selling ammunition which might end up Lord knows where on the face of the earth. I believe that to mention this is justified because that other subsidiary to which I have already referred, IVI Incorporated, which was spun off in the mid-1960s, a producer of small calibre munitions, is
February 25, 1986

controlled by SNC, and in 1983 ammunition which had been produced by this company was in fact found in Nicaragua in the camps of the Contras who were carrying on their diabolical work of trying to overthrow the popular Government of the Sandinistas. The Contras have had a great deal of unofficial help from the United States and some help which gets perilously close to official. Surely, no Canadian Government, particularly given the stance taken by the Department of External Affairs in Central America, could approve of ammunition produced by IVI Incorporated ending up in the hands of the Contras. The merchants of death who operate these days in a number of other countries are desperately trying to obtain weapons and munitions, and there is considerable danger that Canadian Arsenals Limited will be found to be selling products to countries where Canadians generally would not want the products to be found. The loss of control over this industry is a very significant danger which follows as a consequence of the Government's decision to privatize profitable opportunity in munitions manufacture by getting rid of Canadian Arsenals Limited.
Surely, there are other unfortunate consequences in this proposal. The release to which I have referred with respect to exports states on page 3:
Significant efficiencies are expected to be achieved through joint efforts by CAL and IVI in such areas as administration, research and development, and marketing.
It is not difficult, surely, to appreciate that if IVI is involved in selling to the Department of National Defence, and has the organization to handle that, it can probably turf out some salesmen, some representatives and some people in administration after taking over CAL. When there are companies whose production is munitions there are certainly opportunities for efficiency but, surely, that means one thing only, and that is, a reduction in staff. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnis) must expect that the result of disposing of CAL will be some loss of jobs, although we always find that these things are presented to us as being done for the sake of efficiency. But that should not cause us to close our eyes to the fact that here we will have a small addition to the unemployment rolls of the country-unemployment rolls which continue to grow despite the fact that the Government takes pride in the number of jobs that have been created. The Government of Canada should not be doing anything to add to the list of those who are unemployed. In fact, it should be doing the opposite. We should actively be trying to reduce the numbers. That is just one more of the flaws in the process which is before us.
It is also appropriate to comment on the way in which this situation was carried through in explaining our opposition to the proposal. In the Budget of last May 23 it became clear that the Government intended to dispose of Canadian Arsenals Limited. In the months following the Budget a process was undertaken which, according to a reporter of The Financial Post last December, left a good deal of bitterness in the Canadian business community, bitterness over the way in which it was carried through and ultimately with respect to the
Canadian Arsenals Limited
fact that only a small number of companies were in on the final competition. The reporter observed that the Department of Supply and Services does not have a great deal of experience in selling things and in divesting itself, or the Government, of assets such as this Crown corporation. That explanation strikes me as somewhat ingenuous because if the Department does anything, surely it does a good deal in terms of distributing on the part of the Government, certainly with respect to information and so on. However, I would concede that selling a Crown corporation is not the normal type of business for such a Department and so it would not be good at doing it.
One still wonders at the fact that the Department forced the potential buyers through three rounds of bidding, a process which surely cost a variety of companies a fair amount of money. The fact that the last six bidders were asked to compete in terms of price only reflected, on the one hand, the fact that these half a dozen companies were acceptable to the Government. I suppose it reflected, on the other hand, that here was something which was very desirable in terms of a money-making venture. In fact, it is as assured in terms of money-making as is baking bread or packing meat. After all, stuffing ammunition cases for the army is a pretty good business. So the Government was able to force as substantial a price as it could. Certain conditions were extorted as well from the successful buyer in terms of reassuring investment and ensuring that the company remains an efficient producer.
One of the most unfortunate irregularities about the whole situation is the fact that an employee, a Director General of aeronautics and ammunition purchases in the Department, suddenly left the Department in this period of time and moved to a consulting firm in Ottawa. This consulting firm was assisting SNC put its bid forward. Even though statements has been made about his not being involved with the process, surely that raises a question about the propriety of the whole process. If this particular employee did well in the process, then that is surely reason to be concerned about employees generally.
I have already suggested that efficiencies expected here can only be achieved at the cost of jobs. The fact that the Government carried the process through without any consultation with the workers and without any deliberation with the Public Service Alliance, which represents a large number of the workforce at Canadian Arsenals, is one more lamentable feature of the situation. We can only fear what will happen in the transition to private control as SNC takes over Canadian Arsenals Limited and conceivably forces a new organization to take over. Lord knows what else might happen in that particular area. This is just one more aspect of this unfortunate decision by Government which I decry this afternoon.
I suppose the only happy feature in the whole matter has to do with the fact that the Government is determined to ensure that once the Crown corporation is a private enterprise it will be Canadian controlled. That might give us some hope for the continuance of an economically successful enterprise. It also might give us some hope that the company will respect

February 25, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
Canadian law and Canadian guidelines with respect to exports. This in spite of the fact that I have already alluded to IVI ammunition being found in Nicaragua, which means that even the assurance that it will be a Canadian-owned enterprise is no great assurance at all. It is satisfying to those of us who want opportunity for Canadian enterprise, if it cannot be done by Crown corporations. However, it is not a great deal of satisfaction.
I have been speaking in opposition to the measure this afternoon. I am not optimistic, of course, that our opposition will defeat the measure. When the measure comes before committee for careful consideration I expect that it will have the information available to it for a proper consideration of the matter before it is sent back to the House for third reading. The Andersen Report is particularly essential here. My last word on the subject is that this information has to be available to the committee in order for it to conduct a careful consideration of this proposal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley).


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I do not want the Hon. Member to be misled. He made a point which I am sure he did not really mean to make. He said that he did not think the Department had experience in this type of venture, that is, with respect to sales, contracts, et cetera. I am sure he would agree that a Department which handles in excess of 300,000 contracts per year definitely has experience in sales, purchasing and contract negotiation. I am also sure he would agree that a Department which purchases or sells through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation close to $10 billion worth of products a year definitely has experience in those fields. I am sure he did not wish to mislead the House in that respect.
I am also sure that when he spoke about an employee who left the Department to go to a consulting firm which was associated with one of the bidders he was well aware that this person was close to retirement. As a good civil servant close to retirement he had feelers out to firms such as this one. When he recognized that there was a conflict of interest, he withdrew himself from all negotiations with the Department pertaining to the contract. He made a point of leaving the Department prior to any bids being received by any of the firms. He signed an agreement stating that he would not be involved in any way whatsoever with the contract. I am sure the Hon. Member would not want to cast a cloud on an ex-member of the Department who served his country so well.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member was listening carefully to my remarks, so his first point is really superfluous. I conceded in my observations what he said, although since he has given me the occasion I will read the following sentence from The Financial Post of December 14, 1985. It reads:
The Government's handling of the sale .. . remains the source of much bitterness within the business community. Not least this was because the aims and objectives of the Department of Supply & Services-the agency responsible for the sale-were not always clear.
At least part of this is because DSS-which is the procurement arm for most government purchases, ranging from paperclips to jet fighters-is rather new at the game of selling government property to the private sector.
It is Mr. Bagnall whom I am quoting, and I too am inclined to think that DSS sells an awful lot of stuff and should know how to do it. Of course, selling a Crown corporation is not quite the same thing as disposing of government reports at exorbitant prices. In this case, we are all too likely to see Crown corporations sold off at a good deal less than that, and that might well reflect on the skill of the gentleman in charge of the Department of Supply and Services. 1 have no desire to reflect upon the officialdom in the Department in general. What I say does reflect, however, upon the Minister and his colleagues in Cabinet, of course, in appropriate style, given the way in which our Government functions.
As far as the second question is concerned, I would not want to reflect on the official who moved over. I will say in general, and I do not think he could object to this, that there is a real danger, and more than just the appearance of danger, when people leave a Department at a time as delicate as this and move into a consultancy business. If that consultancy business does not expect to get good value from this person, surely it will not take him in. It is not a matter of what he does not know about the bids that come in and how the Government reacts to them. What he does know is the way in which Government generally sees these things. I would think that it would be almost impossible for him to say anything about the Department without providing value to the consultancy firm.
The situation is not all that different, i think, from the situation of blind trusts that cabinet Ministers establish when they enter their offices and set aside their business involvements. Unless the trustee is given the power to deal freely and without informing the Minister of the holdings, I would think it would be difficult for a man who has been a sound and sensible investor-and I presume any Minister would be that if he had holdings that justified a blind trust-to forget his holdings. In those circumstances, it becomes almost impossible for a Minister who may possibly make a decision that relates to these holdings to not make a decision that will be to the benefit of his blind trust. Therefore, 1 think the only sensible way to go is to demand a period of at least a year in which there is a detachment from Government. I would not think that an official nearing retirement would forget all that much in a year, but presumably everything that was current would more or less have passed in that year's time and he could then move on without this same danger.
Without meaning to reflect on one particular official, because one should really reflect on others as well, if the general question is raised, I do not really want to take back my expression of concern about the appearance and what would be behind the appearance or underlie the concern about the appearance.
February 25, 1986


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a very short comment pertaining to that response. I am pleased to see a member of the New Democratic Party defending the business community and being so concerned about the Department upsetting the business community as was quoted from The Financial Post. Perhaps I could ask the Hon. Member if he has read the Auditor General's Report on the Department and if he is aware that the Auditor General has praised the activities and functioning of the Department in that area.
I would not want to belabour an issue such as the one of the civil servant in question, but that civil servant is an honourable one. He made an agreement that he would not be involved in activities with the Government for the required period. We acknowledge his honour. I do hope that he does not forget too much in the year because I am sure he will be of tremendous advantage to that firm in the future and I feel that more people who know how Government operates should become involved in consulting firms in Canada.
I congratulate this civil servant for moving over when he did and for being honourable enough to declare himself in conflict and divorce himself from the activities of the Department. I would not want to see a civil servant who retires being unable to be employed for a year. I think we can take civil servants at their word when they step aside and give their word that they will not be involved in Government operations.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-87, an Act to authorize the sale of the Canadian Arsenals Limited. I listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) who addressed the issue very well from a number of different perspectives, including the consequences and perhaps repercussions of CAL being sold to a private firm, in this case the engineering group from Montreal, on the international scene.
I would like to touch on a number of other factors that concern the agreement to sell the Crown corporation to the engineering group from Montreal. By way of background, 1 think Canadians ought to know that this particular Crown corporation was established nearly 40 years ago and manufactures medium and large calibre ammunition. It operates two plants, one in Montreal which employs some 750 employees and another one near Quebec City employing somewhat fewer than 50 employees. Ninety per cent of its production is sold to the Department of National Defence and 10 per cent is exported to the international stage.
A number of different factors puzzle not only me but members of my Party and indeed constituents across the land. One of the things that seems incorrect about this deal is the secrecy surrounding it. The Government has made the decision to sell this particular Crown corporation to the engineering group from Montreal for a total price of some $92.2 million. Yet the Government's financial adviser in this deal has been Arthur Andersen Limited of Montreal. In questions in the House of Commons and in correspondence with the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes), the Minister and the Government have refused very clearly to produce a copy of the
Canadian Arsenals Limited
financial report. They have refused to educate Canadians about the actual worth of this particular company in order that Canadians may be able to deduce that this particular selling price of some $92.2 million represents a good deal.
Canadians and we in Parliament are asking why there is this secrecy. Why is history repeating itself once again? By that, I am referring to the history of this Parliament. The Government has cloaked itself in a cocoon of secrecy before. When we were talking only a few short weeks ago of the de Havilland deal, it was difficult to pry any information out of the Government, information that was legitimately the prerogative of Canadians since they were the shareholders of de Havilland corporation. It was the same secrecy which was evident when we debated in the House for quite a stretch of time the bail-out of the two defunct banks only a few short months ago. we were being asked to sign a $1 billion cheque which was to go to invisible, unnamed, uninsured depositors with over $60,000 in their accounts. We in the House of Commons and Canadians in general were unable to obtain from the Government the information which was rightfully ours. We wanted to know who the depositors were so that we could determine where that large chunk of taxpayers' dollars would eventually land.
Was it a question which was somewhat too demanding? Was it a question which was inappropriate of Parliament and of Canadians? Of course it was not. It was information which should have been dealt with in a forthright and honest manner. Yet, one would think that after two lessons in public outcry the Government would somehow change its way of dealing with what is public property and public investment.
In respect of Canadian Arsenals Limited, we again have stonewalling and secrecy. Again we are told by the Government that we should just take its word for it that what it is doing is good for Canada. That worries me a great deal because I do not trust only the Government having the information, without sharing it with the Parliament of Canada and with Canadians. In fact, if it were such a great deal, knowing the public relations appetite of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney), they would be marching their troops across the country and advertising the greatness of the deal. They are not doing that. In fact, in a letter dated January 20 from the Minister of Supply and Services to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), the following was indicated: "I must once again advise you that I cannot provide you with a copy of the Arthur Andersen report. However, I can confirm that the Arthur Andersen company carried out a valuation study prior to commencement of the bidding and negotiating process and estimated the value range".
That is simply not good enough. We are talking about estimations. People want to know what the particular analysis produced. Why is the Government not prepared to table those results so that we may take the $92 million figure and compare it with the actual worth of the company? By itself, $92 million is worthless. A Canadian living in Downsview, Ontario could

February 25, 1986
Canadian Arsenals Limited
say that it is great that they got $92 million for it. However, an individual in Moose Jaw might say that it was terrible because they could have obtained $100 million. Who is to know the wide range of opinions that exist in the country? Why are Canadians being kept in the dark once again, if this is in fact such a great deal? That is one aspect with which we in this Party have problems. Following second reading and in committee, we will certainly pressure the Government and the Minister to make the information public and to provide Canadians with the backdrop upon which we can decide whether $92 million is a good deal or a bad deal.
The second question concerns the whole philosophy behind the sale of this particular Crown corporation. It does not make sense if one allows logic to follow its course. In the de Havilland corporation giveaway, because that is what it was, member after member of the government Party rose in his place and said that one of the major reasons for selling the corporation was that is was losing millions of dollars. They refused to look at all the other components. However, if we look at the central argument which they presented consistently and regularly, we have to wonder what were the criteria in respect of CAL. If we look at some of the figures, we see that CAL is very good from a financial perspective. Let us consider that from 1980 to 1985 it has consistently shown profits. In 1984-85 it showed profits of some $11.3 million. It has assets of over $126.4 million. It also has an accumulated total of $36 million in profits over the last few years. Therefore, one does not have to be a mathematician or an economist to understand that the Crown corporation was doing very well financially. Not only that, but sales in the next five years were projected to double. It also had $200 million in backlog orders.
Again Canadians and Parliamentarians are asking themselves: if on the one hand the de Havilland corporation was sold largely because it was losing money, why does the Government turn around a number of weeks or months later and sell a Crown corporation which is making money? What gives? What is the reasoning? What is the rationale? Where is the logic in Government policy? Where is the direction which the Government is attempting to provide? Where is consistent leadership? Where is consistent policy in respect of Crown corporations? Obviously the Government does not have one. One day it sells a Crown corporation because it is losing money. That is the reason given by Government Members. They boast, clap and cheer. Now they have a Crown corporation which is well operated financially and they do the same thing; they wish to sell it. That is inconsistent.
Another factor which is inconsistent is the philosophy which tries to understand why they wish to privatize one arm of Government which is supplying at a profit another arm of Government. Why toy with that interlinkage? Why toy with a network which is working within Government and supplying arms for the Canadian military? Why privatize one arm of Government which is serving another? It simply does not make sense. Individual Canadians are asking themselves, from a philosophical point of view at least, how the Government can rationalize decision-making in respect of two Crown corporations as we have seen in de Havilland and in Canadian Arsenals Limited.
Another factor is the consultation and tendering process in the sale of this corporation. If one reads the commentaries, there has been very little consultation. For instance, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the union which many CAL employees fall under, indicated the following as its basic reason: "The Government never bothered to talk to the union about the deal". It also said: "We question the rationale of the Government selling a Crown corporation that does business only with the Government". Another quote was: "We feel that the Government will be in an uncomfortable position buying from a foreign company if CAL is not competitive". There has been little consultation in respect of the selling of this Crown corporation. Moreover, some bidders expressed a concern that the Department conducted the selling of this Crown corporation in an amateur fashion, that the Department of Supply and Services basically relied on word of mouth and contacted companies informally, in the end inviting six companies to place bids rather than making the process open and rather than making the process accountable and accessible to one and all. This is reminiscent of the sale of de Havilland when, right from the start, one company was strongly favoured over another company, which happened to be Canadian. Those are some of the questions which have not been answered at this stage of second reading. Those questions must be pursued vigorously, if not in the House of Commons during second reading, then at committee stage where the evidence of a number of expert witnesses will perhaps clarify the picture for us.
When one looks at the secrecy and the inconsistency of the Government within a span of two to three months with regard to Crown corporations, one must wonder where the Government is going, where it wants to take Canadians, and what message it wants to leave with them. It is no wonder that Canadians are questioning the leadership of this administration. The Prime Minister was successful in attaining his office, but when he got to 24 Sussex he said: "Where do we go from here? What now?"
During the last federal election campaign the Prime Minister campaigned on a commitment of opening up Government, making it more accessible, and providing more information to Canadians to enable them to see how the Government is functioning on their behalf. Where are those commitments now? Where is the information? Where was the information on the de Havilland sale? Where was the information with respect to the bank bail-outs and the uninsured depositors?
Where is the information from Arthur Andersen who was instructed to conduct a study to determine the real value of this particular Crown corporation? Why does the Government refuse to this day to release that report? Why is it afraid to tell Canadians what Arthur Andersen said the corporation was actually worth? If Arthur Andersen had suggested that the value was less than $92 million, the Government would be
February 25, 1986

lauded for making a great deal, and I would stand in my place and say so. However, if Arthur Andersen had suggested that the value of that Crown corporation was greater than $92 million, we would know that the Conservative Government is trying to hide its embarrassment.
However, that is not an excuse for not providing Canadians with information. If the company was worth more than $92 million the Government should not have rushed into the deal. If the Government still wanted to sell the company, it should have waited for the right deal. In the meantime, CAL would still be making a profit. The Government would not be able to say that it is selling Crown corporations because they are bleeding the coffers and Canadians cannot pay any more. The Government cannot use that argument in this case and yet it still cloaks itself in a cocoon of secrecy. That is not good enough and Canadians will not accept or tolerate it.
We are going to be vigorous in ensuring that the 25 million Canadians who are shareholders of that corporation are provided with the information. In any business the shareholders determine the policy and have the information at their fingertips. In this case the shareholders, the Canadian citizens, have been denied that right. We will fight until that right is restored to them.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on something which the previous speaker put before the House very effectively. It deals with this process of divestiture of Crown corporations. This is one of four Crown corporations which the Government has decided to sell. The first was Northern Transportation. Perhaps we were a little too trusting in that case because we did not ask who established the value of Northern Transportation.
In the case of de Havilland we became suspicious about whether the value that was attributed to it was adequate since the value of the land was pretty close to the value of the bid, and there were many extra goodies given to Boeing. In the case of Canadian Arsenals Limited the Government is again keeping the information from Parliament and the people of Canada.
The fourth sale was that of Kidd Creek Mines, a fully-owned subsidiary of the CDC. The amount of money involved in that instance was $615 million and that has not been questioned in the least. Since that corporation was a part of the CDC the sale does not have to be brought before the House for ratification. However, I think we should be concerned about that sale as well because $615 million is a considerably larger amount. How do we know that that was the correct value of that corporation? Would the Member comment on how our mistrust in these sales has built up?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question. In his last sentence he hit the nail squarely on the head. How can Canadians trust the Government to sell what is theirs if that information is not provided? In the press release issued by the Minister of Supply and Services it says: "Minister Mclnnes expressed satisfaction that the competitive process had achieved the best results, both for the Government, and
Water Export and Diversion Act the taxpayers". Says who, Mr. Speaker? How can taxpayers be satisfied that the best deal was arrived at when they are being denied access to the information which would determine if the deal was financially positive for Canadians? In this case Arthur Andersen's Report is confidential. The Minister has it in his office and refuses to show it to Parliament or to Canadian taxpayers. That kind of arrogant attitude and thinking will not build confidence and trust in the Government.
Canadian citizens own an equal share in Crown corporations. When Crown corporations are sold, each and every Canadian has the right to know about it, and this information is being denied.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   WATER EXPORT AND DIVERSION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: that Bill C-257, an Act respecting the conservation, export and diversion of water resources, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, you may ask why this Bill is being introduced so I will briefly explain. With the consent of the Government, which I hope will allow it to go through, this Bill will ensure that Parliament has the final word should Cabinet decide one day, perish the thought, in favour of a diversion or export of our water. The possibility of this happening did not exist until recently. The unfortunate interview given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to Fortune magazine some time ago, along with the $30,000 grant which the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) gave to the Grand Canal company, has given credibility and momentum to something which, under normal circumstances, was considered a crackpot idea, and quite rightly so. I would not want it thought that this measure is generated simply because of the Grand Canal proposal. It is because of the possibility that water diversion and export may really emerge on the political agenda of Canada in the decades to come. This Bill attempts to bring the issue forward for examination by this and future Parliaments in order that a specific decision related to water exports is not made by Cabinet alone.
You may ask why this matter needs to be addressed by way of a Bill, and why it does not amend an existing Act. The reason is simply that no such legislation exists because, until

February 25, 1986
Water Export and Diversion Act
now, we have never seen the need of introducing such legislation. As 1 mentioned a moment ago, the possibility never emerged as something which should be addressed seriously. However, in recent months it has become more than a possibility, and that causes some of us enormous concern. Therefore, we feel the necessity for putting forward a parliamentary proposal, Bill C-257, for the consideration of this House.
By way of contrast with the interview that the Prime Minister had with Fortune magazine, I would like to quote Prime Minister St. Laurent who had this to say about water export policy in 1947:
Can we, in fairness to Canadian generations of the future, allow such natural wealth to be diverted from our own territory and put to uses from which it would be extremely difficult afterwards to withdraw it?
Those words are as much the reality today as they were more than 40 years ago, and perhaps even more so.
In essence this Bill makes the point that political, social, economic and environmental values are affected when it comes to permitting the diversion and export of water. From a political point of view, if we were to embark on a major diversion of our water, it would mean that we would integrate this continent's water resources. This would inevitably, in my opinion, lead to political integration. I would like to quote General McNaughton when he warned in 1966:
-if we make a bargain to divert water to the United States we cannot ever discontinue or we will face force to compel compliance.
Once you divert, Mr. Speaker, you create a dependency. Once you divert, you cannot turn the tap off. Once you divert, the political hand of the stronger partner is the one which really has the power to turn the tap off, if it can be turned at all.
I would also like to put forward some thoughts of a social nature as it affects possible diversions, particularly that which has been speculated upon recently concerning the Hudson Bay area. Here the social consequences would be felt by our native people. It would affect their lifestyle. It would affect their ability to live in the environment to which they are accustomed. The flow of rivers would be reversed or otherwise diverted. Pumping stations in considerable numbers would have to be installed. The cultural dislocation that would follow would be very hard to describe, and the native people have expressed on a variety of occasions their strong opposition to any diversion of this kind. Another social impact which is important to mention would be the effect diversion would have on agriculture in the decades to come. A large segment of Canadian society whose activity depends on water would be affected if we were to make the changes which some proponents, presently subsidized by this Tory Government, are putting forward in their studies and sketchy proposals.
Another concern has to do with the economy. As we are endowed with such a wealth of water in Canada, we would be wise to ask ourselves whether we should use that water to attract investment rather than to have it used by other countries. 1 respectfully submit that it would be in our interest to use the water to add economic value here at home rather than to export it and allow other countries to add value to a very
important and basic commodity. In addition, some of us still need to be convinced that Canada's hydro exports are really such a big bargain considering that hydro rates do not, and I repeat, do not take into account the capital and construction investments. If we were to export water we would face a situation whereby fresh water would be going abroad and we would have to use in Canada, perhaps, recycled water because of the arrangements to which we were committed, and, perhaps because of increased necessities and demand at home, which we would not be able to meet in the long term, because of the commitments made in the export and diversion of water.
On the environmental side there are several considerations that one must keep in mind. We have Canadian needs that will be determined by population growth, by the greenhouse effect and by the shift of agriculture perhaps to more northern latitudes when the predicted greenhouse effect will occur. In the second half of the next century the meteorologists are predicting an increase in temperature of some 2 to 3 degrees centigrade. That means that the present geography of our agriculture will likely move further north and we may see some areas of Canada become unuseable in terms of agricultural activity. As a result of increased average annual temperature there might be an increase in the consumption of water, and not just for agricultural purposes but also for normal human consumption.
Another environmental consideration is that when the water is diverted and exported, that water becomes part of another ecosystem. It becomes used in another ecosystem and becomes part of that water system to which it has been exported or diverted. That may have some consequences on the climate and the operations in that particular area. It is quite possible that diverted and exported water that goes into another ecosystem will have, in the long term, consequences on both regions; the one that has lost the water and the one that has obtained the water.
Then there is the physical removal of water, which in the case of Hudson's Bay, as it is suggested in the proposal 1 mentioned earlier, would lead to increased salinity of the bay because the fresh water rivers would no longer discharge into Hudson's Bay, but that water would be pumped up in the opposite direction. Therefore, the benefit of fresh water going into Hudson's Bay would be reduced considerably, thus increasing the salt content of that immense and magnificent water body. There would be changes in the availability of nutrients, of course. There would be an impoverished wetland system downstream. There could also be some considerable changes in the ice formation in that region with concomitant effects on wildlife, not to mention the impact on the immediate environment that would take place by way of the construction of reservoirs, dams, canals, power stations and the like.
In addition to that, another real concern is that when you propose to reverse the flow of rivers, as is the case in Hudson's Bay, what you would do is to stir up the sediments in the bottom of each of these rivers, and in the areas that are heavily
February 25, 1986

industrialized, or which have collected sediments coming from industrial areas, you would be stirring up toxic chemicals which have, over time, settled in the sediments of these river beds. Thus you would cause considerable disturbances and probably affect the quality of water for some years at least. The long-term effects of divergence can only be measured decades later. It is, as we all know from experiences made in some countries, irreversible in nature.
That brings me then to the purpose of this Bill which, in essence, is determined by the restrictions imposed on us backbenchers as to what one can put into a Bill. In this particular instance the scope available to me as a back-bencher was restricted by rules, by which we all abide, and therefore you will find in this Bill an attempt to make it as difficult as possible to approve water diversions or exports. That is where my bias emerges inevitably and quite willingly. The Bill not only makes it as difficult as possible to approve water diversion and exports, but also the proponent has to carry the burden of proof, and he has to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this proposal would be in the absolute long-term interest of Canadians.
The approach through this Bill is quite different from the one we are now witnessing outside this chamber when a company called the Grand Canal can come forward and obtain money from the Government and where the Financial burden of proving that a proposal is good or bad is not really at stake. The proponent is giving funds to demonstrate that this proposal is sound. I find this concept so offensive that I cannot express it in words.
There may be some objections by people who will ask, "Why deny business the opportunity to make money with water?" Of course the answer to that is fairly straightforward, and that is, because water is a public good, and because no one has a claim to ownership of water except the public. In the end this is one of the common properties, such as air and soil, that we have over centuries and millenia learned to appreciate as an important component in sustaining life on this globe. To reinforce these concepts on water exports and on water diversions I will quote Clause 6(3). It reads:
(a)	the ability of available water supplies to meet long-term Canadian requirements;
(b)	the impact of water export on fisheries, navigation, federal waters and international waters;-
And that applies also to diversions. It continues to read:
(c)	the impact of water export or diversions on the interests of native groups and others and the adequacy of compensation to them for any adverse effects;
(d)	the ecological and economic advantages and disadvantages to Canada of water exports; and
(ie) the political and strategic impact of water export.
Having put forward those criteria I hope that I can call on the Minister to consider this Bill only as a step forward in the Government's political determination to create a national water board and, in the meantime, to adopt the principle expounded in the Pearse Report that water should be managed and kept within its watershed.
Water Export and Diversion Act
I conclude by quoting from that report on page 8, where the Commissioners say:
The watershed is the natural and most appropriate unit for water management. A federal water policy that will ensure Canadians sufficient safe water to sustain their physical, economic and social well-being for all time is desirable.
This is the main intent I am putting forward through Bill C-257.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-257 introduced by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). I am pleased that the Hon. Member spent much time discussing why he presented this Bill because, quite frankly, I did not know whether I was dealing with a conversion or a watershed when I read his Bill.
His position in the past with respect to water and water exports would not stand up to scrutiny. On the other hand, this Bill establishing principles for water export and drawing distinctions between water exports is somewhat of a new approach by the Hon. Member for Davenport. It raises several questions.
I am pleased that the Hon. Member attaches so much importance to Parliament that he would entrust this important subject and the future of our water resources to Parliament. He was a member of a Government that had a contrary opinion about the importance of individual Members of Parliament, a Government whose Prime Minister did not think too much of individual Members. At least this is a step in the right direction.
I was further confused by this Bill after having read the Hon. Member's statement in Hansard on June 1, 1984, when he said: "I reject that notion because water is water" and: "We do not subscribe to the idea of exporting our water, and it is as simple as that". He said that when he held a different position and was responding to questions about water exports.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not mind the Hon. Member's approach, provided that he does not put words into my mouth and distort the meaning of what 1 said. My position has not changed and is consistent with the one of last June.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) obviously knows that that is a question of debate.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I simply confirm that it is on page 4276 of Hansard. I believe I expressed both the tone and the exact words accurately.
In any event, this is an issue of vital importance and a topic that should be seriously considered by Canadians. I am grateful to the Hon. Member for Davenport for giving us this opportunity to discuss it.
Furthermore, if we are going to claim accuracy, 1 think it would be fair for the Hon. Member for Davenport to attribute authorship and support for some of the water diversion

February 25, 1986
Water Export and Diversion Act
schemes to members of the Liberal Party who have espoused them, as is the case. The Hon. Member should consider that when talking about accuracy and the Conservative proposals.
Water, like the rest of our natural environment, is vitally integrated into the economic structure of our country and the health of our citizens. It is an excellent example of the inter-dependency of our environment and our economy.
Our sometimes almost casual view of water is reflected in the consideration of exports. In fact, water is exported every day, as is agricultural produce, processed food, bottled water, beer, which the Hon. Member for Davenport and I occasionally share, paper and a multitude of other exports from raw resource to finished produce, to say nothing of fish and electricity.
For the record, there is no doubt that Canada is one of the have nations of the world with respect to the abundance of its fresh water resources. However, it may not be clear to many Canadians or to the Hon. Member, considering some of his comments, what our favoured position is with respect to fresh water.
Our ground water situation is not as well understood as in many other countries, largely because we have relied so much on surface resources. Canada probably has more lake area than any other country in the world. Large and small, these surface waters dot the landscape from one end of the country to the other.
Valuable as they are in regulating the flow of rivers to the sea, and in providing a rich habitat for natural life and human enjoyment, Canadian lakes are for the most part a one-time gift of glacial recession. They are not renewable, except at a cost to the rivers that feed and drain them. The best measure of a country's water supply, therefore, is its renewable river flow originating from surface sources and including ground water contributions.
On an average annual basis, Canada's rivers carry close to 9 per cent of the world's renewable water supply, which is roughly 100,000 cubic metres per second. Set against a Canadian population which is less than 1 per cent of the world's population, this is a generous endowment. If we set this against a territorial area encompassing about 7 per cent of the world's land mass, this is not so disproportionate. In any event, this figure of 9 per cent is far less than the 20 per cent to 40 per cent often attributed to Canada.
The Hon. Member for Davenport touched on the federal inquiry. The federal inquiry on water policy which the Member for Davenport was instrumental in establishing, reported to the Government in September, 1985. It did an excellent job in bringing the linkages between water uses, water quality and quantity issues, and between engineering, economic, social, environmental and constitutional aspects to the attention of the lay public and even to water resource experts across Canada.
One of the very valid points the inquiry has made is that policies relating to water overlap and interact. "Take up one and you have to take up the others".
The report made many specific observations, and one to which the Hon. Member's Bill draws attention is the difference in water exports. The Hon. Member's Bill indicates that he is considering both southward diversions and other forms of export as being subject to licensing by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) with provisions for revocation of the ministerial permits by Parliament. The proposed Bill differentiates between tankers or forms of container shipment to some overseas countries or perhaps to some U.S. port and large scale diversion via dedicated facilities such as canals, pipelines or river routes to the United States.
This distinction is clearly justifiable. Tanker exports differ from inter-basin diversions in substantial ways. For example, the volumes would likely be small, exports would be sporadic and importers are not likely to become dependent upon Canadian water as in the case of large scale inter-basin diversions. The Pearce Report identified these matters very clearly for all of us.
Accordingly, it may be argued that the federal Government could be more flexible in terms of tanker exports provided that federal interests such as fisheries and navigation are not affected and that the Crown receives a fair return for water exported in this fashion.
However, the question arises: What new legislation to control and regulate such exports do we need, or could existing legislation such as the Export and Import Act be amended to regulate water along with other commodities on its list?
However, in consideration of other water exports, what municipal and provincial if not international considerations must be taken? We must also ask ourselves if the acceptance of containerized water exports would encourage proponents of large scale diversions to press their case to Governments increasingly. It would seem that the Hon. Member for Davenport anticipates this to be the case and has already set out some basic criteria for export by diversion, canal and pipelines within the statutory framework outlined in his Bill.
Let me now in the time remaining lay out for the House the important rationale for the management of Canadian waters by the Conservative Government of Canada. First and foremost is the need for a Canadian national water policy, and this is a goal and commitment of the Government of Canada today. In releasing publicly the final report of the inquiry on federal water policy last September 30, the Minister of the Environment declared that this was only the first step in policy reform. He stated:
Water issues are not yet at the crisis stage, and we will be able to manage them co-operatively if we start today to work toward a national consensus, or a national water policy.
The Government's response to the federal inquiry has been rapid and constructive. The Government accepts this document as an important background in establishing the necessary elements of a national water policy. Within one week we requested the provincial Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers to respond at a meeting of CCREM,
February 25, 1986

and that will be included in the agenda of the next CCREM meeting. In November, the Minister met and discussed the report with representatives of 300 or so environmental nongovernment organizations. Both provincial and public interests have been invited to join in the response to the inquiry's recommendation so that the resulting consensus areas can form the nucleus of a nationally applicable policy on water.
Second, at the federal Government level, leadership and responsibility must be defined and taken. One problem which has been identified with respect to this whole issue is that we have not had that clear responsibility taken and acted upon in the past. That now has been done. In December of 1985, at a meeting of the Priorities and Planning Committee of Cabinet, the Minister of the Environment was empowered to act for the Government in formulating a national water policy. The Minister now has the authority to act for Canadians in all matters relating to water. The Minister is giving first priority to a national water policy. There will be no decision for or against large-scale water exports or other water issues until these issues can be weighed in context of the over-all water policy.
Third, the Progressive Conservative federal Government has clearly stated-and this has been confirmed several times by several Ministers in the House of Commons-that water exports are not-I repeat, are not-an item of negotiation during the current bilateral trade negotiations with the United States. As Hon. Members know, the news media have linked the question of water export to the discussions on freer trade with the United States. I am sure that the House has read the statement by Canada's chief negotiator, Mr. Simon Reisman, that while he holds strong personal views on water exports, those views are not relevant to his role of chief trade negotiator. That was a statement made by Mr. Reisman which was published in The Ottawa Citizen on January 24, 1986. This reaffirms statements by Ministers of the Government that water exports are not now on the negotiating table.
Consideration of large-scale exports of water would involve provinces, states and the Canadian and United States Governments. We would have to consider the rights and obligations of all Parties, compensation for lands, disruption of existing services and actual and potential environmental damages. I believe some of the problems which might be encountered were well defined by the Hon. Member opposite, and these issues will clearly have to be considered if anyone were even to start out on this long process.
I must also mention a point I believe the Hon. Member for Davenport has missed. Anyone who would seriously entertain a project of this type right now would have to have his head buried in the economic sand because if anyone looks at the actual costs of any type of major diversion, particularly the Grand Canal diversion, he would find that the cost is so prohibitive as to make the project totally uneconomical. At this point I do not have the reference here but I believe those figures are readily available to anyone and can certainly be provided.
Finally, the Grand Canal proposal mentioned by the Hon. Member has been around for many years. This or any other
Water Export and Diversion Act proposal of this type can only be considered, in our opinion, in the context of what would be a national formulated water policy. In other words, whether or not anything like this in the future could occur is irrelevant at this time and will not even be entertained by the Government of Canada until we have developed what we feel is the national water policy with all the aforementioned considerations.
Various agencies inside or outside of Government may wish to investigate any number of things, one on which the Hon. Member has focused, but none of these activities will prejudice our intention to establish a national water policy with full consideration of all implications of water issues on behalf of all Canadians.
I have not touched at all on other water related issues. I think many of the same points I have made in terms of water exports could be made in terms of other water issues, some of them pretty overwhelming right now, such as the spill in the St. Clair River, toxic substances in the Niagara River, and dumps which have to be dealt with. All of these other issues are issues of water quality and would be better dealt with in the context of a national water policy. However, they are overwhelmingly important now and must be dealt with as quickly and as well as possible with the tools at hand.
I will not spend a long time in trying to reaffirm the efforts and initiatives we have taken so far as water quality itself is concerned. I hope in the near future that we will be able to deal with the aspect of water quality, but clearly all of the water issues as they overlap and interrelate can be best dealt with in the context of a national water policy and under the responsibility of a single Minister. These are things which are coming together in a very rapid and, I believe, very constructive fashion. They will help to overcome some of the difficulties we have in dealing with different Departments and different pieces of legislation which are clearly inadequate in the face of our modern-day problems.
What I have done as clearly as possible is to define the leadership and responsibility we have taken. Hon. Members can refer to the record to examine the three major points I made. However, I think in the end, they must relegate any question of exports, diversions and other high profile issues to a very secondary position in terms of real priorities. In the context of a national water policy, issues like that can be considered.
One of the specific issues raised by the critic for the Liberal Party is the carbon dioxide level. I would suggest that some of his technical considerations are not quite accurate and I would invite him to check on those. He is quite right in terms of agricultural activity heading north, but the two things I believe he could check on are the water content which will be in those northern lands and what will really happen in the river basins and in the water levels. I am not positive but I will ask him to check those things because from what I could hear and understand him saying, I do not believe he was clearly stating what I think will happen with the carbon dioxide increase.
The second point I would make is in terms of priorities and real issues as he and I sit in this House of Commons today. I
10956

February 25, 1986
Water Export and Diversion Act
believe the Hon. Member and the whole country are missing something. The proof is there now that we are starting to deal with the critical carbon dioxide issue. Whether that will be proven in the next year or two will perhaps be identified by things like droughts in the Prairies. However, I think the statistical evidence is building to a point where I believe that is the kind of issue on which we should be focusing.
In conclusion I would like to thank the Hon. Member again for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue on water and water exports as defined by the Hon. Member. However, I do not know whether he has really has been forthright in discussing where a lot of the activity and support for these diversion programs comes from. I am not sure whether the Hon. Member has checked with the Leader of the Liberal Party in the Province of Quebec. I am not sure whether he has checked with either one of his Leaders federally. I am also not sure whether he really has his act together.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have an opportunity to participate in this debate today on behalf of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), who unfortunately cannot be here to speak to Bill C-257.
I have some grave reservations about Bill C-257. I do not have grave reservations about the position of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), since I know he is sincere when he says that his intention is to find ways to prevent major water diversions and exports. My concern with Bill C-257 is that it is at once a road map to sell Canada dry, while at the same time it sets up a steeplechase-not a simple act to expedite exports of water. My preference would have been to have either the Hon. Member or other Members of the House bring forward a national water Act which would keep water, as the Hon. Member has said, within its own watershed and within its own ecological regime. I will spend the majority of my time this afternoon dealing with that from a scientific perspective from the information I wish to put on the record.
I would first like to place a few matters before Hon. Members. First, Canada has 1 per cent of the world's population while having 9 per cent of the world's freshwater supply. Some 60 per cent of our freshwater flows northward, while about 90 per cent of Canadians live along or just south of the 49th parallel. The United States has ten times our population and 8 per cent of the world's freshwater supply. However, almost all of it, according to American scientists, is mismanaged or polluted. That is really the problem in the United States today. Water is becoming a far more critical commodity than energy. There is no longer any such thing as free water.
Exporting water to the United States will dramatically reduce the likelihood of any action by that country to cut back on S02, N02 or other airborne pollutants, particularly from coal-fired thermal plants and other producers in the United States. Similarly, it will likely reduce the likelihood of the United States cleaning up its toxic dumps, such as the S area
dump, Hyde Park, Love Canal and others which are polluting both Canadian and American water supplies. If the Americans can get a cheap, secure supply of freshwater from Canada, then there is no reason for them to stop polluting our air, which is not for sale without a price-tag on it. We know that we are losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year in terms of reduced forest growth. We know we have already lost thousands of lakes in Ontario and Quebec and tens of thousands are threatened with acidification from airborne pollutants. We see no serious sign of use in the United States of the super fund to clean up its toxic dumps which contain such things as dioxin which are getting into the freshwater supplies of both our countries. This may be seen by some politicians and some people in the United States and Canada as a way to resolve some of those nasty corporate issues which just do not seem to go away and which are very costly to solve. I think we have to look at proposals to divert water on a scale such as the Grand Canal or NAWAPA, with which I will be dealing later.
The Americans are driven by a number of factors. First, they are driven by poor water management; second, by an intention to set up an economy orgy for engineers and consultants; third, it is a quick fix for inept, ignorant politicians who often care less about ecological consequences, social impact and the loss of wildlife and its habitat. I will be coming to some of the specifics with respect to that in a moment.
Certainly, for my Party, I was pleased to see a resolution passed last year which I think hits the nail on the head and really echoes the intentions of the Hon. Member for Davenport as well. A resolution which was almost unanimously passed at our convention stated in part the following:
Whereas there is an increasing pressure being placed by the United States of America to acquire open access and usage of northern fresh water bodies in Canada.
Therefore be it resolved that the New Democratic Party firmly support a policy of no sale, no giving away of and no negotiations leading to open access of Canada's fresh water.
That was brought forward by the Humboldt-Lake Centre NDP Association.
I would now like to quote from a recent publication, part of which is entitled "The water machine". I think we need a point of reference in this debate with respect to what we are really talking about when we talk about water. I quote:
The constancy of earth's water supply is one of nature's great wonders. Our water molecules do not fly apart into hydrogen and oxygen, they don't flee our atmosphere into space, they don't slither down deep-earth crevices. Virtually all the water on earth-about 326 million cubic miles of it-has been present as liquid, ice, or vapor since it spewed out of countless volcanoes 3 billion years ago and more. And all of it, whether trapped a dark mile deep in Antarctic ice of drifting high and fast as a particle of cloud, is part of the vast, complex machine called the hydrologic cycle.
This machine, by far the world's largest, is powered by the sun. Solar energy provides enough heat to evaporate about 140,000 cubic miles of water a year: the same amount returns to the earth's surface as precipitation.
I would now like to deal with the words of one of the foremost ground water expert analysts in the United States. I would like to quote from an article which appeared in The Globe and Mail on June 21, 1984. It is headlined: "Canada told not to give in to water demands". It states:
February 28, 1986

Canadian tourist industry representatives from coast to coast held a national conference last fall and advocated major changes to taxes on alcohol and lower gas prices.
So what did we see this week, Mr. Speaker? The Government completely ignored them. The sales tax went up from 11 to 12 per cent

an additional 1 per cent levy on gas-and taxes on alcohol increased as well. And then, Mr. Speaker, the advertising campaign to, attract American tourists is woefully underfunded, a fact made even more obvious this morning by the devaluation of the dollar which will further decrease the funds earmarked for this program once the campaign is under way in the United States.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Budget which came down on Wednesday is based on a series of fairy-tale assumptions which do not make any sense in the real world but which will cost the Canadian taxpayer dearly.
The first fairy-tale assumption is that in the Budget the price of oil is based on $22.50 barrel when, in fact, the price of oil for April is being quoted at $13.75. This is for west Texas crude. That is half the price of a few months ago. The Government's financial planners knew that the price of oil was going down. They did not factor it into the Budget, and we will all pay.
The second assumption which is up there in fairy land is the assumption that interest rates will stay at 9.5 per cent. Right now they are upward of 11 per cent and 12 per cent. The Government is committed to defending the dollar to the death, whatever that means in terms of interest rates. The consequence is that we may see a $3 billion or $4 billion increase in the deficit over what is actually projected.
The only real thing that is in the Budget is-


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


EQUALITY RIGHTS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the response of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) to the Equality for All Report is expected at the beginning of next week. I look forward to the Minister's response with a great deal of interest.
In particular I shall be watching his response to see what he has to say with respect to women in combat roles, that is,
Oral Questions
combat ready and not necessarily in the field. I look forward to what he has to say with respect to sexual orientation, and what the Government is planning to do with respect to people's rights to work and housing. The mandatory age of retirement and how it will impact on our society is something 1 look forward to hearing about.
There is a whole series of information and actions on the part of Government which should not be left to the courts. I look forward with great interest to hear what the Minister of Justice will say. 1 hope he will meet the expectations of our committee.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in September of 1984 when the Conservative Government was elected there were 207,000 people working on Vancouver Island. In January of 1986 there were 187,000-a loss of some 20,000 jobs. The Budget which was brought down on Wednesday offers absolutely nothing to the people of Vancouver Island but higher taxes and reduced services. It offers nothing for jobs. It is a failure. I call upon the Government to do something about jobs on Vancouver Island.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, they are all away today selling the Budget. It is a tough sell. I would say to the Prime Minister that, as a travelling salesman, he knows that if the product is lousy it just will not sell no matter how hard he tries.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I have a question for the Minister of Finance and I am grateful to him for being here. On the basis of his own Budget Papers and The Fiscal Plan, during the life of this Government he anticipates an increase in personal taxes, direct and indirect, of $21 billion. During that same period of time he anticipates an increase in corporate taxes of $1 billion. Is that how he anticipates sharing? Is that the sort of concept of fairness he has toward the taxpayers of Canada?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am always very interested in knowing the recommendations of the Liberal Party on budget matters. I listened carefully to

February 28, 1986
Oral Questions
what the opposition critic said yesterday. He said he would freeze spending and would not raise taxes. That means that the Liberal Party would have us freeze Old Age Security, freeze the transfer payments to the provinces for health and postsecondary education, freeze welfare assistance, freeze the unemployment insurance benefits, and freeze money for the environment. 1 would like the Hon. Member to tell us what he does mean. What is the Liberal's hidden agenda?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DIVISION OF FISCAL BURDEN
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister is doing the freezing.
Why did he provide relief for this country's large corporations, and why did he put this unfair burden on the average Canadian family, instead of providing for more equitable sharing of the tax burden in this Budget?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said that I was freezing spending. In this year we are going to increase spending on Old Age Security by $1,128 million. For health and post-secondary education there will be a $461-million increase. On welfare there will be a $ 175-million increase, but for all other programs there will be an increase of only $72 million. That is where we have frozen. We have frozen the waste and inefficiency in Government.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, talk about trying to sell the Budget! While the Minister is trying to explain to the average middle-class Canadian why he or she has to bear the ultimate burden of the Budget, is he going to take a detour to Wall Street to find out why he has no takers down there even though he tried to sell the Budget to them?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is so good with his advice perhaps he could tell us why, so his friends on Wall Street will know, in the first two or three weeks of his leadership campaign he started talking about reducing the deficit, then his handlers slapped him around and told him never to mention that again, and he has not had the courage to rise in the House since then to talk about the deficit.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CREDIBILITY OF MINISTER IN INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL MARKETS
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, those are not the kind of answers that will re-establish the Minister's credibility.
My question for the Minister of Finance is as follows: Since the Budget was brought down, the Canadian dollar lost nearly two cents against the American dollar, and interest rates went up from 11.54 to 11.90 per cent in the short term. What does the Minister of Finance intend to do to restore his credibility with the international financial markets?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I might just say that my credibility is in very, very good standing. I have a note here from the Business Council on National Issues indicating that the Budget will inspire confidence and convince investors in Canada and abroad that our economy is on a sensible course. The leading business people in the country say that I understand the way to get the Canadian economic performance moving properly and that I have their support.
[DOT] (M20)
[ Translation]


USE OF INTEREST RATE POLICY TO PROTECT DOLLAR S EXCHANGE VALUE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Finance says does not reflect the facts. Considering the falling Canadian dollar and rising interest rates, but especially the position of the Canadian dollar, does the Minister of Finance intend to use the bank rate to prop up the Canadian dollar?


Geoff Wilson: No, Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has it all wrong. Today Statistics Canada released the statistics for the fourth quarter of 1985 which indicate that in that quarter the economy of the country was growing at a 5.3 per cent annualized rate of growth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Output for the whole year was up 4.5 per cent, which is the best growth rate of any of the industrialized countries in the world.


INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL COMMUNITY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. Talking about confidence and building confidence in the country, we know that the dollar has fallen well below the 70-cent mark. At eleven o'clock today it was at 70.1 cents. What kind of
February 28, 1986

confidence does this indicate that the international financial community has in the Minister, in his Budget, and in his Government?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I recall to the Hon. Member's attention what I said about the BCNI which represents all the largest employers in the country. Maybe 1 should ask the Hon. Member to read The Globe and Mail wherein the following is indicated: "Next year, for the first time in 12 years, the Government of Canada will start regularly earning more than it spends on public programs. That is what the international community is looking for. This lops more than a billion dollars off direct program spending over two years. It is the First time in recent memory"


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


DOLLAR SUPPORT INQUIRY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance can stand and read all the newspaper reports he wants, but we know that the Canadian dollar is falling today. The only reason it is not falling further is because of massive intervention in the money markets. How much is it costing the people of Canada to shore up the value of the Canadian dollar to indicate artificially that the country and the international financial community have confidence? What is it costing the people of Canada to intervene in the money markets?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada are very interested in performance-
580,000	jobs have been created. Over 1,000 jobs per day have been created since September 4, 1984. Even in Manitoba where there is an election going on today, in which the Hon. Member behind him is very interested, we are creating jobs.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The value of the dollar speaks for itself.


MINISTERIAL CARDIAC EXAMINATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister not agree that, if he looked into his own heart and soul, he would say to himself: "Mike, you blew it"?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 would have to say that in the Budget Mike Wilson showed that he had a heart.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have accelerated the payment of the child tax credit. We have introduced a low-income refundable sales tax credit. We have introduced a program whereby we will spend $100 million a year to help those people on social welfare to get into the labour force. Mike Wilson has a heart.
Oral Questions


PROJECTED PRICE OF CRUDE OIL
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would think that Mike Wilson has heartburn. I can understand him being upset today with the dollar falling out of bed. It is clear that no one believes the assumptions which the Minister made in developing his Budget. Why does he not talk to his Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and find out that Alberta crude last week was being posted at $1 5.54? Why does he not find that out from the Minister of Energy and, when he does, would he then sit down and try to revise the false number of $22.50 which he put in the Budget for revenue purposes?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is not a false number. That was the assumption put into the Budget at the time the Budget Papers were sent to the printers.
I have made two comments to the media since then, first, that there is a revenue loss in a particular sense as the price of oil goes down in the oil and gas industry, but there are benefits to the whole country, as consumers get the benefit of the lower gasoline prices-


Raymond Garneau: Where?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -and as industry gets the benefit of lower prices, and as the rest of the world gets the benefit of those low prices, our exporters benefit. The result is an increase in revenues. There is a balance there that is slightly in favour of Canada.


REQUEST FOR NEW DEFICIT AND REVENUE PROJECTIONS
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the Minister credit. That is an honest admission that the number is false in that it is not valid as of budget date. The number is at least $7 out of line which represents probably an excess of $800 million in lost revenue to the Government.
Would the Minister, Mr. Speaker, recover some credibility for this Budget by immediately, or early next week, tabling some new data which will show us exactly what the projected deficit and revenue will be?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is very well aware of the tremendous volatility in oil prices today. A new assumption is not going to have any real impact on the numbers here. The most important thing is that the Member gets it into his head that there is a balance here. There are a lot of benefits for consumers and for industrial users of fuel that will come from lower oil prices.

February 28, 1986
Oral Questions FINANCE


EXCHANGE VALUE OF DOLLAR-GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. How much did the Canadian Government spend in the last 48 hours in its attempt to shore up the falling Canadian dollar?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that question comes up from time to time in this House. The Hon. Member knows full well what the answer is. He will have to wait until the second business day following the end of the month.


LEVEL OF SUPPORT AUTHORIZED BY GOVERNMENT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, how much has the Minister of Finance authorized can be spent in order to hold the dollar at a level he considers appropriate, and what is that level?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is also an answer I cannot give. He knows that.


Ian Deans: Why?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member asks why?


Ian Deans: What is appropriate?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member is the one who says do not give anything away to the speculators. I could tell him everything about our exchange rate policy and give the speculators in the world a golden opportunity to make a bundle of money at the expense of taxpayers. He might want to do that. 1 am not going to do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: You are doing it now.


REPORTED DUMPING OF DOLLARS
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Is he aware that senior officials for Lehman Brothers and Salomon Brothers this morning indicated that the financial markets are dumping Canadian dollars because the markets do not believe your oil price forecast-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: The markets do not believe that the Finance Minister's interest rate forecasts are correct and do not believe that the Government's expenditure reduction projections are
on side.


Geoff Wilson: I am going to pay more attention to the business leaders in Canada, not the speculators on Wall Street, Mr. Speaker.
The business leaders in Canada say the Budget will inspire confidence and convince investors in Canada and abroad that our economy is on a sensible course.
We are pleased that the Budget's restraint measures have not penalized those Canadians at the lower end of the income scale. There is a good balance here in the way this Budget has been put together. I would think the Hon. Member, knowing his background, should be pretty pleased with what we have put together.


THE BUDGET
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, why should ordinary Canadians who are being asked to bear a punishing and unfair share of the burden of deficit reduction believe the Minister's promise of a better tomorrow when clearly the Minister's friends in international financial circles have voted thumbs down on his Budget?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I could read the same quote again. Those are the business leaders in the country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Sixty-nine cents.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I believe one of them is from Inco and another from Falconbridge, two major employers in his part of the country. They are both saying that this Budget is on the right track, that we are solving the problems built up over the last 15 years, and that we are solving the problems left on our doorstep by an irresponsible approach to Government taken by the previous Liberal administration. We are on the right track and we are not going to get bumped off that track by any rhetoric from the Hon. Member.



Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister inform the House whether he really believes the price of oil this year will be $22 a barrel, and that interest rates will remain at 9.5 per cent, or is he now willing to admit that these assumptions are so many dangerous mistakes in his Budget?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member prepared that question before he came into the House and listened to the question of the Member for
February 28, 1986

Saint-Henri-Westmount. I am not going to repeat the answer. It is the same answer as I gave to the previous question.


GAS PRICE AND INTEREST RATE PROJECTIONS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister admit that, if realistic estimates were put in the budget calculations for both gas prices and interest rates, the deficit would be at least $3.5 billion higher than that projected in his documents? Will he not be honest with the Canadian people?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is in part the same answer I gave to the Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount. The answer to the specific number is no, he is wrong.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF CHILD TAX CREDIT
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the financial world. In his Budget, the Minister proposed to advance payment of the child tax credit for families whose income is less than $15,000. Everybody knows that those who receive the tax credit have an income of less than $23,500. Could the Minister, who is such a compassionate man, explain why he eliminated 538,000 families who would otherwise be eligible for advance payment of the tax credit? Why did he do this?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not quite sure I understand the Member's question. However, I would ask him to read a booklet called Social Justice: A Record of Achievement. This is a record of achievement by the Government in which we talk about what we have done in increasing the child tax credit, in advancing the payment of the child tax credit, and in introducing a new, innovative, refundable sales tax credit for low-income Canadians. It indicates what we have done to help welfare recipients get a job in the labour market. It is all set out in this document and it makes very good reading.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT REFUSES CHILD TAX CREDIT TO CERTAIN FAMILIES
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, you will admit the Minister did not answer my question, and I repeat: Why did the Minister decide to deny
538,000	Canadian families who receive the tax credit the benefit of this particular measure? Why did he turn them down?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the record of social progress of the Government is clear. It is
Oral Questions
set out in this document which is available in supermarkets right across the country. 1 encourage Canadians to read it.


FINANCE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance, and it is not about his books in supermarkets. Why is it necessary to have a massive infusion to prop up the value of the dollar? Why is the Minister spending hundreds of millions of dollars to do this if there is really international confidence in our dollar?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member understands that there are a lot of ingredients that go into making up the value of the dollar.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Confidence.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Some of these things are related to trade patterns, some are related to capital flows, and some are related to adjustments in the timing of payments by people in commercial enterprises. All of these things must be taken into account. I caution him, as I did the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides yesterday, not to jump to early conclusions.


GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister not agree that he and his officials have decided to jump to conclusions and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to prop up the dollar? Did he not jump to the same conclusion as did international investors, that the dollar is going down?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is trying to help his friends, the speculators in the financial markets-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -by trying to draw out information from me that will help speculators make money. 1 indicated to his colleague that 1 am not prepared to do that, even though he may be.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, I will address my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister. The Budget was encouraging news to NSERC, the Medical

February 28, 1986
Oral Questions
Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. What plans does the Ministry of the Environment have to reinstate and enhance its own research requirements, particularly after the severe cuts to the Canadian Wildlife Service in 1984?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, the additional commitment in the Budget of up to $1 billion for grants for research to the councils provides an excellent additional opportunity for the Department of the Environment to enhance its efforts on behalf of wildlife and toxicology research. Last February the initiative was taken to commit $1.4 million in additional research funds. This is in keeping with the approach taken in the Budget and it will enhance all of our efforts on behalf of wildlife research.
The Minister of the Environment would also like me to indicate his appreciation of the efforts of the Member for Ottawa-Carleton on behalf of wildlife research.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister has chosen to cut the deficit by taxing the life and spirit out of middle and low-income Canadians. Does he agree that it is now time to set some limits on the $500,000 no-strings-attached capital gains exemption which he is giving the affluent?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to that is that the $500,000 capital gains exemption is working. Five hundred and eighty thousand jobs have been created since September 4, 1984. That is why that provision stays.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE BUDGET
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, middle and low-income Canadians got all the tough treatment in this Budget. Large corporations and the small minority of wealthy Canadians were left unscathed. Does the Minister really think this kind of unfairness will show international markets that he is encouraging productive investment in Canada and has a vision for the economic growth of the country?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that question calls for a 15 or 20-minute reply. I would be happy to make that reply, but I will just repeat the one
sentence in the report of the Business Council on National Issues which relates to that question. It reads: "We are pleased that the Budget's retraint measures have not penalized those Canadians at the lower end of the income scale".
There is a good balance in this Budget. We have paid very careful attention to matters of social justice which I have enumerated a number of times in Question Period today and yesterday. There is a good balance between Canadians in upper-income, middle-income, and lower-income brackets.


LEVEL OF PERSONAL AND CORPORATE TAXES
Mr.   John. R. Rodriguez@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I want to refer him to The Fiscal Plan and ask whether he can explain to the House why personal taxes in 1987-88 will increase by $5.5 billion while corporate taxes will decrease by $75 million?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question yesterday on three occasions, I think. I would like to correct the comment by New Democratic Party Members to the effect that personal income taxes will increase by $1,300. The income tax increase for someone earning $30,000, from both the May and February Budget, is $523. That does not include sales tax. However, if the Hon. Member is correct, there is $800 worth of gas and excise tax. That means he is a very heavy drinker, a very heavy smoker, and a coast-to-coast truck driver.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMPACT ON PERSONAL TAXES
John R. Rodriguez: How does the Minister explain the unfairness on page 42 of The Fiscal Plan where individual Canadians who will pay increased personal income tax and sales and excise tax will be paying four times more in taxes than the corporations in 1986-87, and ten times more in 1990-91? Is that his version of fairness?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, when one cuts through all of the rhetoric of the New Democratic Party and gets to the heart of what is important to Canadians, the fact is that real disposable income per capita will increase in 1986 by approximately 1 per cent. This means that on a real dollar basis it will be $650 per person, or $2,600 per family, in real disposable income increases. That is a pretty good record.


EXCHANGE VALUE OF DOLLAR
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Having witnessed his massive tax grab and the resulting falling dollar, my advice to the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister is that they should quit writing Budgets and start
February 28, 1986

writing fairy tales under the pseudonym of "The Brothers Grim".
How can the Minister expect Canadians to believe there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow when this morning the rainbow, that is, the dollar, collapsed about the Minister's ears? Is he not really offering Canadians an empty pot?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe 1 was asked that question before and I believe I have answered it fully.
However, 1 would point out, in response to the preamble to the Hon. Member's question, that when this fellow over here, the Leader of the Opposition, was the Minister of Finance, revenues as a percentage of GNP were $19 per $100 of national income. After the tax increases in this Budget and the last Budget come into full effect in 1987-88, they will only by $17 per $100 of national income. That is a pretty good record compared to the previous one.


INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE TAX LEVELS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Budget is not only not working, it is unfair. Where is the pot of gold for Canadians when, according to the Budget Papers, which the Minister prepared himself, by 199091 individual Canadians will pay 87 per cent more in taxes, and corporate tax revenue will fall by a whopping 22 per cent? Where is the fair share concept in that kind of arithmetic?


Geoff Wilson: The pot of
gold for Canadians is to see this problem brought under control. We have shown 580,000 Canadians jobs which they did not have in September, 1984. That is a pot of gold and we will continue on that track, supported by this budget document.


IMPACT OF TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In response to my question yesterday he referred me to page 42 of the Budget Papers for his answer. I have done that, and I want to ask him again if it is fair that income tax, sales tax, and other hidden taxes on individual Canadians will increase four times more this year than corporate taxes, and ten times more by the year 1990?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I responded to the Hon. Member's seat-mate just a few minutes ago.


John R. Rodriguez: You did not answer it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member likes to play with numbers. Yesterday, in a preamble by him or one of his colleagues, we heard the figure of $1,304. This total misuse of statistics is misleading to the House.
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: It is right there in the book.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is not in the book. The Leader of the Opposition says that it is right in the book. It is not in the book.
The book indicates that someone earning $40,000 is paying $704 more in taxes, not the $1,304 stated by the New Democratic Party.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister agree that the cumulative effect of all of these Financial statements, including last May's Budget, will impose higher taxes on individual Canadians while the corporations get away scot-free?


Geoff Wilson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not say that that is accurate at all. If the Hon. Member looks at the corporate tax reform measures in this Budget-


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about the last Budget?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: And the last Budget. I thank the Hon. Member for that guidance.
If the Hon. Member wants to know what Canadians can look forward to, he will see that they can look forward to more jobs, greater economic growth, lower interest rates, and more investment which will create more jobs. That is what this budget policy will achieve.


CHANGE AFFECTING REGISTERED RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLANS
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. One of the least reported but most beneficial parts of the Budget affected senior citizens. I refer to the RRSP change-over at age 71. The big companies were clearly opposed. What was the rationale for this decision?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this decision is related to the desire of senior citizens who have Registered Retirement Savings Plans to have more flexibility and control over their investments so that they can have the ability to take funds out to use as they wish for example, to take trips with their spouses. The purpose is to give freedom to our senior citizens so they can enjoy their retirement and live in peace and harmony.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I invite him to tell

February 28, 1986
Oral Questions
Canadians what researchers in the science community already know, that research spending is going down rather than up. The Government has given the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council 8 per cent of the funds that the Council had requested. Will the Minister tell us what the effect of this pitiful, shameful, and short-sighted response will be? How many jobs will be lost and how many careers will be destroyed? How many of our brightest minds is he exporting to the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the people in the research community are very pleased. The Government has provided them with the possibility of receiving $1 billion in increased research funds over the next five years. Furthermore, we have done this in a way that will more closely integrate the activities of the public sector with those of the private sector so that there will much more productive results and the research laboratories will be brought much closer to the market-place for the benefit of all researchers in the country.


David Berger: The Minister is cutting research, no matter what he says, and cutting research is like pulling the kids out of school because times are tough.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, what must we do to make the Government realize that our future well-being, our jobs, depend on what we invest today in our most valuable resource, our people?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that over-blown rhetoric does not fool anyone. One billion dollars is a lot of money, and the research community-


David Berger: Is is not a billion dollars.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There is $1 billion, and the research community is very pleased with what we have done at a time of restraint, when we are cutting discretionary spending in many other parts of government. We have found new money for the research community so that we can accomplish what we all know is important.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the risk that
10,000	more public service jobs will be lost as a consequence of
the half billion dollars in new spending cuts and the ceiling on departmental spending which were announced this week, will the Prime Minister guarantee that not a single further public service job will be lost as a consequence of these new cut-backs?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what the President of the Treasury Board has said is that we will be introducing the details of the policy of the $500 million across-the-board spending cut in due course. It is not possible to be precise at this time as to what the impact will be on person years, but the policy of the Government has been, and will continue to be, to try in every way possible to find new spots as attrition frees up other person-years in other parts of Government.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL GUARANTEE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance who indicates that person-years may in fact be affected on top of the 15,000 job-cuts already announced. Will the Minister of Finance guarantee that no further cuts on top of the 15,000 person-year cuts already announced will take place? Will that guarantee be made-yes or no?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I indicated very clearly that the details of this plan will be made public in a very short while. The Hon. Member will get his answer then.
* *
*


THE BUDGET
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, who may have noticed that a number of provincial governments have shown their dissatisfaction with the Budget.
For instance, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, said he was worried about substantial tax increases having a negative impact on the country's economic growth.
I would like to ask the Minister how he intended to help the regions in this country that need development by bringing down a Budget whose incredible tax measures will slow down demand and reduce economic growth in this country. Is that his plan for developing regions that need help?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I caution the Hon. Member in drawing these conclusions because I believe it was 16 months ago that the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition drew these same conclusions. He said the effect of the economic statement of November 8,
February 28, 1986

Oral Questions EXTERNAL AID


FIVE-YEAR ASSISTANCE TARGET
[Stage Direction]
1984, was going to cost this country 50,000 or 100,000 jobs- it may even have been 200,000 jobs on one of his more energetic days. There have been 580,000 jobs created since September, 1984, as we have gotten our programs under-way.

Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, let me quote some of the Minister's friends. Premier Getty is saying: "There is nothing in this Budget for Alberta's fragile economy except increased taxes which will affect consumer spending". Why has the Minister produced a Budget which does so little for a province whose farmers and unemployed are in such great difficulties today? Is this a sense of fairness for Albertans?


Mr. Valcourt:: Is it fair to bankrupt the country?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this Budget was prepared and is presented for all Canadians. There is something in this Budget for all Canadians.


John R. Rodriguez: High taxes.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: For the Province of Alberta there is the program to help farmers who have heavy debt loads, and for the people in Alberta there is the wide range of social justice policies which are so important to Canadians in need. There are policies in the Budget to help those Canadians who are now on welfare in parts of Alberta because of the National Energy Program which put them in such great difficulty. It is helping them get back into the job market.


MINES AND MINING
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. After the collapse of the tin market last fall, what progress has been made toward a new international tin agreement, and what are the likely implications for Canada?


Hon. Bob Layton (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, this has been the subject of some concern to the mining sector. I am able to report that just last weekend the negotiations between the members of the Tin Council, the banks, and the brokers have resulted in a proposal which is being considered by all of the participants. This proposal will be a preferable solution to the crash scenario which would certainly upset our mineral markets.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Wednesday the Minister of Finance said: "Our economic performance during the past 18 months has been much better than anyone expected". If this is so, why has the Government cut Official Development Assistance targets by $1.5 billion over the next five years when Canada had made this commitment to the needy people of our world? Why?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have been able to achieve success in the Canadian economy, which is evident in the rate of growth of the economy and the creation of jobs, because we have addressed the deficit. It is the view of this Government that no Department can be exempt from this attack upon the deficit which is essential to the ability of Canada to be strong in the world.
This Government pursues two priorities. We pursue the priority of active presence internationally, and the priority of getting the deficit under control. International aid will increase next year and we will be getting the deficit down.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says our economy is strong. It is going to be hard for the women and children of developing countries to understand that.


OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
James Douglas Manly: Since Export Development Corporation funds for concessional funding to Canadian exporters to developing countries can now be counted as Official Development Assistance, can the Minister say what percentage of our Official Development Assistance will be made up of such concessional funding, and whether or not this is over and above the 5 per cent of our GNP which the Government now plans to spend on ODA?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one of the reforms we are bringing in is precisely that it is over and above .5 per cent. Let me make it very clear to the House that in the last five years this country spent $8.7 billion on Official Development Assistance. In the next five years this country will spend $13.6 billion on Official Development Assistance. That is a significant and dramatic increase.


Mr. Hees:: Good stuff, Joe!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Is the Minister

February 28, 1986
Oral Questions
aware of the extent to which a region like northern Ontario depends upon federal Government regional development programs for its economic health? Does the Minister think it is fair that the people of northern Ontario, who really cannot afford it, are being asked to pay much higher taxes as a result of this Budget but will receive very much less in terms of regional development dollars?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have tried very, very carefully to do is to be sensitive to how we cut government spending. In that regard, those programs which affect the regions of the country have been spared to the largest extent possible from spending cuts. The major element of the spending cuts has been here in Ottawa with improved management, so that we can squeeze out the waste and inefficiency, as well as in the better-off parts of the country which can well afford to have some of those Government programs cut back.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the cuts for regional development are about 25 per cent. Does the Minister think that cutting regional development dollars is an effective way of reducing the deficit? Does it not really mean in the long run that there will be fewer revenue dollars coming into the Government of Canada?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are back to my first answer. What we have done in cutting the size of subsidies to business through the Industrial Regional Development Program has been to focus primarily on the Tier 1 and Tier 2 areas of the country, not the Tier 3 and Tier 4 areas which are primarily in northern Ontario. What I would point out to the Hon. Member is that, as we get the deficit problem under control, interest rates will come down and all parts of northern Ontario will benefit from that in a very major way.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister explain how cutting $122 million from the cultural sector last year, then adding $75 million supposedly new dollars this year, is to be considered a positive cultural initiative? Most Canadians who can add and subtract will find this to be a cut of $47 million. Can the Minister explain this contradiction?


Geoff Wilson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is very easy to do. What we have cut are programs which are no longer effective. What we have cut are waste and inefficiency in the operations in the area of communications and culture. What we have cut is the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation, which can afford to be reduced in size. We have replaced that with more effective programs and more focused programs on developing the cultural sovereignty of the country.


SIZE OF GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I find that extremely interesting, since the CBC is central to the development of the cultural industries in the country. As the Government is busy negotiating culture with free trade it will be cutting back the CBC-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Question, please, and just a question.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister has announced a 2 per cent freeze across the board, can he tell us how he can announce a 6 per cent over-all increase to the cultural industries?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 think there are people in the country who would disagree with the Hon. Member. We believe that culture in Canada is more than just the CBC.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Twentieth Revised Report of the Selection Committee, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present two petitions, one on behalf of 107 students of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia and the other on behalf of 297 students of the University of Calgary in Alberta, who are urging the federal Government to reinstate Katimavik.
February 28, 1986


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition on behalf of 348 residents of my riding of Oxford. My constitutents are protesting the continued operation of the Morgentaler clinic in the City of Toronto in violation of Section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada.


Mr. Roger Clinch (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present to the House a petition signed by 230 Canadians from the constituency of Gloucester who are asking the Government of Canada, through its Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to consider the construction of a proper harbour and docking area at the Miller Brook area in the County of Gloucester, New Brunswick.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present another petition signed by 66 residents of the national capital region from Gloucester, Nepean, Kanata, Aylmer and the City of Ottawa, who strongly oppose the National Capital Commission's proposal to build embassies in the Mile Circle in my riding.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by some 200 residents of Toronto, most of them from the constituency of Etobicoke Centre, requesting Parliament to reverse its decision to deindex family allowance benefits.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 446 will be answered today.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Was the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs advised that auxiliary (safety lever) brakes for bicycles on many Canadian bicycles were unsafe because of defective screws which loosen with repeated brake application and, if so (a) on what date (b) what action did the Department take?
2.	To the knowledge of the Department (a) approximately how many bicycles have been sold in Canada with these defective brakes (b) what means are being used to advise the public of the hazardous nature of these brakes?
Borrowing Authority Act
3.	Is the Government planning to introduce compulsory safety standards for bicycles sold in Canada and, if so (a) on what date (b) which bicycle components will be covered by such standards?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: 1. (a) The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs received a complaint in January, 1982 to the effect that some brake extension levers did not function properly.
(b) The matter was investigated and it was the Department's understanding at the time that most bicycle manufacturers took corrective action as soon as they became aware of the problem.
2.	(a) Information at hand indicates that the unsafe design of brake extension levers was used in inexpensive brake systems imported from the Orient only for a time during the 1970s. It is not known how many bicycles were sold during that period with these brake extension levers.
(b) The brake extension lever is a convenience feature which does not replace the main braking system. The extension lever is designed to gradually reduce the speed of the bicycle, not to stop it quickly. Even if the brake extension lever fails, the cyclist can still activate the main hand-brake lever to slow down or stop the bicycle. Since it was a convenience item that was in question rather than the basic safety of the braking system, a public statement was not issued.
3.	With respect to safety standards, it must be recognized that the Canadian Standards Association has issued such standards and also has a bicycle certification program in operation. In view of these actions, Government intervention in the market place appears unnecessary at this time.
(a)	Not applicable.
(b)	Not applicable.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Barbara Jean McDougall: that Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority.
11068

February 28, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
be read the second time and referred to the legislative committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to outline the Government's borrowing requirements for the upcoming fiscal year. I want to begin by paraphrasing the remarks made by my most honourable colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), when he presented the previous borrowing Bill before this Chamber last May. At that time he said that he could garner little enthusiasm in bringing forward such a measure, a measure dealing with a legacy of the previous administration and which imposed an extraordinary severe burden on the people of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform Hon. Members that I share my colleague's lack of enthusiasm for this measure which we tabled last May. However, I am confident that the credible, honest and praiseworthy document the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tabled Wednesday afternoon represents a firm extension of his commitment and this Government's commitment to remedy the sad state of affairs that we inherited.

The evidence is before us today. This Bill is testimony to the sound progress that this Government has made. I am sure all Hon. Members are aware that our borrowing needs, thanks to my colleague the Minister of Finance, have been reduced from $28.8 billion last year to $22.6 billion this year. That is a full $6.2 billion less. Furthermore, as my colleague the Minister of Finance told us yesterday, our borrowing needs will continue to be reduced every year thereafter.
On September 4, 1984, Canadians voted overwhelmingly for a new approach to the way this country is governed. Three months later the Minister of Finance presented to the House his economic statement, a historic document, which outlined an agenda of economic renewal and set out the principles and new policy directions designed to clear the way for sustained growth and to create permanent jobs at low, stable rates of inflation.
Hon. Members will recall that the three major challenges he identified at that time were: restoring fiscal integrity, encouraging private initiative, and redefining the role of Government so that it provides an effective framework for economic growth and job creation. On May 23 last year the Minister built on this comprehensive economic strategy and presented us with a Budget designed to redress high unemployment and spiralling national debt. This past Wednesday we were given the proposals of his current Budget, proposals which are consistent with and complementary to those of his previous addresses to this House.
Today, in bringing before the Chamber a Bill to authorize the Government's planned borrowing requirements for the forthcoming year, I want to underscore the fact that the consistent and comprehensive application of the strategy which
was first enunciated a year ago last November and developed in the May 1985 Budget, a strategy built on prudent management and good, old fashioned common sense, has produced results. This success can clearly be seen in the renewed optimism in Canada and in the jobs that have been created and the consumer confidence which is at its highest level in many years. The Government is putting the nation back together by promoting growth, creating jobs, improving Government effectiveness and controlling our national debt. This is the first Government in many years that has had the discipline and sense of stewardship to do this.
This is a clear demonstration of the leadership and initiative displayed by Progressive Conservatives, by the people on this side of the House and by the Government. We have acted with decisiveness, with consistency, with determination, with discipline and with a sense of responsibility. We as a nation cannot continue to mortgage our future. Therefore, we are taking the actions that we have to take. We are restraining the Government's needs to make sure that, like all other Canadians, we are spending smarter. Canadians are tired of having their futures mortgaged as well as their homes.
The Minister of Finance said very clearly last May that at some point we must begin to pay the bills for current services and not pass them on to our children. We as a Government are determined to put our fiscal house in order. When independent comparisons and studies are made with other countries, it becomes very clear that we are succeeding in this resolve. Between 1982 and 1984, Canada recorded the largest deficit among the major OECD countries with the exception of Italy. With the measures that have been brought forward by this Government, the deficit will decline from 6.3 per cent of GNP in 1984 to 4.7 per cent in 1986. This represents the largest decline, along with Japan, among the seven OECD countries. That is a record of which we are going to be very proud.
[Translation[
We are on the way to new economic prosperity. However, 1 would not want Hon. Members to think this Government will rest on its laurels. The economic problems still facing our country are not easy to resolve. To attain our Government's objective of full economic recovery will require a sustained effort on the part of all Members of this House, and I earnestly ask you to support us in this very important task. [English]
Let me turn now to the specifics of the Bill before the House. The Bill seeks $22.6 billion worth of borrowing authority for 1986-87, an amount exactly equal to the forecast financial requirements for the year, and no additional amount of borrowing authority is being sought at this time. I should explain that a new borrowing authority Bill would normally include an amount equivalent to the financial requirements and a specified amount for contingencies such as possible foreign exchange requirements. This year, the Government has recourse to $2 billion of unused non-lapsing authority which was provided by the Borrowing Authority Act, 1984-85, (No. 2). Thus, no contingency amount is being required.
February 28, 1986

To remain consistent from one year to the next, Clause 3 of the Bill stipulates that all unused borrowing authority granted by this Bill or by the Borrowing Authority Act, 1984-85, (No. 2) to the extent that the unused authority exceeds $2 billion will be cancelled. Thus, any unused borrowing authority remaining from the $2 billion non-lapsing amount granted earlier will be cancelled at the end of the fiscal year and may not be carried forward again. The provision to cancel all unused authority granted for the 1986-87 fiscal year to the extent that it exceeds $2 billion is similar to previous years and if available will preserve a $2 billion non-lapsing amount to be carried forward into the 1987-88 fiscal year.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, in May 1985, the Minister of Finance tabled a paper proposing improvements to the Canadian budgetary process. One of the suggestions in that paper was to seek parliamentary approval of borrowing authority for the upcoming fiscal year at the same time the Budget was presented. The logic behind the proposal is really self-evident. It is that the Budget presentation in February would set out the financial information for the new fiscal year for parliamentary study, and this is the course of action that I am following now. I would hope that the debate on the Budget and the fiscal stance presented by the Government will be helpful in the examination of the borrowing authority Bill.
As a matter of interest to Hon. Members, I would like to outline how the Government has made use of the borrowing authority provided by Parliament for the 1985-86 fiscal year. The total amount of authority provided was $32.2 billion. It consisted of $12 billion provided by the borrowing Authority Act 1985-86; $18.2 billion provided by the Borrowing Authority Act, 1985-86, (No. 2); and a $2 billion non-lapsing reserve carried forward from the Borrowing Authority Act, 1984-85, (No. 2). During the 1985-86 fiscal year to date, domestic borrowing operations have used about $23 billion of borrowing authority, $7.3 billion through the issue of treasury bills, $11.4 billion through the sale of marketable bonds and $4.3 billion through the net sale of Canada Savings Bonds.
There was in addition foreign borrowing that added $8.2 billion to the use of borrowing authority. The foreign borrowing represented a $900 million U.S. public issue in the U.S. market in July, a $500 million bond issue in the Eurodollar market in November 1985, a $80 billion public bond issue in the Euro-yen market in February 1986 and a U.S. $1 billion bond issue in the Eurodollar market in February 1986. In addition, net standby drawings during the 1985-86 fiscal year to date have used $4 billion of borrowing authority. There was also a redemption of a U.S. $250 million public issue in October which reduced the total use of borrowing authority. The borrowing authority calculations reflect as well the repayment of portions of Canadair financial corporation debt that was assumed by the Government in the 1985-86 fiscal year.
Let me close my remarks by urging the House to effect swift passage of the legislation that is before us today. Hon. Members I am sure will recall that last May, the borrowing Bill was debated within two weeks of the Budget. This year we are debating it within two days.
Borrowing Authority Act
We are discussing this measure in the light of Wednesday's Budget, and I shall be happy to hear any comments that Hon. Members may wish to make on this very important matter, Mr. Speaker.

I am reminded of a quotation from Hippocrates: "Healing is a matter of time, but it is also a matter of opportunity". 1 ask all Hon. Members to seize the opportunity offered to us this week by the Minister of Finance, the opportunity to build a better future for Canada. 1 also ask Hon. Members to pass this Bill rapidly enough to allow us to stay the course we charted in November, 1984 which has been so successful in our economic environment to date, so that we can once again restore the nation to its potential.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the borrowing authority Bill introduced by the Government after its first Budget last May requested over $18 billion. This was after the presentation of a Budget which was and is widely perceived as an outright attempt by the Government to tax its way out of the deficit at the expense of middle and low-income Canadians.
Today we are considering another request for borrowing authority. Again the Government has presented a Budget which is very little more than across-the-board regressive tax increases, except that they will hit doubly hard, since the new increases are piled on to those already in effect from the last Budget, and again middle-income Canadians are hit. And yet, with this double whammy effect, with the further squeeze which the Government is putting on average taxpayers, the Bill before us requests no less than $22.6 billion for 1986-87.
What kind of questions does this raise about the way the Government has chosen to proceed in its two Budgets and the way it has governed in the time it has been in power? We in the Official Opposition opposed many of the measures in last year's Budget because of their unfairness. The broadening of the sales tax base, sales tax increases and deindexation are measures which impact upon everyone, but hit hardest at families and individuals with low and moderate incomes. We have pointed out repeatedly as the budget Bills came before the House that the sales and excise taxes have a multiplier effect which enhances their unfairness. Year after year they will take bigger and bigger bites from the incomes of taxpayers. Their effect is only beginning to be felt. The billions of dollars the Government takes in this year through the tax hikes in last year's Budget alone will multiply several times by the end of the decade.
With concerted effort from the Opposition and strong protest from Canadians in general, we were able to force the Government to change some of its most damaging proposals. The Government backed off from its plan to strip inflation

February 28, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
protection from old age pensions, and the Government restored the sales tax exemption for certain medical supplies.
The unfairness of the Conservative Government's first Budget was highlighted by the treatment afforded to large corporations and to the small minority of wealthy Canadians. While middle and low-income Canadians got all the rough treatment in the Budget, those groups were left relatively unscathed: in fact, one might say that they got off better than unscathed.
In contrast to the loss of protection against inflation, the deindexation of the personal tax system and the tax grabs perpetrated upon low and middle-income earners, the fortunate 4 per cent of the population who can afford it, were given the gift of a $500,000 lifetime capital gains exemption. There were no strings attached, no restrictions, no requirement that investments qualifying for the exemption contribute in any way to building our economy. It is simply an unsolicited, untargeted bonus which further complicates the tax system.
It is important to remember these things about the Government's Budget of last year because we are living with these measures right now. I certainly agree with the Minister of Finance and other Government supporters who say that we must consider the two Budgets as a package. We in the Official Opposition were and are against measures adopted by the Government in its first Budget last year. We did not believe then and we do not believe now that the way to cut the deficit is by taxing the life and spirit out of middle and low-income Canadians. We urged the Government to take the opportunity in its second Budget to repair some of the damage done in its first Budget. We urged the Government to modify the capital gains exemption, to add some conditions. We urged the Government to address the fact that its measures were creating a gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" in society. We urged the Government to introduce measures which would show us that it had a vision and an agenda for economic growth.
The Official Opposition was not the only voice encouraging the Government to such action. Many other groups and individuals also encouraged it to bring about a fair and an imaginative Budget-groups from social policy organizations, to business groups, to individual citizens. However, on February 26 it became clear that the Government had not listened. On February 26 Canadians got more of the same-more tax increases, more hidden tax changes.
The speeches which I gave during last year's debate on the Budget and last year's debate on the borrowing authority Bill are quite relevant today and could almost be applied verbatim to this year's debates. We have now had two Budgets which have taken exactly the same stance, to wring as much as possible in tax revenues from middle and low-income Canadians in an effort to cut the deficit and to prove to outside investors that the Conservative Government has the ability and resolve to manage our economy. It may be early to judge the international reaction, but the dollar has dropped on each of the two days since the Budget was presented. It will probably be another couple of weeks before we know what international
investors think of a Government which in two successive Budgets latches on and clings to the method of raising revenue by taxing and then taxing some more. Will that be a signal that the Government has a vision of where it wants the country
to go?
Reaction to the $500,000 capital gains exemption with no strings attached was lukewarm at best, negative in large part, but there has been no move to modify it. I think the Minister would have acquired great credit if he had been willing to admit that that was a mistake and to add in some conditions so that people who benefit from such a measure would contribute to the Canadian economy in some way. However, he chose not to do so.
On top of the 1 per cent federal sales tax increase in the last Budget, this Budget now gives us another 1 per cent increase on all items including gasoline. We should remember that because fuel costs are a part of all manufacturing, packaging, transportation, storage and retailing, any increase in fuel costs means higher prices for the consumer.
This measure is only one of the many measures in this Budget which are inflationary. Canadians will have to dig deeper into their pockets to pay a further $1.9 billion in federal taxes while corporate taxes increase by only $380 million.
As a result of the Conservative Government's two budgets, middle and low-income Canadians will have less money because of higher taxes, and they must use their reduced incomes to buy goods that are made more expensive because of higher taxes.
The small compensations offered in the February 26 budget do not come close to compensating for what Canadians are losing through these repeated tax grabs. The so-called federal sales tax rebate will be a help to some poor Canadians, but it will be a pittance compared to what they will lose over the years because of the cumulative effects of deindexation and tax increases.
As for the proposal to give some low income families their child tax credit a few months early, it is beyond me how that can be presented by the Government as generosity. The Government is patting itself on the back for offering to give people the money it owes them.
These are the two measures Government Members are pointing to as proof of the Conservative Government's compassion and sense of fairness. I would simply point out that they are small and very inexpensive measures which will be paid for several times over by what the Government expects to rake in with the 3 per cent surtax.
It remains to be seen if this concerted attack on the middle class will have the effect the Government wanted. It will raise revenue, but the Government also hopes it will convince international investors of its determination to manage the economy. This brings me to a concern I raised earlier. Where is the Government's agenda for economic growth? Where is the imagination, the sense of purpose, to inspire Canadians to
February 28, 1986

make them feel it is worthwhile to tighten their belts now for a better vision and a better future? Successful countries are those with forward-looking industrial strategies. Where is Canada's? We should be working hard to strengthen our technological base in industry and in our universities, but the Government is cutting contributions to post-secondary education.


Mrs. Mailly:: That is not true.


Aideen Nicholson: We should be trying to raise our standard of living by raising our productivity to stay competitive. Instead, we have universities in a serious cash crunch and cut-backs in industrial and regional development programs. Instead of raising standards of living, the Government is lowering standards of living by taxing away the purchasing power of low and middle-income Canadians.
We have a Government that clamors for restraint but squanders money in bank bail-outs, large tax concessions to big corporations and a capital gains exemption that will funnel Canadian savings into non-productive investments. The Government, without any industrial strategy of its own, has spent billions in taxpayers dollars on measures that will do little to revitalize the economy and strengthen economic recovery.
The greatest resource of any country is people. In this last Budget we saw no mention of youth, no concern for the very high youth unemployment, no concern for the bright, able young people who are finding it increasingly difficult to finance post-secondary education.
Not only is the Government reducing its direct contributions to the provinces for post-secondary education-


Claudy Mailly: That is not true.


Aideen Nicholson: -but as universities then put up their fees, it becomes harder for the bright but lower income students to finance post-secondary education. I have had many letters from students and from parents who have pointed out the increasing difficulty of financing post-secondary education. Summer jobs are harder and harder to find, yet the Government cut back on its money for job creation.


Mr. Dick:: When?


Aideen Nicholson: At a time when we should be doing all we can to assist our bright creative young people to receive higher education, whether or not they come from monied families, the Government appears totally insensitive.
There are many other Members who wish to speak on this Bill and, therefore, I will save some of my other comments for a future debate on the Budget. I would just point out that the Budget tabled the day before yesterday is based on two assumptions which may or may not come to pass.
There is an assumption of an oil price of $22.50 a barrel which does not seem likely to be met, and as a result many of the other projections on which this is based may not come to pass. There is an assumption of interest rates which may in fact prove to be optimistic. If indeed the Government's
Borrowing Authority Act
assumptions are not met, we will undoubtedly see the Minister back with a Bill for supplementary borrowing authority.
For the sake of the country, naturally one hopes that the measures announced in this dreary and unimaginative Budget will be effective, but it is very difficult to feel much confidence in what we have seen to date.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we are not quite ready for the question yet.


John R. Rodriguez: Absolutely not.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Why not?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Because we have a few comments we wish to make.
It was very interesting when the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) stood in her place and introduced Bill C-99, requesting authority from the Flouse of Commons to borrow $22.6 billion. That was fine. Something which all Members of the House have been calling for is the introduction of the borrowing authority immediately after the tabling of the Budget and the estimates. That, I say, is a very good process to have been introduced by the Government. It was a fine move, something which the Government in opposition had called for for years and which Liberal Governments have failed to do for years and years and years. I say congratulations, but that is it, quite frankly.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: To be fair, Mr. Speaker, it is very important that people have the whole package before them to consider. The Minister of State for Finance gave us some very peculiar rhetoric and wording. It reminded me of when I used to read bedtime stories to my two sons. They enjoyed the fairy tales and so on. It helped them sleep better. Perhaps it gave them a creative mind-set when they went off to sleep. The Minister of State gave us, as Members of Parliament and the people of Canada watching and listening today, a little bedtime story: "Look how we as a Government have instilled confidence in the people of Canada and in the international investment corporate community", she said. I thought to myself, need I listen to anything beyond this?
I would have sworn that earlier today the value of the Canadian dollar had fallen to 69 cents U.S. It has fallen more

February 28, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
than 2 cents since the Budget was introduced only two days ago. That is a reasonable thermometer to use to identify how well the Government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) are doing. I think they have a reverse fever. That thermometer wanted to go lower than 69 cents U.S. Just a few weeks ago the Government's friend, Governor Bouey, said in the Finance committee that he would go to any extreme to maintain the value of the dollar, and he did, because he had to.


Claudy Mailly: That was in response to the speculators.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That was not, as the Hon. Member indicated, in response to the money speculators. Many of us asked him to what extent he was prepared to go in the months ahead to ensure that the Canadian dollar stays around 70 cents U.S. He said that he was prepared to go to virtually any length.
I think they started on Wednesday in anticipation of the Budget, and since then have been purchasing hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of our own currency to try to convince the people in the international money markets that there is a massive buyer buying all of our money to give an artificial, inappropriate, and fairy tale vision of the value of our currency. We all know this happens. The international money market people know this. It fools no one when a single buyer borrows hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign exchange and then buys our dollar to give the impression that people are interested in our currency. It fools no one in this House, in the country, or in the international money markets. Therefore, the value of the dollar is down.
I was hoping that the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) would explain to us why the dollar has collapsed in the last two days since the Budget came in.


Claudy Mailly: It hasn't collapsed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Well, it has fallen two cents in two days. The only reason it did not fall further was because of the massive intervention in the marketplace. I say that is a falling dollar.


Claudy Mailly: It has not collapsed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Minister of Finance said that as soon as the Budget was brought in we would watch the currency strengthen.


Gary Michael Gurbin: What do you want us to cut?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I want you to do some tax reform, which was not even touched in this bloody Budget. As a matter of fact, this Budget made the tax system more complex than ever and less fair than ever. This Budget is more unjust.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I know it is Friday, and I know the compassion that we all have for each other. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has the floor. There will not be questions and comments on his debate, but there will be on the speech of the next speaker.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we would certainly be prepared to entertain questions at the end of my speech, with the unanimous consent of the House. Perhaps Members would hold their questions if they wish to pose some.
In a more quiet vein, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Finance has indicated that consumers, investors, and the people of Canada have confidence. The only real indicator so far has been the value of the currency, which is falling. Some people have asked what these people know about what was in the Budget. These are not stupid people, Mr. Speaker. These people are not uninformed with regard to financial matters. They know the highlights of the Budget. They know that it is levying taxes on everyone across the country.
As a matter of fact, the increased financial burden on the average Canadian family as a result of this Budget, the previous Budget, and the November economic statement, is an average of dollars $1,305 per family. I know that Hon. Members may question those figures. I challenge anyone who does not think that the last two Budgets and the economic statement result in additional charges to Canadian families of $1,305 to provide me with their figures. I think that is fair. If people do not believe my figures, I challenge them to show me theirs and we will make some comparisons. If I am wrong, I will certainly be prepared to admit it.
The Minister of Finance said that the increased personal income taxes per family were about $500. He said that the impact of the three increases in sales taxes is about $500. Well, that is $1,000. Add to that the increase in gasoline and other excise taxes, the increase in taxes on alcohol and tobacco products, and the user fees which have been increased for national parks, for taking out citizenship papers, and for tying up your boats at docks, and it amounts to $1,305 per family. We are assuming that a family is a couple with two children and an income of about $35,000. We think those are the facts, and if other folks do not think those are the facts I challenge them to tell us what they think they are.
This is worse than it sounds, Mr. Speaker, because this is cumulative. These are also primarily regressive taxes. When sales taxes are increased three times it amounts to an awful lot of money. There is no differentiation between rich and poor. Everyone pays the same sales tax on a set of tires for their car.


Claudy Mailly: If you are poor, you don't have a car.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I guess the Hon. Member is correct that if you are poor you do not have a car and do not have to buy tires. Am I supposed to take heart from that? Is the good news that poor people do not have to buy winter tires for their cars because they do not have cars? I am not happy with that either.


Claudy Mailly: Find some examples that make sense.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The point I am trying to make is that this is a very regressive tax. It means that hundreds and hundreds of dollars are being removed from the families of Canada and from the communities in which they live. Depending upon the size of the community, that could mean that hundreds of thousands of
February 28, 1986

dollars are not circulating within the businesses of the community. That means that the businesses are doing less business and are likely having to lay off employees. That has a ripple effect in terms of increased UIC charges and the fact that these people do not then purchase goods and services. It has a very negative impact in the communities of Canada.
In The Fiscal Plan which the Minister of Finance included in his Budget it says that between this year and next year personal taxes will increase by $5.5 billion. The next line talks about corporate taxes. One would assume that to be fair corporate taxes would also increase. However, the reality is that they are decreased by $75 million.


Claudy Mailly: Because they will create jobs.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I say to the Hon. Member who just yelled across to me that jobs are created in the country when people go out and purchase goods and services rather than through a trickle-down through the corporate sector. The financial statement of her own Government says that the least effective way to create jobs is by giving tax breaks to corporations. It is a way, but it is not the best way. However, that is the route the Government has chosen.
Corporate taxes have been reduced, and personal taxes have been increased by $5.5 billion, not to mention the increase in sales tax. Sales taxes have been increased by billions of dollars which will come primarily from middle and low-income Canadians. This is a very serious situation.
The Minister of State for Finance suggested that confidence is growing in the country. As I said, the most recent indicator, the value of our currency, is falling. Why is it falling? Actually, I saw a repeat on Canada AM this morning of financial analysts and economists in this country who were questioning whether the interests rates in Canada would average out at 9.5 per cent for the entire 1986 year. Does anyone really believe that our interest rates, with a present rate of approximately 12 per cent to 13 per cent, will average out at 9.5 per cent this year? They would have to drop to 9 per cent or below for the remainder of the year. I challenge Hon. Members opposite to stand in their place and bet me that interest rates in this country will be below 9 per cent for the rest of 1986. I do not think they have that conviction.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the Hon. Member has been giving wrong information to the House. The fact is that the fiscal year about which he is talking has not started. It is possible that interest rates could be 9.5 per cent by the time the fiscal year even starts. He is also talking about the rate at which the Government is borrowing, not the rate at which ordinary people borrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. member knows that it is not a point of order. That is a point of debate. The Hon. Member for Kamlops-Shuswap.
Borrowing Authority Act


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I was simply reading from the Budget that the interest rates are predicted to be an average of 9.5 per cent for the rest of the year.
Let me raise another point to see if my hon. friend corrects me. It is also stated that the price of oil in Canada will average out at $22.50 U.S. a barrel for the year 1986-87. Today, the charge for west Texas crude oil delivered in April of this year is $13.75. If west Texas crude is $13.75 and the Government expects the price of oil to average out at $22.50, who is it trying to kid?


Paul Wyatt Dick: That is the spot market.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I know it is the spot market.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Why didn't you talk about it?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Governmenbt does not have to convince me, it must convince the people on the international money markets and in the corporate community. They have not been convinced, as reflected by the value of our dollar today. They will not be fooled by this Budget because they know that the price of oil in Canada for the rest of the year will not average $22.50. They know it is a joke when the Government says that interest rates will average 9.5 per cent for the year.
The Government has projected its deficit on the basis of these assumptions If interest rates remain at a continual level of 9.5 per cent and the price of oil remains at an average of $22.50 per barrel, the Government will break the $30 billion deficit barrier. If anyone believes that, they will believe that I am about to lift off and fly around the House of Commons.


Claudy Mailly: You're full of enough hot air to do it.


Paul Wyatt Dick: He is taking off.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I feel the ground still under my feet, Mr. Speaker.
Let us look at the Government's document entitled. Towards a Sustained Expansion: Canada's Economic Prospects, 1986-1991. This document which we read on Budget night contains some interesting comments for the year 1987. It states that this year the GNP is predicted to grow at 3.7 per cent while next year it will grow at 3 per cent. In other words, the GNP will go down next year, by the Government's own admission. This material is almost as good bedtime reading as that given to us by the Minister of State for Finance earlier.
This year, consumer expenditures will grow at 3.3 per cent but will it go up or down next year? By the Government's own admission, consumer spending will go down to 2.5 per cent. Does anyone opposite really believe that a drop in consumer spending will help the economy in Penticton, Kelowna or Prince George?
Let us consider residential investment. This year it will increase 11.7 per cent, but next year the Government states that the increase will be zero. It does not expect any increase in residential investment in 1987.
In addition, business non-residential investment will go down in 1987, as will investment in machinery and equipment.

February 28, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
Investment in non-residential construction equipment will go down.
According to this document all that will go up is personal income tax.
I believe the Minister of Finance has integrity and therefore 1 assume that what he says in this book is accurate. According to this document he indicates that we will be moving into a recession next year. Fie also states in his other book that corporate taxes will decline while personal taxes will increase. He is warning us that we will face tough times next year and this Budget will make it more difficult than ever. We see that investment, consumer expenditure, the GNP, personal savings and corporate profits go down but personal income tax rises. That is a peculiar way to turn the economy around. Of course, the economy will not be turned around, by the Government's own admission.
I draw page 26 of Canada's Economy Prospects to the attention of Hon. Members in case they have not read it. The prospects look gloomy, indeed, by the Government's own admission.
Let us deal with tax reform. I suggest that if Hon. Members were realistic they would agree that the country is long overdue for tax reform. We must make the system less complex and more fair and build some accountability into our tax system so that we can ensure that we are getting good value for our dollar. It only makes good common sense and shows reasonable business practice that if we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a tax expenditure that we make sure we are getting the best value for the money. We are simply saying that the system should be cost effective.
However, tax simplification was not addressed in the Budget, nor any tax reform at all. Why did the Minister of Finance not take the opportunity to initiate a major overhaul of the tax system when Canadians are crying out for tax reform? He could have at least told us that he plans to initiate tax reform in the future, but we were disappointed that there was no mention of any serious tax reform. Such tax reform would have permitted the Government to obtain the necessary revenues it so desperately needs. Instead, the Government is placing more taxes on the backs of Canadians. As one of my colleagues stated, this was not a Budget about jobs, jobs, jobs but one of taxes, taxes, taxes. If the Government wants revenue it should obtain it through serious, sensible and positive tax reforms.
Normally I do not even take a slice from the page of Ronald Reagan's books, but I notice that he reduced taxes for low and middle income earners in the United States a couple of years ago. The strength of their dollar is quite high.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: At this point it is very close to one o'clock. The Hon. Member has an extra 20 minutes for his speech.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 12:59 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House recessed at one o'clock the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shus-wap (Mr. Riis) had the floor.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to expand on a few comments I made just before we broke for lunch. First 1 have a confession to make to the House. It was not intentional, but I misled the House with some figures I used and I want to clarify that for the record. I was commenting on the price of West Texas crude. Over the break I found that I had said West Texas crude dropped to U.S. $13.75. That was an error. It actually dropped to U.S. $13.25, and at one point it hit U.S. $12 and something.
Again, I apologize for making that error, but the point was simply to question the Minister of Finance's statement. All of his deficit projections make assumptions. One assumption was that the price of oil in Canada would average out over the year at about U.S. $22.50. I noticed from the newspapers that in discussions among some oil exporting countries in Tokyo a U.S. $10 price was possible. I am not suggesting that will happen because no one knows. However, the point is that the Minister of Finance is assuming U.S. $22.50 when West Texas crude is U.S. $13.25. If that is the basis on which the Minister has made his revenue projections and predictions, he could be off significantly.
For every one dollar drop in the price of oil the federal Government loses something in the $200 million range. My friends from Alberta are only too well aware of that. To put it rather simply, if the price of crude oil this year averaged out approximately where it is today, we are talking about the possibility of a $2 billion shortfall in Government revenue. That of course would knock the Government's estimate on deficit reduction right off the track.
All that is to say nothing about the projection of interest rates. The assumption is that interest rates would average out to 9.5 per cent over the year. Given the way interest rates are today and the fact that the dollar is falling, we know how Governor Bouey will respond. In the past, whether it was under a Liberal or Conservative Government, he would jack up interest rates to protect the value of the dollar. Just two weeks ago he said he would go to any lengths necessary to ensure that the Canadian dollar holds. If we are to take him at his word, that means increased interest rates if the dollar continues to behave as it has, reflecting the fact that people have lost confidence in the Government of Canada.
What we are debating today is the wisdom of giving the Government the authority to borrow $22.6 billion, so I think it is fair to ask some questions. How is this money being spent? What is or is it not doing? I tried to make the case earlier today that it was providing incentives and giveaways to the corporate sector at the expense of the average Canadian. However, I have already done that so I will not repeat myself.
February 25, 1986

The United States has plenty of untapped water and Canada should ignore pressure to divert its water south of the border, a U.S. ground water expert says.
"Don't ever let the U.S. rip off one gallon of your water, whether you're using it today or plan to use it tomorrow. Hold on to it for dear life," Dr. J. H. Lehr, executive director of the National Water Well Association told an appreciative audience at a conference on industrial waste in Toronto yesterday.
Dr. Lehr, a geology professor at Ohio State University, was introduced as the foremost U.S. expert on ground water.
He said "there is no true shortage of water" in the United States. Instead, "we have a tremendous dearth of (water) management expertise.
Dr. Lehr said farmers use irrigation methods which use only about 35 per cent of the water on crops, wasting the other two-thirds.
Vested interests ensure that the United States consumes more surface water, from lakes, streams and rivers, than ground water from beneath the earth's surface, although there is 20 times more ground water in storage than there is surface water, he said.
Engineers get paid more money to build dams and reservoirs than they do to tap sub-surface water. Governments would rather build a dam because they can stick a commemorative plaque on it, Dr. Lehr said.
Yet 95 per cent of the available water in the United States is ground water, while only 5 per cent is surface water, he said.
1 would now like to go on to an article from The Toronto Star of May 20, 1985. It is headlined: "Experts doubt U.S. needs our water". I quote from the article which states:
Harvard professor Peter Rogers notes that many cheaper ways exist for the United States to increase its water supply.
The U.S. has about 24 million hectares (60 million acres) of land under irrigation but "could get away with 30 million acres based on exports for the year 2000," saving 50 per cent of the water. And Rogers maintains that wastage is "enormous".
The problems are only serious locally, Rogers insists, "but not from a regional or national view. Farmers are moving away from irrigated agriculture to dryland crops. The U.S. government is basically getting out of water. No new projects have been built for the past 10 years.
"I don't predict a national water crisis," he says.
I would now like to quote from another article which appeared in The Toronto Star entitled: "Water: Canada's hidden riches". It states in part:
Strong pressure
Says Gerald Seinwiil, acting director of the U.S. Water Resources Council, which recently completed a study of U.S. water supplies: "Water is the most serious long-range problem now confronting the nation-potentially more serious than the energy crisis. By the turn of the century, almost every section of the country faces water shortages unless the nation recognizes that we cannot continue to waste and mistreat a precious resource."
So far Ottawa's position on water exports has been quietly constant over the years; Canadian water is not for sale (even for export in tankers to Saudi Arabia or icebergs to India)-
The article goes on to state:
In fact the difference in the amount of renewable water available to Canada and the U.S. is not great because U.S. rivers discharge about 2,ISO-billion gallons a day, or about 8 per cent of the world's supply (compared with Canada's 9 per cent).
So the United States has an enormous amount of water but it is polluted and mismanaged.
Let us deal with the politics of what is happening in our country now because that is really what we have to focus on and why there are stronger measures than this Bill that must be taken to protect this country and the globe. I quote from
Water Export and Diversion Act
the January 16, 1986, edition of The Sun of Vancouver as follows:
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, in an interview with Fortune Magazine in March last year, was paraphrased as saying that Canada would consider water exports to the U.S. if such an idea were mutually beneficial and economically feasible. "Why not?" Mulroney was quoted as saying.
Only a month later, an avid supporter of the Grand Canal project told an Ontario Economic Council seminar on trade that linking free trade to the water export proposal would be a brilliant way of getting the U.S. enthusiastic about free trade. That supporter was Simon Reisman, appointed by Mulroney last November as Canada's free trade negotiator.
The National Research Council, according to Kierans, is considering spending $750,000 to participate in a pre-feasibility study on the project. Kierans is expecting a decision in a week or so. In addition, Kierans says Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. is studying the idea of using a nuclear reactor to provide power for the pumps needed to get the water from James Bay to the Great Lakes.
Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa, in a book published last spring, endorsed the proposal, and has since won an election.
I go on to an article that was carried in Maclean's magazine of February 17 of this year which says the following:
Despite the potential difficulties, Bourassa hopes to line up enough contracts in New England and states as far south as Maryland by early 1987 to justify James Bay II. To help him do that, Schlesinger's high-powered committee-it will include Paul Desmarais, chairman of the Montreal-based Power Corp.-will advise Bourassa on trends in U.S. energy policy and demand.
Now we are starting to see the political connections click together. I have pointed out that Paul Desmarais will be working with the Americans in moving the James Bay II project forward. Let me quote from Hansard of December 12, 1983, the words of Mr. Louis Desmarais, the then Liberal Member for Dollard:
This key is water, the white gold of the 21st century.
He went on to say:
Mr. Speaker, the crux of the problem is that this vital resource is not located where it would benefit us most. As far as Canada is concerned, an accident of geography has bestowed on a small fraction of the human race an immense resource, while billions of people are suffering the consequences of poverty and famine ... Today, we must accept the fact that water has become a world resource, and this implies that its distribution must be assured in terms of continental rather than national requirements, if we are to survive until the next century.
He refers to the Grand Canal or Grand Recycling and Northern Development Project which of course he was pumping here in the House of Commons. He ended his remarks by saying something which demonstrates once again the scientific and ecological illiteracy of many of the people who are dealing with this enormous question. His remarks ended as follows:
All of this precious run-off is now washed uselessly away into the sea.
Now we see the political and corporate connections.
Let me turn again to our ambassador for free trade. The January 21, 1986, edition of The Sun of Vancouver says the following:
The export of fresh water from Canada to the U.S. will be a major factor in Canada-U.S. relations, according to Canada's free trade negotiator.
"In my judgment water will be the most critical area of Canada-U.S. relations over the next hundred years," Simon Reisman said in a statement released Monday by communications director Bruce McDonald.
Now we see the historic connections of Mr. Reisman, the Power Corporation and various interests in the United States

February 25, 1986
Water Export and Diversion Act
who do not want to clean up smoke stacks or chemical, toxic and nuclear dumps. 1 think the words of Dr. David Suzuki really hit the nail on the head regarding how these interests all work together. I am quoting from an article which was published in March 1982 which reads as follows:
"Over half of all scientists in the world today are working for the military, and the majority of the remainder works for private industry," he said.
Suzuki pointed out that it was not surprising that most of the benefits of new developments in technology and in science are thus still accruing overwhelmingly to the military and to private industry.
I think Canadians, Americans and people around the world generally recognize that, but when we are talking about NAWAPA, to which I will now turn, and the Grand Canal schemes, I think we can see who intends to line their pockets and for what reasons.
An article run on March 9, 1985, in the Toronto Star was entitled "Preparing to sell Canada dry?"
Is Canada's water for sale? The previous Government said No. Last year, then-environment Minister Charles Caccia said "We reject the notion that water is available for export. This will be a very important commodity in the decades ahead."-
We can't afford to allow water exports, no matter what the price. A firm, simple No is the only thing that can put these grandiose schemes to rest. The Prime Minister should be saying this, not sending a message to foreigners that Canada is for sale.
I certainly agree with that editorial. I turn now to an article contained in The Financial Post of September 5, 1981, entitled "Water crisis trickling into our consciousness". It reads as follows:
This energy-related water demand occurs where there is already short supply (the West), or, in the case of nuclear power, where water quality is already threatened (Ontario). In the U.S., this conflict is compounded by a growing reliance on coal, which not only produces acid rain, but also releases large quantities of carbon dioxide.
It's expected that increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide will raise lower atmosphere temperatures (the "greenhouse" effect) by at least two-five degrees Celsius by the year 2050, thus reducing precipitation.
Since this will aggravate the present drought in much of western North America, the pressure for massive water transfers-and exports from Canada- is likely to increase.
We can see that there are many players in this game. As I have said before, there are the smoke stack industries and those who do not want to clean up these problems like toxic waste and then we deal with who is really going to be making the money and who are the losers. As I will point out in a moment, all the people of the world might well be the losers from either NAWAPA or this lunatic Grand Canal scheme.
The Citizen ran an article on April 28, 1981, entitled "Water supply crisis looms" which reads as follows:
Total Canadian water use is expected to double in the next two decades, from 26.3 billion gallons a day to 62.2 billion gallons daily. Manufacturing and energy needs make the largest demands. Last year, 48 per cent of Canadian water use went to power stations for cooling purposes, while manufacturers drew 32 per cent.
Let us add those two figures together, Mr. Speaker. That amounts to 80 per cent of Canada's water use.
The article continues:
Growth in these areas, particularly as Canada strives for energy self-sufficiency, and agricultural expansion in already water short Western Canada are expected to place the greatest pressures for increased water consumption.
As hewers of wood, we know that we are in a crisis with coal, wood and all of our raw resources. What about us as drawers of water? Those politicians who Say that we are hewers of wood and drawers of water had better understand that these kinds of massive diversions and exports would create a global crisis to which I now turn.
An article entitled "Why U.S. engineers want to turn on Canada's tap" appeared in The Sun of Vancouver in April 1981.
It says the following:
During 1980, Americans used 235.5 billion gallons of fresh water every day. Nearly half of this amount, or 105.2 billion gallons, was not replaced by snow or rainfall. To make up the difference, great underground reservoirs known as aquifers are gradually being tapped for their ancient water supplies. The public is alarmed by reports of "the browning of America."
This is the atmosphere which has given a fresh lease on life to enormous water transfer projects such as that dreamed up in California in 1964 by the huge engineering firm, the Ralph M. Parsons Co. Called the North American Water and Power Alliance, this gigantic project with a price tag of more than $200 billion would bring water from the Yukon down to Mexico.
Let me turn now to our global problems in terms of atmospheric pollution and the implications of such a large diversion project. I am not talking about the impact on migratory birds or the sea life in any of these areas or of the native people and others who would be displaced. I am talking about things on a much larger scale. In an article written by Dr. Kenneth Hare, recognized in this country as being one of our foremost atmospheric scientists, the following appears:
Careful statistical analysis shows not only the 100,000-year interval seemingly favoured by glacial epochs, but also the influence of small changes in the orbit of the sun that recur at intervals of 41,000 and 19,000 to 23,000 years.
These recent discoveries are not yet properly understood, but they are formidable evidence that the "ice age" to which we are alleged to be returning was in fact a succession of glacial epochs spread over two million years or more. Each of these epochs, incidentally, was far longer than the history of civilization!-
Calculations suggest that carbon dioxide will double its atmospheric concentration by mid-21st Century or later. This assumes that the world goes on increasing its use of oil, gas and coal, but that high prices keep the buildup down to about 2 per cent per annum.


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Charest):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
February 25, 1986



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the occasion for my participation this evening in the adjournment debate is the result of a question which I put to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) on January 28, in which 1 expressed concern about the proposed location in the United States of several nuclear waste storage dumps. I understand this evening that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Cook) will be responding. 1 am sure that is of some relief to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Gurbin).
Apparently the United States is examining the possibility of 20 sites in the U.S., several of which are along the American-Canadian border. Thirteen of the sites are in four states bordering Canada. They are located in Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Maine. The rest of the proposed sites are in the southeast section of the states. Of the 13 sites along the Canadian border about which we are expressing concern, eight are of direct concern to Canadian authorities. One site of specific concern is located in Maine.
1 appreciate that the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) have made strong representations to the Government of the United States and to officials of the environment agency to ensure that every protection is given to the environment in Canada. However, I think it is important to register now our objection to the potential location of any of those sites along the Canadian border. Specifically I want to refer to the potential prospects of the site in Maine. That site is in the River Ste. Croix watershed area which creates the border, in part, between the State of Maine and the Province of New Brunswick. The actual site itself would be located, if it became a reality, within 40 miles of the border. Of course the concern is that watersheds and other ecologically critical and sensitive areas could be adversely affected.
It is well known that Maine's geological history indicates that there are no safe places in the State of Maine for the safe storage of nuclear waste. Although we recognize that most other areas which are under consideration in the United States have the same difficulties, the Maine site is a good example for us to utilize when we are examining the potential impact and damages that could accrue to Canada, particularly to the Province of New Brunswick, as a result.
Adjournment Debate
I hope that I have reinforced what the Minister of the Environment has already responded to me for the assurance of the citizens of those areas which could be affected. The Canadian Government will indeed continue to monitor very closely these proposals to store nuclear radioactive wastes in storage dumps along the Canadian border. We will continue to impress upon our U.S. counterparts that the establishment of these nuclear waste dumps in our area, where potentially dangerous environmental impact could be felt, is unacceptable to Canadians. It is unacceptable to endanger our environment to that extent and we will use evry influence available to us to ensure that when those sites are selected, if that method of disposal is indeed decided upon, they will not be in proximity of the Canadian border to the satisfaction of the Canadian Government and to the relief of the concerns of those who are extremely perplexed about the consequences to the environmentally sensitive areas on our side of the U.S.-Canadian border.


Mr. Chuck Cook (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) has raised a question which could be of concern to all Canadians. I am delighted to have the opportunity to rise this evening to give him complete, solid, and total relief from his concern.
The U.S. nuclear waste repository program, which is searching for a site for its second repository, has caused concern. Canada has insisted from the start that any site selected for a U.S. nuclear waste repository must pose no threat to the Canadian environment or to the health of this or future generations of Canadians.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has discussed this issue several times with United States Secretary of State George Shultz. Last spring they established Canada-U.S. consultative meetings to ensure that there would be a well-defined process by which Canadian concerns could be addressed and resolved with the United States. Federal officials have benefited in this consultative process from the views and concerns of provincial experts as well.
In addition to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) have discussed the issue with their U.S. counterparts. These discussions have resulted in the firm U.S. commitment to consult with Canada throughout the entire U.S. program. Most significantly, the U.S. has promised that it will drop from consideration any potential area that could require field work in Canada.
In a letter to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the U.S. State Department pledged that the 15-year U.S. Department of Energy screening process is intended to ensure that no site will be selected which will have harmful effects on either side of the border.
During the last year, the United States looked at 235 areas for a potential site for the second repository. Approximately 40

February 25, 1986
Adjournment Debate
of these were within 25 miles of the Canada-U.S. border from New Brunswick to Manitoba. The U.S. Department of Energy draft report issued on January 16, 1986, narrowed the number of areas under consideration to 20, none of which is within 25 miles of Canada. One site along the Maine-Quebec border was specifically dropped from the report as it would have required field work in Canada.
A number of the 20 areas identified in the recent U.S. report may present concerns to Canada as they are all or partially in watersheds that flow into Canada, or are very close to such watersheds. The Provinces of New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba have been provided with copies of the report and the federal Government has already met with them once since the report was issued, and will meet with them again before the next Canada-U.S. consultative meeting, which will likely take place sometime in April.
Following the release by the U.S. of the report in its final form in July, the 20 areas identified will be subject to field investigations leading to a narrowing to three areas in 1991. These three areas will then be subject to intensive research leading to a final selection of one site in 1998. Throughout this elaborate process the Canadian Government will follow developments closely and will ensure, by every possible means, that the one site eventually selected will pose no risk whatsoever to the Canadian environment or to the health of this or future generations of Canadians.
I sincerely hope that answer will relieve the mind of the Member for Fundy-Royal.


FORESTRY-VANCOUVER ISLAND FOREST LANDS. (B) REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, over a year ago I asked the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) about long-term federal funding for forestry on Vancouver Island. This has been a long-term concern of both myself and my Party, but the immediate stimulus for my question was the proposal by the Vancouver Island Mayors called "Strategy for Survival". I am very pleased that the Minister is present in the House this evening to give a direct response to my concerns. I know he endorses the concept contained in this proposal. The problem does not lie so much with the Minister as it does with the present Government's priorities.
The Minister's response to my question was basically: Wait and see. We have waited for over a year now and we have not seen the kind of funding which is needed if Vancouver Island is going to recover from the present recession. I just want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that there are fewer people working on Vancouver Island today than there were when his Government was elected in September, 1984. According to Statistics Canada, in January, 1986, we had
187.000	people working on Vancouver Island. In September of 1984 the figure was 207,000 people. That adds up to a loss of
20.000	jobs while this Government has been in office. We are concerned that, while the Government seems to be creating
jobs in other parts of Canada, it is not creating jobs on Vancouver Island.
Last June the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry heard testimony from the Vancouver Island Mayors who had originally put forward this proposal "Strategy for Survival". The proposal documents the economic benefits which would be gained from investment in intensive forestry on Vancouver Island. I am sure the Minister would agree that this is among the best forest land in Canada, indeed anywhere in the world. The federal-provincial forestry agreement emphasizes reforestation in areas of British Columbia which have not yet been satisfactorily restocked. As the Minister knows, reforestation is not the major problem on Vancouver Island. The problem is how to make the best and most intensive use of this prime forest land.
The Mayors' proposal points out that for an investment of some $22.3 million a year in an ongoing program, some 1,100 direct and 500 indirect jobs would be created. Over the 45-year life of this kind of program, the Mayors suggest that the harvestable volume of wood would increase by 33 per cent. The total value would increase by 55 per cent, which amounts to some $655 million. The revenue return to the Government would increase by 33 per cent or some $79 million. The value of this kind of program is not the subject of debate this evening. There might be some quibbles one way or another about some of the fine points, but I am sure the Minister himself agrees with the basic value of this kind of investment. In fact, he has endorsed the principle involved. What is at issue is the question of federal funding.
On June 28 the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry endorsed the proposal and the sixth report made to this Parliament unanimously called for the federal Government to give favourable consideration to funding.
On September 16 the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) moved that the House concur in the committee report. Unfortunately this motion was talked out by Conservative back-benchers who did not want the issue to come to a vote. They knew it would have passed and that would have given a clear signal to the Government that it should give this kind of program very high priority. Government back-benchers said that we were rushing things. The Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg) said that he had been talking to the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and that they had been very encouraging. He said, as recorded at page 6650 of Hansard for September 16, 1985, and I quote:
If you can put your ear to the railway and listen for what is coming, I anticipate that it will be a favourable response and I will be quite happy when that happens-
We have been waiting for that favourable response for a long time and it still has not happened. We have had instead a patchwork approach to forestry in the form of funding through Section 38. We appreciate that kind of funding, but it has
February 25, 1986

meant that sometimes we have had inappropriate priorities. It is like buying groceries at the corner convenience store instead of doing a proper shopping trip with a list and buying things in order. You pay too great a price for start-up and shut-down when you are dealing in this kind of patchwork manner with forestry projects.
We do not need to fixate on the particular program of the mayors. We can look at other mechanisms, but what we do need is some commitment of funding to forestry on Vancouver Island. We know that there are problems with protectionist pressure from the United States in lumber.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The time allocated to the Hon. Member has expired.


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, I very much want to thank the Hon. Member for raising this particular topic. I welcome the opportunity to address the House as it has not been addressed in the last little while. The Hon. Member raised two points, or he did a few months ago. One is job-creation under the Vancouver Island mayors' proposal. Number two is the allocation of funds under the ERDA forestry agreement. I want to tell the Hon. Member that I personally know Mayor Graham Bruce, who is the single largest proponent and supporter of this particular project. That project is supported by members from all parties in British Columbia. In fact, just as late as the other day I spoke to the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) on this matter, because he too is concerned about it.
The project is exciting, it is original and his worship of course presented this in a very dynamic, forceful and persuasive manner. I tend to support that. However, I want to point out that the Vancouver Island mayors want a proposal which is perhaps better addressed by the job-creation ministry, CEIC. We have a problem here in that this one project of a few municipalities in one small part of Canada is worth some $23 million a year. That makes it a very, very large project. However, we have been able, through various mechanisms, to try to fund money toward this particular project. In fact we spent $35 million to date on 375 forestry job-creation projects in British Columbia. Those projects generated more than 4,500 forestry jobs, of which about one-third were on Vancouver Island. Under the forestry agreement, which is four times larger than ever signed before with the provincial Government of British Columbia, most of that work is on non-sufficiently restocked lands. Vancouver Island has only 3 per cent of the identified NSR land in British Columbia. Therefore the Hon. Member raises a very good point. There is another part of the program, and that is that 27 per cent of the agreement is available for intensive forest management. I can assure the Hon. Member that of the funds under the agreement and under the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), a large amount of money has been and will be spent on Vancouver Island to help redress the unemployment situation. I have seen the particular project in North Cowichan and I must say that is a very innovative and exciting project. However, there are two or three constraints. First, there is the
Adjournment Debate
sheer size of that one small area but nonetheless important area of Canada. Second, we will try to make sure that 27 per cent of the $300 million agreement to be spent over the five years of our intensive forest management will be spent on Vancouver Island so that those mayors will get their fair share.
In the meantime, I want to thank the Hon. Member for drawing his concerns and the concerns of the Vancouver Island mayors to my attention. We will continue to attempt to give extra emphasis to Vancouver Island. Certainly I respect and understand the unemployment situation on the island and appreciate the support the Mayor of North Cowichan and other mayors on the island have given to forestry in general. We will continue to give extra attention to this area through UIC funding, ERDA funding and EBAP funding to the projects which the mayor has brought to our attention.


CANADA POST CORPORATION-THREAT OF PRE-CHRISTMAS STRIKE
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago I asked the Minister responsible for Canada Post about the possibility of the Government giving serious consideration to outlawing strikes at Canada Post. I suggest that a poll would show that a very high proportion of Canadians are very dissatisfied with the over-all delivery service of Canada Post and would want to declare that service essential to prevent employees from striking.
The new President was appointed recently. We welcome the news that Mr. Donald Lander is now the top Chief Executive Officer. I wish him well because he has an awesome task to undertake on behalf of all Canadians.
Let me dwell on some examples from my riding of Don Valley East concerning the level of service we are experiencing. Today I received a letter from a Mr. Mariano DiGangi who enclosed an envelope posted in downtown Toronto on January 31, 1986 which he just received yesterday, February 19. He asks: "Should it take 20 days for a letter to travel less than 15 miles?" He states that the letter contained a cheque but who will repay him for the lost interest on the sum it represented? He states: "When will we insist on performance standards appropriate to the rising costs of postal service in this country?"
Yesterday, I was on the phone to Mrs. Jane Hunter at apartment 203, 4003 Bayview Avenue. There are three large apartment buildings at this location, housing many senior citizens who receive pension cheques. Until about two months ago they regularly received their mail at two o'clock in the afternoon. For the last several weeks they have had no idea when the mail would arrive-arriving as late as 9:30 in the evening. I recently spoke to the postal authority about this case. They are supposed to remeasure the burden of that route and advise us shortly.
There are many horror stories. A good friend of mine received a letter from Korea in four days. It was a special

February 25, 1986
Adjournment Debate
delivery letter, costing $55 Canadian, but it only took four days to come from Korea to downtown Toronto. However, it took six days for that letter to go from downtown Toronto to Willowdale. That is totally unacceptable.
Another example is the constituent who sent in a copy of an envelope which was mailed from his bank. It took six days to get from the Toronto Dominion Bank on Bayview Avenue to one block away. I applaud the former Minister responsible for Canada Post. He launched the Marchment Committee. I believe that group did an excellent job in travelling across Canada to find out about the various issues. It came up with 43 separate recommendations. I sincerely hope that the new president and his management will study those recommendations very thoroughly and give each and every one serious consideration.
I would like to touch on a few of the major items in the report. Of course, we all know of the massive deficit that Crown corporation-which was just set up three years ago-is enduring. Very recently we had to pour another $243 million of taxpayers' money into that company. In the Marchment report there is a major recommendation in which targets are really set. All Canadians require a postal service which they can depend on for reliable first-class and second-class mail. It should be consistent and dependable. The report then went on to set up a three-tiered target system which states that mail should take no longer than two days to be delivered within a given city from the time it is mailed, it should take no longer than three days within a province and no longer than four days anywhere in Canada.
Obviously, in a great many examples, we are missing those targets by a country mile, but I hope the new president and his management team will get down to brass tacks in terms of increased productivity and dependability of service.
We can hit upon certain ironies in that organization with respect to its set-up right now. Most mail gets sorted at night, yet the men and women with the most experience work during the day, so the most inexperienced people are trying to handle the high volume of mail in the evenings. Delivery carriers are currently paid, I understand, about $12.98 an hour. They receive time and a half for the first two hours of overtime and double time for any hours over that. I worked out an example. If one of them worked until nine o'clock on a given day, he would receive for the first two hours of overtime $38.94, an additional $103.84, for those other four hours and if we add in his regular seven or eight hour day-and I am using seven hours-of $90.86 the total gross pay for that one day alone, excluding benefits, would be $233.74, this has been going on for many weeks and I suspect it is related to low productivity and just too many days off. The average employee of Canada Post has 18 days off a year. That is double the average of the private sector. It is almost an extra month off. Most months have about 21 working days.
This is such a serious subject and such an awesome task, as I mentioned, for Mr. Lander to tackle, that I would like to quote from an article in today's Toronto Sun by Laura Sabia:
A case can be made that the post office is an essential service. Outlaw strikes and replace them with hard-nosed negotiations. We can no longer carry the baggage of intimidation by threats of strike. We can no longer permit problems to increase and fester. A stern but fair policy is needed, enunciated loud and clear by government and executed by the new president. If we must face confrontation with the unions, let's face it now and erase the slate clean.
There are some 60,000 employees in that organization. Obviously, thousands of them are well meaning, hard-working people. Clearly we have some very severe problems with the union side and with management, I underscore, and I, for one-and I know I speak on behalf of thousands of Canadians-wish Mr. Lander well. 1 wish him Godspeed and good luck in getting that organization turned around so that it will not only give good service but it will make a profit as do the post offices in the United States and in Australia.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, in the limited time available to me I will deal with the subject matter of the Hon. Member's question which was first raised on November 7, 1985. At that time intense negotiations were going on with the Union of Postal Communications Employees which represents some 4,000 employees at Canada Post.
The Minister expressed optimism at that time that both parties would arrive at a negotiated settlement. I am happy to report that that turned out to be the case as far as the Union of Postal Communications Employees is concerned.
At this very moment members of the union are in the process of ratifying a tentative agreement reached two weeks ago with the assistance of a conciliation commissioner appointed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight). When this tentative agreement is signed in a few weeks, Canada Post will have completed an entire round of negotiations with all nine of its unions, which represents some 29 bargaining units, without any strikes having occurred.
What this illustrates is that we have a corporation and its unions which have reached the maturity to settle their differences at a negotiating table and not on picket lines. This successful round of negotiations also indicates that the laws governing labour relations in Canada really work and that the structures in place to ensure fair labour settlements and justice in the workplace are effective in achieving these objectives.
When Canada Post became a Crown corporation almost five years ago, one of the key issues was to shift the jurisdiction governing labour relations from the Public Service Staff Relations Act to the Canada Labour Code. There have not been any strikes at Canada Post for the past four years. This situation is the consequence of the flexibility that the Canada Labour Code provides for both parties to reach a negotiated settlement. The series of collective agreements reached with all of Canada Post's unions in this first round of negotiations under the Canada Labour Code is positive proof that the system is working.
February 25, 1986

With respect to strikes being made illegal at Canada Post, I feel confident that the matter should be left under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code. We should continue to negotiate satisfactorily at the bargaining table contracts between the 29 unions represented at Canada Post.
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.33 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, February 26, 1986